Balta1701

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Apr 9, 2008 -> 10:04 AM) The 0-7 start is now about two things - how many very good teams lose 7 games in a row at any point in the season? Two, what does it say about the team, such as the lack of a "stopper"? Again, the familiar refrain - it doesn't guarantee the Tigers won't make the playoffs, but it is leveling the "on paper" advantage the Tigers supposedly had. As rangercal points out, it becomes more and more uphill for the Tigers, which may lead to more and more pressing (or the losing begats more losing argument of sox-r-us). The 2005 White Sox had a 7 game losing skid in August.

QUOTE (hammerhead johnson @ Apr 9, 2008 -> 11:04 AM) These guys look awesome, but someone needs to tell Swisher that he looks like a retard. I'm pretty sure that's part of the point.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 9, 2008 -> 09:10 AM) Again, say what you want about Macowiak as a CF, but I simply can't recall him ever hampering our offense... if he did, then he wouldn't have been in CF ahead of Anderson. In the 2nd half of 06 he was actually pretty bad with the bat. Anderson level or worse. Post all star break that year his line was .258/.307/.398/.705. In August he put up a .668 OPS and September .590. The offense that was clicking in the first half struggled more in the 2nd half by all accounts, and Mack was as much a part of that as any.

Give em hell, John.

QUOTE (WilliamTell @ Apr 9, 2008 -> 07:58 AM) I would say no because to me, it seemed like nearly everyone except Thome was having a career year at the plate in 2006 if I remember right anyways. I think we have a much better shot at 900 than the Tigers do at 1000. I can't remember who said they would, but someone from ESPN said they were going to score a 1000 runs. I count maybe 2-3 guys who had what you might consider career years. Dye, Crede, and AJ, maybe Pablo if you count him also. At the other end though, we had a bad Uribe, an injured and simply terrible Podsednik, an average Iguchi, Konerko putting up big RBI numbers but actually down a bit on the power numbers from the year before (RBI's in no small part due to Thome hitting in front of him), Anderson and Mackowiak playing CF. The offense was carried by the career year guys, but it was certainly hampered by the dead weight hanging out in the 8-2 spots.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 9, 2008 -> 08:39 AM) Exactly. But as much as I like Cabrera in the #2 slot and Uribe at 2nd, I'd rather have Jon occupy then #3 spot than Danks or Contreras. Hopefully, in a couple more weeks, Mr. Danks will make you regret this statement.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 07:27 PM) I don't know man... He keeps reiterating how much he wants to stay in Chicago. I wouldn't be shocked if he either fires Boras or regulates his ass... He could have done this a year and a half ago. He could have done something when they pointed out that KW had gone to Boras's people and asked about an extension and been turned down. If he wanted to stay in Chicago, he could have made it happen a long time ago.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 08:18 PM) Is there one player on the team now who was on the '03 team? Inge and Bonderman. Rodney pitched for them that year but he's not on their team right now.

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 07:14 PM) Of course all of this is dependent on Crede firing Bora$$ as an agent and re-signing with the Sox. So it's all a wait and see until then. In other words, it's not happening. Because if Crede was willing to re-up with the Sox and fire his agent, he could easily have done it several years ago.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 08:00 PM) Would you trade Egbert and Brian Anderson? If we could dump Contreras's contract in the same deal I'd probably do it. But I don't think I'd do Anderson for Harden straight up honestly. I just think he's going to be in the Prior boat where he's constantly injured whether we like it or not, and counting on him to be healthy will just screw us over for the future.

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 08:00 PM) I'd probably target Blanton if I was going with one of the 2, but he's quite similar to Garland really. Reportedly, the going rate last offseason on Blanton for one team that asked was "Philip Hughes and Joba Chamberlain". Billy Beane didn't want to trade him last offseason at all.

QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 07:52 PM) If Crede keeps producing and Harden is made available... would anyone be willing to package Fields in a deal for him? I dont even know if we have enough to get Harden but just putting it out there. I wouldn't give up anything of value for Harden right now unless they took on a contract. Notably, Contreras. I mean, it'd be like trading for Mark Prior a year ago. It's just not an intelligent gamble.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 06:24 PM) No, I understand what you're saying. And I am certainly in favor of transitioning to some of the younger kids. But not ALL of the younger kids. I guess that is the point I am trying to make. You need some veterans. And those with playoff experience are pretty invaluable if you're trying to field a "win-now" team. I have a solution to our disagreement. This year, we win the whole f***ing thing. That way, Quentin, Swisher, Anderson, Floyd, Danks, Logan, etc., all have 1 full playoff run under their belt, while Buehrle, Konerko, AJ have 2, and guys like Vazquez, Linebrink, and so on are in-between. That way, when we bring up Richar and Fields next year...everyone else has plenty of playoff experience. Deal?

The guy who asked McCain the question that the Saint responded to with "Why not 100" has an article up at Huffington post reacting to all the people who have tried to allege that somehow McCain's words have been taken out of context, and stating how he interpreted it. The money quote:

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 04:14 PM) But I think it's also important to have a mix of youth and veterans on a club, for leadership as well as experience reasons. You guys are talking about losing Cabrera, Uribe, and Crede after this year, and then Thome and Dye the year after that, and moving in Ramirez, Richar, Fields, Anderson, etc to replace them. While that's nice for the payroll, and in theory, I don't think we want to go too young. I'm in favor of keeping guys that are still near their primes and solid fits for the team. The thing you're missing on that thinking is that you're trying to make the jump from having guys like Uribe, Crede, Cabrera...All of them are hitting the end of their "Prime years" or even moving beyond them in the next year or two. If the thinking is that a player's athletic peak is from the ages of 25-29, and then barring chemical enhancement, they begin to decline from there...Uribe hits 30 next year, Joe Crede tursn 30 in a couple weeks, Cabrera is 33. By the time they finish whatever your next contract with them is (except for maybe Uribe at this rate) they will not be anywhere near their primes, and Cabrera's already past it.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 02:12 PM) The corporations that fully support Chinese authoritarianism are much worse than the athletes. Isn't part of the idea though of trading with China that simply having contact with the rest of the world through things like the internet, trade, etc., supposed to wind up with one of its net results being a more open and Democratic China? (I'm not sure I believe this, but it's been one of the things claimed for years every time a China discussion comes up...that the best way to liberalize that country isnt' through sanctions, but is in fact through trading with them).

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 03:17 PM) Presumably, any hole would be a starter ahead of one of these guys, he quoted the entire starting lineup. So where would you upgrade with that 30 mil? Pay Bobby Jenks. If Gavin Floyd, Jose Contreras, or John Danks fail to perform this season, spend that money on the starting rotation. If another bullpen arm blows up, spend it on the bullpen. Spend a chunk of it going over slot on the draft. Or Hell, if one guy does fail at some spot, then there's more than enough money available to replace that guy. We have more young guys right now than we know what do to with. The best option is to try to do what the Angels usually do...as people get over the hump and hit FA, let them walk, and move the young guys in.

QUOTE (soxfan3530 @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 10:19 AM) I say we let fields hit in the minors for this season. Then sign crede long term, trade dye and bring in the crede 3b and fields and quentin corner outfielders era. Here's the problem with any OF scheme involving Josh Fields...we're right back in the "too many OF's" boat again. Right now, I count 5 guys on this team that seem like they deserve playing time at an OF slot. Dye, Swisher, Quentin, Anderson, Owens (read whatever you want in to the order). The reality is...we have more guys in the OF than we can play there already. If we try to move Josh to an OF spot, we're blocking him even worse than he's blocked at 3rd base; we're literally counting on 3 guys to get hurt before he gets a shot. Overall, I think a 30-40 home run 3rd basemen is generally more useful and harder to find, especially cheap, than a 30-40 HR corner OF. Case in point, the White Sox, who have one of those guys playing LF, CF, RF, and 3rd base in the minors. If Josh's defense can improve, even slightly, then that makes him more valuable there, and most importantly, gives him a place to play where we have no one else. The way I keep looking at this lineup...within 1 year, it's entirely possible we could have Fields at 3rd base, Alexei at SS, Richar at 2nd, Konerko/Thome/Dye at 1b/DH, Quentin, Anderson, Owens, and Swisher in the OF. That fills 7 positions in the field, every spot except catcher, with a guy who is 28 or younger, the most expensive of which is Nick Swisher, many of whom are still on the pre-arb pay scale. With a little bit of successful development...any complaint about this team's age or organizational depth will totally vanish, and the team will have about $30 million more available in salary. That's an enviable position to be in.

QUOTE (ChiSox35 @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 01:49 PM) We wouldn't quite be ending their season just yet although it would be pretty damning for them. Crazier comebacks/implosions by first place teams have occured. Remember running away and hiding for most of the season only to find yourself sweating late in the summer of '05? That to me is one of the strongest reminders that the baseball season is a marathon as opposed to a sprint. The Astros were something like 15 games below .500 in late May of 05 and came back to make the playoffs. That should be the reference point I'd say.

A couple more 3 am ads are now available.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 11:44 AM) VP thoughts: I dont think Obama or Clinton will take a current House or Senante member to be his VP. I do not think the democrats want to remove any sitting democrats from their seat and have the chance of loosing it to a republican in an election. So what you're saying is, the Dems should allow McCain to win the election in November, because it removes Joe Lieberman from the Senate and puts a Democrat in that seat?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 01:02 PM) The problem is the fact that we can't close the can of worms we opened. Well theoretically we can, but it's really hard to do now and we have to find another way. That's not the biggest problem to my eyes. The biggest problem may well be that we opened up Pandora's Box, not just a can of worms...and there may be simply nothing we can do to fix it other than let the disaster happen and try to stay out of the way. It may not just be hard to do, it may be impossible.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 10:13 AM) McCain is stay the course and Clinton is "get them out now". I really don't think that Clinton's Iraq rhetoric or plans have been that different from Obama's. You can argue effectively that they'll behave differently in office based on their past performance, or based on the quality of their advisers, etc., but I just don't think this is right.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 09:49 AM) The polls are getting tighter each time a new one comes out. Still, I think that while mathematically a narrow win might officially finish her, a narrow win and I think she still stays in the race until she loses in NC.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 8, 2008 -> 08:28 AM) /hijack Strikeouts are also, IMHO overrated for pitchers. I'd rather a guy have a 1-2-3 inning with all ground outs and 7 pitches than 1-2-3 with strikeouts and 18 pitches. /back I dunno, I'd say it depends on your team. And the ballpark you're playing in. Etc. Think about this example...which team is a strikeout more valuable to. The Rockies or the Tigers? The Rockies have a ridiculously good defense. The Tigers defense looks like a disaster area. If I'm pitching for the Rockies, I want to pitch to contact. If I'm pitching for the Tigers, I don't want Miguel Cabrera or Magglio Ordonez having to make a great play, because they wont' be able to do it. For another counterpoint, I think Bill James's followers would argue that the strikeout does correlate pretty strongly with pitching performance also, because if you accept that BABIP is not going to go through huge variations in-between people, and that if people put the ball in play a finite number of those will turn in to hits, if you strike out 10 guys per game, yes it drives up your pitch count, but that takes you from 27 balls your guys have to field to 17. If each guy gets a hit 1/3 of the time they put the ball in play, that takes them from getting 9 hits down to 6. Also, here's the final point. Do we think pitch counts are as important as they are treated today in MLB? Pitchers seem to get hurt just as often, there are still just a scant few who never have injury problems, and the numbers don't seem to have changed that much since I started watching baseball, despite the pitch count limit having gone down seemingly every year.