ptatc

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Mar 9, 2012 -> 12:13 PM) What a shame, hard working kid. That should help him come back strong. At least this gives him a full year to rehab and recover.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Mar 8, 2012 -> 02:49 PM) Dunn double to drive in Morel who also is 2 for 2. Is it a coincidence that Dunn is playing 1B and hitting well today?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 7, 2012 -> 07:53 AM) It certainly has seemed to matter for the number of teams that won the WS as wild card teams. But will this change it? It creates a system where another team has a shot at the WS. It will keep more fans interested. It's more money for the networks and teams. So it's a good thing for revenue but I'm not sure if it changes anything else.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 04:30 PM) What it really diminishes is the wild card. Can you diminish the wild card. It's not really an accomplishment. If you get in the playoffs as a non-division winner, it really doesn't matter.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Mar 5, 2012 -> 01:44 PM) most long term deals are insured. The bigger deals are usually insured for only half. The insurance companies will not take on that much risk. The premiums that the team must pay sometimes outweigh the benefits as well. This is part of the cost of contracts that people sometimes ignore, the bigger the deal the bigger the premium. It's an added cost to the contract. This deal isn't a huge one so it's on the borderline as to how much of it is insured.

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 07:33 PM) In my opinion, if teams get 4-5 days off, it's not a big deal. It's an excuse after those teams lose. Everybody cites the 07 Rockies that were hot going into the playoffs, but then had 5 days or something off going into the World Series. But look at the 05 White Sox. They had a bunch of time off. Garland pitched a complete game on 13 days rest. For some teams, 4 or 5 days off would give them time to heal, fresh bullpen, set the rotation any way they want. There would be positives. The players hate if they get more than 2-3 days off. It may help a few injured players but that's it. You would hear the players go crazy if they tired to add another layer of playoffs of 3 or more games.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 07:23 PM) Awful, awful, awful. This is a disgusting, despicable tragedy. First they f*** up the draft/international system, now this? Selig's motto: when it ain't broke; fix it. I always said I'd put a bullet in my brain before I became a hockey fan. But I think the time is now. Who are the top players today? Mario Lemuix? Mark Messiah? Who else? The draft is much better. Evens out the playing field a little more. It decreases the "whoever has the most money wins" effect.

QUOTE (knightni @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 06:46 PM) If they're going to have a wild card playoff round it should be a best of 3 at minimum. They can't do a best of three. That would give the division winners at least 5 days off if the wildcard teams get a day break on either end. That isn't fair to the division winners.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 10:49 AM) There is no handbook of how to handle a pitcher, so stop trying to pigeonhole every Sox pitcher into a certain IP program. There have been plenty of pitchers that have succeeded out of the bullpen and have moved on to very successful starting careers(Johan, Wainwright, Buehrle), plenty that have gone back and forth (Papelbon, Lowe), and plenty that have been successful going from starting to bullpen(Isringhausen, Eckersley, Reardon, Gossage). Every player is different. Of course there is a chance molina could fail. Sticking him in the minors and saying "that's how it is supposed to be because McCarthy got f***ed up" isn't the best way to handle every pitcher. If Coop thinks Molina can handle the transition, I won't be upset It's more mental. Some pitchers (and position players for that matter) can handle changing roles. Just like some relievers can handle closing and others can't even though sometimes the 7th or 8th innings can be more important than the 9th. Some players are just mentally tougher than others.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 08:22 AM) Holy cripes did Sizemore become a fragile and brittle guy. PEDs? I have no inside information but it happens.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 29, 2012 -> 10:25 AM) People consistently say there's a huge difference in terms of the effort you're putting into pitches at the MLB level when you have to face major league hitters. That's why people say that having thrown 150 innings in the minors doesn't make you ready to throw 150 in the bigs all the time. Thats why people were concerned enough about Sale's health for him to drop out of the top 5 in the draft despite him having thrown 150 innings 2 years in a row. This guys' arm will benefit from the work at a lower level, and there is a much larger risk than you guys are willing ot admit in pushing him hard. If we were talkign about a guy who had been a high school and college pitcher, or who had been a pitcher since he was 16 in the Jays org, that's one thing, we're not. The fact that he's a converted starter and that he has so few innings on his arm total ought to be the real focus here, because that's what makes pushing htis guy hard so exceptionally risky. While the current administration seems to have difficulty developing hitters, I think they've done a pretty good job with pitchers. Since I haven't seen him pitch or know anyone who has seen him pitch, if they deem him ready to come to the majors, I will agree. It wasn't the innings he threw in college, it was his motion with the high elbow and quick external rotation that made people worry about him. He's similar to Strasburg in that way but he has a lower arm slot so the wear and tear will be interesting.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 29, 2012 -> 02:26 PM) I think my all-time least favorite Sox player is Mike Squires. How does a guy with a .318 career SLG get to play nearly 700 games at 1B?? That's a lower career SLG than Ozzie. Squires was a great guy. How often do you left handed throwers play short and third. It was hilarious.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 05:31 PM) If you're in a situation like last year, where you're doing everything possible to win, then fine, burn the guy in the bullpen like we did with Sale. But if we have time with a guy like Molina (and we do), there's zero reason to start all the arbitration clocks on him right now. He's incredibly raw, he's thrown probably fewer innings in his life than some guys have done in high school, and he's never been above AA. If he earns it, then we can talk next year about a rotation spot early in the season, even better after the super 2 deadline. There is zero reason to push this guy upwards aggressively if we go into this season having cut $25 million from the roster and traded away guys like we did. Save the service time and have him ready to go when he arrives. I thought Sept. callups don't get service time credit.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 05:07 PM) I don't think it is. He's pitched a total of 290 innings, period, with no high school or college background beforehand. He's barely reached double-A ball, only 22 innings at that level. He only threw 130 innings last year, and that was a jump up from 80 the year beforehand, so 150 total would still be being careful, and that's a full AA season. I really can't see any situation, no matter how much he dominates, where I'm going to want him seeing the bigs this year. If he rips up AA ball in the first half and then gets promoted and then rips up AAA for another 2 months, he's going to be right at what should be his innings limit, where actually having him make a start or two seems excessively risky and overkill. I still think he will get a look in the MLB at the end of the season. If they have to they will decrease his innings in the middle of the year to spread them out, which from a strengthening and endurance buolding perspective is a good idea.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 04:44 PM) What you need to remember though is that we're not "All in" this season. We're not sacrificing things like valuable Chris Sale pre arb years by trying to put the best MLB roster possible together. If we lose games this year because we're trying to stretch Sale out and develop him into a starter, well, the priority is turning Sale into a starter, not winning as many games as possible. Last season, we were still "All in" when that crap was happening. Lose the games this year if you have to, just make sure you develop the kids while doing so. If we were going to lose games in order to build up Peavy's arm, then Sale should have been starting at Charlotte, and we should have been selling harder at the deadline. I agree with you. However, I will bet that we will still see people on this board complaining about why Robin and Coop left him in even though he's shown that after 5 innings his ERA goes up 2 runs and his BAA is up 200 points.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 03:23 PM) They may push him to 175, but I said "150 good innings". I think he'll be breaking down past that. They'll still give him starts to keep him going, like they did with D1 back in 2007, but he'll clearly only have so much left. And I reiterate, I don't think Molina belongs anywhere near the big leagues this year. Especially with other options like Castro, Stewart, and Axelrod who can clean starts up if we need to. I think you'll see some of those "bad" innings ealy on when he's adjusting to starting in the MLB. He'll top out at 5 innings and people on this board will complain like they did at Peavy. He will need to build strength and endurance early on because he hasn't started with this intensity before.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 02:51 PM) I'd be half surprised if Sale put up 150 good innings, but I'll be really surprised if Viciedo comes out and puts up like a .900 OPS. Between being moved around from positions and the thumb injury last year, there's still development that needs to happen with him. Hopefully we can play him enough this year that he gets a chance to really do that developing. I'm going with 175. I think He'll get there this year. Then Molina will come up and clean up the last group of starts. I think this is KW's plan when he said that Molina will definitely see the show this year.

QUOTE (flavum @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 01:26 PM) Too many negative words and phrases from Sox personnel. Play as hard as you can, and maximize your talent. Period. I just don't want to hear them say "baseball is a game of failure". Yeah, I get it, but that shouldn't come out of your mouth. It's almost like they have a built in excuse for losing, which is just not a good thing to put in young player's minds. This is how the mentally strong players get. If you remember early in PK's career he had wild swings of success and failure because he couldn't deal with the amout of failure. You have to relize it's a game of failure and the ones who deal with it the best become the better players.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 02:54 PM) How do you get off on a technicality when that technicality isn't even written? Braun's lawyers convinced the arbiter, who obviously is not familiar with the process, that the samples were not secured. Which left reasonable doubt in his mind. This is why baseball thought they had an open and shut case. This is the common practice but the arbiter didn't think it was secure enough.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 26, 2012 -> 12:52 AM) 25 dollars to park for a Sox-Royals game. What a joke. Or Sox-Mariners. Wait. I thought the Royals have alot of young propects and are going to fun to watch this year. Isn't that the kind of team we're supposed to pay to see?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 03:08 PM) First of all, I wasn't responding to you, so I didn't call you jaded. Secondly, this is completely out of character for Braun. I know you're livelihood is in the medical community but that doesn't mean that something funny didn't go on here. I am not assuming anyone did anything to make Braun look one way or the other. I'm saying everything anyone has ever said about the guy contradicts this test. You're telling me I'm jaded because I believe in the man instead of a test where the chain of custody was botched? Right. Sorry, I though you were referring to everyone who think he took PEDs as jaded. I've never met or really paid attention to Braun so I cannot comment on his character. He doesn't look or seem the type but science is science and in things like this it is rarely wrong. The only way realiistic way he didn't take take something that caused the sample to test positive is that someone tampered with it. This is would be the "something funny going on." Which is possible. However for this to happen you have to assume that someone intentionally tampered with the sample. Nothing has been reported about a problem with the actual test. So you either think the sample was tampered with, making him innocent or you think the sample was his and he took the substance. It could very well be that he took something that he didn't know would be classified as a PED, I doubt it with the levels at which he tested but it could happen. All I'm saying is that the proponderence of evidence shows he tested positive for a banned substance. If I was him I would say all the same things he is now. He got lucky and got away with it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 02:43 PM) There sure as f*** is a profile. He is already celebrated as one of the best players in the game. He signed a below-market contract basically through the end of his career, yet he is also set monetarily for life. By all accounts he is an extremely hard worker and a grounded, easy-going guy. He's young and in the prime of his career. He also has come out in the past against steroid and PED usage. I'm sorry that you're so jaded that you're going to consider everyone guilty before proven innocent, but I'm just not buying it here. It's not that I'm jaded as a matter of fact I think it's the other way around. I'm assuming that the collector did not tamper with the sample so the positive test is valid and Braun is guilty. You are assuming that someone intentionally tampered with the sample to make Braun look guilty. I think your view is more jaded by thinking that someone is out to get Braun by tampering with the sample. That is realistically the only way the positive test is wrong in all the samples.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 02:28 PM) Ptatc, I agree completely, the MLB is using nonsense procedure, and that is not even getting into the fact they are using pee tests which are generally considered the least reliable. (As an aside, I know people who have definitely beat pee tests for drugs, just using $50 over the counter products)The whole thing comes down to MLB and having better procedures. We are talking a billion dollar a year industry, they can spend some money on this. The urine test is a very reliable and valid test for testing for the T/E ratio. The way the people you know that beat the urine test would not work in professional or olympic sports. They test for a wider range of masking agents and other substances than a regular drug test. As a matter of fact at the olympic level most athletes that are suspended get caught with masking agents (including in blood tests) then they do for getting caught with the actual banned substance. However, your main point is accurrate. It is up to baseball to close the loophole. The USOC has an entire branch to work through issues like this because the athletes are always coming up with new things, baseball should probably just work with thme instead of trying to re-create the wheel on thier own.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 02:25 PM) Because Braun didnt need to prove tampering. He only needed to prove that MLB screwed up and therefore the test was invalid. No reason to go beyond when its unnecessary. That's why its entirely speculation. If this was a case where not only did Braun have to show "improper protocol" but he also had to show that he was "likely to prevail on the merits" it would be an entirely different scenario. But its like the "fruit of the poisonous tree" in criminal law, once it was improperly handled, all of the evidence is no longer reliable. There are ways to prevent this, but MLB just does not have a policy to protect against errors. (IE MLB could require every stadium to have a facility to store specimens indefinitely, that way there would have been another sample that had not been improperly handled to test against.) Simply put, MLB's own laziness lack of control caused this problem. If they are mad, they should be mad at themselves. This is the case. Although you are mixing the terms reliable and valid again. The test is still reliable however the result were made invalid due to the procedural violation. MLB needs to change the procedure to prevent this from happening again.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 02:10 PM) None of this matters. The procedure wasnt followed, the test results are moot. We can all speculate as to whether there was actual tampering or not, but it really doesnt matter. If you believe that he is guilty, I doubt any of this will change your mind. It only matters if you think baseball needs to be cleaned up and PEDs hurt the game. If a player tests postitive but is allowed to play because of a procedural problem, it doesn't help the game. This instance of a player being able to play of a technicality needs to be examined and used as a learning tool to either improve the procedure so it doesn't happen again. If it is proven that he didn't take PEDs then the system worked and he was rightfully cleared of all wrong doing. I don't disagree with the decision. He should be allowed to play given the situation. However, I also think the protocol needs to change so it doesn't happen again because test need to occur throughout the week to catch the athletes that use the less potent but still PED that leave your system within 48 hours.