BrandoFan

Can we win ALC with Buerhle as our ace? Probably not. Can we win WS with Buerhle as our ace? Definately not. I mean, common his peripherals have been slipping in the last 2 years, he has not ONE special pitch (before you point to Zito, he has a HOF curveball he can throw with different speeds and tilt and which bails him out all the time....while Maddux is just special period) and has YET to truly excel in big games against tough opponents- most of his excellence in 2001 and 2002 came when Sox were playing weak teams, while 10-15 games out of first themselves. We need an ACE (with E-lo as #2 and B-mon #3) and we need a legit #4 to push Garland into the more comfortable #5 slot where Rauch and possibly Cotts will give him some competition.

It's called proliferation of the fittest. Face it, ex-ESPN'ers are a superior race.

Poor Magglio.....an anxiety tear rolls down his cheek as he stares out of his exclusive Aleutian Islands resort condo, wearily waving to Jack Nicholson jogging by the cliffs below, then struggles to lick grade-A caviar off his wife's even hotter friend's enormous tits. Heartbreaking ordeal this whole thing is.

Beastly, good job. Next time be a tad more subtle in your addressing members of other boards, you'll be even more effective than way.

Holy s***, GASH, I did THAT??!! I feel like a complete f***ing ASS now. Couldn't you tell I wasn't serious? You made the Top 5 (there are hundreds of members on this site) in voting, how "irrelevant" can you be?! My goodness. I only WISH my posts got same attention/hits as yours. But if you feel like taking a break for 3-4 months to concentrate on other things, I HIGHLY recommend it. I've got only 2 more weeks of posting left myself.

You mean to tell me Ponson is NOT coming to the Sox for 3/18 afterall? I am positively shocked!

Well I'll be f***ed! They think they better than us, don't they, the little bastards?

You just lost cool points, buddy. Don't ruin your newly-gained reputation on SoxTalk. PAY for it this time around, be a man. And make your dad and brother pay money, too.

Is it like a WhiteSox message board like Soxtalk or another type board? And Nomads, sound very f***ing familiar.....Did he post on ESPN like in 2000? Strange.

OF COUSE I WOULD! What I was questioning is whether or not 19 and 20yo pitchers are gonna have much impact in 2004 and 2005 (cup o coffee meaningless games notwithstanding). The thread started with me wanting a Maggs for Miller and Jackson deal, afterall. Miller is gonna throw "high-90s with ease"? Are you f***ing serious? Don't you mean he'll throw 92-93 touching 95 at times? The way organizations inflate velocities is ridiculous. Once upon a time I suggested a 22yo Mark Prior would be scary good in 2003. I was jumped on for being an idiot who bought into the Cubbie hype. Now I hear these talks of LA having not one but two 19yo Mark Priors (two!) in their system and I am supposed to be into the hype? The only truly impressive thing about them is the fact they are exactly 1 year ahead of the curve. My original point was that if LA don't wanna give up Mota, just WHO are the trying to peddle to us? Perez? Perez for Maggs?

It comes as no secret that I wanted LaRussa to come back to the Sox and thought Wally Backman's style would have been disaster with this team- he would have ran Sox out of innnings and Maggs, Lee and Jose's hamtrings into the ground by June, to say nothing of alienating half the veteran team we had back in September.. BUT I wanted ANYTHING over Ozzie, so I was suprised when they weren't talking about Wally B at all. i don't get this organization sometimes.

Oh no, don't get me wrong, a mid-to-high 3.00 ERA in NL is still pretty damn impressive even if it shows that it's easier to come into the league as a 22yo and be dominant in RELIEF and then find out that STARTING is a totally different beast and regress. Hence my distrust of Jackson's cup o coffee perfomance (too many baserunners, too), especially given his rather human, for someone of his caliber of course, AA numbers....Still, Pedro of Dodgers had very little to do with Pedro of 1997 and beyond, which further shows how hard it is for 20-22yo pitchers, no matter how talented, to consistently beat major league hitters. And even when they succeed, they often go into sophomoric slumps and relapses. In fact, I am not sure why I even picked Pedro as he weakens my arguement to an extent. I should have gone with Shilling, Unit, Brown, Mulder, Hudson, Maddux, Clemens, Garcia, Glavine, Beckett, Sheets, Vaquez, Millwood, Colon, Ortiz-- phenoms who didnt truely put up the numbers scouts expected them to until they were 23+. Certainly not even close to 19 or 20. And, yeah, going back to 2002, Sox 5th Starters were abominable, but if we do do this deal with LA (say, Perez, Mota and Jackson for Maggs and 2 A-minus prospects) and free up cash for Ponson, that would mean Perez is #4 and we have GARLAND as out 5th starter, and I fully expect John to post a low-4.00 ERA, especially if we have a 1B who can actually field challenging grounders......which means Jackson's projected 2004 numbers are not a necessity but a luxury. Can we give up our biggest offensive threat for such a luxury? Given Jackson's probable production as a 23yo in 2006 and beyond, I still say yeah, I guess. Was I so crazy to expect Maggs + prospects for Miller, Perez AND Jackson? Ok anyway, given that they lack Rich Harden/Mark Prior-esque jaw-dropping numbers in the minors, TELL ME WHAT YOU LOVE SO MUCH ABOUT THEM IN TERMS OF CONTROL/STUFF AND WHAT DO YOU THINK PUTS THEM IN THE CLASS OF THEIR OWN.

No, you're a twice-decorated SS Counter-Intel Gruppenfurer on the trail of the "red troll a capella".

Brilliant musicians are SUCH big babies.... Now actors, on the other hand....

Get your mind out of the gutter, wino. I saw it on the Discovery Channel.

For someone who is one of the best prospects to ever come down the pipe and was supposedly "almost" scheduled to pitch in the MAJORS when Dodgers fell out of contention this year, the above numbers are nowhere NEAR mind-blowing. Ryan Wing, who you will agree is not a phenom by a long shot, put up BETTER numbers (ok, not better but close) in A-ball. I am not sure about Cotts, but Honel and Malone too excelled on that level too, didn't they? And neither of those two is/was "comparable to Prior". Ever. There are a ton of pitchers who can post 3.70 ERA in AA and almost as many who can post 2.50 ERA in AA......all the while having similar "stuff": low-90s fastball, nasty curve, developing change, etc. Of course, Miller and Jackson are a year ahead of their peers, they wouldn't be "special" if they weren't. It's just that what they can do FOR White Sox in the next couple of years is all I care about.

Correction: an admittedly one-side point of view. OF COURSE Dodgers get hosed on it, but their semi-desperation may play into our hands (and vice versa), especially if we toss a prospect or two of our own their way. I am worried about 2004 mostly, and about 2005 a little too. If Sox won't win the division and attract big crowds in the that timespan....god help us. .....and adjusting for our park and DH-ridden league, that's, what, 4.50 ERA, would you say? Pretty average numbers if you ask me. Also, there is NO way in HELL Greg Miller pitches in the majors in 2004, which means you probably have to project similar numbers for him for 2005....which in turn means we must postpone his superstardom until at least 2006 when he will be all of....TWENTY TWO??? What a lucky kid. Pedro (an exception to all exceptions, you do realize?) did post excellent numbers as a 22yo reliever, you're right......and then proceeded to regress over the next 3 years as a starter......until he finally became what he is now in 1997 as a 26yo. But, again, this is Pedro. Fair enough. In any case, we agree more than you think we do, especially with respect to our ghastly #5 starters......but I will hold my reservations about Miller and Jackson for another year or two until I see more of them.

One of them is maggsmaggs, I remember him starting rumor threads in the last week or so, and I wondered how we got so lucky as to have such an "insider" in our ranks.

Correction: the deal is officially 99% dead-- broken clock and all that.

NAZI F.A.G

Aren't we in re-build mode since 1998? 5 years, 1 playoff trip, 0 playoff wins. The lottery of having Lee, Maggs, Konerko, Burhle, Foulke, Loaiza, Marte, Kip Wells, Garland play for PEANUTS is just about over as well. Now the payroll constraints are gonna come into play and our GM-y is gonna have to start earninbg his pay. Without a Prior/Beckett-esque ace, we'll get crushed in the first round, and we lose Maggs/Nomar either way. But NOT putting a PLAYOFFF team on the field is even WORSE as far as long-term popularity and success of this organization goes. Common, Danny Evans, make it easier on us, give us Miller and Jackson and we'll give you Maggs. It will simplify everything for us.

Not bad, roughly 3 Mill a year. Good defense, good speed, average bat, grinder. Excelled under pressure in 2002. Only 28 years old.

The terms, what are the TERMS?

So he gets 4.5 Mill in arbitration. So Konerko is making 8 Million....I'll take Konerko's ceiling over Perez's. We're getting a #4 starter and save about 3.5 Mil. Throw in Pacheco/Diaz and make it happen. Give them Ginter to shut them up. My god is Evans annoying or what.

Is it my understanding that Danny Evans would rather eat razor blades than give KW anything of value? Giving up both Rauch and Cotts is so f***ing short-sighted it's not even funny. While they are not going to help the Sox in terms of starting rotation, their effectiveness might increase as inning-eaters in BP (where they can learn ala Burhle and Barcelo in 2000), especially the former.