hitlesswonder

I honesty think Anderson is headed to Charlotte regardless of what he does in spring training. Ozzie has said that Anderson won't be platooned -- he either earns a full-time job or is in AAA. There's no way Ozzie will keep Erstad or Pods on the bench. He's already on record as saying that Erstad will be hitting in the top of the order, so we know he will be starting. There's effectively no room for Anderson other than a CF platoon and that's already be ruled not an option.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 02:20 PM) I dare you to rationalize KState over Illinois... KState beat Texas. Illinois beat Belmont.... The justification is that Illinois lacks a signature win (something Stanford, ODU, Drexel, etc. all have). Illinois has been consistent, but mediocre. And the "good" wins Illinois has are over MSU and Indiana, all at home (the United Center is not a neutral court). Illinois has an RPI and SOS that is based on losing to 2 teams that were ranked #1. Illinois isn't terrible or anything, but they're not a tournament quality team. And if Weber is such a great coach, why doesn't he switch to a Hi-Lo offense that uses his two best players (Carter and Pruit) rather than keep running motion with a terrible outside shooting team? I don't get it...

For me, I just don't see how the Big Ten can get 6 teams in. Illinois is the weakest of the 4 Big ten bubble teams. They won 23 games, but against inferior competition; they beat absolutley no team of any consequence this year. And they looked terrible in the Big Ten tournament. Stanford, Drexel, K State, ODU, Purdue, Indiana in my mind are all much better teams. If Illinois doesn't make the tournament, I won't have a problem with it. It's almost like a stats versus scouting argument. Illinois has a decent RPI and SOS, but anyone who saw them play this weekend can't tell me they saw a good team. If they get in, they'd be one and done anyway. Put in a team with some talent that has a shot at pulling a upset.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Mar 10, 2007 -> 06:24 AM) As an Indiana fan, I am now somewhat worried about getting into the dance. I know IU has been considered a "lock" but I am not too comfortable right now. That was some ugly basketball last night by both teams Everything I read still has Indiana as a lock. It's Illinois that should be worried -- Bracketography has them out after last night's win and in the Suntimes today Jerry Palm (who knows what he's talking about it) said that Illinois is still on the bubble at best and needs to beat Wisconsin. Thinking about it, I just don't see 6 Big Ten teams going. Unless Illinois beats Wisconsin today I still think they're out. Indiana has probably dropped down, but it's still the 3rd Big Ten team in.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 11:36 PM) For starters, Illinois has a top 30 RPI and play in a major conference. They are a lock, even moreso than Indiana now. If he actually said that Illinois would be out even with this win, Lunardi truely has no idea what he is talking about. Well, apparently Lunardi does think Illinois is in. I only heard him say that after the Xavier & Nevada upsets he thought they were out, but someone else posted that he followed that up by saying that the Illini were in after beating Indiana. So I'm not going to win a prize for accurate reporting.... Anyway, 6 Big 10 teams? That's just crazy. Be interesting to see how they perform....

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 10:55 PM) If Purdue wins tomorrow, could they really put in 6 Big 10 teams, and 5 ACC teams? No -- no way. Earlier, Lunardi on ESPN said that Illinois would still be out even with a win over Indiana (since Xavier and Nevada lost). I think Purdue makes the NCAA as the 5th team and thats it.

QUOTE(CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 06:59 PM) What was that ...humility ?? On this board ? Acknowledging the Sox network of coaches scouts etc. might have more knowledge then fans, statheads, armchair gm's and fantasy geeks is forbidden on this board ! Well, I hope you noticed that acknowledging they know more than me didn't stop me from disagreeing with Kenny Williams about the utility of acquiring Gavin Floyd

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 04:11 PM) but....but...but.. OUR SCOUTS SAW SOMETHING IN HIM IN THE ARIZONA FALL LEAGUE! Well, they could still be right. I'm just a guy looking at numbers on baseballcube. I'd assume seeing him pitch in person & knowing something about baseball would put the scouts opinions ahead of mine. John Sickels has been pretty optimistic about Floyd as recently as last year. And 5 spring training innings is too soon to say that Floyd won't contribute to the Sox. I'm not optimistic, but it's not like he's been getting shelled so far (like Vazquez, Garland, and Contreras have...).

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 04:04 PM) You know why I'm hesitant about Danks? Not only because he may not be ready, but let's remember who his agent is. Sending him up, then down, wastes valuable service time. That's atleast how I see it. The Bonderman reference was just to point out that some pitchers manage to survive not succeeding immediately in the bigs. I know he got beat up early on. It actually was a stupid move by the Tigers, because they weren't contending that year anyway. If having Danks spend a month and a half down at Charlotte delays free agency by a year, that's a consideration. But I hate to see a team that has a chance to make the playoffs lower their chances of winning 6 or 8 games that could be a difference at the end of the year.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 03:58 PM) I think the worst case for Danks is that if he's rushed he could wind up turning into Gavin Floyd. To me, if Danks turns into Gavin Floyd it will be because he's not a very good pitcher, not becuase got rushed to the bigs and couldn't handle failing. I don't think that debuting at a young age derailed Floyd. If you look at his minor league numbers he's always had low K totals, and generally unimpressive stats. Add to that his loss of velocity the last few years and you have a guy struggling to post a 6 ERA in NL. I like the "win now" idea, and I'm in favor of putting the best pitcher out on the hill every 5th day. To win the Central, the Sox need someone to step up there. If Danks outpitches the other guys in spring training, he should make the team. No reason to waste his pitches in Charlotte.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 03:35 PM) I still really don't want to rush this kid... If he's the best bet to put wins on the board, he better be starting in the bigs. Some players can handle "being rushed" (Bonderman certainly has survived). I assume the worst case would be Danks heads north and gets slammed and is repalced in the rotation by someone like Haeger. I would hope that Danks would have the resilience to survive and pull himself together in AAA. If he doesn't, that's a sign he's not the guy Williams thinks he is. Just for reference, McCarthy debuted when he was 21 (Danks is 21 now) and got hit hard. And then he came back from AAA to be lights out down the stretch in 2005. If McCarthy could do it, Danks should be able to as well.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 11:05 AM) That's about 2-3 mph faster than I've seen most people say he throws. That was the reported speed of his fastball when he was drafted, which is now sevral years ago. At the time fo the trade, Philadelphia papers reported that he had lost a couple MPH off his fastball since then. What I've read out of spring training has been that he is throwing around 91 regularly, I'm sure he probably can pop one in at 93 every now and then.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 10:11 AM) Why's that? Phillips isn't even on the radar as far as the big league team. Here's the way I look at it: Brian Anderson sucks. Thus, if we send him down to the minors, I wouldn't mind having a platoon of Erstad/Rowand in CF. Sure, I'll agree (barring a torrid streak of hitting to close spring training), Anderson should start the season in AAA. And that a platoon of Rowand & Erstad would be better than playing Erstad everyday. My problems with acquiring Rowand are: 1) The cost. It won't be just Logan or Phillips or Tracey and Logan or something like that. If it was, I wouldn't think it was that big of a deal. PHI thinks Rowand should bring back Linebrink, so it will take a major league reliever in addition to Logan to get Rowand. Shipping off MacDougal to get Rowand would be insane. 2) Rowand's not a very good hitter. He hasn't done well in platoon situations before, and I'm sort of doubtful that the at-bats he gets against LHP will go very far to improve the Sox. He'd be a marginal improvement. The Sox need more than that. If PHI wants to cough up Rowand for Logan/Phillips and Tracey that's fine. But I doubt that's the deal on the table...

QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 08:09 AM) Do you really want Osuna & Mack in the outfield? Personally we need LEGIT outfielders. I agree, so if the Sox are going to trade for an OF I think the should try for somone like Baldelli -- not Rowand. I like Aaron, but he really can't hit very well and I think the injuries are starting to take a toll on his defense. It seems like most PHI fans thought Victorino was better in CF last season. Rowand would end up platooning with Erstad, and I think he would be only a marginal improvement to the team. The Phillies wanted Linebrink for Rowand, so the Sox will have to give up a lot more than just Logan to get him. I think would have to be something like Logan and Haeger and I think that would be foolish. Jeez, just trading Logan for Rowand migt be foolish... QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 09:04 AM) This is another part of this story I just saw on MLBtraderumors, so TIFWIW of course but I would be pissed if MacDougal is included in this deal..... "Given that a Rowand for Scott Linebrink trade was seriously under consideration, I wonder if the Sox would have to surrender a closing-worthy reliever like Mike MacDougal to close the deal." That would be absolutely atrocious. But I do agree that bringing Rowand back will cost more than anyone would want to give up. Don't do it Kenny. Just sign him in the offseason if you love him so much.

QUOTE(Craig Grebeck @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 07:46 PM) I probably won't watch many games this season if they put Erstad in CF full time. Why not? Erstad will outperform last year's CFs. And yes, he is the everyday CF for the 2007 White Sox.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) If Mark is using Barry Zito's deal as a serious basis for his negotiations, they are not going to have a chance in hell of getting a deal done, because he is going to be looking for at least 5 years, and something over $15 million a year. Zito's contract is 7 years at 18M per year. 5 at 15 would be a significant discount.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 01:03 PM) I'm the last person in the world who can be called a stat head but Jon hasn't showed much improvement at all minus 05. He was pretty much our most inconsistant starter last season but he had a nice stretch where everyone else was sucking wind so it made him look even better. Jon is what he is, he's an average innings eater who you basically know what you're going to get out of. I'd trade him in a heart beat for the right package. Actually, I think Buehrle was the most inconsistent Sox starter last season. He went from about 2 months of a sub-4 ERA to being the worst starting pitcher in baseball for about the last 3 months. Jon Garland is not an ace or anything, but he's significantly better than average. His 4.5 ERA last season was 24th in AL. I think people don't realize how good a 4.5 ERA is now. Garland did that pitching home games in the Cell, which is a significant handicap. Also, from early June through September his ERA was 3.55 in 21 games. That's an impressive stretch of very good pitching. And to top it off BP ranks him as one of starting pitchers least likely to get injured in baseball. If the Sox trade him, they should get a good return.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 12:06 PM) This is my belief -- he's refering to the methods used to evaluate players. By suggesting he does things differently, he's refering to scouting more than statistical data. Why else would Floyd be on this ballclub, afterall? I think you are right -- "Scout the player, not the stats". We'll see how well that works out with Floyd. I really woudln't get worked up over the quote though. Williams isn't the chairman of the Fed, and I doubt he's choosing his words with great precision. I think it was just his way of saying he though they would "championship-caliber" pitchers, but at the same time he didn't want to put pressure on them to own the league in 2007.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 04:16 PM) I'm surprised it took them 2.5 hours to get this ready. National Review: Pardon Libby (for those who want to read the justification that would be used if he were pardoned) I haven't read the article, but it's not a hard case to make. Bush just has to say no crime was committed, no one was ever prosecuted for revealing Plame's identity. Libby misremembered events, but who hasn't done that? That's not a crime. The crime here was the political witch hunt which has resulted in the prosecution of Libby. As president, he cannot stand by and see the laws of the country corrupted and abused in the political persecution of an innocent man. His duty is to maintain the rule of law in America. The rule of law may be meaningless to the Democrat party, but it is not to him. His duty is to set this miscarriage right, and to pardon Libby. All that is just my guess at the justification, not to be interpreted as my personal opinion on the case. I'm not sure I even have opinion....

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 04:50 PM) I absolutely love this deal. Even considering Vazquez's struggles, he would have earned a substantially higher amount of money/years based on last year's statistics alone. Have we not seen what teams offer for power capable arms? Now imagine a powerful arm capable of avoiding injury and providing innings.... Oh, and LOLLERZ at Rotoworld. So? No mention of how it's a fair deal in comparison to other pitchers? I didn't read through all 10 pages -- are there people who think it's a bad deal? I'll once again go ahead and agree with you. The signing is fine. It's less than what Ted Lilly got, and I think Vazquez is worth more than Lilly. The # years is perfect. Most of all, it means the Sox won't have to go with a rotation of 64 year-old Contreras and 4 young pitchers. And maybe I'm an idiot but I think Vazquez can be 4.5 ERA pitcher in the AL. That plus the innings makes it a good deal. And, I don't know what the limited no trade will be, but that contract would be easy to move to a contender if the Sox decide to rebuild. Rotoworld's take is moronic. Look at the market before saying something is a lot of money.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 11:08 AM) Enjoy the jail time, Scooter. I think President Bush will pardon him.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 10:51 AM) I can only assume if we trade Vazquez we'll receive a player of Chris Young's caliber, right? .....right? Well, I think we need to let that go. Boston traded Bagwell for Larry Anderson. The Red Sox franchise managed to survive. The Sox won't get a prospect like Young back for Vazquez, but he still has some value. Optimistically, if Vazquez were to post a ERA of around 4 this year I think the final year of his contract (2008) could fetch a decent player. In fact, if he's pitching well at the break and the Mets need a starter, it's possible he could bring Lastings Milledge in return. Minaya may only want to trade him for something like Haren or Harden, but I think that's delusional given the price of pitching. On a different note, mlbtraderumors mentioned that Sox scouts watched Carl Pavano pitch yesterday. Sort of interesting if true....

QUOTE(shipps @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 12:53 AM) You talk about him like he has no talent whatsoever.Vasquez does have potential to have a good season and its not like hes our ace.He has movement on his fastball,better than most on the curve ball,and is unhittable for the first 5 innings.I will take my chances with him as our #4. Agreed. It would be pretty resonable to expect something like a 4.65 ERA from Vazquez this year. Name the minor league pitcher on the Sox that can be expected to do that. Realistically, the guys in line for the 5th starter slot would be likely to post something around 5.30 if they successfully adapt to the big leagues. Floyd's ERA with PHI was around 7, and PECOTA projects him to be around 6 this year. Haeger and Danks both project to be around the 5.30 IIRC. Dumping Vazquez would be a bad idea right now. It would free up money, but there aren't any good FAs left at this point. Even if the Sox get major league talent for Vazquez, it's doubtful that it would improve the team overall considering the hit the rotation would take. Considering what the Sox gave up for Vazquez, I'd rather gamble on him putting together a decent season than cut bait now.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 12:09 PM) Why don't we take Gladwell's theory and use it in a different area altogether? Why don't we take the XX millions that we spend on welfare and put the money into schools and communities? The entire fallacy behind the welfare system is that the more you give people money, the more money they expect to be given. Funny how we've gone 40-50 years now giving people money and our poverty rates are worse, our homelessness #'s are worse. So why should we just GIVE people healthcare? Obviously it's going to help certain people today, but it's not going to help the hundreds of thousands later. How about we fix the underlying problems of poverty? Why not attack the fact that the people on welfare have ZERO desire to get off welfare because it's free money? Why not create social programs to help them understand the necessity of education? Why not create programs for job placement? (and yes, i realize there are exceptions where people really work hard to get off welfare, but i'm willing to be the overwhelming majority don't). Well, I agree to a certain extent. I believe that the US has employed half-assed "fixes" to societal problems (like affirmative action) rather than attacking fundamental disfunctions. Instead of affrimative action, it seems like it would make more sense to provide a decent education and a reasonably safe neighborhood for everybody. Right now, safety and education are strongly associated with economic class. The problem is that equaliziing this would cost a lot of money. And I think that most people would be against having their taxes raised to provide money for schools and cops in Chicago. Personally, again, I'd be willing to pay higher taxes for that, but I'm not sure a lot of people would. As far as "giving" people healthcare, count me in. Even people with decent jobs and emplyer provided coverage go bankrupt when a major medical problem occurs. I know a lot of people believe that if you work hard and do everything you are supposed to, your life will be just fine. I don't -- bad things happen to all kinds of people I'd like to live in a society will not let someone die because they lack the money needed for medical care. Again, that's just my opinion; believing that everyone has to take personal repsonsibility for themselves is just as justifiable. As for poverty in America, I don't believe it's that rates are worse than they used to be. From Wikipedia: "From 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century". That 12 percent is about where we're at today. Similarly homelessness and poverty among the elderly is much lower now than before social security. I agree that people abuse the social welfare system (e.g. medicaid), and we should attempt to curtail that abuse. But I don't believe in abolishing the entire program just because it's subject to some fraud. I'm all for restructuring public assistance to achieve a better result, but it's obviously a difficult problem.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 03:17 PM) An overwhelming majority of scientists would disagree with that statement. The overwhelming majority of scientists need to keep their grant funding coming, and a crises is a great way to do that. Of course, corporations that produce CO2 emissions have a financial interest as well, I suppose. I'm not a conservative, but I think a conservative's environmental viewpoint is that the Earth is in pretty good shape (as Limbaugh says, "the Earth is not fragile"). The book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Lomborg probably sums up the conservative view the best. They take the prgmatic approach that human influence on global warming is unproven and that's is irresponsible to destroy an economy based on something very uncertain. Assuming global warming is happening, Lomborg calculates that it would be far cheaper to adapt to a warmer climate than to try stop the process. Anyway, I probably shouldn't speak for conservatives, but that's my impression of their "environmental platform".