YASNY

I'm neither an Angels or Braves fan in any sense. However, I do consider myself a baseball fan in every sense of the term. Looking at the Erstad play from a completely unbiased point of view, that was good baseball. Period.

QUOTE(Soxnbears01 @ Jun 8, 2005 -> 10:39 PM) also a question, what exactly is the reason pitchers wear jackets ont he basepaths? Ha! Before the DH, every 7 year old kid knew the answer to that question. It's amazing how things change over the years.

In my opinion, the Hunter/Burke collision was questionable, at best. The Erstad/Estrada collision was flat out good, clean, hard-nosed baseball. If Atlanta doesn't like it, they should stay in the wimpy NL and not play AL teams.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jun 9, 2005 -> 12:38 AM) We get to face Darrel May on Friday night. This is the same Darrell May that we used to light up like a christmas tree. I like this series. Nice big pitchers park, and our team will strive here. Actually, I hope they thrive there.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jun 8, 2005 -> 10:01 PM) Far too many people don't think before they post and then wonder why Soxtalk is called a second-class board. Some people need to grow the f*** up, to put it bluntly. Bluntly, and appropriately.

Pale Hose Talk has degenerated into the equivalent of a Jr High chat room lately. There are way too many homosexual insult type references around here. How about using some thought and intelligence for a change?

They open those series that way so that more teams have home openers without sharing the spotlight with a full schedule. Look at what happened this year. Opening game on Sunday night, then a few more openers on Monday. Tuesday was generally an off day for those that opened on Monday, while the rest of the teams opened. That pattern usually carries over to the second series of the season to get the teams that opened on the road the same benefits with their respective home openers. You also can factor in the weather as a reason, since if a home opener is cancelled, they can make it up the next day.

QUOTE(TheDybber @ Jun 8, 2005 -> 10:07 AM) Ozuna can play IF and OF Harris can play IF and OF Gload can play IF and OF (as long as it isn't RF) Timo can play RF and RF. He was good for us last year, but it's time to find a backup 1B since Gload is down again and Timo sucks at 1B. And by the way, it's not y'all, it's ya'll. Learned that when I moved to Texas. Whoa! I beg to differ. It is y'all. It's a contraction for the words "you all" therefore the apostrophe sits comfortably between the y and the a.

QUOTE(nvxplorer @ Jun 8, 2005 -> 05:23 PM) Agreed. Everett is not only a leader, but I believe he's the most veteran player after Frank. Carl is worth a lot more to the Sox than to a team that's rebuilding, and I can't think of any contender that would trade for him this far from the deadline. He hasn't been tearing up the league, but his bat has been adequately dependable. I don't think Everett or Thomas are going anywhere, but stranger things have happened. The Sox need both of their bats, and I hope they stay the whole season. I can think of at least one contender that should be interested in bat like Everett .... Atlanta. They are in desperate need of a hitter of Carl's quality and would probably overlook his defensive faults to add his stick. If the Braves don't have the matchups needed to help the Sox, a deal could always include a third team.

From the Sun Times: This could hurt us. Big time.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jun 8, 2005 -> 05:15 AM) Don't forget making fun of him for not being able to pronounce nuclear. Wait! That was Laura Bush, wasn't it?

If memory serves me here, when this quote first surfaced some time ago, that there was some discrepency in Kittle's story. Something like he said it happened such and such year, but one of the people he said was a witness wasn't with the Giants at the time. I don't remember the details and I'm too damn lazy to look for it.

QUOTE(TheBlackSox8 @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 10:58 PM) Shingo "was his name-O" Takatsu Now that one, I like.

QUOTE(nvxplorer @ Jun 8, 2005 -> 12:23 AM) There's nothing wrong with criticizing the manager, but the thread title is uncalled for. Yes, the Sox seem to take only the first two of three, but unless you're suggesting a curse, there's plenty of blame to go around - especially the players themselves. (Hermanson's throwing error comes to mind right away.) I agree about the poor baserunning, but it was Dye stealing second that enabled him to score on AJ's single. Imagine that. Jermaine Dye stealing bases while Uribe and Rowand get caught. Bingo! I believe the thread title is what set a few people off. It is certainly uncalled for, but then, I considered the source.

I agree. One more.

Make the call now guys. Contreras has thrown 89 pitches. Does he get another inning?

QUOTE(jerseysox @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 09:23 PM) you're completely right. but cut me some slack. i threw those together in about four minutes out of sheer boredom. I didn't mean to sound critical.

QUOTE(innersanctum @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 01:46 PM) 2 out of 3 every series gives you 108 victories. Currently, the Sox are ahead of that curve even with the series they lost to Oakland because they took 3 out of 4 from Cleveland this year and split the series with the Angels. Currently, they are on pace to win between 112-114 games based on their current standing. Realistically, they most likely won't reach that number of victories which means they will probably lose a couple of series between now and the end of the year. It's how they respond when they do lose those series is what will make or break the team. As for the series they have won, am I the only one that notices that Ozzie plays different people for the third game of the series once they have won 2. Kinda like he feels that if he loses the third game it's no big deal but if they win, it's a bonus. Let's see who he plays tomorrow night if they win tonight to see if my observation is correct. Yes, I have to agree. A .667 winning percentage does mean they are on pace to win 2 out of every 3.

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 08:02 PM) I remember 69 well. Durocher could be a good game day manager, but like everyone else he had his weaknesses. He loved Phil Regan and clearly overused him. Earlier in the year Durocher did well inserting Al Spangler, Willie Smith, and Paul Popovich in key situations and they came through for him. Jim Hickman became a late in his career star because Durocher little by little gave him a chance to play. The 69 Cubs just plain choked. I still don't like Ozzie's throw in the towel in the last game of a series lineups. There has to be a happy medium. Choked or ran out of gas? In all honesty, probably a little of both.

I don't get the Garland one. I could understand it if his name was "Garnish". It seems Jon "Christmas" Garland would work better.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 05:41 PM) Well, let's think about it...which one would give you the chance to win more games...playing more of your subs on 1 day or spreading them out. I would guess spreading them out would stand to cost you more...simply because any time you take a starter out of the game, you're taking a decently large step down in quality. If you take several starters out at once...you hurt yourself for 1 game, and you free yourself to keep your best lineup in there all of the rest of the days. If Ozzie altered the line up a little bit every game, then you'd never, or rarely, have a "set" line up. Guys get used to hitting in the same slot, and having the same guys hit in front of and behind them. Ozzie would also be accused of Jerry Manuel type tinkering if he did this, and it would be the same people screaming about the way he does things now. As for the Durocher comment earlier in the thread .... That's exactly what Durocher did in 1969. He played the same 8 starters every day. By August 15th they were meat. No thanks. I'd keep everyone fresh and/or sharp, whatever the case may be.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 05:04 PM) But have you seen those? They are red, and the S is all jacked up I don't know about the specific hat you are talking about, but I'd venture a guess that it's the early 70's White Sox hat, from the Chuck Tanner, Dick Allen era.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 05:50 PM) Coming on a little strong wouldn't you say? Dropping m.f. bombs in your 4th post? I agree thats a bit over the top. But the sentiment is justified. All this talk about Timo and Ozzie being lovers is ridiculously classless. Crap like that makes this board look like s***.

Four position players through 18 rounds (17 players chosen). Wow.

Does anybody that is ripping this pick know anything about the guy at all? Or, are the Sox cheap and stupid because they didn't pick the guy you wanted them to pick?