Rex Hudler

Well good luck with it. I hope you find a slot that you can be consistent with and get good movement from. Hope I don't see ya back in Birmingham next year.

There are exceptions to every rule. But I challenge you to look at the numbers of teams that have one player making too high a percentage of payroll, and I will be willing to be that the numbers bear out to the advantage of spreading it around.

If you go by that logic, many of Buehrle's losses should be excused since he got no run support to start the season. No one is excusing anything......... but to say the guy choked reeks of baseball ignorance. It simply did not happen.

damn, i am sorry........ i keep forgetting that unfounded opinions are much more important than numbers and facts...... I'll stop now.

Very simply....... for one, you bash Loaiza while defending Thomas. If you want to say Loaiza choked, then suck it up and admit Frank didn't get it done either. April .237 5HR 9RBI May .264 5HR 13RBI Sept. .224 3HR 10RBI Frank hasn't been a model of consistency either. As y ou pointed out earlier, Franks big accomplishments were 41 HR and 102 RBI. Well those stats are a lot more common than a pitcher with 19 wins. There are a total of FIVE pitchers with 19 wins or more. There are a total of SEVEN players with 40 HR or more. There are a total of TWENTY-EIGHT players with 100 RBI or more.

Loaiza's three starts were; 7 IP 7 H 5 ER 1 BB 9 K (not stellar, but not horrible either) The bad one when he was sick.... 6 IP 7 H 3 ER 3 BB 6 K (a quality start that is good enough to win most of the time) Give him some offense and he could have won 2 of the 3 starts. Abo, get you head out of the ass of W's and L's. It is a team game and takes more than one guy to win or lose. Can you say Elo didn't pitch his best? Yes. Is it accurate to say he choked? Hell no.

Have no problem with it at all....... It is basically what has been said here, just by a Twins fan, instead of a Sox fan.

one thing you will have to understand about Sox fans, mike, is that they aren't happy unless they are b****ing about something. LOL The Sox could be ahead by a run in the bottom of the 9th of the World Series and someone would be b****ing about a run they failed to score that would have given them a two run lead. After the Sox won, they would say that it was luck, and if they had gotten the bunt down in the 2nd inning, it would have been easier. Always underachieving, you know?

Loaiza did not choke 3 straight games..... plain and simple.

Mike, there is a lot of negativity here and I have pointed it out many times... The idea behind Maggs needed to go is strictly money. Maggs is set to make $14 million next year. If the Sox payroll is $70 mil (which is likely as high as it will be), that will mean Maggs is making 20% of the total payroll. It has been proven how difficult it is to put together a winning team with one player making that large of a percentage of your payroll. The other changes, possibly Thomas, Konerko, etc. may or may not happen, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to change the makeup of this lineup. To go away a RH dominated lineup without much speed. Sometimes you have to make changes and even get rid of good players to improve.

There are a lot more players with 40 HR than there are pitchers with 19 wins...... and even more with 100 or more RBI than 19 wins..... But why argue with Roman..... he doesn't have a clue and there is no reasoning...... And for the last time........ Loaiza didn't have 3 bad outings in a row! His last outing he gave up three earned runs in six innings, easily good enough to get a win with some support. In his first of the three, he gave up five earned runs in seven innings, but only allowed seven hits and one walk while striking out nine. So in reality, one start was bad, one was decent and the other was a quality start. In the bad one, the guy was sick. Give me a break, this thread is stupid as hell, yet not one that surprises me considering the source.

Jason, are you smoking left-handed heaters again??? There is no way in hell SD makes that trade. Hell, maybe not even half of it. Unfortunately, that is not completely of the Sox choice. I agree with the premise of your post Jason and think that changes do need to be made. However, I would start with a different manager (and GM if we can get that lucky), and tweak this team. I would keep as much intact as I could, yet would try and find a way to make 2-3 key moves. I do not think an overhaul of players is needed, the right manager with a fresh start can handle that. I do think payroll needs to be/will be kept at a reasonable level and not reduced.

Can we all just agree to let this thread die? It is one of the dumbest threads I have seen on here and there is no reason to give it any more attention? All agreed?

Who says he is getting singled out? The article was about one guy and JM answered when questioned. No where in the article did I read that Manuel was pinning the team's problems all on Garland. No where did I get the impression the reported asked JM who was to blame for the season and JM singled out Garland. It was one article. I think you guys are reading way too much into this.

Somebody has to back Jon Garland!! Why not US? Because collectively "US" have been bashing him and questioning his manhood, so to speak.

For the record, Loaiza's last start was very winnable. No offense once again killed his chances, not poor pitching.

Well I will say this much. The stupid mistake he made in the first inning where he was standing on the mound watching instead of backing up home plate really pissed me off. That is crap they teach you in T-ball. Other than that, I don't see the equity in benching Jon over all of the other people who have just mailed it in. Why not Carlos, Konerko, and or Crede who went 1-29 against the Royals last series? Why not Thomas who went 1-12 in MN, and then complained to the media about it? Why not Olivo who hasn't hit anything since June or so? Because they aren't pitchers??

It's funny, everyone is defending Garland now. Most of the time, everyone wanted his head. I guess it is a case of who do you dislike the least.....

I think the idea of this thread is idiotic....

I'd expect to see Adkins get a start, so they can get a look at him. Maybe that is the only guy he was being asked about? If you are talking to a reporter and he asks you what you thought about Garland's effort yesterday, you don't immediately break into a song and dance taking shots at everyone else on the team. You answer the question.

Gotta keep in mind that Borchard only started ONE game in college. He was a backup QB and was on track to be the starter the next year, after the Sox drafted him. Yes, he had talent, but I think Mel Kiper and the boys are overstating things a bit when they say he was a potential 1st Round draft pick. For a guy to try and go back to football and play in the NFL after not playing since 1999 when he was a backup, would be awfully difficult, if not impossible.

I would almost expect Pacheco to be lower on BA's list, simply because he was not a "prospect" at all before this season. I actually felt he should have been higher (he was the best RH in the league, if not the pitcher in this league) but adjusted down a bit for that reason. It would not surprise me if he were even lower. Yes, Milwaukee's system is in good shape and is really stocked at the moment. The Huntsville club was loaded with good players, many young for AA. There were some guys that I did not see play much, but were intriguing, such as Cosme. He had so much range and made a couple of unbelievable plays defensively that I was sold. He held his own on offense so I included him. I am not sure how much of a prospect he is/was considered to be.

There are a few guys I haven't seen or have barely seen, so it was tough and I did have to weigh in reputation as well numbers and my own eyes.

You mean play National League baseball!

I guess we will see how close I am to BA's list.... if I am real close, I want a damn job. LOL