WCSox

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Jun 9, 2009 -> 02:02 PM) Do you believe he is legitimately hurt somewhere? It wouldn't surprise me, but I'm not convinced. It's awfully coincidental that Colon has been been struggling, is expendable, and Poreda is just about ready for his major-league debut.

I'd be willing to bet that McCarver won't get into the Broadcasting Hall of Fame.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jun 9, 2009 -> 08:24 AM) People who try to make cases against the DH are not baseball puritans. They are actually angry, biased dickwads who clearly do not enjoy or appreciate the sport enough to actually be involved in it. Doesn't sound too far off from McCarver.

QUOTE (WSoxMatt @ Jun 9, 2009 -> 08:29 AM) Ozzie Smith is in the HOF for basically only his defense, so why not a guy who is all offense?!?! And backflips. It's unfortunate that Vizquel, who didn't do backflips but was arguably an overall better player than Smith, probably won't be inducted.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Jun 9, 2009 -> 08:07 AM) And what pissed me off the most when he said that was the whole "not playing the field" argument. Um, Tim...he may not have been a great fielder, but he did play 1B for quite awhile. Jackass. Not to mention that Frank didn't fill out the lineup card. He was a capable 1B up until at least 5 or 6 years ago, and was basically made a full-time DH after the injury while playing 1B in 2001.

QUOTE (TitoMB345 @ Jun 8, 2009 -> 03:20 PM) The gang's back together. Now all we need is Rowand, Everett, and one of the Alomar brothers, and it'll be good ole White Sox baseball all over again! Since Robbie supposedly has AIDS now, that would have to be Sandy. If it's a minor-league deal, it's probably for next-to-nothing. At the very least, throwing a bone to a former player who clinched a WS for your organization is a nice gesture. My guess is that Freddy never makes it out of the minors and retires this winter.

QUOTE (103 mph screwball @ Jun 9, 2009 -> 06:34 AM) To hear Tim McCarver talk about no DH's in the main Hall of Fame really, really made me angry. No Big Frank, then it really isn't a hall of fame in my mind. To paraphrase a former colleague, McCarver is one of those people who you'd like to buy for what he's worth and sell for what he thinks he's worth. Not allowing a DH into the HOF is about as stupid as disqualifying somebody who plays 1B or RF. I realize that some of the Puritanical old-timers still can't get over the rule change from 30+ years ago, but they need to dig their heads out of their asses and get with the program.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 8, 2009 -> 02:14 PM) Overconfident GM. That would be Ron "Our Prospects are Awesome" Schueler.

QUOTE (SI1020 @ Jun 8, 2009 -> 10:54 AM) I suppose that's possible but most conspiracy theories are BS. Yes, andro was legal, but that plus the massive McGwire physique could have and should have raised eyebrows. I remember well the intense media hype in 98. No one wanted to break up the party. According to Canseco, McGwire was juicing way back in the late '80s or early '90s in Oakland. It's not like McGwire became suddenly enormous when after he was traded to the Cardinals in 1997.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 8, 2009 -> 10:28 AM) I've read it from a few sources several years ago. I take whatever I read or hear about who a GM supposedly wants with a massive load of salt. I imagine that quite a bit of leaked information is false and intentionally leaked to throw off other GMs. Yeah, I've heard quite a bit about Himes' personality. Too bad, because he knew what he was doing. Roland Hemond wasn't bad either.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 8, 2009 -> 10:27 AM) (yes, Valentin was a heckuva lot better than Clayton or Cabrera because of his range AND arm, never let error totals alone deceive one). I was a big Valentin fan as well. He was an error machine, but you're correct about his range and arm (his 20+ HR power was nice as well). To my recollection, I only remember him costing us one game back in 2000 (the Sirotka/Pedro matchup, where the Red Sox on 1-0 on an unearned run).

QUOTE (SI1020 @ Jun 8, 2009 -> 10:01 AM) Oh McGwire was called out all right, but the reporter that broke the McGwire andro story was shouted down by a very angry mob. Baseball and it's public didn't want to hear about it back then. Of course the Canseco revelations and the sudden appearance of a cyborg who used to be Barry Bonds changed all that. McGwire andro story ignored Most likely because Andro was legal and available at GNC back then. There's speculation that McGwire intentionally placed the bottle there to deflect attention from what he was really taking.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 8, 2009 -> 09:56 AM) Even when the Sox drafted high they were lucky. Himes wanted Mike Harkey but the Cubs took him so they had to settle for Black Jack. They wanted Jeff Jackson, but Philadelphia took him so they wound up with Frank Thomas. Somehow, despite his pretty swing and unreal college numbers, Ventura lasted 10 picks, with the Cubs, looking for a 3rd baseman forever taking Ty Griffin right before him, and Fernandez was available because he didn't sign when he was previously drafted. I won't dispute the fact that Himes was lucky to nab those four guys in consecutive seasons. Himes also traded for Wilson Alvarez and acquired Roberto Hernandez, so it's not like he was some mediocre GM who fell ass-backwards into dumb luck. I also don't know how Himes supposedly wanting Mike Harkey or Jeff Jackson is public knowledge, or if that information is accurate.

(1) Quentin's hurt (2) Danks is having an off-year, after all of the extra innings he threw last season (3) Floyd is back to his inconsistent self (4) Contreras and Colon are both done (5) No leadoff hitter with a decent OBP in April (although Pods is hitting well now) (6) Alexei had a terrible April (7) Fields appears to have been highly-overrated Thankfully, the rest of the division isn't much better and I don't see why the Sox can't contend. Getting Quentin back and Alexei re-gaining form will help.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 8, 2009 -> 09:05 AM) In 2004, the Sox had 5 picks before Hunter Pence was picked in the second round. They took Fields, Whisler, Gio, Lucy and another stiff. There have been plenty of players available that were a lot better than what they selected. Their draft was terrible. How is it Boston, which usually picks after the White Sox calls up guys like Pedroia, Ellsbury, Paplebon...................... I'm not claiming that the Sox draft wisely. I'm claiming that teams who suck for several years on end and have several Top 10 picks, have a significantly higher chance of landing a Frank Thomas or a Jack McDowell. If the Twins hadn't gone 69-93 in 2000, there's no way that they would've landed Mauer (or had a shot at Prior).

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 8, 2009 -> 03:00 AM) You are going to be hard-pressed to find any team that can have that kind of luck with 4 straight top 10 draft picks. Jack McDowell won a Cy Young and 91 games with the Sox in 7 seasons, Robin Ventura was a top 5 or 10 3Bman of the past 25 years, Frank Thomas is one of the greatest hitters of all time, and Alex Fernandez was incredible until shoulder troubles ruined his career. You're going to be even more hard-pressed to have access to those players on draft day when you're winning 81, 83, and 86 games every year. Not only is the Pirates' front office completely incompetent, but they eventually trade away their high draft picks that do pan out.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 7, 2009 -> 12:46 PM) If not for 2005, I'd say 2008 was the luckiest season I had ever seen for a Sox team in the last 20 years. There's nothing wrong with luck, but I think it gave us a lot of false hope with certain players. In a number of ways, yes. But the Sox had a ton of bad luck last year as well, in the form of season-ending injuries to Quentin, Contreras, Crede, and Linebrink. Paulie was beat up for most of last season, and his numbers show it. Swish was also unusually awful. In addition to giving up the long ball, our offense isn't scoring runs against mediocre/bad pitching this year. That's a bad sign. At this rate, Dye and Dotel will be gone by the end of next month.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 7, 2009 -> 12:13 PM) You can have your Eckstein...I'll go for an actual talented hitter. Eckstein was instrumental in two different teams winning championships. He's no Chase Utley, but you're dead wrong that he wasn't a talented hitter. I find it mind-boggling that people are running Getz out of town based on 49 major league games. Get a freaking grip, people.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jun 7, 2009 -> 10:05 AM) the thing is, a slap hitting, high-ish average doubles guy wouldn't be bad for our park, but he just needs to jumpstart himself here. if he were playing up to his ability right now, i don't think we have this argument. will he set the world on fire? no. but will he be a better than average no. 9 hitter? you betcha. Getz reminds me of a young David Eckstein. I'll take a guy like that any day, even off the bench as a fourth infielder. Granted, he's no lock to be Eck Jr., but he's had a very limited number of ML at-bats.

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Jun 6, 2009 -> 06:47 PM) i think you can get enough AB's for all 3, Fields,Getz, and Beckham, by rotating Beckham around to different positions. I think Beckham will eventually take over the 2B position with Getz becoming the backup. Fields, i think, will continue to improve and end up being an above average 3B in a couple years. Is Beckham really that lacking defensively that he'll lose out on 3B to Josh Freaking Fields? If Beckham is even above-average defensively at 3B, he's an upgrade over Fields. It seems to me that moving Fields to 1B, LF, or DH (when Thome's gone) and freeing up 3B for Beckham would be an option. Otherwise, Alexei can move back to 2B and Beckham can play SS. I don't see any problem finding a place for Beckham on the infield. I'd make an effort to keep Getz around, even if it's as a utility player. He brings a refreshing skill set to a team that relies way too heavily on slow, aging sluggers.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jun 6, 2009 -> 08:15 PM) I agree there are some characters already in the hall that are not the best people, but there are so many ways to say two wrongs don't make a right. As a society we have stopped wrongs and adjusted our sails. Should character take an average player and place him in the hall? No. But I believe the character of some borderline players should be weighed more, positively and negatively. I agree, and that's why I think that guys like Thome and Biggio should get in. I'd also like to see Bagwell considered (although I don't think that he has the numbers). Also agreed that players who were either caught using PEDs or strongly suspected to the point where it's obvious (Sosa) should be held to a higher standard for induction. Since Sosa and McGwire were nothing more than prolific HR hitters (couldn't hit for average, couldn't play defense), hitting in the neighborhood of 600 HRs shouldn't make either a lock, IMO. Both were essentially slightly better incarnations of Canseco, and I seem them on the outside looking in. On the other hand, Bonds was such an incredible player that even his character issues and PED use can't overshadow how good he was off the juice (prior to 1998), IMO.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2009 -> 09:05 PM) He seems to mostly get the flukey injury, but nothing serious. Also being a bigger guy, he seems to hold up to the workload a little better. Also lets not kid ourselves, Ozzie isn't going to burn him up the way that they did on the northside. Ozzie really protects his starters. I still worry about character issues with Zambrano. The guy has an anger problem and a history of not getting along with teammates. I'm not convinced that even Ozzie could keep him under control. I also agree that $18 million a guy who has declined from a #1 to a #2 over the past four years is too much.

QUOTE (Felix @ Jun 5, 2009 -> 11:08 PM) As long as we're cherry picking years, I'd take Maddux from 1992 to 2002 over those years from Randy. Threw slightly more innings in one less year (2576.1 vs 2550) while having a higher ERA+ (171 vs 166), higher K/BB (4.53 vs 4.27) and lower HR/9 (0.5 vs 0.8). Add in the fact that Maddux's two best years during that time are far better than anything Johnson ever has done in his career, and it's not really close between the two in my opinion. If you want to tack on another season for Maddux to make it an even number of seasons, the numbers still favor Maddux. Going from '91 to '02 this time, Maddux has far more innings (2839.1 to 2550), with basically an identical ERA+ (164 vs 166), slightly higher K/BB (4.32 vs 4.27) and slightly lower HR/9 (0.5 vs 0.8). None of this even mentions Maddux's glove, which was considered one of the best in the league. To be fair to Johnson, this glosses over his incredible advantage in strikeouts (11.8 K/9 to Maddux's 6.7), but I think that advantage gets nulled a bit due to the increased walk rate (2.8 vs 1.5). Johnson also threw the same number of complete games as Maddux in those 12 season periods, despite having 49 less starts. So really, what I'm trying to say is that while Randy Johnson was great during those years, I'd give the slight edge to Maddux. Both were fantastic pitchers in their prime though, you couldn't go wrong with either one. Yeah, Maddux does have the slight advantage with the numbers (and a huge advantage with the glove). The reason that I went with Johnson is because he had the ability to just blow hitters away. No offense to Maddux or his style of pitching, but I find more value in a dominant strikeout pitcher than a guy who's made his mark nibbling on the edges of the plate and getting those calls from the umps (and he consistently got more than the average pitcher). And that's not a slight at Maddux, just my personal preference. He got it done, and is arguably the greatest pitcher of our generation. Like you said, you couldn't go wrong with either.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Jun 6, 2009 -> 08:59 AM) the numbers are there, but the HOF also looks at character. His career OBP isn't very good for a career slugging OF and his OPS is below .900. It's clear he was only focused on swinging for the fences each time at the plate. Good riddance. Heck, I'd say that the numbers are borderline. His BA was a lowly .273, his OBP was only .344, he had a respectable-but-not-great 2,400 hits, and he was never that great in the field. He's basically Mark McGwire with an MVP. I'm not sure that's enough to merit induction, even without the cloud of steroid suspicion around him.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jun 5, 2009 -> 09:42 PM) IMHO baseball should celebrate the very best men to have played the game. That should encompass more than just the numbers. Those players that played with class, sportsmanship, and honesty, are a better representation than those that cheated. To value tainted numbers over sportsmanship and honesty are not pillars that greatness can be built on. If baseball, or any sport, was based on cheating, lies, and dishonesty, it would not survive ten years, let alone 100 years. We send the wrong message on what we value in a society when we honor men who cheated. Sammy, Bonds, Mark, and others may have brought great numbers to baseball, but they took away a lot also. They took the all American game, and pissed on it. That stain doesn't go away overnight. It's difficult to argue with that, but the precedent has already been set with Ty Cobb in the HOF. If there was ever a player whose behavior should exclude him from Cooperstown, it's Cobb. Frankly, I'd rather my kids looked up to a 'roider like McGwire than a racist thug with an out-of-control anger problem. And where does the character analysis stop? What about the large fraction of players that cheat on their wives? Should they be banned from Cooperstown as well? What about guys like Mickey Mantle, who routinely treated fans like crap and lead less-than-dignified lives off of the field? I'm all for recognizing really good players who lead positive lifestyles (Baines, Ventura, Moyer, etc.). But, unfortunately, the people who are the best of the best in any profession tend to not be the most honorable people in the world. In contrast to your opinion, I'd rather have guys like McGwire and Sosa get inducted into Coopertown than to automatically blackball anybody who was suspected of using PEDs. And the reason is that the owners and player's union were complicit in this scandal. I would rather that MLB itself be shamed for knowingly allowing this to happen AND FACILITATING IT, than to make McGwire and Sosa the fall guys and to sweep it all under the rug. The PED era isn't just about the 89 rogue players named in the Mitchell Report and the others outed by other means. The problem is deeply entrenched, spanning from the Commissioner's Office to the top of the MLBPA. All of Major League Baseball pissed on the game.