Rex Hudler

The Trib has an article writtin by Rogers that says the Orioles are looking at Carlos Lee as well as Griffey. I doubt it will happen, but Joe B. could force them to consider it. I just don't see he Sox really having any needs at the Major League level right now and I don't think you trade a guy like Carlos for Minor Leaguers. No need to rock the boat at this point.

So, Method, do I remember it correctly that it only went 4 1/2 or 5 innings?

It's just one of those things you hear beginning in LL. One of my other favorites is when you hear coaches and dads yelling at the batter to "get his elbow up", which is exactly the wrong thing to do. What they should be saying is get your elbows down and your hands up. No relevance here, just one of those things you always here that happens to be incorrect.

Again, mac, that is not the game I am speaking about. Maybe I read the report wrong, but I swear they stopped the game after Schilling was done. If I could get onto World Crossing, I'd copy the whole report. Sorry

Not to a completely healthy player who is able to strongly contribute. I think Alomar is a much better option than Paul so why would the Sox want him on the DL if he can play a couple of times a week? In the Ritchie deal, I don't have firsthand knowledge of it. Perhaps the union didn't say anything because they were trying to protect him. I guess certain situations could gain the blessing of both the player and the union, but I would think they would be rare.

Keep in mind that trades definitely could come into play late in ST. Also, some of the vets signed to Minor League deals like Daubach, Heredia and Loaiza may not accept an assignment to AAA, but rather ask for their release.

Method, I can't buy the "phantom DL" argument for Sandy. The player's union would never allow it. I know it is done in the Minor Leagues, but the player's union is too strong to allow that to happen. I have never heard of that happening in the Major Leagues. Perhaps it could, but I would be hard pressed to see it. I agree with everyone about keeping only two catchers. I think JP would clear waivers on his way to Charlotte. There are a lot of veteran catchers out there that will end up in AAA that would be better options than JP. If they lose him, they can always pick up another catcher via trade. It would merely cost them a "player to be named" or a mid-level Minor Leaguer. Rios is on a Major League contract where Daubach is on a Minor League deal. The Sox do have some room to add to their 40-man roster (2 spots, I think?) so Daubach is a possibility, but I can't see him instead of Rios. I think they will keep both Daubach and Rios. Harris could be a candidate to be sent down, but I think they would prefer to keep him and Graffy. A lot depends on JM's desire to carry 12 pitchers. With all of the off games in Apri, I don't think that is necessary, but he and Coop know their pitchers and what they can do in colder weather better than I do.

You're talking about the wrong game. The game I am speaking of was on the Minor League fields and involved Minor League players not in big league camp, except Schilling. Schilling finished an inning, but wanted more work, so he stayed on the mound and pitched to two extra batters. Go to World Crossing when it comes back up tomorrow and read the report. I was not there, but got the report from someone who sat there and watched it. There was no TV or radio. The Sox played a different game that night. Perhaps you are thinking of that one or the first game of ST when Schilling pitched against the big boys?

Well, aside from the fact that you replied to a partial quote, you're still wrong. You cannot tell me that if an ump feels like he made a mistake earlier in the game that he will not subconsciously make up for it later in the game if the opportunity presents itself. If you disagree, that's fine - but I feel you would be wrong to do so. Assuming they aren't already biased, as I already said before, they will call it right down the middle as best they can. But if there are a few toughies, they're basically going to even out. The ump makes a judgement call, and unless he's rooting for 1 team over the other, he will do his best to make sure the "tough calls" get divided up evenly -- they say they "call em as they see em", but they're only human. Let's respond to your whole quote then........ You say "he will do his bestto make sure the tough calls get divided up evenly". That statement in itself eliminates the idea of subconscious evening up, which is the point you just tried to make. However, "making sure" does not equal the subconscious mind doing anything. It refers to conscious decisions. This argument is pointless, because until you have ever been on a field and umpired a real baseball game at a reasonably high level, then you cannot know what goes on in the mind of the umpire. Believe me or not, but evening up does not occur intentionally. Sure the subconscious affects decisions and judgement. That is human. Sometimes an infielder makes a nearly impossible play and mentally the umpire is thinking base hit. He throws out the runner by a hair and the umpire calls him safe. That is missed call and happens because subconsciously he had already decided the play. Those things happen from time to time, but not very often. Umpires would not be at that level if they could minimize instances where they make the wrong call, whether subconsciously driven or not. I'll repeat, when a ball is hit, the umpire focuses on seeing and hearing what he is supposed to and he does not notice the uniform of the players involved. Think what you want, but I umpired for 9 years, several at the D-I and D-II collegiate level and never did I even up. If you screw up, you eat it and move on to get the next one right. The TV commentators or players that speak of "make-up calls" are guys who have never walked in an umpires shoes, plain and simple.

"tough calls" get divided up evenly That is not even close to true. An umpire makes a call as he sees it at that moment. Yes he is human and they make mistakes, but I assure you that when the ball is put in play, the umpire is not thinking about who got the last close call. He looks, sees the play and calls it. It makes no difference whatsoever what happened on the last call, or the one before that, or the one...... You get the idea.

Can we give the guy a break? This was his first or second appearance in big league camp. He may turn out to be great or he may end up sucking, but neither will be because he has a few outings in ST.

They are changing over to new servers and had a planned down time for last night and today, but it looks like they ran into some problems. They should be back up tomorrow. Method, would you agree with my assessment that the World Crossing board can be much more spirited? That's not a knock on this board, but those guys go at it back and forth daily. It's comical sometimes.

Not that it matters, but actually it was split-squad game. How could it be a split-squad game when they only played 4 1/2 innings and quit when Schilling had enough?

The thing is there is no tie. The umpire has to decide which happened first. It is humanly impossible to decipher whether they got there at the "exact" same time, so the decision is made. Think of it this way...... when an umpire makes a call at first, he looks at the bag for the runners foot and listens for the sound of the ball hitting the 1Bman's glove. There is no way he can see both at the same time. So theoretically, if he hears the sound at the same time as he sees the foot hit the bag, then the runner is out. Here's why.... The speed of sound travels slower than the speed of light (vision). So, if the sound is heard at the same time as the foot is seen to hit the bag, then the sound actually occurred fractions of a second sooner because of the slower speed sound travels. Now an umpire isn't going to use that explanation on a Major League manager who came out to argue. He will just say that the ball beat him. The bottom line is it is a judgement call and the judgement must be made as to which happened first. In an umpire's mind, there is no tie. So if you hear a big league announcer ever say that, then you know he doesn't know what he is talking about and is just spewing what everyone else has heard forever.

You hit it on the head. My guess is that if they come close to a long term deal and negotiations go well, but they don't get it done, then they may agree to a one year deal a little higher than the $430k. Just a thought.

I believe so. I think they are pretty generous, but in my example, if a pitcher comes into a 10-0 game and the game ends 10-5, then they probably don't give him the save. I think it is kind of like a stolen base late in the game when the defense doesn't even try to stop it, they don't give a SB, but rule it a fielder's choice or "catcher's indifference".

Straight from the "Official Baseball Rules" on MLB.com SAVES FOR RELIEF PITCHERS 10.20 Credit a pitcher with a save when he meets all three of the following conditions: (1) He is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his club; and (2) He is not the winning pitcher; and (3) He qualifies under one of the following conditions: (a) He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning; or (B) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat, or on deck (that is, the potential tying run is either already on base or is one of the first two batsmen he faces); or © He pitches effectively for at least three innings. No more than one save may be credited in each game. Of course, I have to do it the hard way the first time around.......

Rauch with a tough start. Allowed 5 hits and 2 walks in 3 innings. Only one of his three runs were earned, but the two errors that caused the runs were both HIS. Random boxscore observations........ Munoz with another scoreless frame. Borch came back to reality a little with an 0-fer. Miles played in both games today. Had 2 hits in the day game if I recall correctly and 1 tonight. Jiminez went 1-1 and added 2 BB. Sox only had 6 hits.

BlackSox is actually the one that got me to visit this board. He is a regular at worldcrossing.com and an excellent contributor.

Two interesting tidbits in that regard..... Ever hear "the hand is part of the bat"? That is one of the biggest incorrect assumptions in baseball. The hand is NOT part of the bat. If a player is hit while swinging it is a dead ball and a strike, whether it hits him in the hand or square in the face. If it hits his hand and he is not swinging, it is a hit by pitch and the batter goes to first. The only gray area is when the ball gets some bat and some hand. If the umpire hears the crack of the wood, unless he can see red marks or swelling on the hand, he'll likely go with what he heard. The other one everyone has heard is "the tie goes to the runner". There is no such thing as a tie and nowhere does the rule book mention a tie. It says the runner is out if the ball reaches first before the runner. I says he is safe if the runner beats the ball. It is one or the other and the decision has to be made. In 8 years of umpiring I never saw a tie. He was safe or out, but not safe because of a tie. Enough rambling, I just decided to take a walk down memory lane.

In a long term deal, I think Buehrle wants 4 years, not 3. It think it is more about years than $$. If the multi-year deal doesn't happen, then he will likely settle in around $430k - $450k. I personally think that is too low, but the Sox are saying they are keeping him in line with the $425k Maggs got at the same point. To me, not counting somewhat for the $100,000 raise in the minimum makes it a raw deal. None of us were at the bargaining table last year with the player's union either, so perhaps this is fallout from those negotiations? To contradict myself, I have noticed that other teams are doing some of the same things. There was an article in a MN paper that the Twins policy is that if a player and the team cannot come to an agreement on a contract, the Twins automatically chop $10,000 off their previous offer and renew the contract automatically. So basically, by not accepting the team's offer, they lose ANOTHER $10k. There was another article in the USA Today, I believe about other teams renewing contracts of young players at lower rates than expected. Plus (as was posted on here yesterday) the Yankees renewed Soriano at $800k (made $630k last year), only a 27% raise. For a guy with his numbers to get only a 27% raise, perhaps it is not just the Sox that are playing hardball.

I used to umpire so I read the rulebook cover to cover every year, but it has been a good 8 or 9 years since I have done that, though. For what it is worth, I recommend that for off-season reading. You'd be amazed at the little things you never knew.

The other board I like to follow is at www.worldcrossing.com. The name of the board is Chicago White Sox. The format is a bit different than this one, but to me it is easier to follow. The guys/gals who post are big-time Sox fans and very knowlegable and passionate. The guy that has been in Tucson has given detailed reports daily on each game he has seen this past 5 days or so. The board is a little different than this board in that the people are very opinionated and often argue passionately those opinions. I find the arguments quite humorous, but it could offend some. I encourage you to visit the board and post there as well if you like. It is definitely NOT comparable to WSI or whitesox.com boards. These guys know their stuff and are on top of the Sox from the Big League club all the way down to A Ball. We can always use Sox fans with something intelligent to add! Hope to see you there sometime. As I have proven, you can do both.

This wasn't widely publicized but the Sox played a B game (not a split-squad) Tuesday against the Diamondbacks on their minor league fields. I don't have a lot of details, but it was reported on another board I follow by a guy that is out in Tucson and that went to the game. Basically, they used Sox Minor Leaguers (non 40-man roster guys) in an abbreviated game against the D'backs so Curt Schilling could get some work. Apparently he won't pitch against any NL West teams in ST so they have to adapt on occasion The game went 4 1/2 innings with Shilling pitching all of them for AZ and Honel starting for the Sox. I can't remember who else pitched for the Sox. The details are shaky, but I remember guys mentioned like Anthony Webster, Scott Bikowski, and Thomas Brice. There is a much better write up about it on the other board (see next post) but the board is down for maintenance until Thursday around noon. I encourage you to check it out.

I'm gonna try and come close, but may not be exact. There are three ways... 1. When a pitcher enters the game with a lead of thee runs or less and finishes that game without relinquishing the lead. 2. When a pitcher enters the game (regardless of the lead) with the tying run at the plate or in the on-deck circle and finishes that game without relinquishing the lead. For example, Koch comes into a 5-0 game in the 9th inning with the bases loaded. He would qualify because the potential tying run is on deck. This is the one I may be off on, but I think I got it right. 3. When a pitcher pitches three or more innings effectively without relinquishing the lead he inherited. Again, he must finish the game to earn the save. This is kind of the BS save rule, because a guy can enter a 10-0 game and pitch the 7th, 8th and 9th and get a save. If i missed something or was off on any of this, please correct me. This was off the top of my head and it has been years since I have seen it all in print.