NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 10:58 AM) Well to spin that question around, do you think Iran would stand by while the British seized one of their ships and 15 sailors? Like Soxy says, hard to tell with a psycho running the show. Looking at recent history, they'd probably make a lot of noise in the press, and then act subversively against American troops in Iraq. No direct action. I don't think Iran will act in any direct military fashion unless they are attacked.

Current forecast for Opening Day. High of 56, partly cloudy. Could be a lot worse!

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 10:48 AM) I did not say us, i said the brits should have shown the balls to stand up to that obvious act of war and issued an ultimatum: Return of people in 48 hours, or you cease to have a Navy. Then, do it. As for us, I think our Navy is pretty bored right now, a few Tomahawks and some 5" rounds would do wonders. This has been brought up before. That sort of thinking is what got us into the Iraq mess: act militarily without considering what that means down the road. Do you think that Iran would just stand idley by while their navy was destroyed? Iran is not Iraq. They still have a functioning air force, and a large military. No way they'd just take the pounding and not act. And in Iraq, the Brits means US as well.

I like eggs!!! QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 09:26 AM) See, if I was a moderator, I'd ban you without even thinking. I'd be a great moderator. How very moderate of you.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 09:44 AM) I know the British navy is a small shadow of its former self, but within 48 hours of this happening, they should have made the Iranian Navy cease to exist. We don't have the available resources, nor the assets in place, to suddenly be at war with Iran right now. That would not go well.

I almost posted it when it happened, but I was surprised too that it went unposted. "different phase" sounds ominous. This could turn out to be nothing, like the last time the Iranians "arrested" some Brits and turned them back unharmed. Or, it could get ugly.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 09:12 AM) Carlos Zambrano is a true #1. One of very few in the game. He will get $20M a year. I also think he would come and play for Ozzie for a discount. Anyone that does not want him for any reason other than the cost is jaded by their hatred for the cubs. No, actually, I'm jaded by my hatred of the man. There are plenty of guys on the Cubs I'd be happy to have on a team I rooted for. Zambrano though, is just one of those very hateable people that I couldn't ever root for. Bonds, Canseco and Sheffield are in the same category. Just my feeling on the matter.

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 08:31 AM) EDIT: What are the odds we lose Terrero to another team? 50%? Obviously KW isn't too concerned with losing him, or he would have sent BA down instead. I don't think Terrero is in the plans anymore, so if the Sox could get something for him, they probably would. Welcome to the board, by the way.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 08:40 AM) I wouldn't say we're now loaded with young pitching talent. Rather, our minor league arms are now equal to about the average minor league system. The problem is that we have very few high ceiling minor league pitchers. If you look at the major league starting 5, then the next 5 to 10 guys, I think the Sox are better off for the next 2 to 3 years than the majority of organizations out there. Not the most talented in baseball, but better than average. Plus we have our own free agents to worry about, with Buehrle after this season and then Garland the next (I think). Combine all those and the Sox' tendency to avoid gigantic pitching contracts, and I think the Sox are not high on the list of possibilities for Zambrano.

Carlos is talking his usual arrogant game, discussing what teams he'd play for next year. Sullivan then adds something about a source mentioning Z would want to play for Guillen on the Sox. I know he's a ridiculous talent and all, but I sincerely hope he goes nowhere near the Sox. I just can't stand him. Plus with all the young pitching talent the Sox now have, it seems unlikely they'd want to spend Zambrano-type money on a new starter next year.

Well I was one of the few who held out hope that BA would make the team and start in CF. I guess I got half my wish. I'm pretty pissed at Ozzie - not for making BA work for a position - but for apparently not intending to give BA a real shot to start. I'm happy he's on the roster though, and as people said, he may be starting sooner rather than later. It looks like Ozzie was surprised that BA actually showed up with the right attitude this spring and some positive changes, so he feels he needs to do something about that, and changed him to this utility role. Not as ideal as him starting, but better than him at AAA, as long as he actually gets to play a few days a week. Please Ozzie, don't do with him what you did with Gload the first half last year and not give him any playing time. QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 07:36 AM) What if moving Gooch down the order doesn't work and he struggles? Do you move him back up to the #2 spot, and what does that mean for Erstad? I wouldn't worry too much about Gooch down in the order - he's batted 2nd in 3 of the last 4 games he played. I think Ozzie may have either given up on that, or decided to only do it occasionally.

I'd almost rather see Donny Lucy get a shot than G Molina. He's way more green and only got a few AB's this spring, but he's also way more talented, has some speed, hit .357 vs lefties in AA last year, and plays good D. And yeah, I'm a little biased, since he's one of my AAP's. But that doesn't change the fact that he seems to have much more potential than the other names flying around.

Gooch homered, 3-2 Giants now.

I don't see this as being a less talented team than last year's squad... LOSSES: Garcia, McCarthy, Gload, Cotts GAINS: Erstad, Danks, Sisco*, Masset*, Floyd*, Aadrsma*, Hall** * = if makes team ** = if shoulder functional Here is what strikes me from the above - look at the losses. Cotts proved 2005 was probably a fluke, and Gload while talented, wasn't going to get any real playing time. So the only losses of any consequence were Garcia and McCarthy. And I think it was pretty well established even last year that Garcia was headed downhill fast. The only USEFUL talent we lost, really, is McCarthy. And even he is struggling. The gains aren't overwhelming, for 2007 (though we put ourselves in a much better place for 2008 and beyond), but there rae some there. Most importantly - the team was already immensely talented, and we lost none of that core of talent. No one we really needed. So I guess we disagree here - I think this team is about as talented as 2006's team, maybe slightly more.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 04:42 PM) Name for me right now a single thing Ozzie has done over the past few months that you disagree with. I'm just curious if you can come up with anything. This goes out to everyone by the way because I can name a few times that I've agreed with s*** he's done such as the Danks situation, that was handled when IMO. I don't like the way he runs his mouth, and that is pretty much constant. I don't like that he is thinking of BA as a utility man, which is not a great role for him. I don't like that Floyd gets a longer look for the pen than Haeger, as I said earlier today (that may be Ozzie and/or KW, not sure). I don't think moving Gooch down the order, again, was a good idea (which it seems Ozzie has since corrected). That's just in the spring, and off the top of my head. I'm no great Ozzie defender.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 04:33 PM) FWIW, there have been 3 more computer models that have run projections for the 2007 MLB standings. The highest White Sox record was 74-88 in the models, and they didn't make the playoffs one time out of the 1,000 times the projections were run. Look for these projections to be released in the next few days. And BTW, Phil Rogers predicted a Wisconsin/Texas championship game. Shows how smart he is. Where are these models and what do they take into account?

Now 3-1 Giants, some guy named Winn did something to knock in 2 runs.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 03:57 PM) "indefinitely"... Keep drinking the Dem koolaid... you're right up there on their talking points. "indefinitely" is more of a BushCo talking point than a Dem one. I mean, what's the difference between "indefinitely" and "can't set a date"? Because I'm fairly sure those are identical for all practical purposes, and Bush said one of those two things.

14 games as part of our annual 27-game weekday plan (we split with others), then probably one or two added weekend games.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 03:22 PM) You have no idea how much I'm going to enjoy your decent to my level of thinking. Of course you will probably never fall as far as I have but you're getting there and I love it. Not really in a nasty way, more or less a misery loves company sort of situation. I just know there is a clever retort for this situation, but I'm having trouble finding it... Iguchi with a triple off the wall in LCF, ties the game 1-1 (scoring Erstad).

QUOTE(Itzel @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 03:18 PM) Nope, that's the other Brian Anderson (Bryan). If you click on the team link they have the exact same stats. :\ OK, that makes more sense. I was a bit confused by that.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 03:15 PM) ^^^ You're mistaken. I have more bat speed than Gustavo. I was going to say, I think I'd rather have Donny Lucy than Molina. But neither one are anything like what is needed right now.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 03:09 PM) If anyone needs extra AB's they can always go behind the plate. We have an opening. OK, um... unless this is a typo... Brian Anderson has caught 40 games in the minors, in 2005. Maybe he should be the emergency catcher instead of Mack. I'm not even joking.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 03:08 PM) Welcome. We all know Erstad was being put into that starting spot for ST at least, but Anderson has been pretty much doing what he needed to, to get the spot. There was always the chance BA wouldn't get the spot back. The only part I didn't expect was Anderson for a utility role.

Ichiro, please!!!!!!!