Jake

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 9, 2010 -> 04:33 PM) Juan Pierre - .347 career on base percentage So what I'm getting here is that Juan Pierre is better.

I don't want to trade Viciedo unless it is for a very key piece. No bullpen arm will ever qualify as an important piece. Too volatile. I'm prepared to jack him around and leave him in the minors longer than his development would like in order to keep him when the "monster" emerges. Any chance someone teaches him to improve the defense? Him being able to play third would solve some problems.

The most recent update on Peavy I can find on here is a few weeks old. What do we think about him? Do we have to go grab Freddy as insurance? Kenny smokescreen?

If we can't get Paulie, I'm down with starting Viciedo and using that 12-15 million on relievers. You could build one hell of a bullpen with the cash freed up by playing Viciedo, who I think will make a hell of a corner infielder.

I wouldn't mind giving him a decent amount for the next couple years during his arb-eligible time in order to lock him up at an amount closer to bargain amount in his first few years of free agency. I'd be willing to give him 8 a year. He's liable to be a very expensive commodity when he hits free agency.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 21, 2010 -> 10:54 PM) But there is one scene that was added, the dancing scene, which wasn't in the book but many moviegoers and reviewers have found absolutely one of the best parts of the new movie. I think that must be one of the few additions to the movies that weren't in the book/s. I felt differently and honestly couldn't remember if it was in the book or not. The scene is a bit perplexing at first because it makes it seem that Harry is indeed trying to come on to Hermione. After having shown Harry and Hermione being together always separate from Ron for a while, then him leaving with that accusation, and then Harry dancing with her like that can really come off the wrong way. I feel like the theme of suspicion and insecurity over Harry and Hermione's relationship is way overblown in the film. MODS: I really don't know what needs to have spoiler tags because I sort of operate under the assumption that people have read the books or have already seen the film. I think part of the challenge for the filmmakers is making a movie exciting when most of the audience already knows the outcome. They do that really well so I make my conversation with the same assumptions. Anyway, if something needs to be spoiler tagged please do so for me.

3 Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte 4 Harry Potter series - JK Rowling 5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee 6 The Bible 8 Nineteen Eighty-Four - George Orwell 18 Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger 22 The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald 29 Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll (excerpt) 37 The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini 61 Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck 70 Moby Dick - Herman Melville 71 Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens (excerpt) 75 Ulysses - James Joyce (excerpt) 87 Charlotte’s Web - E.B. White 98 Hamlet - William Shakespeare

The traveling looking for horcruxes and the sword of gryffindor started to remind me of LOTR when the locket was kind of poisoning everyone's mood it seemed very reminiscent of the ring driving everyone crazy.

QUOTE (Felix @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 05:32 PM) That's what I was going to say originally, but figured I'd piss off more people than my first comment made. It is true, though It's alright, I've accepted the inherent femininity of my taste in music. I've been to the concerts, and it's usually 75% girls and most guys are hipster types. I've accepted that I may be the only college baseball player/athlete/non hipster or skater male at any given concert I go to, or buying albums, etc.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 04:58 PM) I dunno if the term is totally without merit. Even way back before the age of Green Day, bands like the Buzzcocks and early xtc, Jilted John, the Undertones, etc., were all coming out of a punk tradition but with a lot more pop sensibility and tongue-in-cheek delivery than the first wave of punk music. I think pop punk, punk power pop, etc., is useful as a broad stroke to categorize these groups. And for the record, I love all of that stuff. I'm with him, but of course I'm the one that used the term in question!

QUOTE (farmteam @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 10:31 AM) I'll probably catch flak for the gross overgeneralization I'm about to make, but I'll do it anyway. In my experience, the "hipster/indie" type is the most elitist. I've run into way too many people that will essentially say things like, "Oh, you like stuff on the RADIO? All that stuff is crap." or will only like bands no one has heard of, or they think that identifying with some esoteric band will make them cool. I hate to say that my taste in music might be best described as that hipster/indie. Probably a little more pop punk than what OP is thinking. I find it easiest to connect to personally, maybe it's my age. I get my dose of popular music at college parties and when I forget my iPod driving my car.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 05:32 PM) You heard it here first, no inside info just a hunch, if Konerko goes elsewhere, KW signs Dye as a firstbaseman. I'd be shocked if they chose a 36(?) year old Dye over Viciedo, with Dye being a year removed from reps and never having played infield (except one glorious game at short stop). Maybe as a DH, but even then I don't see why do that really, especially with how right-handed our lineup is getting.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 08:09 PM) Source: Multiyear deal for John Danks? By Doug Padilla ESPNChicago.com Archive The Chicago White Sox have pushed John Danks near the top of their offseason priorities. According to a source, the team is trying to work a multiyear contract for the left-handed starter into their budget. So while negotiating with free agent Paul Konerko lies ahead, as well as deciding whether or not to bring back A.J. Pierzynski, not to mention retooling the bullpen, it will all be done with an eye toward Danks. The 24-year-old still has two more years of arbitration-eligible status, but the desire is to lock him in at least through his first free-agent year in 2013. That would require a minimum three-year deal, but a four-year pact is more desirable, according to the source. Danks made $3.45 million this past season while proving to be the team's steadiest starter. He finished 15-11 with a 3.72 ERA, while his walks and innings pitched per nine innings was a career best 1.21. Over the last three seasons, Danks has pitched at least 195 innings and has never had an ERA above 3.77, while making a minimum of 32 starts. Gavin Floyd signed a similar four-year deal before the 2009 season to get him through his initial free-agent years worth $15.5 million. That contract also includes a club option attached for 2013 at $9 million. A potential Danks deal could be in the $20-million range based on his past success and the fact that he has remained healthy throughout his short career. Spread out over four seasons, that would be a relative bargain when compared to the $16 million and $14 million Jake Peavy and Mark Buehrle will earn respectively in 2011 alone. Internally, the team is discussing ways to keep the core of young talented players in the fold for as long as possible. That core not only includes Danks, but Alexei Ramirez and Gordon Beckham. Sergio Santos, Dayan Viciedo, and most recently Chris Sale, have emerged as candidates to join that core group as well. What the hell stat is he trying to say in the bold? WHIP? Anyways, is there any way in hell we could lock him up for $20 mil/4 years? I figured it would be double that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:40 PM) Really, De Aza is probably already set in as one of our backup OF's for next year, and if he'd ever stay healthy he's talented enough to be a lower-level starter. This. De Aza is a better/cheaper/more intelligent option. If someone goes down, I can't watch Andruw Jones trying to go yard every swing for an extended period. I like De Aza as a defensive replacement/pinch runner/injury depth.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 25, 2010 -> 11:28 PM) Don't stop posting. I've been buried and lambasted before. They were just jokin with you. Post away. Just say no to lurking. I was just joking really. I don't post much due to tremendous college homework load.

Wow, back to lurking I go!

The balls from high school to college have definitely had more subdued seams, and I agree from handling balls I've acquired from pro games that those balls have practically no seams. I hate those things. I'm a sinkerballer and the ball moves less when the seams stick out less.

Thanks for doing this. I just moved to Memphis for school, and the last thing I want to do is sift through our TV schedule and coverage areas, etc. I've been dying going through this debacle and not being able to see and evaluate for myself in every game like I used to

QUOTE (mcgrad70 @ Sep 16, 2010 -> 11:51 PM) All of that sounds nice but you forget who the manager is. Guillen personally pissed away 15 games I can think of right off hand with his bumbling of the pitching staff and this inane resting of 20-something year old men. All I can say is that managing is much more difficult when players don't play well. Especially the pitching staff. Ozzie isn't perfect, but he's not responsible for 15 losses. No way, no how.

Rebuilding is a bad idea, IMO. You have a $50+ million rotation, and it is actually good. I believe we'll get what we're paying for, even though everyone likes to have good players that are making league minimum. These aren't bad contracts in the rotation, we're paying good pitchers that are still good. There might be a hole or two in the pen, but regardless what we have going into next year is a playoff caliber (and playoff priced) pitching staff. This means you have to try to win, we have to keep going forward as an all-in situation because the pitching is going to keep us in it. I'm okay with giving a chance to a guy like Dayan, who is loaded with talent and has already shown us he can at the very least compete at this level, if not down the road perhaps dominate it. Some player development could really pay off here. In general though, I don't think we're as far away as many of you would like to think. Getting Paulie back would be the first step in showing that we're trying to win and of course an important step in sustaining an offense. Rios is a fixture and a valuable one despite a slow second half. Hating on Quentin is easy but he still produced quite a few runs in a down year. If Quentin came back to some extent, that already is a huge step in once again having a solid offense to go with this pitching. He's also cheap enough that this is the type of frugal gamble many Soxtalkers should like, if it weren't for the fact many have washed their hands of him. He very well may finish the season with 90-100 RBIs and that's nothing to turn your nose up at, despite some of his noted flaws. Many of you would like to dump Pierre, but I'm not as supportive of the idea. My impression is that he's coming basically free, but feel free to correct me if that's incorrect. He adds that elusive speed and if he gained that 30 points to his average that he's had for a career that's already an upgrade from this year. Everyone likes to hate on the low OPS which has some merit but it is difficult to quantify 50-60 stolen bases. One must admit that this has some redeeming quality for his offense. He's also not a bad defender. I don't think there is any argument over the retention of Alexei. Solid offense with a bit of flair, some pop and some strikeouts, but still more or less a .300 hitter after March/April. One might think that with every year he'll improve upon his slow start syndrome. We all know he's blossomed into an excellent defender and it is hard for me to believe we could upgrade there, we certainly don't have the system for it. Beckham's situation is a bit ambiguous. Did he or didn't he snap out of the slump? Is he a good defender? The talent is there on both counts, and one may think on the defensive side he'll benefit coming back a second year in the same position, much like Alexei. The offense is a little less secure. Maybe he is just a .250 hitter with a little pop. Nonetheless, especially with you guys obsessed with the payroll, he's a cheap option that sells merchandise. He's the type of talent that could make our patience really pay off. With his charisma, a big season from him would really pay off in more ways than just on the field. I'm talking asses in seats here folks. You can try to replace AJ, but I'm not really sure what's out there. It's just generally difficult to pick up a good catcher. When it's all said and done, he may finish the season at .270 which isn't really exciting but that's quite a comeback from earlier this year. He's not a high potential bat, but can be useful and I'm overall satisfied with his defense. We know he doesn't have a strong arm and that can be a bit frustrating, but in this era there are just so many guys that aren't ever going to steal a base anyway. I'm open to upgrading here, but I'm hesitant to say there's going to be a good option here. Keep Flowers waiting in the wings, he no longer excites me with his down year this year and supposedly lackluster (or at best just average) defense. Vizquel seems valuable in that he's cheap, is willing (perhaps prefers) to be a back up but has shown he can be a viable fill in. Obviously any GM will take an upgrade if it presents itself at any of these positions if it comes up, but in most cases as you can see there are solid arguments for staying put in many positions. DH is the big hole. We don't need to see Mark Kotsay or Andruw Jones around anymore. You can throw a young guy there, maybe Viciedo if his defense can't improve, but really this is the place you can probably make a splash and really improve the offense. Needless to say you're seeking a lefty bat here with our lineup. One more thing, Teahen - yes it appears to be a bad contract right now. He's a guy I'm not convinced deserves to have a spot given to him without some kind of fight. However, 5 million dollars is NOT a big deal to a payroll like the White Sox. I know it very well could be a wasted 5 million, but part of being a major market team is that we can absorb this type of relatively minor folly. We're not the Cubs, with 10-15 million dollar bums all around. You can be upset by this deal with justification, but this type of thing is easily overcome. Same with Linebrink. No team has all good contracts and honestly no one expected Linebrink to be unusable in late game spots when we signed him. It's typically not wise to give relievers long term deals but this wasn't originally as bad as it looks now. Once again, those are our two mistakes. We can overcome that and perhaps we can dump one or both on someone. Look up people, we're really not that far from greatness! It's easy to remember every failure when this is the team you watch every day, but it's really not as bad as it seems. The grass isn't always greener. While I like watching young kids play, I don't wanna see a hapless bunch of youngsters that aren't going to win. We have the money to put together a good team and pick our spots for our young guys, much like the other high payroll teams. I see a rejuvenated, not a reconstructed White Sox team in 2011. And I see them winning.

18, 19 in a month

Back home, I use my dad's company gas card at BP. In Memphis, I believe it is a Chevron station that I've used.

I'm just glad to see someone with so much talent like Alexei finally putting it all together. The MLB is populated with guys who didn't, and it's been fun to watch Alexei develop and become a consistently good ballplayer.

How do I want them to look? I hope they're all wearing rings.