southsider2k5

Big swing fooled the middle infielders on that one, especially Jeter. Good hustle by Dye.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 12:26 PM) Inning over. 1-0 on the unearned run(I'm calling it unearned). ^^ That is freaking terrible scorekeeping. If Uribe gets that throw close, he is out by 5 feet. There is no way in Stein's green earth that should have been a basehit.

ARod gave it a ride, but Rowand made it look easy... Two down.

They gave Jeter a hit on that??? WOW!

No score after half an inning of play...

Konerko HBP. That was intentional, he didn't want to give him anything to hit, IMO.

Yuck, MLB has the Yankees call today. :puke

BUMPED for Rico Bene's

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 11:17 AM) Borchard can't hit .200 at the ML level and he can hardly hit .250 in the minors. Averages don't rise from the minors to the majors. This isn't reactionary, this is fact. The guy was cut from the god damn Mexican league. He is a total and complete bust. And this is "proven" by 286 ABs, that's all I need to know.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 11:29 AM) If that happened at our park, the articles about the stadium not being safe would be all over ESPN and the Trib. The ligues would be shown again, as well as disco demo. If it happened at our park, he would be dead. There is no net over that area, just the support wires for the screen behind homeplate.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 11:01 AM) I'm sick of this argument. Garland has at least been decent in his ML career. He was winning 12 games with a mid 4's ERA. Borchard has been garbage in the ML and has been slightly better than garbage in the minors. The guy struggles to hit .250 in AAA, he sucks. But you're just gonna say this is an ignorant statement, so I'll just give up and admit that Borchard will not suck one day. I know you are sick of this arguement. Coincidentally, I am sick of people who overreact to things based on a limited sample size. Garland started half a season for the Sox his first year up here and had an era of 6.50 with horrific proiferals. As recently as last year he has an era just short of 5.00, with a WHIP of near 1.50. I guess we should have thrown him under the bus as well. Right now Borchard has played exactly 93 games at the major league level or just over half a season. Personally I don't think he will ever come near his potential, but to say he has "proven" that he can't hit .200 at the major league level based on 286 ABs is pretty incredible. By that logic this roster alone would look a whole lot different.

QUOTE(TheDybber @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 10:56 AM) I like it!!! The name, not the song. Send it into Hawk and DJ today. "I loooove email." Good call. Hopefully it sticks.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 10:34 AM) Except he can't. The guy cannot break .200, and he's proven it. Up until this year Garland had only proven that he was a mediocre pitcher, in way more time in the majors, but that logic. It is way too early to say that Borchard has proven anything in reality.

From the Trib

QUOTE(knightni @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 10:05 AM) Why would we have to put anyone on waivers? Thomas can go on the 60-day DL, which will open up a spot on the 40 man. The Sox will put every player on the team onto waivers at one point or another. Most will be claimed, and all who are claimed will be pulled back. Many teams use this to judge who is interested in trading for certian players in the off-season, and they keep that in mind for winter dealings. They also place everyone on waivers to try to bury the names of players they are trying to slide through for deals. Pretty much this happens with every team, and every player in baseball.

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 10:21 AM) Not only did Hawk and DJ fail to realize that it was Geoff Blum playing first in the 9th inning last night, apparently the good folks over at the NYTimes didn't notice this either: New York Times - Yankees Blinded by Flashy Contreras Geoff Blum = Nobody realized it. Brian Dolgin said the samething in the postgame show. Everyone just expects PK to be at first base.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 09:53 AM) Agreed. So let's make it easier for some of them by bringing in some cute li'l bunker busting nukes that will end up getting away from us some way or another. If we're losing track of billions of dollars at a time as well as munitions from supposedly secuired stockpiles, why not bring 'em some completed nuclear devices as well? The GWOT is making the US and the world decidedly less safe, despite testaments to the contrary by the "willful blind" of the administration. Our misguided nuclear ambitions and clear threats that we're ready and willing to use nukes on our enemies is not making us any safer in that arena either. Hopefully we'll see more dispondent insiders like ex-CIA analyst Michael Scheuer indicate what they really think: "Rather than move toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by invading Iraq." The recent AP piece "Experts Fear Endless Terror War" did a good job of at least trying to cure spell it out. "An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international terrorism finds them ever more convinced, in the aftermath of London's bloody Thursday, that the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war. They believe that al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency, a possible prototype for other 21st-century movements, technologically astute, almost leaderless. And the way out is far from clear." The article continues, "Scheuer, who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit for nine years, sees a different way out - through US foreign policy. He said he resigned last November to expose the US leadership's 'willful blindness' to what needs to be done: withdraw the US military from the Mideast, end 'unqualified support' for Israel, sever close ties to Arab oil-state 'tyrannies.'" The point about ending unqualified support for Israel is likely a key to averting the next world war. So because other countries want to blow us off the face of the earth, we should stop trying to advance our own technolgy? Funny when I see more countries with the capability of attacking us, I would think more effective strategic weaponry would be more effective for adressing the problem, vs sending a couple hundred thousand 18 year olds over to the Korean pennisula to stop Kim Jung Il from doing, what the UN should be trying to stop him from doing. I don't think you want to invade PRNK, and I don't see that negotiations have been effective, as judged by their history of holding us hostage in exchange for what they need, and continuing their nuclear program dispite their agreements, so what is the solution there. Today's situation can't be blamed on this President, as it has been going on for something like 40 years, so the solution isn't new leadership either. Bill Clinton gave the Koreans everything they wanted, and they still kept working on nuclear weapons, so obviously appeasement didn't work either. Unqualified support for Israel maybe, but there is no doubt we have to protect the only safe haven for Jews in the world. They are faced with countries on all sides of them who want to kill every single Jew they can get their hands on. For whatever reason not many countries feel that they need to protect the interests of Israel to exsist, and someone needs to do so. There is no doubt in my mind, if we withdrew support of Israel, that the countries would do exactly what they have said they would do, and carry out the mass extermination of the Jews. And finally again, the invastion of Iraq had nothing to do with PRNK or Iran's nuclear program. They have both been working on these things for decades. Iran was estimated to be less than a year away from having a nuclear device in 1981 when Israel bombed their facility. What did bunker busters and Iraq's war have to do with that? Nothing. The continuances of nuclear programs in these countries have been going on for longer than I have been alive, and will continue to do so, even if we left Iraq, left Afganistan, quit buying oil, quit researching new weaponry, and so on and so forth. These people have wanted Jews dead for centuries, and American's dead for nearly as long, our forgein policy decesions aren't going to change any of that.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 09:54 AM) i interpreted it the same way you did. he made no mention of the 40-man roster. If the deal that was rumored is the basis of the new deal, then none of the minor leaguers the Sox would be sending to Cincy were on the 40 man roster, thus they wouldn't be subject to the waiver rules. The only player that would have to survive waivers would be Griffey Jr.

Thanks JD... And where are my manners? Welcome to Soxtalk Tim!!!

I thought if a player wasn't on the 40 man roster, they didn't have to clear waivers??? Is that wrong?

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 09:23 AM) Jenks has earned a bigger role He keeps trusting his stuff its another option at the end of the game. This is our insurance plan if Hermy's back keeps acting up. I am wondering if they should shut Hermy down for a bit so he can get his back healed. We need Hermanson in the playoffs and as our closer. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised it you saw DL stints for Hermanson and Crede come September 1st, or even after this stretch of 15 games.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 09:13 AM) Heres the real question, who are WE going to put on Waivers? Everyone

QUOTE(sti3 @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 09:06 AM) Man Contreras had a great outing. Why the hell wasn't Hermanson used more in the 9th? Oh yeah because lefties are still hitting okay against him. WWE NEED 2 TRADE FOR A LHRP. I am sure it has nothing to do with his bad back seizing up on him or anything.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 09:05 AM) If Giambi could have.. I think he would have. He's still under gag with the BALCO investigation and upcomming trial. I suspect after it's over he'll tell his side of the story. I don't doubt that at all honestly. You could see he wanted to come clean, he just couldn't at that time.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 08:57 AM) Giambi didn't go in front of the world and swear with his right hand that he never took steroids... period. Which instantly makes Giambi at least respectable in my eyes. He all but admitted being a user, whereas Palmeiro gave us the "I never had sexual relations with that woman" speech.