jackie hayes

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) Of course...he could have just listened to the team and had the surgery. Sure...hide behind the green.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Jun 6, 2007 -> 01:44 PM) My reasoning is, should two months of this season be written off to him having a bad back. If Crede has been hurt why not come out with it and go on the DL instead of looking lost at the plate? Who gained by him doing nothing for two months? He has done nothing but hurt the club since day 1 of this season if he has been hurt. If he could have sat out the two months and come back healthy whenever it would be better than what we have going right now. The problem I have with the whole scenario probably goes to this agent whose best interest could be looked at a couple of different ways. From a buisness stand point, is Joe Crede the 2006 version, the 2007 version, the 2004 version and what is the long term stand point of the organization in him. I will defer to the health professionals to determine whether back surgery was necessary or not, that is not for me speak of. What is Joe Crede to this team right now. If he has been hurt since April that is inexcusable as he has been hurting this organizationas a whole and continues to do so. Maybe because he thought he could play through it? A guy doesn't try to play through pain, he's a pussy, he's JD Drew. A guy tries to play through pain, he's selfish and hurting the organization. Once you're injured you're f***ed either way, I guess.

Going by OPS+, it's a little more than 20 years. That 1988 team had an OPS+ of 88, the current Sox have an OPS+ of 78 -- a big difference. The last (only?) time the Sox had an OPS+ of 78 or less over a full season was 1910...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 5, 2007 -> 08:02 PM) Well, something along these lines was printed in an MLB.com piece, with Mr. Crede's own words, last October. Yes, there's a risk in any surgery, but if you're a baseball player looking for a payday, I think that having a surgery on your record might not look as bad as the .216 average and .575 OPS Mr. Crede is sporting these days. I'm not an expert, I'm just saying that, iirc, a number of people have said this is not just "any surgery" -- that people often never feel right afterwards. If that's true, then I'd probably do what Joe did. You always have the option of surgery later. And I'm sure Joe is downplaying it in that quote (maybe because he was considering having it done, and wanted to put a positive face on it). Nothing that's "very minor" sidelines you for 3 months.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 5, 2007 -> 07:50 PM) And, I think in the end, it sure looks based on the rapid recurrence of back problems within a month or so of the start of this season, combined with the incredibly poor performance of Mr. Crede this season, like the team has been proven fully correct and Mr. Boras proven fully wrong in his assessment. We'll never know. Haven't there been posts here from people who've gone through it, or who knew someone who did, who said they'd only go under the knife as a last resort? (I know I've read things like this somewhere...) Those things have changed my mind quite a bit on this. Whoever's right, I don't think Crede was being unreasonable.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 5, 2007 -> 07:41 PM) back surgery is so risky though. And there's no going back. Doing the rehab now, he can always get the surgery in the future. He did what he thought was best for his career, I can't really fault him. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 5, 2007 -> 07:46 PM) I think that the team would have fully evaluated that if they were going to reccommend that Mr. Crede have the surgery. I can't imagine the team would tell Mr. Crede to do something that they thought had a high probability of making it so that he wouldn't be our 3rd baseman this year. I'm sure Boras did a full evaluation, too. It's in everyone's best interest that Joe plays well. Just a difference of opinion.

QUOTE(JohnCangelosi @ Jun 5, 2007 -> 06:13 PM) For the record, I NEVER gave up on Buerhle like some of the half glass empty crew did. And honestly, shame on you- here's a guy who has been probably the most consistent starter in a White Sox uniform for a 5-6 yr stretch I've seen since 1985. For anyone else, I can understand the concerns and talk surrounding his second half effort last year. Shame on me? Or who? If I said anything suggesting that I gave up on Buehrle, produce it. I don't even know who you're addressing now. And why would anyone be ashamed, anyway? Pitchers washing out is hardly a rare story, but someone should be ashamed for thinking it would happen to MB? You hardly went out on a limb, yourself. You didn't give up on him, but you sure didn't predict this start.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jun 5, 2007 -> 05:26 PM) I think Kal was on the right track before he brought post count into the discussion though. Making blanket statements calling out an entire messageboard when you have been here for a little while isnt really the way to bring about a healthy discussion, and it will offend plenty of long time posters. The negativity gets to me too, but frankly I cant argue with it anymore. The Sox arent producing wins, and there is a reason for it. Just because a majority thought we were going to stink for one reason, and we ended up stinking for another reason doesnt mean that everyone needs to be called out two months in the season for being nanny naybobs/negative nancies. We still stink. The claim regarding post counts is NOT that more posts = more credibility, as everyone seems to be taking it. It's this -- if you're gonna call out people and talk s*** about being wrong in the past, you DAMN WELL better have been mostly right, yourself. JC wasn't railing against people questioning the starters in spring training, and he has such a short track record (read: such a small post count) that noone knows what he was thinking. I find one post basically saying 'Wait and see' on Buehrle, and one post that was completely wishy-washy about Danks. That's not someone who has any right to start a crow-eating thread. The only consistent, strong opinion I can find is that he thought the Tigers would suck badly.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ May 31, 2007 -> 06:29 AM) I think you're worrying too much about Giambi. Swisher isn't a big upgrade, if any. Definitely not worth someone with Lincecum's ceiling. I'd accept the injury risk and stand pat. Oops...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 5, 2007 -> 12:00 PM) I think the simple fact is...if all of our top-level draftee prospects wind up failing...then plan B is to wind up last in the division for a couple years. There is virtually no way this team could get around that in this baseball environment. If we can't fill in a couple holes with guys we draft, then there's just no way we're going to be a winning team. End of story. ^^^^^^^ There's just no way to make up for bad drafting.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jun 3, 2007 -> 12:26 PM) Sorry, I'd spent the day reading over 150 pages of scholarly articles. Sometimes my brain shuts down. No problem, I just honestly had no idea what you meant. If you meant to use that word, I would have been really, really surprised, that's all.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jun 2, 2007 -> 11:15 AM) I still think it's absolutely mollifying that we have this kind of discrimination in 2007. Sure that's the word you wanted to use there? Cuz if so, I'm confused.

The lobster thing after was pretty damn cool, too. I've never seen anything like that.

QUOTE(29thandPoplar @ Jun 1, 2007 -> 02:40 PM) Hey guy/gal or whatever you are, When you start throwing out terms like "BS" you can expect to get it right back. Do you want to talk baseball or do you want to be a smart guy/gal or whatever you are. Because if it's the latter you have a long way to go. Yes I did watch it and apparantly retained and observed more than you did. My amazement is returned in that you had the ability to type and string together a sentence or two. Now if you want to talk baseball thats great because when I'm here I'm here to do that. Otherwise I think we can agree that the ignore function is an amazing invention and not "BS". For the record, I was saying that your post was bulls***. Which it was -- everyone who's going to seek out this site knows how a game that's tied in the ninth can be won. It's actually pretty basic stuff to most of us. The idea that it's a complex sequence of impossible events is, well, bulls***. I did respond sarcastically to a boast (that you watched the game -- my!). I'm sorry you took this so hard, but honestly, I never really doubted that your remote was functioning properly. Then this, which said nothing of substance (bravo!), but oddly implied that I must be too stupid to compose sentences. (In my experience, this works better if the accuser can actually, say, write better sentences. Maybe you have found otherwise; who am I to say?) Which is fine. Look, you're not the first pedantic nitwit this site has seen. I wish you as much luck as the rest. I invite you to continue your deep investigation into the deep complexities of how baseball games tied in the ninth can be won and rest on your laurels as an accomplished Watcher Of TV. By the way, once you've completed your study, I suggest you investigate the irreducible complexities of how a batter can reach second. There are so many possibilities that it'll BLOW YOUR f***ING MIND. When you've figured it out, let me know. I'll be watching the game by listening to the call through a tin can phone and drawing the action in the dirt outside my hut.

Cashman's toast if his team doesn't win. Knowing this, he'll trade his best player for a much worse 3b and some prospects? Lol. All this trade talk has become just silly.

QUOTE(fathom @ May 31, 2007 -> 09:03 PM) Didn't Hawk say there's no pain now? He was comparing it to the pain you usually get with a broken bone. I don't know if he meant there's no pain, or if he just meant the pain wasn't that bad.

QUOTE(max power @ May 31, 2007 -> 08:46 PM) This isn't the informative update I was hoping for.

QUOTE(29thandPoplar @ May 31, 2007 -> 06:54 PM) BS right back at ya. It's four things that had to go right. How many went right for the White Sox yesterday. Not many, especially after the 3rd inning. Maybe you just can't understand how "complex" their inability to do things right were during that game. I watched it. This is absurd. Your argument is that the team isn't doing things right, anyway, we really had only an infinitesimal chance of winning. Hell, we haven't been doing things right for weeks -- why even show up? Lord, it's only the 'negative' posters that believe this Sox team might possibly score more in one inning than the mighty bottom-of-the-order Twins. An interesting twist. But, then, you "watched it." Now there you have us all beat. I am duly amazed by your ability to sit in front of a television.

QUOTE(29thandPoplar @ May 31, 2007 -> 04:43 PM) Yeah well you avoid the sweep if: - he gets Hunter out in a nonsave situation where he typically performs poorly, AND - the White Sox get a hit against MN relief pitching which they hadn't in the previous 6 ings. AND - that hit(s) turned into a run AND - whatever pitcher (Jenks or otherwise) needing to hold the Twins down in the next inning does his job. That would be 4 things that needed to go right for the White Sox in a game when after the 3rd inning they couldn't do anything right. Saying avoid the sweep is a little more complex than you make it sound, just saying. Bs. You just break it down into enough steps to make it sound "complex". The Sox needed to get one out, then have a better inning before the Twins did. Certainly not "complex", and if that's really only remotely possible, then this team is truly hopeless.

QUOTE(South Side Fireworks Man @ May 31, 2007 -> 01:47 PM) Where would you see Texiera fitting in with the Sox? What? He's a Boras client who's looking to land a huge contract in a couple years. Exactly the type of guy we usually build around. Where have you been... Mora's got a no-trade clause, too.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 31, 2007 -> 01:04 PM) And then Jenks has to go a second inning, at least, and historically Jenks doesn't preform very well in that next inning. I think Aardsma will be a good pitcher, but to be honest, historically he doesn't perform very well, period. Recent history is even less kind. It was a poor decision. Blech -- Mariotti's a...he's useless. This is just rhetoric from Guillen, trying something new. I have no problem with it.

I think you're worrying too much about Giambi. Swisher isn't a big upgrade, if any. Definitely not worth someone with Lincecum's ceiling. I'd accept the injury risk and stand pat.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ May 29, 2007 -> 08:08 PM) ^^^^^^^^ I'm watching him and Danks back and forth tonight. Even though he just gave up a HR to Delgado, he's still dominating hitters. Yeah, +2. He made ONE bad pitch to Delgado. Trying for the high fb, left it waist-high. Just for the wrong hitter. I just love watching Lincecum work.

Until last year, Wilson was a darn good hitter. (Blum isn't even comparable in career numbers.) Worst case scenario, he can still hit lefties. Very nice move.

I don't think anyone denies that he was simply one of the greats in cf when he was younger. His bat was always 'just' very good. But if he's sacrificing defense and 15 points in obp for 5-10 more homers, that's not a good tradeoff. That seems to be what Starks is saying, and I agree with that. With Andruw (AndrUw!), he's pretty big. I keep waiting, but, dammit, he still looks good defensively in the games I watch. I really don't know what to make of it. That is, I don't know if Starks is right, but my mind is open to the idea.