WCSox

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Nov 21, 2007 -> 03:33 PM) Says who? He still rates well in most defensive metrics and the fans still think he's above average out there. But if you say so... Did you see Jones back in the late '90s? He's put on 40 lbs. since then and, even if it's still "above average" in CF, his defense has regressed big-time. No way that I want that guy for the next 7 or 8 years, especially when Borass is going to want a salary that matches what Jones did years ago, rather than how he'll perform on the wrong side of 30.

QUOTE(SoxFanInDallas @ Nov 21, 2007 -> 12:45 PM) Jones. His career bad year was really only bad in terms of average. His Defense picked up and he still put up good HR and RBI totals. I see him back to his norm next season. Plus, he is younger than Hunter. Besides, I am currently residing in Texas so having Jones a Sox and Hunter a Ranger would work nicely for me. Jones is a shell of what he was defensively and will cost way too much. I'd have to go with Hunter or Rowand.

Patterson is basically Owens with power... and less upside for a heck of a lot more money. No thanks. I'd rather hold onto Owens, who will become an absolute steal if he continues to improve. If you want to spend on a FA CF, do it on a proven commodity like Hunter or Rowand.

Yay

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 01:38 PM) That's been the speculation; he's looking for 4/$36 LOL, good luck with that, Eck.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 10:46 AM) Thanks for all the solid, and a few excellent, years on the South Side. And a special thanks for that little trophy that we couldn't have gotten without you. +1 Thanks for the memories and good luck in SoCal.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 01:34 PM) Cabrera requires no long-term commitment (though one would not hurt), is better defensively and offensively, isn't near as injury prone as Eckstein, and costs the exact same financially. Eckstein makes $9 million/year? You've got to be kidding me.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 12:49 PM) No. The $12 mil "off the books" is in moving Garland, as an isolated move. It implies NOTHING about the cash involved in the deal. Yeah, there's no way that the Angels are giving us Cabrera and $9 million. I imagine that it's probably half that, at most.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 09:34 AM) I doubt it. But if the move stands alone, and if there isn't some cash coming back or something else, and if its not part of some multi-lateral move... then it looks like a disappointing trade. I'm now very curious to see what might come next. Well, I'm not suggesting that Kenny is going anywhere any time soon... at least not for a couple more years. But last year's pathetic results and this could set the wheels of discontent in motion in the board room.

QUOTE(dmbjeff @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 09:29 AM) Uribe moving back to his original role in 2004 of Utility INF might be best for him. I hope they can trade him somehow though and get that 4.5 million off the books, but I'm not sure how quickly you can trade guys who you just resigned. Yeah, I would've liked this deal A LOT more if it were done BEFORE the decision to pick up the option on Uribe's deal. Who in the hell is going to want Juan at $4.5 million? Or does Kenny actually want to pay a utility infielder that much?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 09:25 AM) Yeah, the addition of Cabrera isn't a bad thing. Its only a question of the amount of return for Garland. I'm disappointed that KW didn't wait until June or July, when Jon's price would be higher. It sounds like he doesn't have much confidence that the "knot" in his shoulder is going away any time soon and perhaps doesn't want to risk a DL stint early on that would send Jon's value into the crapper. I don't like the return value, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. This has the potential to be the beginning of the end for Kenny.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 09:23 AM) Well, I've long believed and stated that something's got to be wrong with Garland, what with his "knot' nonsense but if KW did this trade just because he thinks he's hurt, he deserves to be fired and there'd be serious consequences from the League, if they could prove it. It's just not something you do, however much everyone here wants to justify it as "they should watch out for themselves!" No. That's not what MLB says and that's not what the GMs themselves believe. Sorry to tell you, but most GMs don't like to deal with people who are just out to f*** everyone or DO f*** people with injured players. So you agree that Gord Ash was under-handed for not disclosing Wells' cortisone injections before trading him to the Sox? Kenny could win a World Series with the Sox this year and you'd still want him fired. You really need to change up your shtick.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 09:21 AM) Let's not even start the ridiculous conspiracy stuff. Garland is not Sirotka. The stories of his shoulder "knot" have been in the press all year - and they may have contribited to his value level. But that info isn't secret. Neither was Garland's 8 mph drop-off last year, but that didn't stop Gillick from making a bone-headed decision.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 09:06 AM) If Kenny deals one more pitcher who gets injured shortly thereafter, he'll deserve to be fired. It's a violation of a cardinal rule among GMs that you're open about things like that and it's a bulls*** thing to do. That's what physicals are for. Pat Gillick dropped the ball. And Gord Ash conveniently neglected to mention that David Wells was getting cortisone injections in his shoulder prior to almost every start in 2000. Yeah, just like you slam him at every opportunity like an angry 10-year-old. I'm not making excuses for Kenny. I'm just trying to find some possible reason why he'd do this. From what I've seen so far, I can't see why Kenny (or any other GM) would deal a good middle-of-the-rotation pitcher for a one-year stopgap at SS. I remember talk of "stiffness" in Jon's shoulder late this past summer, and am speculating that perhaps that has something to do with it. Otherwise, I may join the Run Kenny Out of Town contingent here.

Something has to be wrong with Jon's shoulder. This just makes zero sense otherwise.

Whaaaa? Cabrera is pretty decent, but since when is that ALL you can get for a veteran middle-of-the-rotation pitcher??? Geez, if they wanted to dump Garland's salary, at least wait until June or July, when you could force a bidding war. The only possible rationale I can see is that there is something wrong with Jon's shoulder that we don't know about. Other than that, this is really bad.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 02:48 PM) Wcsox, I disagree, the owners are responsible. The owners knew, and they should be held accountable. I already said that they bear SOME responsibility. But not ALL of it, as you're implying. You forgot about... C) Bonds fesses up and tells the truth, as outlined in the terms of his immunity deal. Neither did Giambi, but he realized that telling the truth and avoiding prison was more important than lying to protect his sham of a career. Bonds was doing business with a company running an illegal steroid ring. You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Says who? MLB didn't ban Giambi for telling the truth. If you actually believe this, you're either a massive Barry apologist or a complete idiot. I'm assuming that you're in the former category. Did Barry's doctor prescribe him BALCO-manufactured drugs? Were Victor Conte's products FDA-approved? No? Then your comparison is ridiculous. QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 02:52 PM) Bottom line is some people's warped sense of morality is based on what is proven in a court of law, or based on how many other people do it. +1

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 02:00 PM) Well the MLB and MLBPA are in charge of baseball. It seems that they should be the ones who should be held responsible. If they had a policy of looking the other way, then they should be held to pay. if baseball encouraged it, then they should face the music. They shouldnt get to make millions off Barry and then sell him to the wolves. No, they should go down with him. But, unfortunately, they won't. That said, it's not like the owners and MLBPA were distributing steroids/HGH to the players or knew what they were doing once they left the clubhouse. How is enforcing laws "bullying"? Bonds was given IMMUNITY by the Feds and he then proceeded to give them a massive middle finger by lying. Why SHOULDN'T he be charged for that? That's unfortunate, but it wouldn't have mattered if Bonds hadn't ILLEGALLY used steroids and HGH in the first place. And nobody coerced him into ILLEGALLY lying under oath. Here's a novel idea: If you don't want to be embarrassed/discredited, don't commit the f'n unethical act in the first place! We do, but that doesn't excuse the lesser problems.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 11:39 AM) So what they are games, baseball is a game. It is for fun, for entertainment. So perhaps I just don’t value the game of baseball like others do. To me its just a sport, and when baseball itself became addicted to steroids, it is very hard for me to blame just one person. To me it is all or nothing, either baseball goes after every player with the same vigor as Bonds, or it doesn’t. And that has nothing to do with the Fed, it has to do with things like “asterisk” etc, things that never were contemplated with Big Mac and Sammy. If Bonds records all go away, does Big Mac become the record holder for most Hr in a season? We replace a cheater with a cheater, and in the end, who cares. Everyone was cheating, you cant change the past. You cant change your mind about whether or not you wanted players using steroids. Baseball wanted players hitting more hr’s, it wanted fans, it wanted big monster players. It got what it asked for and now it wants to clean its hands because the game is popular again. So, because MLB and the MLBPA decided to conveniently look the other way as players were engaging in illegal activities, we're supposed to lower the bar of acceptable behavior... because, you know, it's just a game and it really isn't that important? Uh, sorry, but many people consider it to be a bit more than that. Especially children. Gezz, I remember how let down I felt when, as a 12-year-old, I learned that the Eddie Van Halen was an alcoholic. I can't imagine how much worse I would've felt if I would've found out that Carlton Fisk and Harold Baines were on 'roids. As for coming down on a select few where damning evidence is present, while little or nothing is done to others due to a lack of evidence, what's wrong with that strategy? You prosecute/expel/damage the legacies of those who have clearly broken the rules and they serve as examples. That's similar to (and much less heavy-handed than) what Landis did to the eight Black Sox players back when organized crime was fixing games left and right. Was it a perfect solution? Absolutely not. Did it clean up baseball and go a long way towards regaining the trust of the fans? Hell yes.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 09:33 AM) Can't do it. Everyone who testified was given immunity, except (of course) against perjury/obstruction. And Congress, not the federal prosecutors looking into BALCO, would have to decide to investigate Palmeiro, McGwire, etc. That would be fine, but the fact that they don't want to get involved does NOT mean that the BALCO investigation is a let's-get-Bonds witchhunt. They most likely didn't go after Palmeiro because they don't have a positive sample obtained BEFORE he testified under oath. And McGwire stonewalled them, so he didn't even have an opportunity to commit perjury.

QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 09:11 AM) The kiss of death....

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 08:58 AM) His attitude? Yes, definitely. But, if you are the prosecuter and you wanted to send a LOUD message about steroid use, wouldn't the all time home run king be the perfect foil for that? That would be a message that would be heard from MLB to high school kids. And really, the high school kids are the one that need to hear that message the most. I agree with Steff to an extent, but it's also true that prosecutors will go after the most visible people that they can. I'm sure that there are people running larger and more odious dog-fighting rings, but that didn't stop them from spending a lot of time and money going after Michael Vick.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 05:23 PM) Something seems to be missing in this discussion. Much of the indictment seems to be based on the timing. Bonds claims that he used nothing from Anderson prior to the 2002/2003 offseason. He wasn't saying merely, I didn't know what it was. He's saying, I didn't use ANYTHING he gave me before just now. I don't necessarily want to see Barry do time or anything, but I want him convicted. Because IT'S SO FREAKING OBVIOUS that he perjured himself. It would make the Attorney General's office look incredibly inept if they weren't able to prove it in a court of law. Not to mention Marion Jones. And if Giambi had lied to that same grand jury, he'd be under indictment right now as well. I REALLY hope that they're going after others in MLB, because Barry is just the tip of the iceberg. And I'd really hate this to become a "they're just trying to bring down Barry" thing.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 04:45 PM) I dont believe Bonsd didnt use roids, I think he did. Whether he knew or not is up for speculation. Only a retard wouldn't know that he's on steroids and/or HGH. (Wow, flaxseed oil has added a full inch to my head!) And I don't believe that Barry is mentally-challenged. +1

Something tells me that Anderson isn't going to make or break this case, and that Barry isn't going to serve any time. That said, it'll make it even more painfully obvious to everybody that Barry was taking illegal performance-enhancing drugs. And perhaps MLB will step in and do something to his records.