WCSox

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Apr 2, 2006 -> 02:07 PM) He had a good 03 He was pretty bad in the '03 playoffs.

QUOTE(FlaCWS @ Apr 2, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) I have a couple of issues with this deal: 1. God bless Contreras for what he did for us down the stretch, and in the playoffs, last year, but remember that the guy has had one good HALF season in the majors. He was absolutely awful with the Yankees, and barely mediocre from mid '04 to mid '05 with the Sox. 2. Contreras is listed at 34 years old but we all know El Duque had himself 4 years younger than he really was. If that's the common practice with the Cubans, then Contreras is 38. We just locked him up till age 42. Yikes. 3. Buerhle is only 27 and has had 5 good seaons with the Sox (as opposed to one half). He is the true ace (and face) of this team. I realize we have him locked up for 2 years, but he'll still be only 29 at that point. Why not lock him up long term now, instead of committing all that money to Contreras? This is assuming, of course, that Kenny hasn't been trying to do this all along. I hope he has. I'm not trying to be negative, just looking at the devil's advocate side of things. Contreras was the man for us last year, but to me he hasn't proved enough to warrant this extension. Just my two cents. I agree. I would've liked to see Buehrle re-signed instead, but maybe they're waiting until next season to determine who they want to keep around. Then again, Contreras' contract averages around $9 million/year, which isn't bad considering that he was nearly unhittable in the second half of last year. In a worst-case scenario (say, Contreras posts a 5.50 ERA by July), KW could always eat some of the contract and shop him for a reliever. Quality starting pitchers (even old ones with $29 million contracts) are inherently valuable trade bait. Also, it was nice to see this deal get done so that his future wasn't a distraction. Contreras seems to be more easily-distracted by off-the-field issues than a lot of other players. While the situation with his family during his first season in NY was understandably affecting his performance on the mound, he didn't get much better after his family made it safe to America. It wasn't until El Duque took him under his wing last year that he re-gained his confidence and pitched to his potential.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt @ Apr 2, 2006 -> 01:25 PM) and now bad weather that threatens to ruin opening day for a team that just won the Series for teh first time in 88 years? Damn... It would take a decade of non-stop bad weather to ruin that.

Drinking beer on my new microfiber couch in front of the TV with the fireplace going.

Even a worst-case scenario today sounds better than the 34-degree thunderstorm during Opening Day of '03.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Apr 2, 2006 -> 03:34 AM) I don't buy the argument that the sox have to deal one of their SP's now. The sox know their pitching is what will keep them contending every year. A more likely scenario is dealing a top prospect [Josh Fields, Owens] with a non-contending team [one of the perennial cellar dwellars] for a reliever. Though it won't net a top reliever, it could be a very solid vet. Though closer to the deadline, it probably could get a better pitcher. I agree with that. A middle reliever with an ERA somewhere in the 3's for a decent prospect would be fine with me. I think that they'd trade a starter (probably Vazquez) before Crede or Dye. I wouldn't want Crede or Dye to go, either. A starter would have more trade value than those guys anyway. Assuming that last year's playoff meltdown doesn't carry over into this season, I'd want Lidge. Jenks, who is already in Ozzie's doghouse, could be moved to the set-up role.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Apr 1, 2006 -> 05:31 PM) MVP caliber. Not according to the non-homers who voted him 15th. Try reading it again. If Frank's 74 games in '04 constituted a "good season" by your standards, then his latter 74 games in 2000 constituted a poor one by mine. You can't compare a partial season to a full one. He did in 2000. But he hasn't put up those kinds of numbers since. Hence Frank is in decline. Gee, I don't know... what ever could strength have to do with how quickly one can swing a bat? Frank can't handle fastballs like he used to, as evidenced by his much higher K/BB ratio since 2001. Then I suppose that it's his weak ankles and feet that are the problem, rather than the 270 lbs. that they have to carry around all day. Sorry, but even the biggest Frank supporter out there would admit that he needs to lose about 20 or 30 lbs.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Apr 1, 2006 -> 05:08 PM) His OPS jumped from .834 in '02 to .952 in '03. That's rather significant. Sure. Frank had a good year in '03. I've already said that. But it wasn't on par with what he did from '91-'97 and 2000. OK, then I'll solely focus on the last 74 games of 2000 and argue that Frank didn't deserve the MVP that year. (If you'll recall, Frank went into a big slump that August.) Comparing a half-season to a full-season is a slippery slope. So, you criticize me for "dismissing" a 74-game campaign in '04, yet it's perfectly OK for you to completely dismiss two full seasons?! :rolly Oh, I don't know... maybe the fact that his bat speed has declined significantly since the '90s? It's reflected in his higher strikeout totals. You're right. Being fat and out of shape actually makes a hitter more productive.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Apr 1, 2006 -> 04:40 PM) Still shouldn't have finished 15th. Moot point. He wasn't nearly close enough to win it. It went up a little in '03 and the '04 numbers are only based on 74 games. You can't ingnore relevant data just because it doesn't support your argument. He had back-to-back bad seasons with no major injury for an excuse... and he hasn't been the same since. Yep, I can see Frank sitting at home in the DL right now. Oooh, personal attacks. You sound like a real intellectual powerhouse! Yes, his strength and vision have deteroirated and he's about 30 lbs heavier than he was a decade ago. Too bad those things affect his bat speed and strike-zone judgement.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Apr 1, 2006 -> 04:23 PM) Check out the update to that same link now. :headshake Vazquez for Lidge and a middle-reliever sounds good to me!

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Apr 1, 2006 -> 03:46 PM) Then neither was Thome in '04. But Thome was in '03. Wherever you want to rank him, he had no legitimate shot at the '03 AL MVP. There were too many other people with better or similar numbers. A moron also knows that it doesn't explain his 115 K's and paltry .361 OBP. He had enough strength in his triceps to hit 28 HRs and 29 2Bs. Surely, he had enough energy to take a walk every once in a while. Why would Frank suddenly had "off years" right after winning 2 MVPs and a batting title? Was he hurt in '98 and '99? No! Talk about a "weak argument." :rolly Agreed. Minus his new-found lack of plate discipline, which had nothing to do with his injury. Sure, if you eliminated A-Rod, Manny, and Delgado from the ballot. Frank's been declining since '98. He's had one MVP-caliber season since (2000) and, while one of his fully-healthy seasons was impressive (2003), two others have been poor (1998, 1999). If you think that he's the same player that he was from '91-'97, you're blind.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Apr 1, 2006 -> 03:22 PM) I said he was an MVP canidate. Not that he was the MVP. Given that three people in front of him were clearly more deserving, he wasn't a very strong one. No, three guys CLEARLY having better seasons and many more with comparable seasons (Wells, Beltran, Giambi, etc.) is why. Bulls***. He was injured in APRIL of '01. NFL running backs who tear their ACLs are back on the field less than 12 months later. Frank had great health (160 games) in '98, but put up mediocre numbers. He was relatively healthy (135 games) in '99 and put up a measley 15 HRs and .471 SLG. Sorry, there are clearly some declining skills to go along with his poor health.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Apr 1, 2006 -> 02:53 PM) That wasn't the point. He had an MVP caliber season in '03. Sure, if you try to match that year with some of his absolute best seasons, it's not really close. But his '03 season was every bit as good as Thome's '04. . Frank hit a lot of homers (42). He walked a lot (100), but struck out even more (115). Combine that with a .267 BA and a .390 OBP and I don't think he was deserving of an MVP. Neither did the Sox in '03. What's your point? A-Rod, Manny, and Delgado had much better seasons than Frank in '03. That's why he came in 15th. It's also called declining skills. Frank was healthy for most of '02 and '03, but his numbers were a far cray from '91-'97 and 2000.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Apr 1, 2006 -> 02:31 PM) I don't care where he finished. MVP voting can be bulls*** at times. Frank was by far our best clutch hitter and overall offensive player that year. The main reason (along with Loaiza) that we were in the race until the final week or so. His BA and OBP were also far below his career average. Loaiza deserved it more than Frank, IMO. Given that Frank's had a whole two healthy and productive seasons over the past five years, it's a moot point anyway. He hasn't been the same since '97. With the exception of 2000, he hasn't been able to reproduce what he did in the '90s even when he's been healthy enough to play.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Apr 1, 2006 -> 02:12 PM) Frank was a legitimate MVP canidate as recently as 2003 -- his last healthy season. He finished 15th that year. Not exactly a front-runner. On the other hand, Thome finished 4th in the NL in '03.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 26, 2006 -> 07:04 PM) You're entitled to disagree. I just happen to dislike Frank and think he's whiny. You like him and think he's not. I like Frank and agree that he's a whiny prima donna who can be a poor clubhouse guy at times. That's offset by the fact that he's the greatest hitter in franchise history and that was extremely gracious to the fans. QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 27, 2006 -> 11:15 AM) I'd take a healthy Thome over a healthy Thomas. I'd also take PK and Thome over Thomas and Delgado. Why? Attitude. Delgado is a massive weenie. He goes out of his way to disrespect America at work every day, but is more than happy to put American dollars in his bank account. I'd rather watch Thome sit on the DL all year than root for a jackass like Delgado. I also like Thome over Frank for another reason: Thome was a legitimate MVP candidate as recently as two years ago. Frank hasn't had an MVP-worthy season since 2000. Even disounting the endless injuries, Frank's ultra-productive days are far behind him.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Apr 1, 2006 -> 10:19 AM) However, if anyone would to be traded now, their value's increased with the length of their contracts and prices. That depends on how well they pitch and their health. A healthy, productive Contreras is a steal at an average of under $10 million/year. However, an '03 or '04 Contreras who is due $29 million could be seen as a financial albatross. Vazquez has been somewhat of a bust (considering how much he's being paid) since leaving MON. If he doesn't have a decent half-season, his value will be pretty low. I would've rather seen Buehrle locked up, but I like the fact that Jose's contract is no longer a distraction. QUOTE(daa84 @ Apr 1, 2006 -> 10:21 AM) mark is gonna be ridiculously expensive when he hits the FA market, so the sox might try to get something for him when they can (and they will be able to get alot) No way. Ozzie loves Buehrle (he was the only other person that he'd give the Captain title), he's durable, he eats innings like crazy, and he's our only left-handed starter. He's a very good (and consistent) pitcher, but he's not in the same "dominant" category as guys like Santana and Oswalt. I think that Freddy would be odd man out. I like the guy, but he's maddeningly streaky at times.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 04:41 PM) i agree but i'm not buying the "if we don't have illegal immigrants no one will do those jobs!" argument. Considering that I flipped burgers and mowed lawns in high school and that many of my friends in college de-tassled corn in the summer, I agree that it's a crap argument.

Whatever happened to Whippits?

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 12:01 PM) Ahhh... memories of 1999. :puke

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 01:59 PM) Except, I would counter by saying that there are examples of places where throwing those sorts of campaigns together actually have worked while they're funded...Uganda for example was able to use international aid dollars and loan dollars (on the order of a few hundred million dollars total) to distribute condoms and launch education programs, which worked together to massively cut the number of cases of Aids in that country. Unfortunately, that seems to be the exception rather than the norm. Changing socially-ingrained behavior is very difficult. For example, kicking the Taliban out of Afghanistan didn't do much to change the extremist fundamentalist religious/political climate. Women are still afraid to go outside without burkas in many places and we just saw a man set to be executed for converting to Christianity.

So, is "Jihad Monkey" going to refuse it?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 01:49 PM) What is your position in spending the money on bombs, human lives, bullets, etc.? I assume then you would be against the war in Iraq. If I were alive in 1941, I would've fully-supported the spending of "money on bombs, human lives, bullets, etc." to take Hitler out of power as well.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 01:41 PM) Ah, that makes more sense than the position it sounded like you were taking. So, there are a couple of points here that are enlightening I think. While we're talking about Palestine, the U.S. may have a moral responsibility to do something there, but there are also important strategic concerns, due to the area of the world it is in, the intensity of the objections on both sides, resource supplies, and so forth. So there may be 2 reasons for the U.S. to help out in that case; moral responsibilty and strategic reasons that help out the U.S. You would argue that if the strategic reason disappeared (say Saudi Arabia ran out of oil or something like that), the U.S. would be under no moral obligation to keep helping the Palestinians. In general, I agree. I'm also disappointed in the way that our government always backs Israel, regardless of what they've done. However, I would be hesitant to financially support the Palestinians if Hamas is going to be running their government. The genocides in Rwanda and Sudan should be financially-addressed by not only the U.S., but the entire U.N. However, I completely disagree with you on the AIDS issue. We've been throwing money (and condoms) at them since the '80s, yet too many African men refuse to wear prophylactics and still think that it's "macho" to have extra-marital affairs. It's a social behavior problem that they (and only they) can solve.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 01:25 PM) There's a huge difference between the CIA enforcing a government upon a country and the U.S. giving aid and rebuilding dollars to help a country get a government off the ground after a civil war. For example...Greece faced a major communist insurrection after WWII. In fact, many of the countries in Western Europe could have fallen had there not been rebuilding efforts. But the U.S. used its economy to help those nations rebuild and help their government fight off the insurrections and create stability for the people, and those countries were then able to prosper So, if we throw a bunch of money at, say a country immediate to our south that is overriden with crime and corruption, the money is going to get to its destination? The corrupt police and cartel bosses aren't going to get their hands on it? The government, which already goes out of its way to keep their people poor, isn't going to misappropriate it?