WCSox

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 10:50 AM) Personally, I think Jenks needs better command on his fastball. When he keeps it low in the zone, it's very hittable. He has no movement at all on his fastball. His curve doesn't always have to be over the plate. Rather, he got hit harder when it was over the plate than when it dove out of the zone. The ironic thing is that I have no concerns about Jenks this year. He might struggle some, but his stuff is still good enough where he'll be a strong bullpen pitcher. I wish I could say I was as confident in another Sox reliever. I have confidence in Cotts, who I think has turned a corner in his career. But outside of that, I agree that our bullpen isn't as strong as it should be. I'm still not sold on Jenks. And that's not really his fault... I just want to see what he can do over the course of a full season. I do feel better about him going into this season than I did about Shingo going into '05, mostly because of his age.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 5, 2006 -> 08:41 PM) I think the only thing stopping Jenks from being unhittable is his head. But he was fine last year, and so I'm not worried. Cooper's great at helping the kooky pitchers get their stuff together. Jenks needs better command of his breaking ball (or a changeup that he can locate). One hundred mph fastballs at the letters aren't going to work for an entire season.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 12:43 AM) I don't know how much of the 'no-playoff-series' wins thing is Beane's fault, though. A few years ago, I read somewhere that Beane's philosophy is that it's his job to bring in enough talent to get his team to the playoffs and that the rest is up to the players and coaches. IMO, he comes up short by not focusing more on the coaching/leadership aspect of his team. Good managers/coaches make a huge difference. Ozzie was, by far, the most important factor in the Sox winning it all last year. On the other hand, the A's completely out-played the Sox over the past 7 yeras, winning 87, 91, 102, 103, 96, 91, and 88 games, but didn't win a single playoff series. Beane's done a hell of a job, especially considering the financial constraints he's had to work around. But he's not going to win anything until he focuses more on the quality of his coaching staff.

QUOTE(whitesoxin' @ Mar 5, 2006 -> 01:37 PM) Shockingly, Steve Phillips says the most important thing in the MLB this year is Pedro's health. :rolly Right, because a healthy Pedro means the Mets are going to win it all this year!

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Mar 5, 2006 -> 08:04 AM) What a terrible argument. The whole premise is that "Moneyball" doesn't work and that the Sox won because they didn't use "Moneyball". "Moneyball" isn't sabermetrics, I really wish writers would realize that. "Moneyball" is about maximizing market inefficiencies--and sabermetrics is just one component of that stragegy. Like Kennie said about Frank, "look it up"--ok, I will: Average Wins Last 4 Seasons for A's and Sox (Kenny Williams "Era"): Sox: 86.4 A's: 96 How does this guy even have a job? Maybe it's just insanely possible that both Kenny Williams and Billy Beane are good GM's. Maybe by one objective measure (w/l) you could say Beane is better. Maybe be another one you could say (rings) that KW is the better GM. This is crap and the Washington Post should fire this guy for ignorance. The point was that Beane does not factor leadership or other intangibles into his equation, while KW does. Put the '05 Sox under Ken Macha and I guarantee you that they don't win the WS.

QUOTE(iWiN4PreP @ Mar 5, 2006 -> 08:28 AM) I love uribe. Yep. Dude could hit .220 for the rest of his career and I'd still want him in the lineup every day.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 03:44 PM) I think it's more than slightly. Outside of the ALDS, A-Rod played very well at 3B last season. But he was wretched both defensively and at the plate when it counted the most.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 03:41 PM) You mean traded for Thome. But yeah, I just changed my answer from Pujols to A-Rod. We are set at 1B and DH but replacing Crede with A-Rod would add a TON of offense without losing anything on defense. If salary matters, I would take Miguel Cabrera at 3rd base. Yes, traded. :banghead Replacing Crede with A-Rod would be a solid option as well (although I think that Crede might be slightly better defensively).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 03:40 PM) "I don't think that taste is there."

If the Sox hadn't signed Thome, I would've said Pujols. But at this point, I think that the Sox could benefit from an established stud closer, so I'd go with either Lidge or Gagne (assuming the injury has had minimal effect).

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 02:18 PM) I read it, and I think I understood "he's not calling him out". Yet, he did call him out... and (imo) in the process likely embarrassed him. Kind of like how Ozzie "called out" A-Rod and Nomar last week, but then later said that he was just joking? This is another case of "Ozzie being Ozzie" and while I do not condone what he said, I don't think that his intention to hurt Jenks' feelings. JMO. QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 02:25 PM) If the way he signals him in from the bullpen doesn't embarass him then what Ozzie said shouldn't embarass him, and if it does, tough s***. Jenks is being counted on heavily. It was very irresponsible of him to come to camp heavier than last year. No kidding. I can't remember how many times I got "called out" by my high school football coach for missing a block. :rolly When you don't play by his rules, your coach will say something to you and whoever else is around to hear it. It's just part of sports.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 02:13 PM) You are kidding me, right...? You seriously didn't understand my comment..? I'll clarify... Yea he should say something.. to HIM. And apparently you misunderstood my original post: I believe that Ozzie made those comments because Jenks failed to comply with his request, not to take a personal shot at him. Agreed that Ozzie didn't need to go to the press, but that's just "Ozzie being Ozzie."

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 02:02 PM) It's his job to make comments to the national media about his obvious weight problem...? If Ozzie told him to lose weight this offseason and he did just the opposite, then it definitely is Ozzie's job to say something about it. QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 02:03 PM) I never said he was. Calling someone out doesn't always mean that you are trying to embarrass that person. Agreed. Apologies for the confusion.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 12:24 PM) If you recall, the initial reports were that Jenks lost weight (like 10-15 pounds). Apparently, he hasn't. I do recall and that's part of my point: Ozzie's doing his job and isn't going out of his way to embarrass Jenks.

Seems to me that Ozzie's stating the obvious more than he's "calling out" Jenks to embarrass him.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Mar 2, 2006 -> 03:56 PM) this is why hillary will not win the presidential election. This hypocritical garbage only scratches the surface. Hillary has so many skeletons in her closet and the distrust of so many moderates that her campaign is dommed from the beginning.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 1, 2006 -> 12:23 AM) No, Frank has handled himself like the petulant self-centered boorish player he has always been. He does not have "every right" to bash the Sox. He just couldn't keep his big mouth shut, as this crap went on all winter. I find it interesting that KW, Ozzie, Paulie, and Jerry Manuel have all made negative remarks about Frank to the press. I don't know what went on in that locker room, but it seems to me that Frank has a serious attitude problem. I love the guy to death, but I'm sick and tired of his crap.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 06:29 PM) I'm looking at this, or at least trying to, from what his point of view would be. The Kurds were hostile to his power and almost help to dislodge him in late 1991. This doesn't make Saddam Hussein any less of a terrible person, but it does make the freedom fighters in Iraq hostile to Saddam Hussein by definition. Yes, after Saddam killed 5,000 Kurds with sarin and mustard gas three years earlier, they were hostile towards him. The nerve of those insurgents! Well, let's start right in Iraq, where Saddam's regime ruthlessly murdered tens of thousands of Kurds, Shiites, and pretty much anybody else that he didn't like. Do you think that those atrocities suddenly ceased after the Gulf War? In addition, Saddam still possessed the technology for (and perhaps a stockpile of) nerve agents and missiles that could easily reach Israel. Given that he went out of his way to act like he was hiding such warheads from UN weapons inspectors, one had to at least consider him a threat to the region. Hell, he opened fire on Israel unprovoked back in '91. What was to stop him from playing the Islamafascist/anti-Israel/anti-American card and doing it again to drum up support in the Arab world? He was already giving $10,000 "rewards" to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. It seems to me that an attack on Israel (or a terrorist attack financed by him) would be the next logical step. I can understand why some people are not fans of the current war in Iraq, but taking out a guy like Saddam is justice long-overdue.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 02:58 PM) It's also just possible that Saddam Hussein was poor at brinkmanship games. Perhaps Hussein thought that the appearance of having WMD during this period of containment was a method of defense against other aggressive countries in the region, as well as a Kurdish regime that wanted independence, a hostile Shia population in the South, and a United States that he hope would think twice before toppling him with WMD as a consideration. Would that be the same Kurdish region that he gassed in the late '80s and the same Shia population that he'd been terrorizing throughout his tenure? :rolly I agree with your main point, but let's be honest about who the "hostile" person is here. Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons back in the '80s and also had a nuclear program going before the Israeli air force took it out. And he launched two unprovoked attacks on neighboring countries. And he committed horrific human rights violations against his own people. Even if his military capability was subdued in '91, he was still a threat to the region.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 06:43 AM) What motives did Saddam have to destroy that stuff? None. Absolutely none. That's pretty much the way I see it. If Saddam was going to blatantly stone-wall UN weapons inspectors and risk military retaliation, there's no way in hell he was going to hand over WMDs to the UN. WMDs gave him power and leverage in the Middle East. And given that everyone pretty much knew that we were going to overthrow him back in 2002, Saddam would've had ample time to move them to a friendly nation. After the first Gulf War, he knew that he couldn't stand up to the US. So, if invasion was inevitable, why not ship off the weapons and make Bush look like an ass?

Racist!

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 5, 2006 -> 03:01 PM) I have no problem with anybody that believes in intelligent design, however it is simply a fact that intelligent design is a matter of faith, and not science. Well-said.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 05:36 PM) "My invisible man in my infalliable book says this!" and we wonder why people grow up with a f***ed up, warped sense of the world that can't appreciate irony, literary humor etc. Right, becuase people who grow up in Christian households "grow up f***ed up." I can't imagine what it's like to be filled with such hate for religion. I feel sorry for you. :headshake

Despite the fact that I'm a conservative Christian, I'm sick and tired of people whining about the lack of a "spiritual alternative" to evolution in biology courses. Evolution a scientific THEORY and is NOT meant to contradict anybody's spiritual beliefs. On the other hand, intelligent design (and similar theories based in the spiritual realm) has no scientific basis. While it is more than appropriate to teach it in religion or philosophy courses, it is completely inappropriate in the context of science. IMO, the solution to this is for one to take religion and philosophy courses alongside biology. The student can make up his/her mind about the origin of mankind.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 01:03 PM) Actually, its highly relevant, and that's a good comparison to make. In fact, if you look at my earlier posts, I made that very comparison (FOID cards). Further, organizations like the NRA who support protecting the second amendment have pointed out this very thing. Again, you cannot charge for a right. And, BTW, mosts states don't - IL is an exception with the FOID card. In most states, you can own at least some types of firearms (shotguns, rifles) as an assumed right. Aren't guns supposedly illegal within Chicago city limits? I thought I heard something about that once, but perhaps I'm mistaken. I agree that poll taxes and the rest of that Jim Crow-type crap has no place in America. I just think that the hypocrisy regarding gun permits in some places is laughable. Voter ID cards (or some form of citizenship ID cards) are a great idea. Unfortunatley, it's being turned into a discrimination issue when it really shouldn't be.