SoxFanInDallas

QUOTE (mmmmmbeeer @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 06:51 PM) I respect what he says but someone needs to talk some sense into him. Granted he's already made a boatload of money but just another 3 years could net him an additional $27M dollars or more....that's just ludicrous and an opportunity that not many people on this earth get. When you have a chance to build generational wealth so quickly, for playing a game, you'd be a fool to walk away when you've still got a good 7-10 years of pitching left in your arm. It's not like he's a lineman on a football team who will face years of pain and suffering for extending his career, he's a baseball player. My wife would kick my ass if I were him and retired. What? $84 million is not generational wealth? Happiness is more important than money. He already has the money, and he will NEVER be able to get back the time when his children are the ages he is leaving town to play baseball. I hate the time I am at work from 7-4 each day away from my 2 year old son. I could not imagine leaving for weeks at a time away from him. What do you hear most from the HOF'ers that had families during their careers: "And I want to thank my wife for doing such a great job raising our children, because I was on the road...." Just maybe, he wants to be part of that. Maybe he wants to see his kid ride his bike for the first time without training wheels instead of his wife telling him about it, or maybe be there to console him/her when they break their arm. Just maybe he would rather his kids and family think of him as a Hall of Fame father rather than have strangers think of him as a Hall of Fame ballplayer.

QUOTE (1977 sox fan @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 04:15 AM) the reason i feel they might trade him is because he had a down year also he was hurt and he is a risk . also if you look the Rangers have a lot of OFS even in there system there deep especially left handed hitters . but i admit it would cost us something but he would still be cheaper then UPTON and much more cheaper then AGON . i admit i don't know his true value and if say Hudson and another prospect could do it or is Hudson to much to trade but i do think we can get him for a package of prospects . The Rangers will NOT trade Hamilton. First off, most of his injuries are related to playing ALL OUT as a center fielder. So, to hopefully help prevent those injuries, they are moving him to Left or Right, I forget which one exactly. Secondly, he is cheap. They are not going to get that much potential at the plate and in the field for such a small salary elsewhere. Finally, even though he slipped up last year, he is still a feel-good story here. Texas is part of the bible-belt, and Texans like stories like his where he is turning his life around and preaching the word. So, that helps at the box office, which, given the teams finances, they need. GO SOX!

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 11:05 PM) 1: Cut a hole in a box 2: Put your junk in that box 3: Make them open the box And that's the way you do it Way to go...telling a MINOR to put his junk in a box.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 18, 2009 -> 03:29 PM) Linebrink f***ing blows. Lee would not have hit that HR if Getz doesn't get an error.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Jun 18, 2009 -> 02:46 PM) Nice DP to get out of the inning. Pinch hit for Gavin? Not yet.....let's keep our starter against their pen. Maybe if it was the 8th or down a run.

I like the pitch count after 3 innings....Floyd-31, Zambrano - 51

Lets get a quick inning so that we can get Danks to the 8th.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ May 21, 2009 -> 01:25 PM) Well, this one was over quickly Well, at least I do not have to spend 3 hours following the game on the internet.

QUOTE (Nokona @ May 12, 2009 -> 02:46 PM) $750. Seven Hundred Fifty. per Bruce Levine. That's just the TIP at Gibson's.

Tribune Company to buy White Sox with proceeds from Cubs sale.

QUOTE (G&T @ May 12, 2009 -> 11:45 AM) As I understand it, if you clone something, the cells and DNA is as old as the cloned specimen. So while they might look 3 years old, the clone will have 32 years of DNA damage. They better be in the bigs leagues when they are 3, because they'll be retired by age 11 or 12. Did you not see the movie The Island with Scarlett Johansson and Ewan McGregor? The clones were 'born' in adult form. So, I agree, I would take 9 Pujols and throw in two Scarlett Johansson's to be the ball girls.

The Rangers have 5 legit outfielders on their roster. Hamilton Cruz Byrd Murphy Jones My guess, is that you could take away Byrd or Murphy, and a maybe Jones. I like Marlon Byrd for CF. I would really like Jones as I think last year was a fluke, but he wanted to go to the Rangers to work with their Rudy Jaramillo and it seems to be helping. More than likely, the Rangers would want Pitching as they ALWAYS need pitching. But, we have to shore up that CF spot and there seems to be an excess in Texas.

QUOTE (MurcieOne @ Mar 2, 2009 -> 02:38 PM) I didnt see this anywhere else, however from Cowley's Twitter: "cst_sox: Being reported that Orlando Cabrera signed a one-year, $4 million contract with Oakland. Sox get two picks as compensation" I saw it on ESPN.com as well as cbssports.com

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Mar 2, 2009 -> 05:12 AM) KW should be fired it he did something like that. Wells is probably the one player I think is move overrated than Michael Young and his contract is actually worse. Isn't Wells out a month right now anyways? 2009: $10 million, 2010: $21 million, 2011: $23 million (can opt out after season), 2012: $21 million, 2013: $21 million, 2014: $21 million, 2015: Free Agent For a career line of .283/.332/.496/.812 with questionable health. This would be worse than signing Hunter or equvialent to the Cubs' signing of Alfonso Soriano. Funny you make that comparison because Wells and Young are very good friends. That is all I ever hear on the news when Toronto comes to town to play the Rangers.

QUOTE (wilmot825 @ Feb 18, 2009 -> 12:16 PM) After watching the highlights on mlb.com, I got chills down my spine and it brought a smile to my face. So after that I thought about my All-Time White Sox moments. And in the Top 5, this has to rank in there. What do you rank Game 163 in your moments? My Sox Moments 1) World Series Game 4 to win the Championship 2) Mark Buehrle's No Hitter 3) Game 2 ALCS A.J. "strike out" (just because of how odd it was) 4) Game 163 vs. Minn. 5) Carlos Lee tattoos a grand slam in the 11th to beat the Cubs in 2000 My Sox Moments. Most of mine were when I was there, so those weigh more than not being there. My exception is my #2 1) Being at World Series Game 4 2) Game 1 of World Series.....Hey, it was the FIRST WS World Series game in my lifetime....didn't think it would get better than that(at that moment) 3) Any moment when I was a kid and when I got home from school, my Dad would say, "Get your glove, where going to the Sox game tonight." My Dad would just feel like going and we would go. 4) Taking my Son last year to see the Sox play the Rangers in Texas, where I live now. 5) Seeing my first No Hitter in person, although it was AGAINST the White Sox. Jack Morris in 1984. 5a) This will replace #4 in July This will be in July, but taking my Son to see the Sox play in Chicago.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 12, 2009 -> 09:11 AM) He did play with a broken finger for 2 months last year. He's still a good player. I don't know if he's as good of player as his future contract suggests. Young was a 2nd baseman who moved to SS when the Rangers acquired Soriano, who would not give in to playing the outfield. So, being the team player, he moved to SS. But, I think he does not want to move to 3rd base now after having spent the past 5 years learning and improving at SS. If he were to change positions again, he would go back to 2nd where he is comfortable.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jan 10, 2009 -> 10:01 PM) I think Michael Young would be a very good fit on the South Side. Having watched Young play here in Dallas for the past 6 seasons, I really like him. Clutch hitter who comes up with the key base hits when needed, not for padding stats. Yes, he has been knocked for his range at SS, but at 2nd he would be much better. He would be a great Double Play tandem with Alexi. He may be a little overpriced, but he will give 100%, play through injury, and what the Sox are always looking for, a great locker room guy.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 09:28 AM) Dye has played 1B I believe it is through 2008 with a option (team?) for 2009

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 01:56 PM) I'm not the least bit concerned with MLB's discipline or anything else though, that's my point. The excuse people use is that these items weren't "banned by MLB" so it's not necessarily wrong. However, if they are illegal to use without a prescription it is wrong no matter what MLB has to say. I'm not concerned with disciplinary action, rather just the ethics in the situation and the fact that, regardless of what MLB says, it's still "wrong." I am not sure you 'get' my point. I am that as an excuse. What MY issue is is that the Mitchell Report is a 'sliver' (Sen. Mitchell's words) of the problem that existed in baseball. What is going to happen is that HOF voters are going to NOT vote in Clemens and Bonds or anyone else noted in this report. As the Senator said, it is a SLIVER of the problem. Owners, commissioners, etc. perpetuated the problem. So, net effect is that during a period of time going back to the 70's and 80's when players were using amphetamines, etc., steroids started to also enter the picture. While this was happening, the whole league was turning its back on the problem. So, I have a problem that a guy like Clemens will likely not make the HOF, but there are guys that will not have been identified that may have shot themselves up weekly, but just happened to not get their stuff from the guys that cooperated with the investigation.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 11:09 AM) I don't get the whole "they weren't banned" argument either. They were illegal to use in the US, so why must MLB explicitly list these drugs in their banned substances. People tend to forget that it is illegal in the United States to acquire and use non-prescription steroids. Steve, to your point then, lets keep every single player that was taking greenies during the 70's to present. I don't see the greenies witchhunt going on. Isn't that both cheating and illegal? Players passing along pills to other players (illegal taking someone elses prescription) to boost their energy. Seems like that would be an advantage over someone not taking a greenie. This whole steroid / HGH thing is insane and a witchhunt at this point. I do think that they should be banned and tested against, as well as the other banned stimulants. But, these things were NOT tested for prior to 2003 and players were taking them, owners/management was turning the other way to it, as well as the media. Now, the media says they will not vote for some of these players to make the hall. What a load of crap.

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Dec 15, 2007 -> 04:13 PM) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3155168 For what it is worth this other article on ESPN says they polled 90 HOF voters and got this: YES 32 (35.5%) NO 22 (24.4%) UNDECIDED 36 (40%) I posted this in another thread: The first mention of 'banning steroids' started in 2003 when after years of turning an eye on what was happening in baseball (by Selig, Owners, players, and even the media). So, much of what is being reported took place PRIOR to when the league was basically forced to not look the other way anymore. So, why are the fans and now the voting HOF writers so high and mighty about keeping out players who 'cheated'. For a long period of time, EVERYONE was playing "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" when it came to steroids, greenies, etc. So, why should players during that time be punished? The GM's didn't care (See Brian Sabian in SF). There are numerous stories about how the media that is 'close' to a team will keep certain dirty little secrets so that they can get all their other stories. I truly find all this so hypocritacal. There was an era of steroid use. There has been an even longer era of greenie usage. Don't greenies provide an advantage? Both are illegal if prescriptions are not obtained. So, are we going to go back to the 50-60's and start investigating everyone that took a greenie? My vote would be to vote these players based on their stats, not whether they took steroids or greenies unless it is proven they took them from the time these were banned and testing was begun.

Follow-up Question: The first mention of 'banning steroids' started in 2003 when after years of turning an eye on what was happening in baseball (by Selig, Owners, players, and even the media). So, much of what is being reported took place PRIOR to when the league was basically forced to not look the other way anymore. So, why are the fans and now the voting HOF writers so high and mighty about keeping out players who 'cheated'. For a long period of time, EVERYONE was playing "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" when it came to steroids, greenies, etc. So, why should players during that time be punished? The GM's didn't care (See Brian Sabian in SF). There are numerous stories about how the media that is 'close' to a team will keep certain dirty little secrets so that they can get all their other stories. I truly find all this so hypocritacal. There was an era of steroid use. There has been an even longer era of greenie usage. Don't greenies provide an advantage? Both are illegal if prescriptions are not obtained. So, are we going to go back to the 50-60's and start investigating everyone that took a greenie? My vote would be to vote these players based on their stats, not whether they took steroids or greenies unless it is proven they took them from the time these were banned and testing was begun.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 11:43 AM) Yeah, but Clemens and Bonds are much, much better than McGwire and Canseco. If you don't vote those two in, you may as well skip the whole era. Your comment is why I started this thread. Although there will be 50-70 players named in the report, this is not a complete list of every player that did 'roids and HGH during the juicing era. So, what happens? Do the voters exclude only those named in the report from HOF consideration? Do they also exclude others that they 'suspect' were juiced? Or, do you just look at the numbers for the era and vote that way? My opinion is the latter. Everyone, including Bonds, Palmiero, etc. should be considered based on thier numbers. If you want to create a section of the HOF that includes the 'Steroid Era' and put all players that played during that time period there, fine. If you want to have a sub-section of that area of Mitchell Report players, that is fine. But, if you exclude the named players, I don't think that is really a fair representation of the era and there will be players making it that were juiced.

We all know the Barry Bonds story. Scuttlebutt is that it may take him quite awhile to get voted into the HOF, even if he is acquited of the Federal perjury charges. With names like Clemens and other future HOF players, do you think that this report will impact their getting into the HOF like Bonds may be? Just curious.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Dec 12, 2007 -> 03:40 PM) So is it better to overpay and get stuck behind the 8-ball down the road. I think the Sox have been competitive but beaten. And honestly, that's ok. Well, when you make a comment that it sickens you the way the previous year went and are going to do something about it THIS YEAR, then yeah, maybe you need to sell your soul in years 4 and 5 to get something for the next three years. And what was the Garland trade? It was to free up money. That is the crux of it. Now it looks like they did not need to free up that money.