ptatc

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 01:48 PM) Really? Who doesn't like - scratch that - who doesn't LOVE AJ??? I can't believe this. AJ is the f***ing man. I hope this was meant as green.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 10:00 AM) IIRC this is Harrell's last option year so they'll have to call him up at some point anyway. Ely should start in AAA. Shirek will begin in Birmingham but should be expected to get to Charlotte at some point next year, if not by midseason. And of course Torres, Hynick, and Marquez are on the 40-man as well, although who knows about Marquez's health. Carrasco's workload should be diminished with all our SP and he can spot start. The point is, we have enough #7 starters as it is, and if we reeeeeeeeeeeally needed another one, I wouldn't expect a GM who is known for both making the clubhouse a priority as well as requesting input from his veterans and his manager, to acquire a player that neither his manager nor his veterans can stand. Rumor = bulls***. He did take a chance on AJ. AJ is one that most people still can't stand in the clubhouse but busts his tail on the field. however, I don't think Padilla has the upside to help the club like AJ so I don't see it happening either.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 06:19 PM) But you did think the Floyd deal was terrible. I saw your posts. I went back and forth with alot of posters over Floyd in a few of those threads. Friends of mine who worked with him daily insisted he could still be a good major league pitcher.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 04:50 PM) We need to replace Ms. Podsednik... No one can replace her....she should have a permanent life size likeness of her in that spot they sit behind home plate. But Mrs. Gonzalez wouldn't be a bad addition.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 10:49 PM) You're picking one sentence out of context and arguing it in a completely different manner in which I did. Never did I say that someone outside of the organization somehow knows the personnel of the White Sox better than those that work for the White Sox. If you think that's what I have been arguing this entire time, you've missed the whole point. No disrespect intended, PTATC, I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree with you to a degree. We just happen to disagree from that degree onward. No disrespect taken. Like you said, agree to disagree. I view it one way you view it another. I just think KW and Ozzie want to win and they though there was a viable option that would make them significantly better, they would have done it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 05:04 PM) I'm perfectly happy with leaving the debate about Linebrink where it is. Mr. Rongey sees it one way, I see it another. What I get frustrated about is the notion that because things have been done this way in the past, or are generally done this way currently, that there must exist no better way. I consider myself to be a reasonable person, and so I will admit that things that are generally done a certain way are done so because success has been experienced from doing them that way. I do not expect, nor do I encourage, an atmosphere of chaos, where things are always being changed, merely for the sake of changing them. One should never stop looking for new and better ways to do something, however. One should never stop exploring. And it isn't always easy to try something new, or to take the risk of failure. As Barack likes to say, "if it wasn't hard to do, it would have already been done before." I also get frustrated with the idea that people not involved in the industry are not capable of coming up with any better ideas or thoughts than those within the industry. Look at Belichick's recent decision to go for it on 4th down against the Colts a few weeks ago. Belichick had read studies which point out that statistically, a team would fare better by going for it on 4th down in certain situations than those that don't. He went for it on 4th down, as you all know, didn't get it, lost the game, and now the majority of the league is claiming he is an idiot. Coaches, players, tv commentators alike. That doesn't change the fact that the study still claims that a team will have a better chance to win if they go for it on certain 4th down situations. And yet, those same people don't make a big deal out of all the 4th downs he does go for (and makes), or all the other innovative things he does as a coach. Well, that study came from a fan. Not a coach, but some fan, who happens to be really good with numbers. Bill Belichick, widely considered one of the best coaches in the league, is looking for and utilizing ideas that come from outside the industry of football. But we shouldn't consider them? Ozzie shouldn't? Kenny shouldn't? I would disaagree with this to an extent. People watching a player everyday have a better idea of how this player will perform than someone who doesn't. You can see how he handles individual situation or how he reacts. This may be as important as his stats on determining if he is ready for a promotion. Thus, I would trust the managers and scouts to determine if someone is ready. Are they going to be right everytime, no. But they will have a better idea than people from the outside. I've spent enough time working in the minors to see this process and the hands on evaluation seems to work. Of course you can question it because they aren't always going to be right but I would still trust the people that see them everyday.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 10:55 PM) Believe me, I am the first one to suggest that people who do this sort of thing for a living should have their opinions respected to the utmost degree. That does not mean, however, that they should not be questioned, nor that their decisions are infallible, nor that there is not a different way to do things. I agree they should be questioned. After all we all know that scouting is an inexact profession. My point was that I'm sure the that nobody was brough up to take the place of a struggling player, in this case Linebrink, is that the organization didn't think anyone was ready. One thing I think most of us agree on is that KW and Ozzie want to win and if they thought someone else could do a better job they would have sent the lowest guy in the bullpen down and brought up the better player. Linebrink wouldn't have been sent down just had a lesser role.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 09:44 PM) I don't understand how you can possibly say this with any certainty. How do you know the first guy wouldn't have pitched well? How do you know that one of them wasn't ready? How would we know how ready Hudson was if they wouldn't have brought him up? I think this comes down to Ozzie's personal preference of wanting guys that have had success before, but Ozzie is not always right. He didn't even want Beckham up, and we know that. I don't think you can say what "a team," meaning any team would have done. There are plenty of teams that have shelved expensive relievers in favor of unproven prospects, including our own, in the case of MacDougal. Even conceding we would have been dealing with uncertainty, uncertainty, in my opinion, definitely becomes better than certain suckitude, which it was clear Linebrink was going to give us. I'll take an uncertainty with a possibility for success over a certain failure every chance I get. You may, but usually people who do this for a living trust their scouts and organization to tell them who is ready. Remember ready isn't just numbers. It has to do with confidence and mental toughness. Maybe some players numbers were ready but the organization didn't think the maturity or confidence was there. Right or wrong, if they don't feel the players is ready, they won't go with uncertainty.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 09:44 PM) I don't understand how you can possibly say this with any certainty. How do you know the first guy wouldn't have pitched well? How do you know that one of them wasn't ready? How would we know how ready Hudson was if they wouldn't have brought him up? I think this comes down to Ozzie's personal preference of wanting guys that have had success before, but Ozzie is not always right. He didn't even want Beckham up, and we know that. I don't think you can say what "a team," meaning any team would have done. There are plenty of teams that have shelved expensive relievers in favor of unproven prospects, including our own, in the case of MacDougal. Even conceding we would have been dealing with uncertainty, uncertainty, in my opinion, definitely becomes better than certain suckitude, which it was clear Linebrink was going to give us. I'll take an uncertainty with a possibility for success over a certain failure every chance I get. This is usually based on reports from the minor league managers and scouts. Back in 2005 when Shingo failed and hermanson got hurt, KW asked if he needed to go get a closer and the report from the minors was "we've got a guy who can do it." This of course was Jenks. If the organization thought that someone was ready, they would have done it.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 06:20 PM) Subjective? That doesnt make any sense at all. How do you make a team appear to be playing with passion? The team either performs or it does not. There is nothing Ozzie can do to make his players do anything while on the field, he puts them in position to succeed and once the first pitch is thrown it is up to them to perform up to their abilities. I know most people on this board don't believe it but there is more to baseball than just reading numbers. It is the most difficult sport to make the playoffs. Thus GMs and owners look to see if the team continues to play in the face of adversity and slumps. Baseball more than any other sport has ups and downs with playing everyday and over a 6 month period. How the player react is a big part of evaluation as to if they aren't playing well now but have the potantial to improve later. I realize many people take out the fact that these are people with emotions and mental aspects (after all 90% of the game is half mental). You can't just judge everything by the performance at this very second and need to have a larger picture of what is going on.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 08:06 PM) Um, welcome to Major League Baseball, dude. New to how this works, are you? I never said money wasn't part of it. In fact, I said during the season, it came down to two things: 1) his 2 and a half years remaining on a contract and 2) the reality that they did actually need him to get better. It's not a garbage argument. It happens ALL the time in MLB, where well-paid veteran players (position players and pitchers alike) get numerous opportunties (to the dismay of fans) to straighten themselves out. Especially when they are a year removed from a decent season (Linebrink WAS decent before his injuries in 2008). The reason they do this is because, when it comes to uncertainty, there is LESS of it with a struggling veteran player with a track record than there is with a minor-leaguer that has zero MLB track record. Name me a single team that would've done it your way, and I'll show you a team that will hire you as their GM. Remember how the Red Sox benched David Ortiz when he was hitting .185 at the end of May? Oh no wait, they didn't. That's right. They let him keep playing because of his contract and because of the fact he's David Ortiz and there's a track record. Or remember when the White Sox benched Konerko for the entire second half of 2008 because he was hitting .214 at the end of July? Oh, I'm sorry. That didn't happen either. They kept playing him because of his contract AND the fact t hat he has a track record and what not. And if I recall, he had a nice finish in the last two months and in the postseason. Or remember how the Phillies decided not to use Brad Lidge anymore because he was struggling? No, that's wrong too. They did stick with him and he recorded 3 playoff saves, gave up 1 hit in 4 innings of playoff work, and didn't allow a run until the World Series. Why in the world would Charlie Manuel do that? He must be an idiot. Afterall, he only has one World Championship and two appearances on his resume. I think they call that "sticking with the veteran because you know you may reap the benefits of having patience." It's this strange baseball philosophy that works a lot of the time. And it's a "garbage argument," apparently. I've been making this arguement for a couple of years. Managers will give verterans with track recoreds time to work it out because 1) they usually can 2) they are an important part of the team and have proven in the past they can do it. Too much knee jerk reaction and impatience, baseball is a sport of ups and downs, in season and between seasons with proven players you need to let them work it out. Until age or injuries catch up with them.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 23, 2009 -> 03:34 PM) Jim Rice was... - A 8 time All Star - A 2 time Silver Slugger Winner - A MVP Winner (1978) - Finished in the Top 5 for MVP, 6 times - Led his team to 2 World Series - In the 1990 World Series he hit .333 - Played in the Field - Career Avg .293 30HR 113RBI - Got into the HOF on his 15th and Final Try. Harold Baines was... - A 6 time All Star. - A 1 time Silver Slugger Winner. - Never Won a MVP. - Never Finished in the Top 5 for MVP. - Led his team to 1 World Series - In the 1986 World Series he hit .143 - Rarely played in the Field - Career Avg .283 22HR 93RBI When Baines played the field he was a very good bordering on outstanding right fielder. He was 10X the outfielder that Rice was. Just because Rice stood out there and played barely adequate OF is nothing to put on the resume. Baines was a great player to watch and a very good hitter. I don't think he belongs in the HOF but neither should Rice be there. Both were very good hitters but not deserving of the HOF.

One of the very few hitters that you would stop what you were doing just to watch every at bat. If you have to ask the question, you didn't see him hit.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 23, 2009 -> 01:33 PM) I remember the days when fathom was BY FAR the most pessimistic member on the board. Over the last 2-3 years, I don't even think he's in the top 10. i was thinking the same thing when I started reading this thread.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 12:05 PM) I just graduated on the 15th (online school, actual ceremony was in VA and I coulda drove but didn't feel like it) and holy s*** it feels great to come home from work and be able to do what I want. I see, not married and no kids.... Lucky Bas**rd

QUOTE (1977 sox fan @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 11:07 PM) You would think that being a professional baseball player and being that is your career you wouldn't have to tell them to be in shape . i spent 23yrs in the U.S NAVY as a SEAL and i know i was in better shape then most major league baseball players and never did anybody have to tell me and i was making much less money then these guys make . Yes, but you are out of shape people are in danger. If a baseball player is out of shape......they still get paid. When were you in? A good buddy of mine (Mike) was the Physical therapist at Coronado (sp?) from the late 90's to early 2000's. Excellent facilties.

I was sitting on the first base side near the dugout on the wall and a guy was mercilessly heckling Bo Jackson (when he was with KC) every time he came to bat. Jackson hit a screaming foul ball that hit the cement wall right in front of the guy, who proceeded to drop his beer and food all over himself getting out of the way. Jackson just smiled at him while we were falling out of our chairs laughing. A guy a few years ago heckling Milton Bradley in centerfield with a chant of "your not even as god as Parker Brothers" and invitations to play Parchessi with him. Getting ripped on free beer at a Springsteen concert while sitting in the skybox at Comiskey and watching the Sox lose to Minnesota on the TV. Watching people getting crushed in the standing area right in front of the stage. Getting Ivan Calderon (RIP) to bow to me and my friend (the only people in RF in Old Comiskey) while chanting "we're not worthy" and bowing to him. We started the United Calderonist religion to honor him.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 14, 2009 -> 08:51 PM) I'm just stating facts unlike yours where you say he waits around until June and asks JR for money. Its happened but its rare and its guys like you, the guys who think they spend every dime they make who should feel cheated when guys like Delgado and Soriano aren't acquired because by definition they would not be doing what you think they are. Its exactly the opposite of your thinking. If you are saying they left room for deadline deals and didn't make those deals, like most seasons, they wouldn't be spending all the money would they. The only year I ever b****ed about spending was 2009 and , as it turned out, I was right, as they upped the payroll significantly in season for the first time in KW's tenure. It must really kill you when I'm right. The big problem with waiting until the deadline to acquire someone is it takes two to tango. Who knows if the other teams will be at least slightly reasonable and who knows what other teams also need a push and are willing to meet demands. If the Yankees or Boston or the Angels are looking for the same players you are, there is a definite disadvantage. JR doesn't want to break even, although no one will be in trouble if he does, he doesn't want to lose money, and that's fine. All you really need to know about how he and his group really operate is to see the current state of the Bulls. It is a different situation because of the cap, but the Bulls make a lot of money and currently because of injury they have 10 guys who can play, Normally they have about 15 guys on the roster with 3 inactives but they only have 12 or 13 this year because they are right near the luxury tax. They won't take on a minimum salary guy because it will push them over that limit and instead of getting a piece of the pie from everyone over it, they would be forced to pay dollar for dollar what they are over. They would still make a big profit, but it would probably cost them a couple of million for a guy who would rarely play but with the shortage of players, may help the team. Now I don't advocate paying $2 million or more for a guy who may not ever play 8 minutes in a game, but if its all about breaking even, the extra player would certainly help in practice and in blowouts etc. While this is true there is another factor involved here. While JR is the managing partner for both the Sox and Bulls, the minority partners are the same group. He may have a different directive from the group in how he must deal with the Bulls profit line vs. the Sox profit line. I mostly agree with the sentiment but don't make the assumption that just because the Bulls are managed down to the bottom line that the Sox must be as well.

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 04:53 PM) Didn't he have TJ surgery as well? Yes

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Nov 7, 2009 -> 03:16 PM) I was a bit suprised to find out that A.J wasn't his best friend on the team. I guess this makes sense, becasue Fields and Getz are closer to Beckham in age. I don't know if you ever met AJ but he is nobody's best friend. And if someone is I highly question their judgement amd character.

QUOTE (1977 sox fan @ Nov 6, 2009 -> 08:38 AM) Maybe Kenny will go out and get Adrian Gonzales if he did that i would be one happy fan . PK along with money or extra players might be part of this deal? He would waive the no trade to go to the West Coast.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 01:25 PM) I agree with a lot of this. I just happen to believe that in the NFL, you need to really stay away from making harsh judgments as things can look really bad or really good based on very little...Personally, I need to see more. I agree. I look at the end of the season. Did the team win more games than I though they would. Coaches are responsible for wins. Some are bad strategists but are good motivators. I think Lovie falls in this category. Most of the seasons I think the team has won more games than I thought they would so overall I think he has done pretty well.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 11:36 AM) I really can't believe how much s*** Lovie is taking in this thread. Funny how everyone wants Lovie gone but the same people don't seem to be calling for Ozzie's head. Seems like they are awfully comparable to me... The difference is Ozzie was the manager of a team that won a Championship. Just like Ditka is still revered by most fans in this town (even if he wasn't a good coach). Ozzie will always and deservedly so have some love in this town because he was the manger of a team that hadn't won a Championship in 88 years. As a matter of fact the team only won a division title once in the 70's and once in the 80's. He was won more division titles in 5 years than most of the other managers had in their entire careers. Now, is Ozzie the reason he won them? No. But they occurred on his watch and he didn't manage poorly enough to prevent it. So right or wrong when you win a Championship with a team that has historically been a loser you will be given the benefit of the doubt.

17/20 Being old does help.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2009 -> 12:03 PM) I'm not even sure Chicago will win. To be honest, I don't know what to think. The Chicago organizers are pretty confident they are getting it. The university where I work is supposed to host a couple of events if they get it and today there were people measuring for construction.