BrandoFan

Common, that's way too subtle. Again, as I explained before, it boiled down to this: 1. When JR was thinking whether to pay MJ 30 Mill or not back in '96, it was basically "pay and buy yourself a championship"....or "not". JR had to be out of his mind not to pay Michael that amount- it wasn't generosity as much as it was common sense. In fact, if he had to do it all over again, JR would have done everything in his power to keep Bulls together another 2-3 years. 2. There was little-to-no risk. With the Sox there is a HUGE risk, so you're simply NOT going to see "generosity" JR showed with the Bulls. Not onless attendance and ratings and sales go through the roof and stay there.

Except that he DID- in almost every start with the White Sox he was sweating Borowski and his control was bloody AWFUL.

That was an INSANE match, a marathon in the best sense of the word- not a single point of the 5+-hour match was boring! One of those games when it doesn't even matter who wins it because both are winners....Qualityiwse, nothing beats Sampras-Agassi match of the 2001 US Open where there wasn't a SINGLE serve break! Federer? I first saw him absolutely DESTROYING Pete Sampras in 2000 Winmbledon and thought to myself, "Who IS this guy?!". At that time, Pete was simply unbeatable on grass, losing only one in 1997 to Kraichek, so what Roger did looked surreal. Then he disappeared for a couple of years.

Pre-injury Rauch I saw threw 91-93, reaching 94-05 range only when needed. Kinda like Kip Wells before he moved to Pittsburgh. Which is fine since Zito and Moyer live in mid-80's, and they don't have the luxury of being closer to the plate because of 6'11 height and long arms, mind you. He also had a solid slider, promising change, a very good 12-6 curveball and a good fastball. Factor in his height, both angle- and distance-wise, and he was going to be a STUD from what I saw given his pretty good control. If he ever gets healthy (labrums injuries are almost impossible to come back fully from), he'll be good. 4.50 ERA is right around league average. If he can't deliver that, he might as well stay in AAA.

He was a big underachiver until he was 29, which is equavalent to 34 in baseball- the point at which players start declining severely. What he's done in the last 4 years NOBODY expected him to do considering his playboy/lousy work ethic youth. Now it's just a matter of Andre taking more chances on the court- he can't afford long rallies anymore with his old legs. If he can't take more chances and keep unforced errors down, he will never be #1 again. He lives and dies with firepower, and against Federer he simply lacked it.

Yes they are. Andre is a legendary hitter, but Federer hits the ball from INSANE angles, and unlike Andre, he has a VERY good serve-volley game which should only get better. The only knock on Roger is his youth- he loses focus when things don't go his way and someitmes runs out of gas in long matches, something that's probably related to half-assed conditioning. With dedication and hardwork, this dude has a chance to be the first man in history to win 15 MAJORS.

Granted I don't know (or care about) the full extent of Bulls Saga, BUT.... 1. The difference between Sox and Bulls is that Bulls were one of the 5 greatest dynasties, with super-competitive teams from 1990 to 1996 even with M-Jeffs first retirement. JR knew that by paying the full cap amount, he was almost guaranteed a Championsip.......Where even if he were to spend 200 Mill on the Sox, he is guaranteed s***. 2. Bulls are in DEMAND and before 1999 were THE most prestigious and expensive franchise. White Sox of course are a red-headed stepchild, with fans who have to be literally begged and pampered to attend and consume. With Bulls JR KNEW that even if the team failed from Day 1, he would get his money back. With White Sox? Spending 80 million, could mean a 20 Mill LOSS if the team has anything less than a super-special season. I am sure there are other, more subtle differences that escape my eye. Anyone?

Wow, is sub-4.50 ERA too much to ask these days from a starter who was as hyped as Rauch? Is sub-4.00 ERA too much to ask of Cotts and Pacheco, two guys who dominated AA? If much less hyped Howry, Wunsht, Barcelo and Bradford could do it on their first try, why not Neil and Eminemcio? I guess my standards are too lofty. I was just hoping we could replace White's 6.50, Wright's 6.00 and Koch's 5.75 ERA's, and 7-10 more games just because of that alone.

is Federer a BEAST or what!! Mercy. Well, at least I am happy men's tennis is in good hands after Andre retires in 2005. Better brilliant artiste Roger than robotic Andy "Stifler" Roddick.

I am sure that's the way Charles Comiskey saw it, too. I am sorry, but it's hard to read the above without cracking up and/or some major eyerollage. And I happen to agree with everything you said!

watchig my first (and last) Bears game of the season. Now I know why they are 3-7. Edinger? Go away. Supposedly blew the one against the Lions last week, did he? He certainly lost this one with an ugly missed FG, a terrible kick out of bounds, and it's his fault Bears elected to throw with 8 second left- he has chicken legs and coaching staff had no choice. Chandler should be benched, was bloody awful, especially on 3rd downs and short. Bring on Grossman, season was over before it began. Was it Dez White who fought to stay in bounds for 2 extra yards with no time-outs and Beras close to FG range instead of making 2 easy steps to his left and saving at least 10 seconds? What a f***ing MORON!!! Should be released just for that play, which unfortunately won't show up in stats at season's end. Other than Marty Booker, Bears wide-outs have no vision, take terrible routs and have hands of stone. Add to it bad offensive line and a deeply mediocre QB? No wonder the passing game blows. And what about back-to-back penalties on Rams' last drive? Wow, talk about idiot rookies cracking under pressure.

, See, I was under the impression that one season consists of TWO halves, both counting roughly the same in the year-end standings. At least that's what the folk say. Not true. Eric Chavez and Rolen are great. Crede at best is "pretty good". He makes too many mistakes and rarely if ever comes up with a tough/highlight play better 3B do. True. He also bunts and takes extra bases at will. Scores from 1st....oh wait. I don't know about any "problem", but if he can't hit righties in April (say OPS of 650), he shouldn't be starting against them. Same for Konerko. Same for Graffanino. And Rowand. Valentin and Harris- against lefties. Pretty simple. How pathetic must he have been to finish ahead of Crede in both OBP and SLUG, not to mention RBI per ab. And as much as he sucked in 2003, Jose's 4-year RISP while with the Sox is still over .300. Against righties? Of course he is. Almost 900 OPS. Whatever little advantage Crede has defensively, Jose offsets with his baserunning. Yes, when the opposing RHP has a hitter down in the count 1-2, what he is mostly concerned with is how much money the latter is making. You're missing the point: a cheap Guillen is more preferable at SS than Jose. But nobody is going to take on Jose's 5 Mill. So, you're stuck with him. You can waste him on the bench or you can sqeeze the maxium out of his ability to hit righties--and more than 3 quarters of all ABs are against RHP. Take your pick.

No-no, Manny was playing for either the Red Sox or Globertrotters by then. Probably the former.

Exactly...huh, what are we talking about again?

First of all, if Sox bomb out in the manner in which they did in 2002-2003, there might not be much of a "future".....at least not until Crede is too expensive to afford, which will be sooner than you think. Chancefor Crede to start and to "learn" to hit righties was when we were out of it in 2001-2002-2003. Now is the time to f***ing produce or sit. If you could get Carlos Guillen for a mill or so (unlikely) to play SS, and if either Graffaino/Harris or Crede hits under 700 OPS against RHP, you can try Valentin either at 3B or 2B.

My bashing the overrated Twins has very little to do with my being a Sox fan. I am angry if not disgusted with what had transpired on the South Side in the last 2 years. In a very disappointing 2001, we lost so many key players early on, getting off to a 14-29 start, that, in retrospect, we had very little chance of catching that Indian powerhouse team that had Robbie in his prime, Lofton, healthy Vizquel, One Gone, Thome, Burks, Sabathia, Colon, etc. 2002-2003? Absolutely no excuse. Simply and utterly pathetic.

While I don't think he was dogging it ala Belle or Manny, it didn't seem to bust his ass nearly as much. I still remember the final game of the Wriggley series in which Sox were leading 1-0 in the 3rd inn and Zambrano began to unravel. It was 1st and 2 and 1 out and Maggs had a 3-1 count. Not only does he swing at ball four low and inside, but he gets outs of the box almost walking and at no point does he go all out on the grounder itself. End result? It was a tough chopper play at third and the throw came just as Maggs was crossing the bag, he beat it by a third of a step or it was a tie wortst-case scenario. Tie goes to the runner, right? Well, not when you play in Wriggely and Cubs are on defense. Cocksoucker ump called the runner out. Replay showed him wrong....The point is not that ump semi-blew the call, but that Maggs lackadaisical attitude put him in a position where ump even had to come into play. If he busts his ass, he is safe by a step. Bases loaded, only 1 out. We get at least a run, maybe even chase Zambrano getting into weak bullpen, giving then masterful Colon some room for error and probably end up winning the game (which was 1-0 untl the 8th)....Cubs might not get in the playoffs and we might. And this is only one example from a 162-game season. He also didn't dive for balls or run into walls on defense. He was good but nothing special. And yes, I also agree that we as fans are trying to paint Maggs as worse than he really is in order to prepare ourselves for and justify his departure. But you must agree that Maggs certainly helped us by having a VERY unspectacular season in all respects.

I think this career change is ill-advised. He should've tried auditioning for San Francisco Ballet Academy first or maybe talk to Nick Boletieri to see if he has any openings for him. There are better options out there for young Brian.

Who cares as long as the system produces good for it's parent-club. As of this moment, there are 3-4 minor leaguers I hope can make instant impact in 2004, thus allowing the Sox to avoid overpaying for Freddy Gracia and/or Sydney Ponson, saving money to keep Maggs, Lee and Gordon. If Rauch, Pacheco and Cotts succeed on the ML level (one as 5th starter with ERA under 4.50 and another 2 as relievers with ERAs under 4.00), then I would consider our farm system to be fairly successful. And if Jeremy Reed gives Rowand and Harris run for their money, it'll be even better. We won't have to get Erstad or Vina, and will save even more money, possibly allowing us to get a legitimate ace starter and still remain within budget. That's how my mind works. Small-market teams need super-strong farm systems if they want to compete. ETA: Wylie will never amount to anything even remotely special. Some things CAN be gleamed from statistics believe it or not. It's not like he has great stuff and that it's just a matter of putting it together. He is simply NOT THAT TALENTED. Sorry, it happens sometimes.

If that's the lesson wants to learn watching the World Series, he's not only cheap but also very, very dumb. Few points: 1. Marlins win was a fluke. Replay 2003 postseason 10 times and I am afraid they fall short 9 of those they way they played against Ginats, Cubs and Yanks. 2. How many team with under 60 Mill payrolls were there in MLB in 2003 and how many of them made it to MLCS? 3. How many world championship teams in the last 10 years were NOT in the top THIRD of the rest of the league in payroll? 55-57 Mill payroll might just win ALC, but in the playoffs, lack of BIG 3 starters, big closer and line-up depth will be quickly exposed.

If I may say so, you have a very cool screen-name. Catchy Sadly that perspective is denied to me. What I do know is that when I first started following the game, I was stunned that a sport can be so quickly reduced and quantified-- in soccer, a game I grew up on, a player can go the entire season with only a couple of goals and still be absolutely indispensible to his team, so much of his value concentrated in intangibles and grunt skills; most soccer experts grade performance on the scale of 10, much like gymnastics and not just some objective stats.....So there I was at first wondering how baseball fans can sum up a player's value/essence by just one number, often without even ever seeing the player play. But I do see the relative value of Sabermetrics now. Compare Maggs to his contemporaries and not to hitters who played in era of less diluted pitcher talent pool, bigger parks, less developed nutrition and workout regiment, lack of steroids, bigger strike zone and a baseball that wasn't juiced. OPS+ in other words. How you can justify paying 27% of team's payroll to a career 890 OPS hitter with limited off-field appeal I will never know.

Hey! I resent being a designated village idiot on Soxtalk. Ah, who am I kidding!

It's just that winning 85-86 games wouldn't have nearly enough to win any other division other than NL and AL centrals. Even 90 games for that matter. And you're right about there being a lot of speculative and subjective stuff involved; we will never REALLY know which one of us is right. At 5 Mill per? Absolutely At 8+? f*** no, we have no money. I don;t knwo what KW was thinking offering 12 mill to Colon.

We could still get Guillen for cheap, by moving Jose either to 3B and 2B to split time with Crede and Graffy, who have trouble hitting against righties. Whoever of the two hits worse against righties gets to sit in favor of Jose.

BTW I am NOT saying Twins were a bad or even mediocre team. They were a solid, fundamental team. They were what Expos would probably have been had they had Guerrero all year and played in our division. They just weren't "very good". There is a reason why Twins couldn't do ANYTHING when they had to face a REAL team like 2001 Indians all year long. And by then Indians weren't a dominant team by any stretch of imagination. You know what? I'll take Texas, Baltimore and even injury-plagued Anaheim over INDIANS and TIGERS any damn day of the week. Most resonable people would. So again, playing 76 games against NY, Boston, Toronto, TampaBay (or Braves, Marlins, Phhillies and Expos..........Giants, Dodgers, D-Backs, Rockies, Padres.....As, Mariners, Angels, Rangers for that matter) is WHOLE a lot HARDER than doing so against such powerhouses as Sox, Royals, Tribe and Kitties......Or are White Sox all of the sidden better than Yankees because they were 4-2 against them and could have easily been 5-1 if it weren't for Neil Cotts? Please, don't make me laugh. The "5 games under .500 at the ASB" comment was just one example of how the whole complexion and dynamic changes with different level of competition. At 20-25 (as opposed to only 9) games out of 1st place, Twins would have simply given up the same way Oriols, Expos and Angels gave up around June. (BTW, SS2k4 was off in his Ponson remaks NOT because competition doesn't affect production, but because there really wasn't a conspiracy.)