Greg Hibbard

really inane question - but what is the best way of listening to the radio (or is there a way) without actually having a radio? Can I get farmio via the internet?

Valentin was a generally likeable individual, and perhaps the best White Sox example of a compelling argument for "clutch hitting" in recent years. He was a huge part of that 2000 team. I liked him, but he was a pretty below average player, at the end of the day. For what it's worth, he's the one Sox player that I thought might have roided.

I'm worried that he's starting to resemble Jose Valentin offensively - an occasional good year largely defined by anomalous power numbers, and then a .230 hitter the rest of the time... Can someone please reassure me?

Actually, I just found out that the 2001 Oakland A's were 8-18 and made the playoffs, winning 102 games. They also closed with an absolutely insane 63-19 run from July 1st through the end of the season.

Out of the past 28 AL playoff teams going back through '02, two ('05 NYY and '06 Twins) had records as bad as 13-19 through 32 games and made the playoffs. Almost all the rest (except the 08 sox and 09 yanks - who were 15-17) were at or way over .500. Is it really fair to bring up the NL teams? That league has been significantly weaker overall during the past 20 seasons, so a lot more movement seems possible throughout the season. The '06 Twins went on a four game winning streak in games 33 through 36 to bring their record back to 17-19. The '05 Yanks continued their winning streak (they had been 11-19) to ten games to bring their record back to 21-19. This seems to suggest that even if we accept the extremely unlikely scenario that the Sox could make the playoffs as-is, it needs to happen RIGHT NOW or never. As in tonight.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 11, 2010 -> 02:14 PM) There are plenty of PLAYOFF teams that were playing rotten in May. The 03' Marlins. The 07' Rockies. The 09' Rockies. The 06' Twins. You're not making any sense. The '05 Astros too. However, I think if we go back and looks at the playoff teams from the past ten seasons, I'd reckon 90% or more of them weren't playing this s***ty in May.

What's the over/under on how many times hawk will use the phrase "tip your cap" in the season series with the twins?

QUOTE (jamesdiego @ May 11, 2010 -> 02:04 PM) wtf? I guess there's too many people of french descent in this country. Nothing like offtopic, xenophobic jingoism to spice up a thread. Jesus f***ing christ already.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 11, 2010 -> 01:57 PM) It happens in our division all the time. Have you not been watching the Twins over the past few years? Did you not notice the Indians almost came back from 16.5 back in AUGUST in a certain year not too long ago? I'm sorry, but 8 games on May 11th is nothing. The reason teams 8 games back on May 11th don't usually win the division is because those teams usually suck, not because they are 8 games back with only 130 left to play. If you want to say most fans are convinced the team sucks, go right ahead. But do not tell me they are "out of it." That is absolute nonsense. Do you realize that to come back from an 8 game deficit on May 11th would require them to SLASH away almost TWO GAMES PER MONTH starting RIGHT NOW? How many games do you think it will take to win this division, with the way the Twins are playing?

I think analyzing this situation has equally to do with identifying how mediocre we've been as a team, but also taking a hard look at exactly how well the Twins are playing. They are getting a lot more than expected from some players, but it appears Liriano is back in a big way and that's a huge unexpected boost for them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 11, 2010 -> 01:44 PM) They wouldn't have to finish off the comeback to still make it an interesting season. And that's where I think the organization could really get in trouble, by standing pat while we are 6-9 games out through June, July, August.

QUOTE (knightni @ May 11, 2010 -> 01:40 PM) No. It's only two games. Why not go for the gusto and wish that the team tanks the rest of their games so that they're GUARANTEED to get a top pick next year! No wait, let's wish for a 5 year tank-job so that the Sox can have the best AA team in pro baseball! Hell, why not a solid decade of wishing that they lose, it's worked so well for the Cubs! I think you're completely blowing my thought out of proportion. This has nothing to do with draft picks, and more to do with identifying major organizational problems, in my opinion.

If you feel this team doesn't have enough as-is, do you think it be better to get swept by the twins, and start picking up the pieces for 2011 asap? I realize there are those who say you always want your team to win. I realize that many will probably think we aren't out of it yet. This team is not bad, but certainly not very good. In my opinion, as is the best this team can hope to do is about 85 wins. To do even that, they'll have to play 15 over the rest of the way. That's almost inconceivable with the start they've had. It's becoming clear to me that the Twins seems like at least a 90 win team. Why not just start retooling now? I feel as though the worst case scenario is staying close enough to stand pat and waiting until the offseason to start addressing major problems.

2005-2008 winning pct - .540 (87.5 wins per 162 games) 2007-2010 winning pct - .488 (79 wins per 162 games) If the Sox end up averaging less than 80 wins over a 4 year span, shouldn't KW's job be in serious jeopardy?

Juan "leadoff" Pierre, ladies and germs. He'll be here aaaaaallll year.

I think Farmio said last night that it's something like a $2000 auto-fine. That, the beating they will certainly receive from security, and a night in jail ought to be enough of a deterrent, but here we are.

if memory serves the Angels were offering 5/$65.

He was the one glimmer of hope during the 1989 season. Essentially he was the stopgap between Walker and Thomas (which is exactly what we may need?)

where is a Carlos Martinez when you need him?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 5, 2010 -> 01:17 PM) I think that's likely to be the range we could extend Konerko for if we were willing to do it before the FA period started. 2/$16. I wouldn't mind doing it for $5 or $6, but I can't see justifying $8, knowing that a precipitous decline is potentially ahead of us at some point, possibly as soon as 6 months from now. I guess Dye probably got me jumpy.

It would seem to me that picking up a serviceable FA 1b for $5-$8 million would be an easy to do, but admittedly, I haven't even looked at who is available yet.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 5, 2010 -> 12:56 PM) From who? How many of the 18 names ahead of Konerko are making $12 million a year? http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting/_/yea.../OPS/order/true I know all aren't available but that list would seem to indicate .840 OPS first basemen are sort of a dime a dozen, no?

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ May 5, 2010 -> 12:40 PM) I find this kind of debate somewhat perplexing. We get something started to slash and trash a team leader and look at his trade value, etc, and once again we get into this issue of failing to appreciate the true value of someone. Paul Konerko is not a problem but is an assett and we should be loking at keeping him. I think it's totally fine to debate whether Paul Konerko's performance was at, above or below market value, and I think I could make a case for any. Certainly it wouldn't be much above or below market value. I also think you can assess his value without trashing him, but apparently you don't think this is possible. But seriously, why on earth would we keep Paul Konerko after this season? His likely performance is fairly easy to approximate for a lot cheaper going forward.

As a side note, an interesting debate is Harold Baines vs. Paul Konerko. They have similar numbers in a lot of ways.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 4, 2010 -> 12:23 PM) From a purely baseball standpoint based entirely on his numbers and ignoring marketing/revenue/fans good will...he's probably been overpaid by a couple million dollars per year. Think of it this way...if you had predicted that 1 Konerko would be hurt most of 2007 and his numbers would take a giant nose-dive, and 2. The housing market was going to implode and make a large dent in sports revenues in the 2008-2009 offseasons, you'd judge that Konerko probably was overpaid in 3 of the 5 years of that deal. On the other hand, I don't see how you can be really that angry with the deal. It seems on any team right now, you need to have at least a selection of veteran players who are paid somewhat above value...with the sole goal of filling in holes that develop if you fail to draft someone to fill that hole or if the guy you have drafted busts. Compare it to our CF slot the last 4 years...Since 2006, that's been a black hole of offense. To get offense there, we've had to sacrifice defense. Finally, we've put someone there who can both hit and field, but we're paying what is likely a premium price for it. Our 1b slot seems likely to have been a similar hole the last 4 years if we didn't have PK14 there. Oh sure, we could have put Gload there or signed someone or made a trade, but none of those are really appealing options, and the 1b we've brought up through the minors in that time haven't really reached the big leagues yet (Allen, Carter) even though they were traded off. This post sums up exactly why I think it's an interesting debate. I don't know how you can be angry with Paulie essentially missing 30 games over 4+ years of the deal due to injury, when his BA, OBA and OPS are right in line with his career stats. Essentially, he gave you what you expected him to, on average. And yet, it does seem like he's overpaid, for some reason.