NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 02:49 PM) The Cubs main target hasn't decided yet (and everyone knows they'll get Fukudome). Does anyone really care about the Rangers? Do you honestly believe that the winter meetings were a positive for this franchise, in regards to competing in the AL Central for the next few years? If so, that's where our difference of opinion is. The Sox made one deal - the Quentin/Carter deal - right? Unless I missed something? That's a small positive move. Therefore, I think it was a small positive period for the team. And I think the moves before then - the drops of various people, and the O-Cab trade - were positive as well. But before you go painting me into some sort of corner where I think everything is perfect - I do not. If the Sox fail to make another couple significant improvements, I think the best the team can realistically hope for (barring half the DET or CLE core being in the Mitchell report or injured) is 3rd place in the ALC. ETA: Oh and, I would take a few points away for KW's outburst towards other GM's. That was potentially damaging for the rest of the offseason.

The next post in this thread that isn't about Australia, Rudd, Global Warming or Digeridoos, will result in the thread being closed.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 02:41 PM) So if missing out on big players was the standard for being the biggest losers at the winter meetings, why weren't Anaheim, the Yankees, the Red Sox, and Cleveland on this list after missing out on Cabrera, Santana, Santana, and Bay respectively? Because those GM's didn't verbally pummel the media who are writing the "standard". Also, the Red Sox and Yankees always get the special benefit of the doubt. And how about Texas? What about the Cubs? Those are teams who had big goals and did zip.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 02:35 PM) Notice the edit I made to my post, even prior to seeing DA's next post. I can confidently say that DA is just as disappointed as I am in what's happened so far this offseason though. Do you think I didn't want M-Cab as well? And Hunter, if that was possible? I'd like it if we had Brian Roberts too, and Erik Bedard, and for that matter A-Rod, and Derek Jeter, and any number of other players. Except here is the thing - M-Cab was a HUUUUUUUUUGE reach for the Sox. Yeah, obviously Kenny wanted to take a shot at him. Great. But he knew, and most of us knew, that the team had no better than a 5% shot at him. So, to me, him taking a shot wasn't a failure - it was the smart thing to do. I think this is an issue of expectations. This offseason, I want the team to improve a lot, particularly at CF, LF, SS, bullpen, and maybe an SP and maybe 2B. As far as I can tell, they've ticked off 2 or 3 of those. Still waiting on CF and an SP, of course. I also expected them to turn loose of Erstad, Pods, Cintron, Myers and Gonzalez. They've done all but one of those. Now given that DET and CLE are so stacked, it is CRITICAL that CF and an SP are improved, and it would be helpful if they could also do a bit with the bench and maybe 2B, possibly. But there is of course still a lot of time. If they can do those things, I think this team is competitive for a playoff spot in 2008. And that is a big improvement over the sad state of affairs that was the 2007 Sox. So in my view, SO FAR, its been a successful offseason. But we'll know for sure on April 1st.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 02:31 PM) Oh I have a feeling that there will plenty of people obsessing about everyone of their moves and non-moves for some reason... What would make you say that?

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 02:32 PM) The winter is far from over. The winter meetings except for 1 huge trade was a big bust again. The reason the White Sox were called losers was they apparently were the runners up for the 2 top players. ^^^^ That is the answer to your question, Fathom. Thank you DA.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 02:12 PM) BA has talent. He's by far the best defensive CF in the White Sox system. In July and August of 2006 he hit .310. He hit .257 after the ASB in 2006. He wasn't just playing in meaningless games. He wasn't given much of an opportunity in 2007, just like if the White Sox were in contention after the first couple of months of 2007, Owens, and Richar wouldn't have had an opportunity. I wouldn't give up on him, he has holes in his swing, but so does everyone. So according to the Dick Allen school of statistics... looking at Anderson's 2 strong months and ignoring his 3 bad ones is OK, but looking at Owens' 2 good months over his 2 bad ones is not? And for the record, I don't think you give up on Anderson talent-wise. I think he needs to show some respect for the game, and for the fact that he'll actually need to work at it to be good at this level. If he can do that, then sure, give him a shot if/when he's the right guy for the job.

What a joke. The Sox made one move - Quentin for Carter - which improved the club. And they are the biggest losers? There is exactly one reason the media pundits are panning the Sox' winter meetings performance - KW's speech. He outright lambasted them, and now they are getting him back for it. I guess since they were among 5 teams (at least) trying for Hunter, and probably that many or more for M-Cab, those other teams are losers too, right? And before anyone responds "no", think about what that means.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 01:58 PM) You don't think Jesus is great? Well that's fine, have fun in hell! You can stop now.

TTAHAJP. And for a lot cheaper.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 07:52 PM) Does a world series team seem like one who had pitchers put up ERA's of 4.48, 4.54, 4.78, and 7.15, who's leadoff hitter put up a .314 OBP, and who's LF hit .199 the year before? The guys I just gave you were Robertson, Bonderman, Maroth, Verlander, Granderson, and Thames in 2005. Sure, it might be a bit unfair saying that Justin Verlander was going to fail in 2006 based on the 7.15 ERA he put up in 11 innings in 2005, but I don't see how that's any more unfair than what you just did with the rookie seasons of Richar, Quentin, Danks, and to a lesser extent Floyd. Balta, of all the posts positive and negative the last few days, this is the only one that has made me feel a little better about the team's possibilities. Thank you sir.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 04:34 PM) so 1,3 and 4 are the same but just about scale... but the reasoning is totally different? that makes absolutely no sense. you are still coming back to your 'if it's easy to do it's ok' argument. I feel like I'm talking with Steve Forbes when he was running for President. Except instead of hearing "FLAT TAX! FLAT TAX!", all you say is "ITS EASY! ITS EASY!". Where are you getting that? And who said the reasoning is different? Saddam's regime at its worst pales in comparison to the loss of life happening in Darfur. How is that not clear?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 02:41 PM) According to Baseball-Reference, Cabrera has 391 career plate appearances as a leadoff hitter. His numbers: .245 .283 .394 .677 In the last 4 years, he has hit leadoff only 25 times. That line, which people are using to worry about him leading off, is really not relevant since he hasn't led off more than a handful of at bats since 2001. Its just not any indication of what he'd do in the #1 slot now.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 04:25 PM) your argument is still 'if it easy to invade, do it'. The easy being low risk. There was supposed to be high reward for Iraq as well. Sorry, I don't think it is our militaries purpose to be invading countries that haven't done anything directly to us. US should not be world police I never said, nor ever would say, that it would be easy. That is you who keeps trying to put words in my outh. And I have said since before the war that the "rewards" were minimal, and more than offset by the negative consequences, let alone the risk.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 04:27 PM) yes they do. the arguments for Iraq were 1) Saddam is dangerous, should be taken out before he gets worse 2) will be easier to deal with now than later 3) free the Iraqi's from oppression 4) Saddam is a mass murderer. sounds a lot like the invade Sudan arguments. Not even remotely comparable. I didn't even make an argument like #2. And 1, 3 and 4 are all about scale. Saddam's regime did nothing even remotely on the scale of the Darfur situation. Not in the same ballpark.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 04:19 PM) Excuse me while I mourn the passing of our AA bullpen... For f***'s sake, I really don't know why anyone gives a s*** about it if we don't pick anything. Maybe I'm not all that broken up about a guy that spent three years in WS. If you are referring to Hernandez, he spent TWO years in WS. Unless you want to count 2 innings pitched in '04. Tell you what. Show me why Gonzalez belongs on the 40 and Hernandez doesn't, even 2 weeks ago.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 04:02 PM) Who is the starting LF? Who is the starting 2B? Who is the 5th Starter? Quentin Richar Danks or Floyd LF and 2B are really not major concerns now, IMO. Its CF, 4th or 5th starter and maybe the bench that need attention.

Anyone else check out the Sox site article on the Rule V draft? 2 interesting tidbits caught my eye... There was this: I think that explains Armstrong. I guess he had to be protected after all - due to his previously being drafter via Rule V. Then there was this from Regier: That's all fine, I wouldn't want Hernandez to replace Russell either. But WTF is Andy Gonzalez doing on there?!?! One more comment on this draft. For a system that BA and other "experts" call so awful, it sure seems odd that the Sox had so many players taken in the draft. Maybe the lower levels really are getting better.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 03:38 PM) Does he actually play CF, or is that just speculation/wishful thinking? Well, he played CF for Cuba in the WBC in '06. I've seen him listed as a SS and CF, but also sometimes is mentioned as a possible 2B. I am not sure what he is trying to be specifically, when reaching MLB.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 03:15 PM) sounds like the reasons we got for invading Iraq. None of them. None of those applied to Iraq.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 03:13 PM) I never said it was worse. Both were/are bad ideas IMO. Oh, so if it's easy to invade a country that is doing bad stuff we should go for it.. I see. LOL. Nice try. That was the Iraq argument, not Sudan. I absolutely think there should be a risk-reward type mindset though, and one based on serious, considered, research NOT LIMITED TO military considerations. With Iraq, the risk was exactly what lots of people, including CIA analysts, Pentagon planners, diplomats all over the world, lessons repeated throughout history and Bush's own father for heaven's sake, had been saying forever. Occupying Iraq is a huge mistake, and was bound to cost thousands of American lives, huge numbers of Iraqis, and spend virtually all the politcal global capital the US had. The reward they were going for was something along the lines of: a democratic regime in the Middle East can serve nicely as a base for out attempts to mete out extremist terror (and some other factors, like getting Saddam out of power, having direct access to oil, etc.). Seems pretty imbalanced in favor of NOT doing it, to me. Sudan does have some of the same risks of instability and terror, no doubt. But, you aren't in the Middle East adjacent to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia... you aren't planning to overthrow the government... you don't have a country nearly as loaded with military hardware... you would have much more non-US support to bear the brunt of the effort... simply put, the risk factors are much lower. And the rewards? Stopping a genocide of hundreds of thousands of people, by itself, is pretty damn big to me. But beyond that, you also have the exact opposite of Iraq - you are seen in a Muslim country, in an impoverished area, as actually doing something positive. That means better relationships with all sorts of Muslim countries, and that means a dramatic decrease in anti-American sentiment, which means a lot less terror and violence risk for us. Further, the US makes a real inroads in Africa, where China has been smart enough for a while now to be investing money in as a great future source of natural and human resources. I am not 100% sure Sudan would have been a great idea, but I have no doubt it would have been a better alternative than Iraq in pretty much every way possible, and at a substantially lower cost of money and lives (in my view).

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 02:30 PM) He tried to make the discussion "Christians vs. Seculars" instead of making any comments on his Mormonism. I think his comments were way off-base and contradictory to the princinples of our government and Constitution. (Specifically, "freedom requires religion") Yeah I have to say, the "freedom requires religion" quote bothered me too. But it was a directed play towards the Christian Coalition folks - the ones deluded into thinking this is a "Christian Nation".

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 02:36 PM) The question is...is he expecting to be a starter next year? As a SS we don't really have room for 1 in 08, we have 2 right now. But if he's more expecting to follow the Escobar/Morales path of spending a year in the minors, we could have a slot for that. I was actually thinking he'd be more of a 2B or OF option. I got the impression that was more his eventual position as a major leaguer. But I don't know what his demands or intentions are.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 02:33 PM) In the same way that wite's question is fair and innocent I ask mine -- do you hold that rigidly with all 'cheating'? What about, say, Mark Buehrle who is on record as saying he doesn't always or often put pine tar on his glove but "if it's there, from shaking hands or being in the dugout, I use it" -- do you hate him? (That isn't a direct quote but that is about what he said: I don't go out of my way but if I get pinetar on me, I'll use it.) How much cheating is too much cheating? Is sign-stealing a form of cheating to lead to hatred? I don't put them in the same level (your MB example and injecting illegal steroids), any more than I'd put murder and jaywalking in the same level. They are both crimes, or alternately, both cheating. But to say there is no scale, there is just evil or clean, would be kind of ridiculous. Cheating of the sort on the playing field - stealing signs, etc. - is barely even cheating. Its part of the game. Its a bit dirty, but its just not in the same league. Are you telling me you think MB occasionally using happenstantial sticky stuff on his glove, or a guy on 2nd stealing pitch signs, is the same as a guy who uses illegal steroids?

There may have been a thread on this guy previously, but I can't find it, so here it is... I wouldn't be surprised if the Sox are one of the 5 teams. Do people have any interest in this guy? I remember a few people pointing him out a few months back.