Jordan4life_2007

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 23, 2010 -> 05:18 PM) Matt Lidstrom traded to Colorado. Does not sound like the Rockies gave up much. Would of been nice in our pen unless Houston is still made over that 05 fiasco. Wow, I've always like Lindstrom. He's got an electric arm, even if he's flawed. I wanna see what the Rockies gave up.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 23, 2010 -> 11:08 AM) Who the heck is overrating Juan Pierre? Me. I love the guy. Awesome skill-set.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 23, 2010 -> 07:34 AM) Man, you must have been like 15 when you joined SoxTalk. Happy Birthday Old Timer. Gotta be the youngest soxtalk poster ever to join, at least out of the regulars. I was 20 when I joined and I thought that was young. Anyway, Happy B-day.

QUOTE (since56 @ Dec 23, 2010 -> 10:35 AM) I'm hoping Sale becomes closer now and forever. If he can be good or great in that role it solves a problem for a long time to come. Imagine the numbers he could put up if started successfully closing this year and had a long career. If he can be a solid closer why try to do more with him. Isn't closer important enough? Nope

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 10:40 PM) So the Clippers didn't score a single point for 10 min...? Nope. Apparently every NBA site sabotaged the score of the game. .Every site had the Clippers scoring 0 in the first quarter and like 50 in the second. I thought it was legit. I should've checked out ESPN first, as I'm sure it would've been breaking news. So I failed. But I'm not crazy!

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 10:36 PM) ESPN also says the same. Thank you! I'm not crazy damnit.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore;_ylt=...?gid=2010122212 Houston Rockets 13-15 (Won last 3) Timeouts Left: 7 2:29 2nd Quarter Timeouts Left: 6 Houston Rockets @ Los Angeles Clippers Team 1 2 3 4 Total HOU 22 30 52 LAC 0 43 43 43 Los Angeles Clippers 8-21 (Won last 3) http://www.nba.com/games/20101222/HOULAC/g...9#nbaGIboxscore 10 0 6:24 1Q HOU LAC 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 Listen Live with LEAGUE PASS Audio | TV Companion Launch Now It says 10-0 now. But I swear on a bottle of whiskey it said 22-0 after the first quarter. But I still failed. I should've gotten visual proof first.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 10:22 PM) J4L, you just made me look like a complete moron. I texted two of my friends who like the Clippers making fun of them for getting shut out. I officially look like a complete and utter retard, haha. Dude, go to the Yahoo game channel. It says Rockets 22, Clipper 0 after one. I thought it was a mistake. I go to NBA.com game channel and it says the same thing.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 08:35 PM) Speed isn't as important as starting pitching. Not saying other things wouldn't go into such a deal, that's just not enough for me. Got that right. I like Gardner. He was a 5.4 WAR player last year. But most of that came with a ridiculous 21.9 UZR. I've seen enough of him (due to the Yankees being on Fox and ESPN every week) to know that he's not THAT good. He's basically Juan Pierre with a better arm (not saying much) in the field. The appeal would be that he's dirt cheap and has at least 4 years until he's eligible for FA. But that's still not enough to entice me to give up a proven, albeit frustrating at times, #3 SP locked up through 2012 at a very affordable $12 million.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 07:38 PM) I am a fan of his awesome speed, awesome defense, awesome base-stealing ability, and awesome on-base skills. Pretty good reasons to want a 27-year-old CF if you ask me. Not for Gavin. I'd want more back. Edwin? Sign me up.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 04:47 PM) Weird thing about that though...who out of the Rangers rotation was even young? CJ Wilson's been in the bullpen for about 5 years, Colby Lewis spent a while off in Japan, Scott Feldman's been there a while, Tommy Hunter's genuinely sorta young, and there's that Holland kid who picked up some innings. The Rangers were able to scrap together a strong enough staff...out of guys who they developed a lot...but who took periods of 3-5+ years to develop. Hell, how long did that proven ace they acquired take to develop. Guys like Verlander who come in and lead their teams to the playoffs from day 1 are such an exception that I'm having to go back to 2006 with Verlander/Weaver/Liriano to come up with those examples. I don't understand your point here. What do the Rangers care that it took Lee time to develop? When it was time for them to make their move and seize a golden opportunity, they pounced. As far as the other guys you named, you have a point. But were any of those guys (save Holland) ever viewed in the same light as KC's top pitching 'spects? Had anybody even heard of Lewis before this year? Who's to say Montgomery can't have a Price-Verlander like impact right off the bat? And he could obviously take longer or flop all together. There's no way to know at this point.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 04:43 PM) That doesn't matter. Having all one thing or all the other, or some of this and some of that - as has been the case in Kansas City for decades - doesn't matter. You still don't have enough to win unless you have enough to win. And even if you were to do something pretty incredible, like have Mike Sweeney, Carlos Beltran, Jermaine Dye, and Johnny Damon all young, productive, and under contract, it doesn't mean you'll get enough around them to do anything. You used a specific year to try to prove a point and you didn't really prove anything other than the fact, an you don't really need an I.Q. above 2 to realize this, that you're not going to with jack s*** with a rotation of that quality. I don't care if you're sporting nine 1994 Frank Thomas clones. I've got a homework assignment for you. I challenge you to find ONE minor league-centric site or publication or whatever that doesn't list KC as the undisputed #1 ranked system in baseball. If I'm overrating them then EVERYBODY is. Now if you're one of those "prospects sucks until further notice" guys then we're not going to agree here. I'm as hard on our system as anybody outside of Tizzle. But that's because it's my belief that most of what we have won't amount to anything. Not that "well, they're prospects, f*** 'em." I've already mentioned that guys like Gordon and Hochevar have to this point flopped (though I still think Gordon has a chance). And again, I'm talking system as a whole. Not one or two guys. I've never disputed that Moore has made a series of crap moves regarding the major league team. But last I checked KC wasn't a hot FA destination. That said, he's still been bad in that regard. But since he took over in '06, he had a specific plan in mind. That was to invest heavily into scouting, spend the money and develop the talent. And here they are. Yes, THEY HAVE TO PROVE IT! I know this. Just like every other prospect in baseball history had to prove it. Just like we had no idea what we were getting from that guy Strasburg until we actually SAW IT. That is not a revelation.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 03:58 PM) When asked if he was interested in taking part in this year's dunk contest, Blake Griffin responded: "That would be cool. If it's something that the league wants me to do, I'll probably try to do it."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 04:12 PM) I think I've got to ask about the pitching though. Yeah, they have guys, but let's use the Rays turnaround as a comparison. When they pulled off their 2008, they had a very young pitching rotation, but none of the guys in their rotation were actually rookies, and the only guy who was a 2nd year pitcher was Sonnanstine. David Price, for example, took a good couple years before he turned into a dominating ace. Pitching just takes a while. If we're starting to talk about the 2012 Royals...the guys they'll be relying on to be their pitchers to be winners right when they come up. Good points. But then you could look at the Rangers. They were able to scrap together a strong enough staff and then go out and get a proven ace. I agree that a vet or two will probably be essential in order to allow their young pitchers to mature.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 03:56 PM) The chances are Royals fans will look back and say "wow, look at all those busts and underachievers." But even if they turn out, here's one good example: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/KCR/2000.shtml That's the 2000 Kansas City Royals with a 26-year-old Mike Sweeney, a 26-year-old Jermaine Dye, a 26-year-old Johnny Damon, a 23-year-old Carlos Beltran, and other nice complimentary parts. They went 77-85 that year, which were the most wins that team saw since 1993, and was the winningest Royals team until those 2003 juggernauts won 83 games. Prospects ain't s*** most of the time. That's the truth. And even when they develop it guarantees nothing. Look at all the prospects the Braves have dealt over recent years and look at where they've been. Look at all the prospects the Royals have kept over the years and look where they've been. Since the 1989 season where the Royals won 92 games, they've only won over 80 games thrice, with 84 wins being their best, and in only 10 out of 21 seasons since have they won 70 or more games. The 2000 Royals? Look at that starting pitching. The '99 Indians offense would struggle to go .500 with Jeff Suppan as their 'ace.' Thing is I don't disagree with a lot of what's being said. Of course we're all going to have to see it to believe it. I just don't agree with the premise that "We've heard this before." Because quite frankly they've never had talent like this before. And it's not just about developing talent. I've never longed for a starting lineup and rotation of homegrown players. That's just not realistic. It's a combination of being able to infuse your own roster with young/impact talent and being able to go out and acquire other proven talent that you may need. The Rangers got to the World Series because they were able to develop enough talent internally to land Cliff Lee. Who cares what happens with Smoak (though I'm sure they'd love to have him back now that Lee is gone).

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 03:49 PM) I don't really know about their pitching outside of Hochevar and Cortes, but I mean they've had Hosmer, Kila, Gordon, Butler, Huber, Lubanski and maybe more be considered top 100 prospects and not much has really come from them at all. I'm not discounting them now and really do think they are in the midst of turning that franchise around here, but it's still not necessarily wrong to point out that they've been in re-building mode for a while now. How can you lump Hosmer in there with those other guys? Hosmer was the third pick in what was an absolutely loaded draft just two years ago. He dominated to the tune of .338/.406/.571/.977 at A+/AA as a 20-year old.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 03:32 PM) I don't think it was intended to mock, but rather point out a valid fact. The Royals absolutely have a loaded farm system right now but Steve isn't wrong - we have been hearing about them for a while now. My question remains the same: when have the Royals recently had a collection (5+) of what were thought to be premium prospects that sparked talk of a big turn around in the near future? Unless my memory is just shady, which is possibly considering I'm an alcoholic, I don't remember.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 03:26 PM) I could legitimately see Santos working his way into the Closer's spot before the end of the season, but between his inexperience and the fact that he was at least a little iffy in high-leverage spots last year, they won't hand him that job. I still think they add another LHP to the pen before this offseason is done, especially if they think Sale will spend a few weeks starting to open the year. That pesky 1.529 WHIP would have to greatly improve as well.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 02:37 PM) I swear I've been reading this post yearly for the last decade. This seems to be the standard response to mock their potential. And I'm certainly not "afraid" of them. But when have they ever had a system that on the surface appeared to be this loaded? I know there was a lot of hype surrounding Gordon and Hochevar. But they've never had anything like this. You're talking 8-10 consensus top 75ish or so prospects. If just 4 of those guys max out then they're in business.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 12:39 PM) I'll give him the Braves, but the Dodgers and Tigers...ok lol. Olney also said Yuniesky Betancourt had a good season last year. Maybe good for his standard...but not in comparison to anybody else. I'd rank the Angels without hesitation over the Tigers and Dodgers (though Clayton Kershaw is my Carlos Gonzalez for pitchers). Far as Yuniesky, I'm sure he's going strictly by the 78 RBIs. Which is kinda sad in this day and age.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 11:42 AM) There's 9 rotations that are better...? I count Red Sox, Phillies, Giants, Cardinals, Rays, maybe Oakland, maybe Milwaukee, and I have a hard time thinking of anybody else. He ranks the Tigers (lol), Braves and Dodgers over the White Sox.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 11:26 AM) It's worth noting...this would actually be a terrible deal for the Yankees. Yeah, the front end of their starting rotation would get significantly better...but they'd still be in the exact same position they are now, begging Pettitte to come back so that they can have a solid 5th starter. Captain Cheeseburger Burnett D1 Hughes Garcia/Mitre True. But A deal like this wouldn't be just about '11. They'd have Danks under control for two years and they'd obviously be able to re-sign him once he became a FA when he'd be all of what, 27?

Three fine posters!

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 10:06 AM) I immediately think of that NBA Finals victory over the Utah Jazz. 96-54 (42 point victory). f***in' A that was hilarious. That was the game in which Pippen took about 12 charges. Yeah, that was something to behold. To hold any NBA team to 54 points in a game is mind-blowing enough. A team of that Jazz caliber?