Rowand44

Butler-Wright State about to tip off, all of bubble nation is watching.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 05:07 PM) Did any of the people who think this is a great signing laugh at the Cubs when they signed Ted Lilly? I'm not going to call anyone out, but yes.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 04:42 PM) Thats fine. But who else could you lock up on the market for that money that would be a better option? Ask me in a few years, but that's not the point. I'm not arguing the market value of this deal, with an out of whack market, as of right now this deal doesn't look awful. Will the market correct itself in a few years? Who knows, once again, to me this is all about locking up a pitcher who hasn't proven jack s*** in the american league. He has proven that he has good stuff, that's it. We're locking him based on the prospect that he's going to all the sudden turn it around at the age of 30. Whether its someone in our system or in free agency, their will be better options in a few years imo.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 04:39 PM) hes going to get around 3-5 million less per year than Freddy and probably 2 less years. Maybe javy didnt put together a full year last year of great ball. But once he made significant changes to his delivery, he put together 2 of his best months. He is a good pitcher, signed below market value. I dont understand how anyone could have a problem with this at all. Probably because most of us aren't convinced that he's a good pitcher.

QUOTE(FlaCWS @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 03:54 PM) SportsNation Rob Neyer: (4:22 PM ET ) Really? Another feather in Kenny Williams' cap, if you ask me. Vazquez's wins and losses don't show it, but over the last two seasons he's been just as good as Freddy Garcia. But because of those wins and losses, he comes a few ticks cheaper. Good news for Sox fans. Seems like ERA shows otherwise... Vazquez's ERAs over the past three years: 2006: 4.84 2005: 4.42 2004: 4.91 Garcia's ERAs over the past three years: 2006: 4.53 2005: 3.87 2004: 3.81 Ding ding. It's not about his wins and losses it's the fact that he has not been a good pitcher in the al, strikeout rates be damned. I really don't care how good his stuff is or how good his secondary numbers are, until he stops allowing runners to score then he's not doing this team any good.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 03:13 PM) So like 44 million over 4 years? Thats 5th starter money these days. To me it's not about the money. Contracts are insane right now so to be honest the money probably wont be horrible considering the market. I just don't want Vazquez here for 3 extra years until he starts to prove he can actually turn his stuff into results. As much as people would like to believe he turned the corner at the end of last year, I still want to see it in results this year. The guy is still a mental midget imo and I still don't think you can count on him to be a consistant starter, not yet anyways. Hopefully I'm wrong.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 03:07 PM) He hasn't gotten the job done in his 2 years in the AL, he hasn't spent 2 consecutive years with the same team since '02-'03 let alone the same league. Give him back to back season in the same league with the same team and he'll flourish, this is mine and KW's thinking obviously. Of course if you wait until the end of the season to give him an extension and he does kick ass this year it's going to cost you insane money to keep him around. This way you sign him to a potential bargain price in hopes that a second year with the team will do him some good. He could anchor this staff for years to come if they could just get him in a comfort zone. And IMO like I said before I really don't think a 3 year deal worth around $35M guaranteed is that much of a risk. I'm going to completely disagree with you on this. I think it's the complete wrong time to extend his contract. He has done nothing so far for us and yes I know his secondary numbers were solid last year and we all know what kind of stuff he has, but until he can equate that to actual performance(not letting runners score) then he's doing nothing for us. We're giving him an extension entirely based on potential instead of actual performance. I don't like this.

The Cowboys should not have pissed off the Icebox.

BTW, Nebraska and Okie State played a make up game today and Nebraska all but ended Ok State's NCAA hopes, barring winning the big 12 tourny of course.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 10:39 PM) New Mexico will beat BYU. That is all. Wouldn't shock me(they do have to get by TCU first), but I wouldn't pick it. I'd be much more worried if I were UNLV, Utah is an interesting team and they've definitely shown that they're capable of beating good teams.

QUOTE(SnB @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 05:58 PM) prepare to clean up all the beer he spills. That's what sweat shirts are for. Duh.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 04:19 PM) If the refs had been fair in that game, and SIU shoots...oh, 60 percent from the field in the 2nd half (which is still very hard to do), Creighton still pulls away IMO. Tatum was on one leg and the refs "screwed us over all game" in your own words, YET we didn't deserve to win that game. What about the game in Omaha? Oh, we won by one point, I feel like I'm defending the 05 White Sox here, I forget, if you win by one run/point it's luck as well. I think you saw a CU team that was better than us YESTERDAY and you just all the sudden decided that they were a better team overall. CU is one hell of a team and they're going to make some noise in a week but don't call our wins over them 'lucky' that's asinine.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 04:05 PM) I know they won the league and 2 out of 3 head to head, but having seen all 3 of those games, I think Creighton is better than SIU. The win at Carbondale was total luck (15 for 17 in the second half?? please) and the game in Omaha was decided by 1 point. With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if both of them make the Sweet 16. You know, I have absolutely no problem if you think CU is the better team, they are a very good team. But, you are the one who said SIU got screwed by the officials, you are the one who said that game showed just how good SIU is because the officials were trying to give Creighton the game and they still won, so don't say that game was total luck, because you are completely switching what your first reaction was to that game(I'm talking about the game in Carbondale). At times, you are the Jay Mariotti of soxtalk, you change your opinion for ridiculous reasons.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 01:41 PM) Young players grow up during conference play, this is why I believe your argument is a bit weak. they did lose out of conference, but in the last month they have turend into a force. or as Digger says, freshamn turn into sophmores. You just lost all credibility for quoting Digger.

QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 01:29 PM) If it was on the road I might agree, but at home it's a game Iowa should win. It's a game they probably should have won at home, especially considering how that game went. Still, I wouldn't categorize it as a bad loss.

QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 01:19 PM) I would say Iowa has to get to the final to even have a chance. They have some bad losses (Arizona St., UNI, Drake). And their only big wins are MSU and Indiana at home. UNI isn't a bad loss, the other two definitely are though. Sorry Jas, but Iowa isn't even in the discussion, they need to win the tourny.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 12:46 PM) Row, when are you and I gonna get together, get drunk and then f*** with Greasy and Jason? Soon, I hope. Get your ass to Chicago for a Sox game.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 12:41 PM) We still have to see if any favorites in conference tourneys win and if any surprised actually win their conference tourneys? For instance is gonzaga in if they lose tonight? They shouldn't be. Who knows though, they are Gonzaga.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 08:38 AM) I agree, but he shouldnt have had that many fouls in the first place. He put himself in a bad spot in the first half, and he had some dumb slap fouls. I wish he would shoot the damn ball, he always passes up those shots he creates for himself until they absolutely need him to shoot it, and then he drills 10 straight points. WTF?! He showed in that few minute stretch how good of a scorer he really can be, I think all Saluki fans know the kid can score if he wants to, he's just too damn unselfish. It's like yesterday he realized that besides JT, no one else showed the hell up and he needed to so something. I hope he looks to create his own shot in the tournament, if he does, it adds another dimension to the offense.

Thursday, March 8 Game 1: Eastern No. 4 Kentucky vs. Western No. 5 Alabama (1 p.m.) Game 2: Western No. 3 Arkansas vs. Eastern No. 6 South Carolina (*3:15 p.m.) Game 3: Western No. 4 Auburn vs. Eastern No. 5 Georgia (7:30 p.m.) Game 4: Eastern No. 3 Tennessee vs. Western No. 6 LSU (*9:45 p.m.) QUARTERFINALS Friday, March 9 Game 5: Western No. 1 Mississippi State vs. Game 1 winner (1:00 p.m.) Game 6: Eastern No. 2 Vanderbilt vs. Game 2 winner (*3:15 p.m.) Game 7: Eastern No. 1 Florida vs. Game 3 winner (7:30 p.m.) Game 8: Western No. 2 Ole Miss vs. Game 4 winner (*9:45 p.m.) SEMIFINALS Saturday, March 10 Game 9: Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner (1 p.m.) Game 10: Game 7 winner vs. Game 8 winner (*3:15 p.m.) CHAMPIONSHIP Sunday, March 11 Game 11: Game 9 winner vs. Game 10 winner (1 p.m.)

Wednesday, March 7 Game 1: No. 8 California vs. No. 9 Oregon State (9 p.m.) Game 2: No. 7 Washington vs. No. 10 Arizona State (*11:30 p.m.) QUARTERFINALS Thursday, March 8 Game 3: No. 4 vs. No. 5 (3 p.m.) Game 4: No. 1 UCLA vs. No. 8/No. 9 (*5:30 p.m.) Game 5: No. 3 USC vs. No. 6 Stanford (9 p.m.) Game 6: No. 2 Washington State vs. No. 7/No. 10 (*11:30 p..m) SEMIFINALS Friday, March 9 Game 7: Game 3 winner vs. Game 4 winner (9 p.m.) Game 8: Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner (*11:30 p.m.) CHAMPIONSHIP Saturday, March 10 Game 9: Game 7 winner vs. Game 8 winner (6 p.m.)

Wednesday, March 7 Game 1: No. 8 DePaul vs. No. 9 Villanova (Noon) Game 2: No. 5 Syracuse vs. No. 12 Connecticut (*2 p.m.) Game 3: No. 7 West Virginia vs. No. 10 Providence (7 p.m.) Game 4: No. 6 Marquette vs. No. 11 St. John's (*9 p.m.) QUARTERFINALS Thursday, March 8 Game 5: No. 1 Georgetown vs. No.8/No. 9 (Noon) Game 6: No. 4 Notre Dame vs. No. 5/No. 12 (*2 p.m.) Game 7: No. 2 Louisville vs. No. 7/No. 10 (7 p.m.) Game 8: No. 3 Pittsburgh vs. No. 6/No. 11 (*9 p.m.) SEMIFINALS Friday, March 9 Game 9: Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner (7 p.m.) Game 10: Game 7 vs. Game 8 winner (*9 p.m.) CHAMPIONSHIP Saturday, March 10 Game 11: Game 9 winner vs. Game 10 winner (ESPN, 9 p.m.)

Thursday, March 8 Game 1: No. 8 Clemson vs. No. 9 Florida St. (Noon) Game 2: No. 5 Maryland vs. No. 12 Miami (*2 p.m.) Game 3: No. 7 Duke vs. No. 10 NC State (ESPN2, 7 p.m.) Game 4: No. 6 Georgia Tech vs. No. 11 Wake Forest (*9 p.m.) QUARTERFINALS Friday, March 9 Game 5: No. 1 North Carolina vs. No. 8/No. 9 (ESPN2, Noon) Game 6: No. 4 Boston College vs. No. 5/No. 12 (*ESPN2, 2 p.m.) Game 7: No. 2 Virginia vs. No. 7/No. 10 (ESPN2, 7 p.m.) Game 8: No. 3 Virginia Tech vs. No. 6/No. 11 (*ESPN2, 9 p.m.) SEMIFINALS Saturday, March 10 Game 9: Game 5 winner vs. Game 6 winner (ESPN, 1:30 p.m.) Game 10: Game 7 winner vs. Game 8 winner (*ESPN, 3:30 p.m.) CHAMPIONSHIP Sunday, March 11 Game 11: Game 9 winner vs. Game 10 winner (ESPN, 1 p.m.)

QUOTE(Reddy @ Mar 4, 2007 -> 09:12 PM) there are box scores on the white sox site, but pauly 2 homers, dye, mack and molina homered as well. Haeger gave up 2 runs but one of the runs came off a double that mack should've caught. otherwise scoreless from the others: Garland, Danks, Gio, Aardsma, Sisco. Ya, I know that. I'm more interested in how the young pitchers looked. Thanks for the info.