Rex Hudler

Ring gave up the winning hit yesterday allowing a runner of Yofu's to score in the bottom of the ninth. Came back strong tonight. The thing about Ring that bothers me is that he doesn't (or hasn't) throw hard. When I saw him last week he was consistently at 87-88 and only hit 91 once. His breaking ball was good and had nice bite. His changeup was decent. His fastball had nice movent sometimes and was straight others (4-seam vs. 2-seam? inconsistent?). I guess I just expected him to blow hitters away in the mid-90's and that isn't happening. I am guessing he is a late 2004 arrival in Chicago at the earliest, unless they give him a courtesy callup in Sept., which would be stupid. Not sure Holt will be back in Bham. Big difference in A ball and AA. Would like to see Yan, however. Barons could use someone at the top of the order to actually get on base.

Are you sure about that? I think Jon has only only used one or two options in 2001 and maybe 2000 (not sure when he was put on the 40-man). Surely he wasn't on the 40-man in 1999 when he started at W-S. If I recall correctly, he was placed on the 40-man in 2000 but didn't he end the season in Chicago? Did he get sent down after he ws promoted to Chicago? He had a rehab start for Birmingham, but that does not count as an option. In 2001, he split between Chicago and Charlotte, so there was an option there. He was in the Majors all of 2002 so no option there. Unless there is something else to the option rules that i am missing, Garland has options to spare. wasnt '00 his first option year??...'01 his 2nd and '02 his 3rd??...we can send him up and down as many times as we want in those three years..options are years ,not individual times you go up and down..if that was the case josh paul would have been out of options in '01 the question is since he didnt start the '00 on the roster but was added later in the year does the '00 season count as an option year....i could be wrong on that counting as an option year...if it doesnt then yes job has one more year left garland signed and played in the cubs org in '97...so this is his 6th year in pro ball..again 6 years total puts a guy out of options too..but again does 97 count towards an option year since he played short season ball??....jon is definately ina gray area as far as my understanding of how all the diffferent types of options work Options only count once a player is put on the 40-man roster and when they are sent down to the Minors. So a player can be optioned to AAA in one year, then stay on the Major legue roster for 3 straight years and then get sent back down and it will still only be his 2nd option. The sixth year also does not apply. Six years applies to Minor League players who are not on the Major League 40-man roster. Once protected on the 40-man roster, The three option rule applies. You are correct that you can send a player up and down between the Majors and Minors in a given year as many times as you want and it only counts as one option. If a player spends the whole season in the Majors, no option is charged. So in Garland's case he should only have one or two options depending on when he was placed on the 40-man roster and if he was sent back to Charlotte after being promoted to the Sox in 2000 (I don't recall). He definitely used an option in 2001. He did not pitch in the Miinors in 2002, so no option used there. Unless I am missing something, then he has options left. The bigger question is what kind of contract does he have? If he has a guaranteed contract, then will the Sox want to send him down rather than Stewart who would be on a split contract (AAA pay if sent down)? If he still has a split contract then it would be less of an issue. But does money come into play if deciding between Garland and Stewart?

Cotts line: 6 IP 4 H O R 3 BB 5 K Ring with a 2-inning save.... Barons win 2-0

I'm pretty sure SI has the transcript in an issue from back then. Try a search of their archives maybe? But the quick version was... H - "Albert, how do you feel about the game tonight?" A - "How the f*** do you think I feel. What the f*** are you even doing in here? Get the f*** out of here." I love it when you talk dirty Steff.....

I wholeheartedly agree.

Are you sure about that? I think Jon has only only used one or two options in 2001 and maybe 2000 (not sure when he was put on the 40-man). Surely he wasn't on the 40-man in 1999 when he started at W-S. If I recall correctly, he was placed on the 40-man in 2000 but didn't he end the season in Chicago? Did he get sent down after he ws promoted to Chicago? He had a rehab start for Birmingham, but that does not count as an option. In 2001, he split between Chicago and Charlotte, so there was an option there. He was in the Majors all of 2002 so no option there. Unless there is something else to the option rules that i am missing, Garland has options to spare.

I think Omar Vizquel would be a more realistic choice for Sox SS in 2004, assuming that we don't keep Jose and that Jiminez is not the heir apparent.

HSC, you taking up for me? LOL

No offense whatsoever. Lost 6-1 again tonight.

No, you shut up I wasn't addressing strictly your post. Notice I didn't tell you to quit whining, it was a broad based comment. Maggs won't be put in CF unless it is an emergency, so you can lose that idea. Maximizing our offensive potential is much less important than maximizing our defense. There will be plenty of offense. If Frank, Paulie and CLee were hitting, you guys would be happy Rowand was playing good defense in CF. Give it a month and if Rowand is still struggling, then I'll come back and admit I am wrong as long as they give him a fair chance. Sending him to the bench right now would be the wrong move. If he should be benched, then I guess we should be sending Frank back to AAA too?

Actually, the Steinbrenner way of the 80's never produced a championship. He was constantly accused of meddling to the point of screwing up his teams.

Whine some more people. The Sox are winning and that is all that matters. You guys want to tinker when patience is needed. I would think it is a GOOD thing that we are winning yet not playing well. That bodes well for the time when we do put it all together. But if you must, go ahead and bring up Borchard to supply power. A guy that has ZERO home runs so far should do just that. f***in relax people. b**** if the Sox start losing. If not shut up and enjoy some victories. You tinker every time a guy has a bad week or two, all of a sudden you are screwing up the team's chemistry. Let's just go back to the old Steinbrenner days where constant change f***ed up everything and kept the team from winning.

If you are winning, then why do you need Borchard at all? WhiteSox 247 said it best. Rowand is certainly not the only guy out there not hitting, so let's just bench everybody. Daubach is not the answer because he cannot play CF. They will not move Maggs to CF so scratch that idea now. I honestly have never seen a bunch of fans whine and complain more about guys on a team that is winning. Do you really want everybody playing at World Series level right now? Wouldn't October be a better option? Quit your whining about Rowand until he is hitting .200 a month from now and the team is losing. Until then understand that... Sometimes the best option is to do NOTHING AT ALL. Read it and learn it!

Yep, booted a routine grounder with two outs in extra innings to allow the lead run to score. Also tried to complete a double play by making the throw to first with no one covering and all of the infielders yelling at him to hold the ball. Threw it into the dugout and the winning run scored in the bottom of the 11th or 12th against the Cubs AA club.

Ah hell, if Rowand continues to suck out there, and I haven't seen much to show that he isn't then you may just have things working. We could add a lefty bat in Daubach, but god will our range be terrible. Daubach isn't very good and neither is Carlos and Maggs will be below average out there. Easier solution, bring up Borchard's bat, imo. If were gonna play Maggs in center, to me it means that the other guys have failed, so why not bring up our golden boy Borchard. That being said I happen to like Rios and am not worried about letting him take over as the starter for now. Defensively he's not as good as Rowand, but its not quite as bad as an outfield with absolutely three no range guys cause at least Maggs has good range in right and Rios has more range in center then Maggs would. Again, I recommend patience with Rowand. No need to panic right now. Maggs will not be the CF.

I have yet to figure out why Shaffer is playing short. I always though Reyes future was at short, but they have been playing him at second and to me thats a mistake. I know some believe Reyes has to improve his defense, but for a minor league shortstop he wasn't all that bad, at least error wise. You can tell me if I'm wrong, but I'd think that Reyes has a heck of a lot more range than Shaffer. One word........ Daddy

Man I hate router issues! LOL

Ruddy won't see Birmingham until it is finally okay for them to bench Shaffer. Mark me down as one that is looking forward to that day.

Why would the Sox be playing Willie Harris at 2B everyday in AAA and not in the OF at all, if he was a legitimate option in CF for the Sox? Makes no sense.... I think we need to be patient with Rowand. I disagree with Soxfun and believe that Rowand is very capable of being an everyday outfielder. Rios is not the long term answer in CF for this year and if Borchard isn't ready, then we need to find a way for Rowand to produce. I don't think sitting him would help the situation. As long as the Sox keep winning, who cares if it takes Rowand or a few others longer to get hot than the others. Wins are what matters. If the Sox can keep finding ways to win, there is no need to panic over Rowand's slow start. Show him he is the guy and give him a shot of confidence. He'll be okay.

Continuing with Barons analysis..... -- To further illustrate my point about Durham, he has 21 strikeouts in only 44 AB's. -- Alvarez is htting only .216, but has 12 BB. Hopefully he will find the pop in his bat we expected. -- Hankins has 15 k's in 54 AB's which seems high, but I still like Hankins as a Minor League hitter. It is just too bad that is all he will ever be. Don't see the Majors for him. -- Durham at .136, Reyes at .220, and Sandoval is at .212. The top of the order is just not getting the job done. Only 10 walks between them too. -- In reality, the stories of this team are Cotts, Yofu and to a lesser degree Ring and Pacheco. West was much better in his last outing but still don't see him finding consistency anytime soon. -- Malone is a BB machine. If he ever finds it, he could make it big. If not, he will never even get to the Big Leagues. I just gave you a lot more than you asked for Jim, but I had already typed it all so this seemed easier.

I'll copy and paste what I posted on the other board....... This was in response to someone that thought Battersby was sitting because of the Ingram signing. Battersby is not going to supply the club with power. Battersby is sitting because Shaffer is playing SS so Sandoval moves to 3B. Which moves Hankins to 1B and Alvarez or Ingram to DH. If Alvarez was hitting, you would see Ingram play OF more. Battersby has played some OF also. Right now the lineup is getting shuffled because no one is hitting or getting on base consistently. But Shaffer is truly the guy keeping Battersby out of the lineup more often. Battersby wasn't playing full-time before Ingram got here. The following lineup is idea in my opinion... C Maldonado or Aceves 1B Battersby 2B Sandoval SS Reyes 3B Hankins LF Ingram CF Durham RF Bikowski DH Alvarez Piniella would get 3-4 games a week in LF or CF with different guys sitting so not to take too many AB's away from them. Shaffer would play 2-3 times a week because daddy wants him to. At this point, I don't see a big difference between Maldonado and Aceves. Piniella is hitting .222. But Backman likes Piniella and finds ways to work him into the linuep. Durham is really the one that should be sitting right now. He has absolutely no confidence at all. So little that he tried to bunt for a hit the other night on an 0-2 count. FWIW, Battersby is no more a prospect than Ingram. Ingram has been hitting the ball hard, just not far enough. I saw at least 3 or 4 AB's last week where he smashed a line drive that drove the OF back toward the warning track, but wasn't hit far enough to get over his head. He has only struck out 4 times in 18 AB's so that is good for him. He'll come around. His HR potential gets respect which helps other hitters. Battersby is one of the best defensive 1B I have ever seen, but just doens't have any real pop at the plate. Pitching staffs do not fear pitching to him. They will be careful with Ingram at least.

What time was this, because I had no problem getting in and I was up late. Not sure when the last time I logged on here was, though.

But then we decided they were SOMEWHAT useful I must not have been present for that vote.

Chisoxfn - I am saving you from taking the time to do a Minor League report on last night. Barons lost 6-1. They are not a good team. Everyone else got rained out. Did I leave anything out? LOL

I thought we weren't going to let them back in?