BlackBetsy

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Aug 25, 2005 -> 07:19 PM) I hate to make the comparison, but Haigwood reminds me of Buehrle with a better curveball. No, he doesn't have the 90+ fastball, but neither does MB. While I agree with you that his margin for error is less than a guy with better stuff, I really like what I have seen from him. He really knows how to pitch and his breaking balls are definitely PLUS pitches. Remember Cotts wasn't breaking 90 when he got called up either. Cotts also has a deceptive delivery that makes his fastball look a lot quicker than 90 mph. "Sneaky quick" is how they call it. It's funny how that works. . . I've watched about 15 games from the 2nd row at RFK this year and noticed that deceptiveness in a motion can make a HUGE difference in how quick a pitch looks. I've seen 95 mph fastballs that look slower than 88 mph fastballs because the 95 mph heater came after a long motion where the ball wasn't hidden. Buehrle has a "sneaky quick" fastball like Cotts, although his motion isn't as deceptive. Don't know anything about Haigwood, but he's put up some pretty good numbers...either his breaking balls are very good or there's something more than the radar gun to his FB.

QUOTE(wallyburger @ Aug 24, 2005 -> 08:34 AM) I am talking about cheap all year, not just Griffey. Jerry took Maggs, Lee and Valentin money and flipped some of it over to the pitching staff and pocketed the rest. Bevery Hills staff and a bargain basement offense. I really think Jerry's problem is he is a risk free guy. He just won't hedge his bet. His budget was his only consideration and Kenny thought the pitching would carry the club. What's funny is that in years past the Sox by far didn't spend enough on pitching to succeed. Hence leading the league in home runs, 4th in runs scored and out of the playoffs with a 83-79 record last year. I'd take spending on pitching most days. But, granted, the Sox have spent $12.5 million on their DH's, Thomas and Everett, who haven't produced as well as other DH's around the league. Thomas because of injury, Everett because of low on-base-percentage (which is very strange for him - I don't know what's up with Carl). Add another $8 million for Konerko, and the Sox are at $20.5 million for the 1B/DH position and they are getting about average production from those positions. That's 28% of the salary right there. Around the horn there is Iguchi ($2+ million, well spent), Uribe ($2 million or so - can't remember - spent OK), and Crede (cheap, but bad offensively vs. the league). In the OF, there is Dye ($5 million), Rowand ($2 million) and Podsednik (cheap). It's a low-price outfield, but given that Aaron Rowand had a KILLER year last year (second best CF production in all of MLB), you can't blame them for saving money on Aaron. Podsednik has been pretty good in LF, although he needs to be an OBP machine to be worthwhile. AJ Pierzynski has been worth 3x as much as he's been paid behind the plate. Where is this team cheap on offense? I guess they could have spent more on a replacement for Ordonez. But there weren't many OF on the market over the offseason that were commanding reasonable prices. Maggs was hurt most of the year and JD Drew, hurt too. Hard to complain too much about the Sox's investment in offense.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Aug 24, 2005 -> 05:14 PM) Gio isn't ready for AA. I agree, but right now is a good time to look at what he's done. Gio now has pitched about the same number of innings in High-A as Low-A this year, and here are how the stats compare: Low-A 57 2/3 IP, 36 H, 16 R, 12 ER, 3 HR, 22 BB, 84K High-A 59 1/3 IP, 54 H, 31 R, 27 ER, 4 HR, 23 BB, 64K His walk rate is about the same (Good), strikeout rate is down from a ridiculous 13.1 to a still outstanding 9.7. K/BB went from about 4:1 to about 3:1. Still very good peripherals. He's just hit a few more bats - he has given up 18 more hits and struck out 20 fewer guys. Only one more homer is pretty good, too. Given the fact that W-S's ballpark is extremely hitter friendly, I think he's done a very nice job at High-A this year. I'm not discourage by the 4.10 ERA at all. It would be a difficult call to move him up to start the season in AA. I could see him getting 10 starts in High-A and if he puts up a good performance, then move him. I could also see trying to stretch him a little bit and move him right up to Birmingham. I wonder if the fact that Birmingham has an extreme pitcher's park puts some bad habits in the Sox pitchers. They can get away with more and not get hurt (especially with 3 pretty good defenders in the outfield this year). It's kind of funny that the Sox minor league system goes from hitters' park (W-S) to pitchers' park (B'ham) to hitters' park (Charlotte). Dunno if that is good for the development or bad.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 21, 2005 -> 07:49 PM) The guys that need to be added are those who have 3 years of minor league time, and are in danger of being claimed... Is the rule 3 years of full-season ball?

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 21, 2005 -> 06:58 PM) The 40-man roster is full, if you're not on it already, you're not getting called up. Speaking of which, what are Reynoso and Smith doing on the 40-man? I think that they could be DFA'ed at any time to clear open spots. Frank Thomas can be moved to the 60-day DL to open up a 40-man roster spot as well. Kevin Walker is also a DFA candidate. Most of his salary has been eaten already, so no big whoop on losing him. Casey Rogowski is on the 40-man. I wonder if he is a potential call up. It will be interesting to see who gets on the 40-man this offseason. Chris Young is a possibility, you would think, perhaps replacing Borchard. I could see Haigwood being added, as well, at perhaps the price of an Arnie Munoz or a Felix Diaz or (unfortunately) Jeff Bajenaru.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Aug 21, 2005 -> 10:55 AM) However, I don't like it when respectable posters say something trying to pass us information and get burned. They aren't Bruce Levine (Who people love to rip because he gives us rumors that don't come true...doesn't mean that the stuff he hears isn't true either). I love the fact that people are willing to share stuff with us here and ripping people for doing that just isn't cool in my book. I think there is a real difference between sharing a trade rumor, a rumor about a guy being signed as a free agent, or a guy getting promoted from AA to AAA than to say someone has tested positive for steroids - a fact that, as far as I know, is about as tightly guarded a secret there is in MLB. The same would be true if someone was spreading a rumor that someone was using cocaine, has beaten their girlfriend, etc. And, as the owner of this site, you should know that you might have some legal exposure as well for allowing those types of rumor to be spread.

QUOTE(spataro51 @ Aug 20, 2005 -> 06:47 PM) perfectly said rex! my god some people just jump on others for the littlest things like they are so much better then others. people need to learn to relax. Sorry, spataro, but what you did was repeat a rumor that two very prominent players would be suspended for steroid use, and you named names. That post you made was spread throughout the Internet (I've seen the links to Soxtalk) and may very well have been the source for further reports on radio, etc. Roger Clemens is one of the three greatest pitchers in the history of the Major Leagues. If you were a journalist making that report, you'd be subject to a libel claim - that's not the "littlest thing."

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 20, 2005 -> 08:04 AM) I never offered up names before... and I'm not about to start now. Except for when the original poster said "Clemens and Damon" and you said in so many words that "Ferguson Jenkins conversation with Jim sounded a lot like what you said." But no, you never named names. Except for all the names you consistently drop on this board (either to give yourself credibility or make you feel good about yourself). Oh, and spreading rumors on an Internet board is not a disservice to the people who read it? Look at the length of this thread - people were excited/worked up by this rumor. As one poster noted, the first source for the Clemens & Damon thing was an Internet board, not a media source. You think people don't read these and repeat rumors? It's irresponsible, especially if you "know people." How do you think Jenkins would feel if he knew you had said "alumni get a lot of info about steroid testing" and that you danced around whether he named names? And don't give us that "I never said anything about what he said" bullcrap. Everyone reading this thread thought that Jenkins had given up names that you weren't revealing. As far as I'm concerned, the people saying that Clemens and Damon tested positive libeled them.

I guess it was just people talking out their butts again...or just repeating stuff out of other people's butts. In other words, same old Soxtalk.

QUOTE(BHAMBARONS @ Aug 18, 2005 -> 12:52 AM) Barons 9 Carolina 4 W- Philips (9-4) L-Aguilar (4-2) Chris Young with a huge day with the Barons down 4-2 in the 5th and JO at first CY doubled off the wall in Left field That was the doubles record, wasn't it? 60 XBH for Young in that park. Amazing.

Why in the hell haven't our pitchers hit any of the Twins hitters? We could use a good bench clearing brawl to light a fire under this team.

Time for a MELTDOWN THREAD.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 05:47 PM) Harry from M,J, & H just mentioned that he's recieced a report that 2 big names are about to go down, but "he's not running with it" Didn't know that MJ&H's producers read Soxtalk.com He's probably not running with it because he saw that it came from Soxtalk.com.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 03:51 PM) I'd consider someone on the MLBPA Board a good source.. I would too, and I'm sure that he would appreciate people spreading private conversations on the Internets. But do you mean this Board? http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/pa/info/faq.jsp#board " Q: What is the Executive Board? A: The Executive Board of the Association consists of the two MLBPA Representatives, the two alternate MLBPA Representatives, the Club Player Representatives and the Pension Committee Representatives. The Executive Board meets two times each year, and it is responsible for directing the affairs of the Association. " Or do you mean a board member of the Major League Baseball Players Alumni Association? http://www.historicbaseball.com/players/j/..._ferguson2.html "Jenkins was a Major League Baseball Players Alumni Association board member for several years. He helped raise money for worthy causes and charities by making public appearances and speeches. He made several trips overseas to represent the MLBPAA to the American troops serving there. Attending the annual induction ceremonies and special functions at the Hall of Fame are annual highlights for him. He donates his time to many charity events organized by former teammates." Not sure how much inside steroid information is given to MLB alumni

I would be very surprised if this wasn't someone talking out their butt. This information is VERY closely held by the Commissioner's Office and doubt it would get out, especially after the Palmeiro situation.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Aug 16, 2005 -> 11:05 PM) Anybody know who Matt Guerier got the Sox? Damaso Marte.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 16, 2005 -> 10:14 PM) WHY God do you spite me like this? Seriously, da Chort. The bummer here is that people only see the 4 or 5 clutch hits but totally ignore the 73% of the time he fails to get on base.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 15, 2005 -> 06:45 PM) Carlos Lee and Maggs hit .292 and .282 respectively in 99, their rookie campains. Of course, that was considerably worse that another rookie, who finished ahead of both in RoY voting. Chris Singleton hit .300 with 17 HR that year. That's 3 homegrown products in 1 year who produced immediately. But yeah, once every ten years. Maggs' rookie year was 1998, when he did OK with little power. Singleton was acquired just prior to the 1999 season from the Yankee farm system, he wasn't home grown. The Sox really right now have only a few pure "home grown" players. Buehrle (38th round pick) Rowand (1st round pick) Crede (? later rounds, I believe) Anderson (1st round pick) Thomas (1st round pick) (DL) Acquired by trade: Everett Uribe Konerko Podsednik (DL) Marte (for Matt Guerrier, of all people) Timo Perez Cotts Garcia Garland (although he was acquired so early, he's almost a Sox farm product) Adkins Contreras Blum Acquired by free agency/minor league draft Iguchi Dye AJ Pierzynski Chris Widger Pablo Ozuna (?? not sure) Hermanson Politte Jenks El Duque

This is one that they will likely schedule for Oct. 2 to be played only if it makes a difference in the playoff race. The Sox could finish with 161 games (would be a real bummer if they went 99-62 and had a shot at 100). This happened in 2000 with the Yankees. They went on a real bad run to end the season (losing 7 or 8 in a row I think). If Boston caught up to them on the last day of the season, they were going to have to fly to Tampa to make up a game down there before making the playoffs. The Red Sox lost on the Friday or Saturday game on the last weekend, clinching it for the Yankees and making the Tampa/NY game unnecessary. You can see the standings here. The Red Sox were 3.5 games back with 3 to play going into a weekend series with the Devil Rays. If they won all three, and the Yankees got swept in their series, the Yankees would finish 0.5 games up, meaning they would be tied if the Yankees lost the Tampa make up game. Then the Sox and Yankees would have had to play another game in Boston to decide the AL East. It would have been a mess, pushing the playoffs back an extra two days, I believe. The Yankees did their part by being swept in their final series, but the Red Sox choked and were swept themselves by the Devil Rays to finish 2nd, 3.5 games out. (In the Friday night game, they blew a 4-0 lead and got eliminated).

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 15, 2005 -> 06:10 PM) Yeah guys like Bobby Jenks, Neal Cotts, Jon Adkins, Brandon McCarthy, Joe Borchard and company never got any chances to play in the last two yearswith Ozzie as a manager... You know what's interesting about that? They are all pitchers. When it comes to position players, it could be argued that Ozzie may be a bit prejudiced towards players in his mold - he understands position players better because he was one. I think there's a point to be made about Timo and Ozzie...very similar players, except that Timo has a bit more power and Ozzie was a great defensive player (prior to his knee injury) at a premium defensive position. But you can't have a out making machine at the top of the lineup and succeed. (Hell, Ozzie batted leadoff a bunch in the '86-'88 time frame and hit .290 with a .290 OBP or so, IIRC). Hopefully, Anderson gets a large % of the at bats while Pods is out...

Putting Anderson on the 40-man roster means that he won't be going to Cincinnati in a trade, at least. He'd have to clear waivers to be traded, and he'd be claimed by Colorado instantaneously if he was waived.

Well, let's think about who might claim him to block the trade....note, this is not where Griffey would be WILLING to go (just teams that would be willing to take on his salary, a la Canseco/Yankees a few years ago). National League (goes first, in order of waiver claim): Colorado - May not be willing to take on salary, but could claim to get * player Pittsburgh - No chance, too much $$ San Francisco - They could take on $$, could use CF with Grissom done. Dodgers - Salary maxxed out, also have Milton Bradley Arizona- Salary maxxed out. Chicago Cubs - With Patterson out of the picture in CF for now, they could put in a claim. Star power helps with team image. Milwaukee - No chance. San Diego - It's a possibility they put in a claim to get him for stretch run and trade him over the winter, but not really likely. NY Mets - Nope, they have Beltran Florida - Not with salary as is and Pierre in CF Washington - This could work. They have no true centerfielder and are looking for star power for new ownership. They can take on additional salary. Jim Bowden (who acquired Griffey for Cincy) is the GM Philadelphia - Probably not. Houston - Won't take on salary Atlanta - Andruw Jones. Nuff said. St. Louis - Have Edmonds. So, from the NL, I see as possibilities - San Francisco, the Cubs, San Diego and Washington. Here's the AL Order: Kansas City - No chance Tampa Bay - No chance Seattle - Not with all the salary they took on before this year. Detroit - Probably not with the salary taken on before season. Baltimore - Possible. Team needs star power, and has been willing to spend Texas - Unlikely. Minnesota - Yeah right. Carl Pohlad owns them. (They also have Torii Hunter) Toronto - Nope. NY Yankees - Tony Womack is playing CF. They can take on salary. I'd be surprised if they DIDN'T claim him. I'd also be surprised if he agreed to be traded to NY. Cleveland - Not likely to add salary, and have Grady Sizemore in CF. Oakland - No way. Just re-signed Kotsay. LA Angels - Not likely, with Finley in CF. Boston - Not with Damon in CF. So, in the AL, Baltimore and the Yankees are possibilities for a claim. All in all, I'd say there's about a 5% chance he clears waivers to the White Sox.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 11, 2005 -> 06:37 AM) Par for the course YAS. Ya know what they say about ASSumers.. As for you BlackBetsy.. you just go ahead and think whatever it is that makes your boat float. Anyone with half a brain and an ounce of common sense knows that I am last person to complain about attendance. Well, I guess you have the need for the last word, so you can respond to this all you want and go about your merry way. I have no need to polish my resume about having "a half a brain" or an "ounce of common sense" on a Sox message board. I've never written that you complained about attendance. Other people may have. My first post responded to your desire to have a stadium that fits 55,000 people, which I think is a bad idea. And I've consistently stuck to that point, and the point about the importance of intimacy in a baseball stadium and ticket scarcity. Then you posted those silly crybaby smilies that were insulting. Which tells me, among other things, that you do not have a substantive response to my points. But to say that you've never B]said[/b] (read: SAID, not COMPLAINED) "anything about attendance anywhere" when you specifically raised the point about how great it would be to have 54,635 people at a White Sox game is flat out bizarro. Do you not mean what you write it when you write it? Because if 54,635 people aren't "attending" what the hell are they doing? So go ahead and fire away (and quote only parts of my response) talking about how you were not complaining about attendance, when that's not the point and never was.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 09:28 PM) Apparently it's you who needs a brush up on the reading skills.. Not once did I refer to attandence anywhere. Nor did I complain about Comiskey, or anything else for that matter. "54,365... I wish our park was that big. " Yes. You were not complaining about Comiskey. You were complaining about the size of US Cellular. And I guess you maybe weren't referring to "attendance anywhere" when you referred to 54,365. I guess you were suggesting that you wished US Cellular could hold 54,365 people, but not actually have 54,365 people buy tickets and attend games. Which makes sense, if you like the feeling of going to a stadium when it's half empty and congratulate yourself for being a long time season ticket owner.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 05:08 PM) "Our Park was that big...then they tore it down and built a new one across the street where the closest seat in the upper deck was as far away as the furthest seat in the old park's upper deck." I do. Well, I can't help your reading comprehension skills. If you read the next paragraph in brackets, you would know that I don't think that a bigger stadium is that useful. Why have a 55,000 seat baseball stadium in the first place? So you can be 50% full when you sell 27,000 tickets instead of 70% full? Having sat in one of the"last" 15,000 seats in Yankee Stadium for Game 6 of the ALCS last year, I can say there isn't much benefit. I don't want old Comiskey back, it was kind of a dump (like Wrigley, but with more night games). But there are design flaws to US Cellular that make the park less intimate than it could otherwise be. People don't miss the facilities of the old park (I've always disliked the old parks compared to the new), they miss the intimacy - and few of the new stadiums have gotten that right. Camden Yards got it right, and so did SBC.