Wong & Owens

Me and my 3 cohorts, who haven't missed a home opener since 1988, just got completely screwed on the tickets we were supposed to get. We're now trying to get into the lower bowl, so if anybody has any leads on somebody looking to move some seats, we'd be happy to take them off their hands. Otherwise, I guess I'll bring my telescope for section 540.

Yeah, I guess baffled wasn't the correct word to use there. I realize that when you give a lot of money to a "closer," you better get every penny's worth out of him.

With you 100% on that one Jim. Another one of my favorites is when a reliever enters the game say halfway through the seventh, gets an easy out or 2, then mows them down in the 8th on 12 pitches. The closer comes in for the 9th, and promptly blows the lead. Why they don't just leave the other guy in constantly baffles me.

Anybody whining about how the season is over after one friggin game needs to be taken outside and shot(that's just a joke, please don't reply with any PC crap about how I shouldn't be asking for people to be shot). I believe the Sox won their opener the last two years, and that sure wasn't a harbinger of good things to come. You know what team currently holds the longest opening day victory streak with 4? The Devil Rays. Think anyone in Tampa is getting ready for the playoffs? Relax all you Chicken Littles, the Sox will be just fine.

Has any member of this site ever been convicted of murdering another member? If the Sox go on a 5-game losing streak, I'm heading for Canada.

Let's try this: if I remark "I am great" when talking about my arm health, it doesn't necessarily mean that "I am getting ready for the induction ceremony". What it does mean, however, is that health-wise I am fine, something that allows me to further showcase my talent (or lack thereof). That's not what is being said in this sentence at all. Take this to a 5th-grade English teacher, and ask him/her what they make of it. Your inability to say what you mean, added to your blaming me for misconstruing what is simply stated there in black and white, is what's truly annoying.

No, but I'm sure you'll wisely blame it on a coach who's never coached them.

No, he went into more detail as to why, but Christ, does anybody need to read another article on why the Yankees, Angels or A's are the favorites to win?

Now Juan Cruz has reached the "great" level. Fantastic.

Barcelo & Rauch = HOF'ers? Sirotka = Ace? Stumm and Malone = dominant JB = All-Star? You really think he ever duplicates that one half of a season? Injury or no injury? You're joking, right? Biddle = nasty stuff? In the MINORS, maybe Ginter, Ulacia, West = great minor league numbers = proves nothing = never touched by Nardi Contreras

Barcelo and Rauch, HOF-caliber prospects. You blamed Nardi.

I just read an article from him on ESPN.com. I like him as an announcer, but his columns leave a lot to be desired. In his preview of the 2003 season, he thinks the A's, Yankees, and Angels are the top competitors for the AL crown. Well, thanks Joe, you really provided some in depth analysis there.

Knob-lauch!, Knob-lauch! Hey, where'd that bolt of lightning come from? That hurt!

I like those numbers, and if you're right, I would say that bodes well for the Sox's chances this year.

Not debating their futures? You had basically all but started the HOF plaque engraving on about 6 pitchers that haven't thrown more than 50 major league innings!?!?!?!? How is Nardi Contreras responsible for minor league pitchers' injuries? The only(I think the only, if I missed someone or two, I apologize) pitchers you mentioned that pitched under Nardi's watch long enough to make a case for are Sirotka, and maybe Parque. Fogg and Wells' success? Fogg was 12-12 with a 4.35 ERA, and Wells was 12-14 with a 3.58 ERA. I would hardly call Fogg's season a success to the point that you can say the Sox staff mishandled him, and OK, Wells had a fine season, let's see if he can do it more than once before we say that Sox Coaches screwed him up. As for all those others you mentioned, their accomplishments have been in the minor leagues, which was my point in the first place--minor league success NEVER guarantees any level of success in the big leagues, regardless of their "stuff" or what any scouts say about them. None of these pitchers have anywhere near a large enough body of work by which one can determine if they have been poorly coached, managed, developed, whatever.

Eassssssy, Mr. Conspiracy Theory. First off, the number of major league pitchers that will never spend time recuperating from an arm injury are very few. With the exception of some freaks of nature, Johnson, Clemens, Maddux, even most very good pitchers get hit with arm injuries. Kevin Brown, Jaret Wright, Joe Mays, Matt Anderson, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettitte, Orlando Hernandez, Pedro Martinez, Pat Hentgen, Scott Erickson, Chris Carpenter, Wilson Alvarez, Alex Fernandez, Gil Meche, Ryan Anderson, Ken Cloude, Jarrod Washburn, Aaron Sele, Jeff Zimmerman, Jason Isringhausen, Billy Koch, Kevin Millwood, Kerry Wood, Jon Lieber, Kris Benson, Matt Mantei, Shane Reynolds, Billy Wagner, Wade Miller, Matt Morris, Pedro Astacio is just a very short list of pitchers ranging from good to great to "HOF ceiling" prospect, that have all suffered arm injuries. The fact of the matter is that the human arm is NOT constructed to throw repeatedly at high velocities, nor is it built to handle the stress of throwing repeated breaking balls. Using your logic, every pitching coach on every team, major and minor league, is responsible for ruining careers. Now, I'm no fan of Nardi, but he can't be held responsible for screwing up minor league players he had nothing to do with developing. Easy it is to forget that he was a genius in 2000, getting a Central Division championship out of a rotation of Sirotka, Parque, Eldred, Baldwin, and whoever. Even if all 4 of those guys are 100% healthy right now, I don't think more than 3 major league teams would swap their rotations for them. Finally, you seem to put a lot of stock in "independent scouting reports." Well, simply put, scouts are wrong--a lot. I would have no problem betting everything I own that for every 1 "can't miss" prospect that makes it, there are 3 that didn't come close. How many rounds are in the draft, 3000? How many players are in a team's minor league system? All those players are there because some scout somewhere thought they could make it to the MLB. What percentage actually pans out? I have no idea, but I'm sure it's very small. Now, we have a good team to look forward to, and whining about Nardi or Terry Bevington or whoever isn't going to bring Donn Pall back again. The chips have fallen, and we still have a mighty fine squad. The real enemy is not coaches, ex-coaches, or scouts, it is the Minnesota Twins.

Here you go: Book it: Sox will succeed Sometimes image really is everything. Otherwise how do you possibly explain Sports Illustrated's curious viewpoint on Chicago's two baseball teams? When SI's annual baseball issue arrived in my mailbox Wednesday afternoon, I stopped what I was doing and ripped it open. It was no surprise to find the Minnesota Twins, and not the White Sox, picked to win the American League Central. While I would reverse that order, few other analysts with a national perspective seem to have noticed the Twins won many more games than they should have last season. I see fragile pitchers and underachieving hitters. Everyone else, it seems, sees a good team that will be better this year. Ken Rosenthal, a respected voice from The Sporting News, ranks Minnesota as the No. 1 team in the majors. ESPN's Peter Gammons picks the Twins to lead the AL in victories. That speaks loudly, considering that Oakland has averaged 103 the last two seasons and that the New York Yankees are spending $164 million on player payroll. When you spend a ton of money, you ought to win a lot of games. That's a good place to bring the Cubs into the discussion. ESPN and other outlets have been saying nice things about Dusty Baker and his new team all spring. This is more than a little puzzling to those who watch them regularly. The Cubs were the biggest flop in the majors in 2002, spending $76 million to go 67-95. They addressed only one of their many needs in the off-season (installing new guts in the bullpen) and have had a miserable spring. Yet there they are on SI's ranking of the 30 major-league teams—a proud No 14. That's one spot higher than the White Sox, who won 81 games last season, have since added Bartolo Colon and Billy Koch and are wrapping up a quietly productive spring. Amazing. Take 94 years of getting them next year, add ivy, Sammy Sosa and Baker and you have yourself a product with presence, if not shelf life. And unless the subject is bad ballparks or unpopular superstars, the White Sox remain perpetual afterthoughts. But there's no comparisons between these rosters. The Sox have six players who drove in at least 75 runs last year, the Cubs have one (and the Twins have only two). The Sox have two starting pitchers who each won more games last year than Kerry Wood and Mark Prior did together. The Sox's closer had 25 more saves and five fewer blown saves than the Cubs' closer—who, by the way, already is hurt. And still SI says the Cubs are a better team? It might make sense if the issue was dated April 1, but it's not. Some quick observations as I get ready to break out a new scorebook: The Sox, a sleeping giant since winning 95 games in 2000, have the kind of team—that is, one with a deep bullpen and power throughout the lineup—that can go a long way if they make the playoffs. How far could they go? Well, despite an understanding of Chicago's woeful history in the postseason (the White Sox and Cubs have combined to lose their last 14 playoff series), I'm on record picking them to go to the World Series. There. I actually wrote the sentence and haven't yet turned to stone. Sure, a Series pick is a major reach, but I think it's likely that they will not just make the playoffs but become the first Chicago team to win an October series—even if it's just the first round—since the Sox won the 1917 Series. It's a given they are going to score a ton of runs. When you can hit Joe Crede seventh, you're on to something. The keys are the table-setters, D'Angelo Jimenez and Jose Valentin, and limiting the opponents' scoring. Don Cooper's pitching staff is much deeper than most acknowledge, and there's depth beyond the 25-man roster. Joe Borchard, Aaron Miles, Willie Harris, Josh Stewart, Dave Sanders, Arnie Munoz, Edwin Almonte and Felix Diaz all could wind up on a playoff roster if the Sox do what it takes to beat Minnesota in a two-team race. Remember Juan Cruz's 2002 season? The kid pitched well early, allowing three earned runs or less in eight of his first nine starts, but the Cubs scored only 3.3 runs per game behind him. Eventually he grew frustrated and crumbled. That's a likely scenario for the Cubs in Baker's first season. They have a lot of pitching—Wood, Prior, Matt Clement, Carlos Zambrano and the rebuilt bullpen—but only one reliable run producer (Sosa) in the lineup. The Cubs were 11th in the National League with 706 runs last year and aren't likely to improve, not when they have a rookie (Hee Seop Choi) hitting fifth and all four 136-strikeout guys still in the lineup. Moises Alou (two homers in 42 at-bats) has shown few signs of a NL Comeback Player of the Year performance, and Sosa's so-so spring (13-for-39 with two homers) is a carryover from last September, when his age showed. Doesn't look like a contender to me, but maybe general manager Jim Hendry can pull off a big trade—something like Kyle Farnsworth and Bobby Hill for Mark Buehrle and Magglio Ordonez.

Sure feels good to see an article like this first thing in the morning: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...ome%2Dheadlines

It's a good day for Sox fans!

I'm not sure they won't send Olivo down

One thing about that Rosenthal article that I didn't like is that he assumes what most writers mistakenly assume--that the Twins starters were all that good to begin with. IMO, and if you look at their numbers, only Radke stands out as being anything close to above-average. Milton's career numbers are weak, Mays only pitches well against the Sox, Reed is average, and Lohse/Kinney are unproven rookies. The reason the Twins could win without those starters is because the guys they replaced them with were probably better pitchers(except in Radke's case.) That bullpen really is what did it for them last year, and you guys are right, Hawkins, Guardado, etc. were all pitching out of their minds at the same time. However, since the Sox are something like 11-36 against the Twins over the last few years, I think anybody who would pick us over them is just hedging their bets. It's always easier to pick the team that was better last year.

I'm glad the writers are all picking the Twins--how often do they EVER get it right? I think most writers picked the Sox in the Central last year, and I'd bet that zero writers picked the Sox to win in 2000. For the most part, writers have no better understanding of who's going to win than anybody on this board. Their job is to provoke reactions and create discussion and argument.

That's fine, if we were the Royals or Tigers. But, we are competing for the playoffs here--not the best time to be auditioning rookies for trade possibilities.

Why do the Sox need another starter at this point?

Here's my guess: Konerko, Jimenez, Valentin, Crede, Ordonez, Rowand, Lee, Alomar, Paul, Thomas, Graffanino, Daubach, Rios Buehrle, Colon, Garland, Wright, Loaiza, Koch, Marte, Wunsch, White, Glover, Gordon, Stewart