WCSox

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:27 PM) As for this guy starting and maintaining a thread on this media bias thing ... people will comment one way or the other. A few will find it interesting and a lot will find it overkill and beating a dead horse. And if the latter group feels that way, they can choose to ignore it. I'd rather that Soxtalk allow people to post such threads than to take WSI's totalitarian approach to content. Just my $0.02.

QUOTE(Thunderin @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 01:48 PM) He's a reliable, and sometimes spectacular, center fielder, covering the considerable gap between Jenkins in left and the team's 2004 right-field combo of Brady Clark and Ben Grieve. Podsednik also throws well. That's not an accurate report. But he's not absolutely horrible at the position, either.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 01:38 PM) Rowand hit like a banshee once he came off the DL. He hit .361/.410/.667 from the time he came off the DL until Everett was acquired, and .381/.408/.629 until the end of the season. But yeah, he wasn't hitting. Rowand hit .287/.327/.452 in '03, while Everett hit .301/.377/.473 with the Sox that year.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 01:32 PM) Flaw in your argument...they were playing Everett while sitting Rowand, thus getting Everett's bat in the lineup. If Clark was starting at the same time as Podsednik, that means Podsednik was chosen to be in CF while both of their bats were in the lineup. Everett's bat and lack of defense were being compared to Rowand's defense and lack of bat. Podsednik and Clark had that positioning chosen based on defense alone.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 01:25 PM) In 2003, the White Sox played Carl Everett in CF over Aaron Rowand. Therefore, using your logic, Carl Everett is the best centerfielder in baseball. Um, Everett was hitting back then back then. Rowand wasn't. What advantage did Brady Freaking Clark have over Pods? Dude. Grow up.

Link

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 09:50 AM) Quiet Jason, reason will not work here. You are just a stupid fan, surely Ned Yost knew that Pods could play RF with that cannon of an arm but refused to because he was just so damn good in CF. Um, OK, so Pods can't play RF because of his lack of arm strength, but it's OK for him to play LF? BTW, having a "cannon for an arm" doesn't mean crap if you have little accuracy to go with it. I find it amusing that Pods is supposedly the worst defensive CF ever, but still played there for two seasons and beat out Brady Clark, who has been playing there over the past two years. I guess that makes Clark worse than awful, huh? I wonder why he's still in the majors, since he has no power, little speed, and can barely hit for average. QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 10:19 AM) I'm just some random asshole on an internet message board Hey, we agree on something!

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 09:05 AM) I can't really tell you why they stuck with Podsednik through those two years but there's also a reason why they finished in last place both those seasons and their poor team defense certainly contributed to their overall suckiness. I'm sure that their horrible pitching (especially in '03) had more to do with it, but I see your point. No offense, but I'm going to take Ned Yost's opinion over somebody who watches the games on TV. The fact that Clark was playing RF in '04 instead of Pods says quite a bit.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 08:38 AM) I honestly don't think this should be in green. When legitimate posters on soxtalk make an observation about a player's ability, they're usually pretty well-informed. We see these players perform every single night, and we're able to form our opinion that way. Sure, and for every legitimate post here, there are five or ten extremist, reactionary posts. Players get thrown under the bus here (and I'm assuming most other baseball MBs) whenever they make a mistake. When Ozuna misplayed a fly ball in LF in Kansas City, people here wanted him banned from the outfield. Nevermind the fact that it was extremely windy that evening. Nevermind the fact that Ozuna hardly ever plays at all. Off with his head! When Anderson failed to produce at the plate, people here wanted him sent down to the minors. Nevermind the fact that it was not even two months into the season. Nevermind the fact that he's a rookie. Nevermind the fact that his defense in CF has been stellar. Off with his head! :rolly I agree that Pods does not play CF well. But the notion that he's completely incapable of playing the position is complete crap.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 08:19 AM) Every scouting report from Milwaukee fans said that Pods absolutely sucked in CF. Not only that, but playing CF just increases the chances of him hurting himself. I'm almost positive that he hurt his groin last season in one of his rare CF appearances. Right, and Brewers fans are credible scouts. Just like the "scouts" here at Soxtalk. :rolly If Pods were incapable of playing the position, he would've been moved to one of the corners, rather than play CF for two straight years. Hell, Brady Clark moved over to CF last season after playing 138 games in RF in '04. Hell, even Manny Ramirez, who is an absolute butcher in LF, can play the position competently enough that he's not a liability.

QUOTE(DannyCooksey @ May 31, 2006 -> 04:30 PM) i didn't write it. Someone emailed it to me actually. i never knew the site existed until today, but I think it's funny as hell. So this is what you guys do when the Cubs suck? How pathetic... :headshake

QUOTE(Thunderin @ May 31, 2006 -> 10:25 PM) Podsednik is not a bad outfielder. I think hes made a couple of bad plays and you guys have jumped all over him. Show me video of him being a bad outfielder. He would be a suitable CF with tons of speed and can cover alot of ground. Pods is a below-average outfielder. He's decent in LF and could play CF competently on a temporary basis, but he's not a good long-term CF. He misplayed a few balls in CF last year and people here stuck him with the "he sucks" tag. We're seeing the same thing now with Mackowiak (who rarely plays CF) and Ozuna (who rarely even plays). In other words, it's typical Soxtalk.

QUOTE(Tannerfan @ May 31, 2006 -> 03:59 PM) Unfortunatly it's not one poor at bat it's two, with Juan (I don't need no silly leg kick) Uribe setting the table for Mr. Anderson. ^^^ One sub-Mendoza Line hitter at the end of a lineup is tolerable. Two isn't. If we can't get somebody really cheap (like Sarge Jr.), we're better off just dealing with a BA/Mack platoon in CF. Anything in the minors that's of appreciable value should be spent on the 'pen.

DH

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 31, 2006 -> 11:23 AM) 2006 salary for Erstad...$8,750,000. Prorate over 3/4 of the year, and he still costs $6.5 million. Getting the Angels to pay part of that would cost actual talent, given that they can just let his ass walk at the end of the year. He is not "Cheap". I don't want Erstad, Griffey, or any other big-name, big-paycheck, past-their-prime-four-years-ago CFs in a Sox uniform.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ May 31, 2006 -> 09:48 AM) Just like you'd call the rapist an alleged rapist until he's convicted or confesses. Right, and Bonds confessed to the grand jury that he used steroid-containing supplements from Balco. Whether he "knowingly" took them or not doesn't change the fact that he took them.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ May 31, 2006 -> 09:54 AM) So you're saying Politte is going to have around a 3 ERA the rest of the year? He hasn't shown any improvement of late, I don't see him just suddenly snapping out of his suckiness and becoming a very good reliever any time soon. I wouldn't bank on Politte throwing a 3.00 ERA for the remainder of the season. I'm thinking he's going to be more in the 3.50-4.00 range... and it could easily be worse. Regarding all the talk of BA and Uribe s***ting themselves at the plate, I'd rather stick with these guys (platooning BA with Mack) for their defense. If KW's going to make a move before the deadline, I'd rather see another righty or two in the 'pen than a CF.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ May 31, 2006 -> 09:18 AM) I've got no real clue, but it probably has to do with sugarcoating. Much like a defense attorney might say, in a rape trial, "The alleged rape occurred..." Sure, if the rapist didn't admit to the crime. I'm wondering if the press are actually afraid to repeat the leaked information, despite the fact that it's common knowledge. Maybe there are possible legal repurcussions?

Bonds has already admitted to a grand jury that he used substances from BALCO that contained steroids. So why is the word "alleged" still used to preface his steroid use?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 31, 2006 -> 05:43 AM) I'd like to see the lack of regression after testing began to be explained then. I would also like to hear how he stayed so healthy over the years while juicing and playing the most injury prone position even without steroids? ^^^ Rocket had arguably his best year last season... at the age of 43 and when steroid tests had already been implemented. Wow... Clemens on the mound is good for baseball. He's one of the all-time greats.

QUOTE(Thunderin @ May 30, 2006 -> 10:16 PM) I have seen highlights of Pods playing center with the Brewers. And he made some decent catches. I think you guys seriously undeerate him. They do, but he's really not the best choice to play CF... especially after not playing the position regularly since '04. Mackowiak may even be a better CF. IMO, the best thing to do right now is to platoon Anderson and Mackowiak. When we have a lead late in the game, BA goes in as a defensive sub. When we don't, Mack plays.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 30, 2006 -> 03:33 PM) I think AJ's a bit of a stretch, given the numbers that guys like Mauer and Posada are running right now. hell, AJ has fewer RBI's than any other starting catcher in the AL save Kendall. Varitek also may be voted in again despite his bad numbers the first 2 months. Agreed about AJ. Thome definitely has the offensive numbers, but I seem to remember talk about him having a difficult time getting in because he's a DH. (I'm assuming that's because it's being played in an NL park.) Hopefully he won't get screwed out of a bench spot.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 30, 2006 -> 03:02 PM) $12-$15 mil for Buehrle. $10 = Contreras. What is it with the money from Arizona, like $10-$11 mil for Vazquez? $15 million/year will be the low end for Buehrle. $12 million/year is a pipe dream. The big difference, of course, is that we won't be spending anywhere near Garland or Garcia's current salaries for our #5 next season. It'll be much closer to the league minimum.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 30, 2006 -> 02:50 PM) Oh that's pretty silly...judging whether or not that deal makes sense to a particular team doesn't depend only on what other people on the team are making, it depends on how much your team is able to spend overall, and what you have on the way up. Given our history, we're pretty much at the high end of what we can spend and don't have much on the way up, outside of Fields. Oh, and our bullpen blows. But I thought that we could spend $10 million/year on a 4th/5th starter?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 30, 2006 -> 02:08 PM) Now you are just reaching. The Count was a good player to sign, but at this time last year, you would have had a different opinion of his worth. Given that you're incapable of reading my mind, I find it amusing that you're so sure of what I would've thought. Again, Count was a phenom in Cuba, much like El Duque. Judy has a whole one year of solid pitching under his belt. Count also has better stuff than Garland and we got him at a discount. Honestly, my only worry about Count was his age. Unlike Jon, I never doubted his ability. Yeah, because El Duque and Ichiro didn't amount to s*** in the majors. Count pitched pretty well in his first season with the Yankess. Sure, if you're not paying three other starters in your rotation $10-$11 million/year and are on the verge of having to re-sign your ace to a $15 mil+/year contract. Not to mention a third-baseman who will also be looking for a long-term deal soon. Garland's also well worth it if you have a strong, young bullpen and you don't have long-reliever who will likely put up similar numbers at the back of the rotation at just a fraction of the cost. But that's not the case here. QUOTE(WHarris1 @ May 30, 2006 -> 02:19 PM) Ooo fun, I can slant that to my side too Side 1 - Realistic about Garlands performance, points out his flaws. Is happy when he succeeds, realizes when he is struggling. Side 2 - Rides Garlands jock for whatever he does, fails to realize when he struggles. At least describe the 2 sides fairly. ^^^