fathom

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 05:33 PM) I was actually going to suggest at least two. I would have said Crisp and Lester since they want him so much for Andruw (maybe + $) since Crisp and Jones are a wash at CF, What? Is this a typo?

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 05:11 PM) Whoa, I just looked at his numbers. I don't want him at all anymore. At least we know he's a great teammate.

I find it funny that they got a better situational reliever than Majewski, and they didn't have to give up Lopez/Kearns type potential in order to land Cormier. This is a very good trade for the Reds.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:37 PM) At the very least, he has to get a serviceable 4th OFer. That would likely prevent a few more runs from scoring on the greatest 5-man rotation in the history of mankind. I honestly wonder if they don't want to acquire someone like that because they don't know who they'd have to release/send down from their 25 man roster.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:27 PM) I used to be big on Tejada-is-on-steroids, but not anymore. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because of his consecutive games played. He very likely was on steroids, but it doesn't mean he's still not a great player.

QUOTE(Jake @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 04:54 AM) Does anyone know how hard/effective Hermy has been throwing down there? He could still help us up in Chicago. Last I heard, he wasn't throwing hard enough to get a speeding ticket on a highway (mid 80s).

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 05:46 AM) I'll close on this, because we've collectively spent too much time debating this. Uribe isn't a perfect player. But he's not someone who's going to hurt you, either. I'm perfectly fine with him and Brian Anderson hitting 8th and 9th, as they play the two most important defensive positions damn well. And, as has been shown this year -- run prevention > run production, and team defense certainly plays a huge part in that. On a team with some high salaried guys, he's a great fit. He gives you very dependable defense, and some power at the bottom of the order. I guess people forgot how bad it was when the likes of Valentin, Clayton, and Guillen were patrolling SS.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:47 AM) Bad pitching all the way around, some bad luck in the 9th didn't help either. Everything went right for Gibbons today, he fisted his base hit in the 9th. Conine I give credit to, great veteran at bat but bad pitch location and selection by the White Sox. You really have to admire Conine's ABs vs Jenks this season. It's funny, but both of Jenks' blown saves this year have been on almost identical hits (German and Conine taking the outside fastball to right field).

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:44 AM) He should absolutely get the chance. It would give him more confidence. It's a good idea if you have an off day the next day so you ensure he's ready to go the next time you need him, or if he's fresh and is just getting the last out of the 8th, does well, and can go into the 9th. Plus it gives Jenks a break. And there's this thought...if he can go out there and be a shut down closer, he might have HUGE trade value this offseason. I don't want to trade him, but if he can net you a good package, it might be worth giving him the shot. If, and it's a big if, we fall out of the playoff race, I'd like to see him get a lot of opportunities as a closer.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:39 AM) Right, you have the corners play in and the rest of the IF play in too. The key out is the out at home. Give yourself every chance to get that out. Play the middle IF back and you decrease your odds of getting that out. Shorter throw to the plate and then hopefully to 1st to get the runner, if not, you're still alive and there are two outs and you revert to normal defensive positioning. What do you think about giving Thornton a chance or two at closing out a game? With Jenks struggling lately, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing Thornton get a situation with a 3 run lead and some lefties coming up to the plate. In no way am I advocating a change, but it might give Ozzie some options. I remember that before the year, you thought Cotts would get some chances to close (to give Ozzie options).

QUOTE(Shamrock4Life @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:37 AM) why not move an outfielder into the infield. and long fly ball scores the runner anyways. I've only seen that work once, and I think the Sox turned a double play on Jermaine Dye when he was still with KC. Carlos Lee made a great turn at 2nd. Hell, with the way our guys have been throwing out there, might as well have had 7 infielders

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:33 AM) Ok so now you say we should have had the corners in. So that's progress I guess. There's no doubt you have the corners in. That shouldn't even be in question for a manager. In that situation, it's probably easier to turn a 5-2-3 DP than a 5-4-3 DP (especially with Patterson at first).

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:28 AM) As I've said now about 6 times, it's not just the bunt. A bunt is just one of several slow rolling soft type hits that could happen, and if it did and the IF is playing back, game over. I agree that we should have had the corners in, and that would take away the threat of the bunt. If the ball was hit so slowly that we couldn't turn two on a very slow runner, who's to say we would have gotten the force out at home? There's a lot of things that can happen though, and it's too bad we had to lose. Jermaine Dye is quickly shooting up the ranks as one of my favorite Sox players of all time.

QUOTE(Dan Pasqua @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:26 AM) However, he is our 5th starter. And hes performing adequatley for a 5th starter. No he's not. KW didn't pay a hefty amount for him to have his ERA now 5.50.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:21 AM) What does 6 sac bunts in his career have to do with it? Playing in takes that option away from him, no matter how many statistical successes he's had or hasn't had. He is a veteran and knows what he's doing. Any kind of bunt, even a bad one, likely gets the job done. You are not thinking this thru, choosing instead to find every little thing to criticize the manager about. This wasn't a little thing to criticize about. It was a huge strategically decision in the game, and it deserves discussion (as we're doing). I can guarantee that we weren't worried about Javy Lopez beating us with the bunt. I will give you Patterson being a threat to bunt, and that could be a reason to walk him. All I know is that if you walk the bases for a slow, power hitter, most managers would probably play their middle infielders back. As for Jenks, he needs to put together a string of solid outings. He's been giving up runs pretty consistently now, and it's been happening almost completely on his fastball.

QUOTE(gosox41 @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:20 AM) I don't think it sucks. Most agree that this team is better then the '05 team. Let them play. They had a slump. It happens. It may make things more interesting then we'd like but I don't see how a guy like Soriano is going to help a lot. We're better on paper and on offense....that's it.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:15 AM) Oh please. Just stop. Lopez is very good at handling the bat, he is a veteran player, a good hitter. That's the point, they played in to take away the bunt. Think about it. If they played back, as you wanted, it gives Lopez the option to bunt or hit something soft. Playing in gave the Sox more defensive options and put the pressure on the hitter to execute, which he did. Lopez is good at handling the bat? He has 6 sac bunts in his career. With the bases loaded, if the opposition wants to try to bunt, be my guess. With Jenks throwing high fastballs at 98 mph, I would have been more than willing to tip my cap if he executed the bunt. It's over though...time to move on to tomorrow's important game.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:11 AM) Was that still with Tejada on 3rd? I can't see a bunt being the smart option. He's not exactly a speed burner. And I doubt Lopez is a great bunter...and how in teh world do you get a good bunt down against Bobby Jenks anyway? I don't know, but every team we play seems to have no trouble getting the bunt down. It's amazing how they're able to do it even on tough pitches. I can only recall one time this year where the other team didn't execute their bunt (Twins triple play). QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:12 AM) Now you're changing your beef. You said you wondered why they had the IF playing back in that situation. I explained why. Now you are saying they should've done something different with Patterson. The question was why did they play the IF in with 1 out and the bases loaded.. All along, I thought we should have faced Patterson in that situation. I've seen him enough for the last 5 years to know that he doesn't have a great chance of contact against the stuff Jenks has. However, once Ozzie made the decision to walk him, he should have had the corners in, and played his middle infield at DP depth. Of course, when there's one out and first and third, you would play your infield in with someone like Patterson at the plate. In the Patterson situation, you would hope for a K.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:08 AM) How do you address defending against a bunt in that situation? Javy Lopez could've dropped one down the line with the IF playing back, and even if he gets thrown out the runner scores, especially on a bunt to the right side with a righthander pitching and a lefthanded throwing firstbaseman in the game. Percentage wise, it was the right move. It forced the guy to make solid contact, i.e hard grounder not right at someone or a deep fly ball ... and Lopez got the job done. If Lopez drops down a successful bunt, then you tip your cap to him (especially against Jenks). We're not talking about Omar Vizquel at the plate in terms of how he handles the bat. By having your corners in for that situation, it's unlikely they're going to bunt with the bases loaded.

Hopefully this works. If this results in Sandy facing tough righties at the plate, then it will be a massive downgrade from AJP playing.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 02:56 AM) Would they not want to try and cut the winning run off at home plate on a softly hit grounder? Why concede the winning run? If they play back, it requires a hard hit ball on the ground. Playing the infield in gives them the opportunity to keep the game alive on a softly hit ball via a force at the plate, or possibly a DP if it's hit right at someone. Why eliminate one of your options? Your criticism stems from the end result, a hard hit ball not right at one of the infielders. They played the %'s and the guy smoked one. Here's my thinking...if you're not going to play for the double play, then you have Jenks face Patterson and not load the bases. Patterson is extremely prone to the strikeout, and that's what's Jenks best asset is. Once you loaded the bases with one out, you have to play the middle infielders back and try to turn the double play. I don't know what the splits are, but Jenks seems to be a ground ball pitcher when the ball is put into play. And FWIW, I said in the game thread that I didn't like the Patterson IBB.

QUOTE(champ @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 01:43 AM) For the last time, we have a centerfielder and he's a damn good one. He's probably best in the game defensively, and his hitting has come around, so...THERE IS NO LONGER A HOLE IN CENTERFIELD. Get over yourself. You'd give up prospects for a guy we don't even need? This is just like the Soriano talk, stupid. The Soriano talk is stupid? Yeah, this team definitely is strong in LF. And Anderson is showing improvement, but he's far from being considered a "damn good one" right now.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...-home-headlines Sounds like Ozzie got quite annoyed with Vazquez. No surprise, but Vazquez sounds like he was mentally defeated again in the 6th inning.

QUOTE(whitesoxownyou @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 12:52 AM) Well this Zito trade rumor sounds like a pretty good deal.. Yeah so far this place seems to be laid back and people don't flip out when they disagree with something or be rude to people. *Knocks on wood. But yeah it is good to be back at Soxtalk Just to clarify, there is no Zito rumor right now.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 12:46 AM) And they were actually pointing out prime examples of it during the game, getting ahead of guys 1-2 and then winding up with full counts. Hard to argue with them on that. It doesn't make sense though, as our starting pitcher's K rate has gone way down this year. It's funny, but our most effective pitcher this wknd was Thornton, who just went right at guys.