whitesoxfan101

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 12:56 PM) Wouldn't it be 2011? Before the 2007 season started he had just over 6 years of service time. 2007: 6 2008: 7 2009: 8 2010: 9 2011: 10 (10/5 kicks in) That would mean he needs 3 years of no trade protection. He's been up since 2000 without being sent down, so I would think it kicks in at 2010 the latest. Anyways even so, I reallly don't care what bull s*** they give us, if Buehrle will take 4/56 and you won't let him have it over a NTC, then your cheap. KW and Jerry really put the wool over our eyes with 2005 but their true colors have both come out in 2007.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 12:51 PM) Garland and Contreras were given No Trade protection for the first year of the new contract ONLY. That's pretty standard, it takes away any possibility of a sign and trade. Javy was only given no trade protection to a few teams on the west coast since he absolutely never wants to pitch out there again, so the Sox still have over 20 teams they could trade him to if they really wanted. Buehrle is looking for a complete no trade clause that covers the full life of the contract, meaning for the 4-5 years he's signed for the Sox would not be able to trade him anywhere without his consent. The Sox haven't given out full no trade protection to any player that I know of. When you're investing around $60M into a pitcher he want to keep your options open in the long term which is why it makes sense that they wouldn't give him a NTC. That's my point. Buehrle becomes a 10 and 5 in 2009 anyways, so instead of having a 1 year NTC like Count and Garland got, he wants a 2 and after that you wouldn't be able to trade him anyways. So in other words, the Sox don't want 10 and 5 guys no matter how cheap they will sign because they want to be able to trade anybody and save money errr......get young prospects.

I still think it might be better long term for the franchise's talent level if we trade Mark, that is IF Kenny gets proper value in return. However if we won't give a guy who is going to be a 10 and 5 guy in 2009 anyways a NTC, and that causes a 4/56 bargain basement deal with a premeire lefty to fall through, that is pathetic. Pathetic.

Now I'll start by saying i'm not much the liked figure on this board. HOWEVER I do admit this board obviously represents Sox fans well because like in real life, most Sox fans on this board are pretty damn smart. The reason most casual fans love the Cubbies is simple. In the world of sports fandom, like in life, casual means common and common means stupid. The average person, sports fan, whatever....is stupid. Only the extraordinary in life are smart, and thus a team that appeals to the common (stupid) like the Cubs always has been and always will be very popular. Your not stupid if your a Cubs fan, but you ARE a stupid BASEBALL fan if your a Cubs fan.

Forgive me if this didn't deserve it's own thread, but I thought it did. Now for those of you who love under a rock, here is what you want to see first, the 2006 version of Stephen A. Smith being heckled at the draft: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAB5lOIl-2U Well, here we are a year later, and the crazy ass heckler was back and far better than ever, even getting near some of the draft picks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvJGghOuFlQ I cannot tell you how much these 2 videos make me laugh. God bless this guy, whoever he is. EDITOR'S NOTE: Yes, I know I spelled heckling wrong. Sorry.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.../706290322/1006 It sounds good. He's thrown 9 innings in his 2 starts, allowing only 2 earned runs, 5 hits, 1 walk, and having 10 strikeouts with a .147 average against. He also had 7 groundouts and 3 flyouts last night after having 5 groundouts and 2 flyouts his first start. Hey, it's a start.

My friend, who doesn't even like or watch basketball, said it best when she saw Noah on TV tonight. "Ahh, so that is what death looks like".

4/56 makes a lot more sense. I figured it would take 4/60, but I think the players union would leave it alone if 4/56 is the deal. Either way I think we will learn a lot tomorrow....well now today.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 01:08 AM) New avatar. My best, yet ugliest, yet. I think Noah might be "the missing link". Evolution is a fact after all!!

The story was actually starting to calm down and make some sort of sense (aka Benoit was just messed up), but that wikipedia thing is just bizarre. The fact it was posted from Stamford (although I heard it wasn't at WWE headquarters, but still) 13 hours before the bodies were found and just....too many coincidences. And there are so many bizarre possibilities there that I don't want to start going into them.

Chandler is a talented head case, he'll fight right in with the Knicks. I could see him ending up a really good ballplayer though. And I agree with Ace on Hawes, the fact Noah might be traded, and the fact I think we were going to take Brandan Wright and Charlotte messed us up.

Best athlete ever to share a first name with me. Does that mean anything? Well no, but congrats to a great hall of famer on this accomplishment.

Looking at those mechanics broken down, I can't agree with him that Poreda is an injury waiting to happen. However I must say I agree as to being pretty amazed that Poreda throws that hard with that motion. The comparison I would make in that regard is a lefty version of Aaron Harang, who originally threw in the mid 90's, adjusted his mechanics and fell into the upper 80's, and then settled at about 90 to 93, where he is today as a very good pitcher. But that's just based on his arm angle and motion.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 04:34 PM) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287194,00.html Wow, that just sent this story in a whole different direction. Who could possibly have posted that?

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 11:19 PM) You know who did...Adam f***ing Haluska. BOOO YA Haluska is my friend's cousin, so I was happy for him. And I think Noah, Hawes, Gray, and Jason Smith will all suck btw.....Bulls needed to either trade down or take the risk of making a slight reach and taking a guy like Stuckey or Thornton.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 10:46 PM) I hate the Gray pick. But Curry and Noah....YES. Why? Noah is just another big that is so bad on offense the opponent doesn't even have to guard him, and Curry is an undersized guard with a history of off the court issues.

Wright hates Bruce Weber. Completely hates him.

Another awful pick. Aaron Gray? Man Pax is having a bad night. And now an undersized combo guard with a history of selling drugs. Awful draft.

Another awful pick. Aaron Gray is soft and just plain bad. Pax having a bad night.

I can't remember the last time I saw a pick that was a lock to fail like this by a Chicago team. At least some of the Bears busts were really good in college, Noah was just overrated and mediocre.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 07:33 PM) Umm Noah is a legit 7 footer and one of his strongest assets is his rebounding. If you dont like the pick thats fine but what you said just doesnt make sense. Noah will not be half the rebounder Tyson is, and will be his equal on the offensive end. And we have Ben Wallace. I can't put into words how bad this pick is.

Paxson's high character picks and such are really starting to make him look dumb and bite him in the butt. He takes a front court guy with no scoring ability, so when Noah and Big Ben are playing together you have to guard 3 guys, and this team still doesn't have a 2 that can score. Ridiculous.

Congrats to John Paxson, you now have Tyson Chandler....except not nearly as good. At least Tyson was tall and had projectable NBA ability to rebound. This has to be the worst draft pick by a Chicago team since the McNown and Enis days. I officially am against John Paxson, what an idiot.

If Bruce gets Jennings, 2008 becomes a GREAT class. All it takes is that one 5 star stud, as the 2005 Illini will attest.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 02:35 PM) Would Gavin Floyd versus Jon Garland comparisons be fair here? It took Jon a while to really get "it". One of the knocks against Jon was his mental make up and his propensity for the big inning early on. Stuff was never a question with Garland, just whether or not he had the stones to be a big time pitcher. Thoughts? Not really. Floyd is 24, and when Jon Garland turned 24, he had just finished his 4th MLB season, 2nd straight season at about 190 innings, 3rd straight over 100, and had a total of 570 innings of MLB experience. He was bad his first year, with 6.46 ERA in 70 innings in 2000 at age 20 (21 when the season ended), but after that.... 2001: 6-7, 3.69 ERA, 117 IP 2002: 12-12, 4.58 ERA, 192.2 IP 2003: 12-13, 4.51 ERA, 191.1 IP Even last year, Jon had a very comparable 4.51 ERA, but had the run support to go 18-7 (in 2005, he went 18-10 despite a full run lower ERA at 3.50). BTW, Gavin Floyd at the same age is 7-5 with a 6.96 ERA in 108 MLB innings. So what does this prove? 1. Win/Loss records for pitchers are overrated 2. Garland wasn't nearly as bad as everybody thought early in his career 3. Comparing Floyd and Garland lacks much merit