South Side Fireworks Man

I'd go after Furcal. We saw how a good speedy leadoff man can spark a team and they are inshort supply around MLB. We also saw how the Sox struggled when Pods was hurt, so it would be nice to have two speedy guys around. Furcal could bat second so Iguchi could be moved down to the middle of the order. Furcal would play SS, Uribe could move to 2B, and Iguchi DH. It also gives us depth in case Crede, Uribe or Iguchi get injured.

Players are supposed to play and leave the umpiring to the umpires. Apparently, Josh Paul and Finley don't remember that.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 13, 2005 -> 12:24 PM) I guess the Sun Times has a crystal ball and can see into the future that the Sox have made the playoffs. :headshake Give it up already. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see the Sox are going to be in the playoffs. Sheesh!

QUOTE(YASNY @ Sep 13, 2005 -> 03:42 AM) We want FG starting the first ROAD game. Period. Thank you!

Continue to start Ozuna as long as he's playing well, with Crede coming in as a late inning defensive replacement. If Ozuna begins to falter,either at the plate or in the field, Crede can resume his role as starter. But if Ozuna continues to play as he has been, he should not go back to the bench.

I don't understand this s***. If Dustin was healthy enough to pitch tonight, then why the hell didn't he start the ninth inning. That's what a CLOSER is supposed to do. Is he our closer or not???? If Ozzie doesn't have confidence in pitching Hermanson in closing situations because of his chronic back trouble, the let Jenks be the closer. If Dustin's OK, let him CLOSE the games by pitching the entire ninth!!!

This team does not have a closer. What good is Dustin if he can only pitch once a week? Jenks should be the full time closer.

Melton would make a good color guy. Farmer is a poor play by play guy, however.

Where's he gonna play?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 28, 2005 -> 09:28 PM) But would you rather have Adkins or Anderson on your playoff roster? Gload.

http://www.journal-news.com/sports/content...dsnotes_tc.html

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Aug 27, 2005 -> 09:31 PM) If this is true, it really pisses me off. This pisses me off worse than their owner preventing the trade. Last year it was Delgado and this year it's Griffey. Man, NOBODY wants you on that team. I feel the exact same way as you.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 27, 2005 -> 08:51 PM) So, basically nothing changed. Levine must have had nothing this wknd, and try to generate interest in the viewing audience again. No, if true, everything has changed. Now it's Griffey who killed the trade not the Reds ownership. He doesn't want to play for the Sox, according to this.

QUOTE(Finkelstein @ Aug 26, 2005 -> 06:39 PM) Last I heard he was rehabbing down in Charlotte this weekend and returning on Monday. Hopefully all goes well this weekend. Where's he gonna play?

Maybe the Sox will go after Rich Aurillia.

QUOTE(GoSoxGo @ Aug 24, 2005 -> 10:26 PM) Also, Hawk changed his stance on Griffey tonight. He was pretty much saying that he wouldn't mind adding a bat like his. Could Hawk be acting as Reinsdorf's mouthpiece once again? I was thinking the exact same thing when I heard Hawk talking about Griffey tonight. Maybe he was just reacting to the responses he has been getting for all his "Where would he play?" comments.

You can't rely on a closer whose bad back keeps him out of games which prevents him from staying sharp.

Carl comes through, yet again!

FWIW, Borchard is not in the lineup tonight for the Knights. You know what that means!

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 14, 2005 -> 01:50 PM) But can't other teams somehow block the trade? No. If they wanted to block a potential trade, they would have had to claim the player in the 72 hour period after he was placed on waivers. Once a player clears waivers, he can be traded to anyone. The only way for a team to block now is to offer a better deal in trade for the player.

I hope Shingo makes it back to the bigs real soon and I wish him much success. Best to you, Shingo!

The team that worries me most about claiming Griffey before the Sox is the Angels. They might want him for the same role we do--DH and occasional OFer. Let's hope we hear something soon. I think if the Angels don't grab him, he's ours.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Aug 11, 2005 -> 08:01 PM) :puke I hope that doesn't arouse you.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 11, 2005 -> 08:46 PM) Homosexuality is normal, although it is not normative. Longshot's noting of lefties and redheads demonstrates the problem with your 50%=normal threshold, as would genius-level IQ, being very tall or very short, etc. All of those traits may fall out toward the edges of theor respective attribute bell curves, but they are nonetheless traits that can be readily encountered within the population at large. I don't have statistics in front of me, but the percentage of red heads or left handers far exceeds the percentage of people who engage in homosexual activity. There is a small percentage of people who are born with six fingers, or are albino, and because their percentage is so small, they would be considered abnormal. I don't advocate the condemnation of anyone based on their sexuality. But that doesn't mean that I have to accept that homosexual acts are not abnormal or immoral. I don't go around calling people names, I don't advocate harming or harassing anyone. At the same time, people who hold the traditional view of homosexual behavior should not be called names, should not be intimidated by threats of being suspended from their jobs, and should not be told to keep their opinions to themselves. The way I look at it, whatever a person does in private is not my business. But if that person wants to go public with what he does, I have the right to express my views on whether I believe it is right or wrong. And if people in the public arena are going to try to influence my kids with public statements, I have the right to respond in public with my views, so I too can influence others. As long as nobody is advocating any violence or hatred, both sides have an equal right to express themselves. It's insightful that all this uproar isn't being started by some "right wing nut job," but by reporters who would like to see Ozzie pay for what they suspect was an anti homosexual comment. Ozzie didn't advocate harming anyone, yet they want to inflict harm on him by suspending him because they suspect he might not have the same view as they do. There is no tolerance. There is no freedom of speech. Ozzie must be made an example of. I wonder what these same journalists reaction would be if Ozzie said something like, "Watch out for this guy, he's a Bible Thumper! I mean this guy is a right wing kook!' Just a harmless joke, right? Anyway, I appreciate the civil tone of your posts. That's all one could ask for.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Aug 11, 2005 -> 07:09 PM) You throwing around the word "fact" like some sort of right wing nut job standing on the pulpit makes me :puke Did I strike a nerve? Do you have to resort to name calling? It is a fact that homosexual behavior is not the norm, it is a fact that it has been frowned upon by societies around the world, and it is a fact that religions consider it a sin. You are the one who is being intolerant. I didn't start this conversation. I responded to another person's post in a civil manner. While that person disagrees with me, that person responded in a civil manner. No names were called, except by you. I'm not pushing an agenda here. But apparenty no one who disagrees with your agenda should be allowed to post here if you had your way.