WCSox

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 7, 2006 -> 12:32 PM) I have a feeling that with time Singleton will be a very good broadcaster, though it might be hard to exit the large shadow of one John Rooney. I agree with that. Singleton is miles ahead of where DJ was in his "rookie" broadcasting season. I'm not sure if he'll be "very good" or just "OK", but I don't agree with the general attitude here that he "sucks". Rooney's shoes are impossible to fill. Outside of stealing Vin Scully or Milo Hamilton from their respective teams, Sox fans were going to be disappointed with Rooney's replacement.

QUOTE(JimH @ Apr 7, 2006 -> 12:03 PM) Are you the only one who decides what the point is? No, you're not. I simply pointed out that you're missing my point. What's wrong with that? Yes, and you also need to do what you can to win series, especially against good teams. Again, this isn't 1999 anymore. I never said that I knew more about managing than Ozzie. But let's stop pretending that he's beyond reproach. You're dead wrong there. I can accept proven MLB talent giving it up in a crucial game. I can't accept a rookie being put in that position with the series victory on the line. :rolly If you don't think that winning a series against a strong divisional opponent in April is important, you're wrong. The "bigger picture" is winning. Rookie relief pitchers can be developed in less critical situations. My point was that rookies need to show that they can get it done at the major-league level before they're put in critical situations. Jenks' 100-mph fastball makes him a great candidate to be a closer, but Ozzie didn't put him into save situations right off the bat. And if Jenks had crapped his pants after being called up, somebody else would've been moved to the closer role after Hermanson's back became a problem. I've made every effort to be civil in this discussion, so I don't know where this condescending crap is coming from.

QUOTE(JimH @ Apr 7, 2006 -> 10:00 AM) You bring a guy north because he supposedly can do the job, and then during Game 3 of the season you suddenly say, "well it's Travis Hafner, we don't have confidence in Boone Logan to get the job done"? That's ludicrous. You're missing the point. This isn't about confidence (or lack thereof) in Logan. This is about putting in the pitcher who gives the Sox the best chance to win the series. In the eigth inning against a lefty, that would be Cotts, who posted a microscopic 1.94 ERA in 60 innings of relief last year. He's proven major-league talent. Boone Logan is not. Alternatively, leaving McCarthy in for the 8th would've been acceptable as well. Had we won the game on Tuesday, this wouldn't have bothered me as much. But winning a series against a divisional rival and playoff contender is more important than developing young pitchers. This isn't 1999. I wouldn't have. B-Mac mowed them down in the previous inning and I think that the lefty-righty matchups are overrated anyway. A quality pitcher can get anybody out.

QUOTE(jenksd @ Apr 7, 2006 -> 09:10 AM) Going off that ridiculous notion...If learning about your new players is only allowable during spring training, then based on spring training, Boone Logan would be our closer and would be the best option to put up against hafner. If the Sox had won Tuesday's game, I'd agree with you. However, winning a regular-season series against a divisionl rival (and likely playoff contender) should take precedence over "learning about a new player."

QUOTE(JimH @ Apr 7, 2006 -> 09:00 AM) If he's afraid to put him in to face Hafner then Logan shouldn't be on the team. Ozzie was "afraid" to use Jenks in the closer role last year until Hermanson got hurt. So, I guess that he shouldn't have been on the team, either?

QUOTE(JimH @ Apr 7, 2006 -> 08:58 AM) What's the difference? Cotts came on and gave up the go ahead run on a double by Jason Michaels, a righthanded hitter. No one is sure that Cotts would've gotten Hafner out. I like Cotts' chances (or McCarthy's) over those of a rookie with almost zero regular-season MLB experience. At least Cotts was able to pitch a scoreless inning before giving up a run. That's true, but it doesn't excuse using a rookie with only two innings of MLB experience in a critical relief situation.

QUOTE(White Sox Fan For Life @ Apr 7, 2006 -> 07:18 AM) I saw the A's game on Monday night when they were playing against the Yankees. My reaction to see Frank's homer was happiness for him, but then a sudden feeling of missing him feeled my heart. I remember watching games where Frank always worked the pitcher on a full count. Gosh would Frank always knew how to make great contact with the ball. Well I wish Frank Thomas the best of luck in Oakland. Yep, he's hitting the ball hard right now. He's also striking out and popping up a lot, meaning that he's trying to hit the ball hard. I miss Frank as well, but he doesn't seem to be interested in playing "Ozzieball" right now.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 02:03 PM) I think that's very silly also. Which is sort of the point...playing Frank every game of a series is equally silly. Yep. If they purposely limit him to 110-120 games, the chances of him staying healthy are much higher. I seriously doubt that the A's are intentionally trying to over-work him so that he'll get hurt and they won't have to pay him incentives. Then again, the morons that run this team blocked off the entire upper deck at the Coliseum in an attempt to try to force more fans to buy season tickets. So who knows that these idiots are up to.

Not only does he have wicked stuff, but a great attitude as well.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 7, 2006 -> 08:34 AM) Funny - not all clubs have that luxury. Even the Sox. Spring Training don't mean s*** when it comes to the regular season. Logan had a great spring and punched his ticket back north. It certainly doesn't mean that he can't wet all over himself for the first couple of months here and be sent back. You have to put these kids in situations they have not been in before to see how they handle reality. Spring Training is far from reality, IMO. I have no problem with Ozzie putting in Logan to hold a one-run lead in a meaningless game against the Royals where, say, we've already won the first two games. But putting him in to face Hafner when we're six outs away from taking the series from the Indians? No. In that situation, Logan's development takes a back seat to winning the series. Ozzie knows a hell of a lot more about baseball than I do, but he's not infallible.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 7, 2006 -> 08:16 AM) Notice he didn't really screw around with stuff in the playoffs. You HAVE to put these guys in that situation now to evaluate what your needs are. Funny, I thought that's what Spring Training was for. Ozzie's right, though. He knows a hell of a lot more about managing than any of us ever will. That said, I still think that he made a mistake on Wednesday.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 11:08 PM) Well his career may be over, and his body might be falling apart because of them, but the roids made this man A LOT of money. Another sad ending to a roid story though. Is there any evidence that Gagne was on steroids, or is this just speculation on your part? From what I've heard, it sounds like he's done. Hopefully that's not the case.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Apr 7, 2006 -> 01:11 AM) They have played 2 games vs KC and versus Texas they hit 6 HRs off knuckleballer R.A. Dickey. The Tigers are going to be better this year, probably 3rd in the Central, but I don't see them moving ahead of the Sox or Indians. They'll be lucky to come in 3rd.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 03:13 PM) I don't think you really want to see Freddy's numbers against the Royals. He pitches to his competition. :banghead That's right. I should've reserved his "away game" spot for the A's or Red Sox.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Apr 4, 2006 -> 02:30 PM) Hey, tenure isn't much of a worse deal. . . The difference, of course, being that one has to work his/her ass off to obtain tenure. Most of these people don't have to do s***. QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 5, 2006 -> 07:59 PM) They will lose this battle. The law will pass with some modification because it has to. The French cannot sustain their Socialist state much longer as their unemployment remains very high and their economy falls further and further behind their counterparts on the continent.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 02:58 PM) That's not correct either though. There would have been plenty of people upset, but their anger would have been directed at Neal, not Ozzie. ^^^^

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 02:47 PM) Not right off the bat? Then when would be a good time? August? Maybe after Logan's actually pitched in a few major-league games? I wouldn't throw a rookie with next to no MLB experience into a critical hold situation against a stud like Hafner... ever.

I would've set it so that Garcia pitched tomorrow's game... Buehrle Contreras Garland Garcia Vazquez Then again, it may be a moot point if Freddy is struggling to hit the upper 80s on the gun.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 02:34 PM) Didn't Cotts pitch two innings the day before? You know Ozzie. There's no such thing as a 'rookie' with him. If you're on the team, you're gonna be counted on to produce. When is Ozzie supposed to use the guy? Strictly in games in which we're up 5+ runs? Then people would complain that Logan isn't being tested in pressure situations. Not right off the bat. How many MLB innings of experience did Logan have going into yesterday? Putting him in to protect a one-run lead with a series victory over the Indians on the line doesn't make much sense to me. It makes even less sense when a well-rested B-Mac mowed down the Tribe in the previous inning. That said, I'm not going to rip Ozzie to shreds over this. Not after last year.

Champs #05

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 04:56 AM) The Sox are getting a little relief from Thome and Vazquez. So while the totals are their full salary, the Sox aren't paying all of that. The Sox obligation is what you thought it was. At least we won't have to hear how cheap JR supposedly is anymore. Yep, even excluding the relief for Thome, Vazquez, and Contreras this year, the payroll is still over $95 million. Great thread.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 09:57 AM) Maybe Bud was protecting the existance of the game. The existence of the game was already being threatened by the owners' demands for a salary cap/revenue sharing and the refusal of the MLBPA to give in. I don't see how Selig and the owners couldn't have thrown in steroid testing as a compromise to give up on the revenue reforms that they were trying to push. IIRC, the luxury tax wasn't implemented until just recently in the last CBA.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 09:43 AM) So why is Selig being the only one raked over the coals in here? Not one person has mentioned Donald Fehr. Good point. He and Orza are more to blame than Selig.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Apr 6, 2006 -> 09:19 AM) Because the '94 strike was the worst thing to happen to baseball since 1919. There was nothing but bitter contentiousness between the owners and the union and the fans were majorly pissed. They had to get back to playing baseball, not fighting anymore battles. I agree with that to a certain extent, but the owners sure could've used the issue to demonize the MLBPA. Given that the owners took most of the blame for the strike in the eyes of the fans (particularly Sox fans), exposing the steroids issue to the public and blaming the MLBPA for stone-walling them during negotiations would've been a smart tactical move. Much, if not most, of the blame should be placed on the shoulders of the MLBPA, but the owners could've done something in '94 or even before.

IIRC, steroid use had been going on in MLB since at least the late '80s. The owners had to know about it by the early '90s or so. I don't see why Selig couldn't have pushed for steroid testing after the '94 strike.