WCSox

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jun 5, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) IMNSHO Bonds was having a potential HoF career when, again, IMHO, he started the roids. He would not have been a HoF had he stopped at that point, so I am hesitant to call him a HoFer before steroids. I strongly disagree. If you believe Jeff Pearlman, Bonds started on the juice after the '98 season (which sounds reasonable to me, given his size and numbers at the time). Up to that point, he had 411 HRs, 445 SBs, 3 MVPs, and 8 Gold Gloves. He could've been struck by lighting after his first injection and he would've been a lead-pipe lock for Cooperstown. I love Harold as well, but he doesn't have the numbers or a period of dominance to merit induction. QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 5, 2009 -> 02:33 PM) Come on, are you really making the comparison to a guy like Frank Thomas? Come on, I understand its fun to be on the other side of the concensus and all, but Sammy is a roider, and he definately dabbled in HGH to make his head as big as it got. Those of us who were following baseball in the late '80s remember Sammy having Alexei Ramirez's frame. The guy was a freaking toothpick with a jheri curl. I remember one scout commenting that he looked like he was malnourished when he came up with the Rangers. By the late '90s, he looked like Hulk Hogan and was hitting 550-foot home runs. That doesn't happen naturally. Agreed that the Frank comparison is way off base. Frank was a tight end in college and had significant muscle mass when he entered the league. Granted, he did bulk up, but he also put on quite a bit of fat. There aren't very many flabby PED users around the league.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 5, 2009 -> 11:39 AM) I personally think Zambrano has a higher upside the next few years than Peavy. He was a Sox fan growing up because of Ozzie. Maybe Ozzie being his manager plus Zambozo being new to the team, adjusts his attitude a bit. Even if Zambrano stopped cursing out umps, punching his teammates, and destroying coolers with bats, his ERA+ has been on a steady decline and his WHIP has steadily risen since 2004. I don't see that as a good sign for a power pitcher. If he was still pitching like he was in 2004 or 2005, I'd agree that he's worth the risk. But I'm not sure that guy is ever going to return.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 5, 2009 -> 12:28 PM) I say put him in. I say put Clemens, Bonds, McGwire in as well. To single certain guys out because it was "obvious" they were juicing or because they've broken records is silly. Steroids was a league-wide phenomenon during that time. Just about everybody was doing something illegal during that time. And as Manny Ramirez has proven, we still have guys that are cheating. All you can do is clean the s*** up and move on. That's not a bad idea, but too many of the voters are old-school enough that they'll never forgive those guys for tainting the statistical history of the game.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 5, 2009 -> 12:13 PM) Are you saying he got screwed because of what we now know about Clemens? RJ was definitely deserving that year (although a guy with 14 losses would be hard pressed to win it). But at the time it was pretty hard to argue against Roger winning it. It wasn't like the debacle that was the 2005 AL CY. Now that was a f***in' travesty. No, even without regard to PEDs, Johnson deserved it... Johnson, 2004 177 ERA+ .900 WHIP Perfect game Clemens, 2004 146 ERA+ 1.16 WHIP Randy got screwed because of his W/L record, which is bullcrap. Clemens got screwed for the same reason in 2005 (although I don't feel too bad for a PED user).

QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ Jun 5, 2009 -> 12:11 PM) From what I have heard, Canseco admitted he has no evidence at all to accuse Sosa of being on roids, while with others he has accused he had direct information or 2nd hand information that he considered reliable. Im sorry, I dont make someone guilty because Canseco thinks he does without any sources or knowledge of seeing it himself. Wow, your standard for proof sure has changed... QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ Jun 5, 2009 -> 11:36 AM) McGwire isnt on trial to go to jail, this is about getting into the HoF, so whether its hearsay or not, its enough. So which is it? Is trained speculation and/or hearsay on the part of Canseco enough for the HOF test, or do we need hearsay and/or speculation from a reliable second-hand source as well? Canseco never had direct OR second-hand information on Giambi 'roiding either, yet he still correctly called him on it. It's not exactly a shocker that a guy who used roids for 20 or so years would be able to accurately identify fellow users in his profession.

QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ Jun 5, 2009 -> 11:36 AM) McGwire isnt on trial to go to jail, this is about getting into the HoF, so whether its hearsay or not, its enough. McGwire didn't fail a drug test, either, so I don't know why you're putting him in the same category as Palmiero, Bonds, and A-Rod. And its a moot point anyway, because Canseco is also on the record accusing Sosa of 'roid use... Link Link Link

QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ Jun 5, 2009 -> 11:25 AM) There isnt as much evidence against Sosa I think to keep him out of the HOF. Even in Canseco's book, he just mentioned its a possibility that Sosa used roids but he didnt have any actual proof to back it up of any sort. I could go either way with Sammy, but I think if not first ballot I would eventually vote him in, while the evidence against Bonds/Mcguire/Palmiero/A-Rod are all too much for me ever to cast a vote their way. The "evidence" against McGwire is basically hearsay in Canseco's book. That's enough for me, as I happen to think that Canseco told the truth in that first book, but it's not anything close to objective or definitive. It's not like he failed a drug test or anything. If McGwire doesn't get in, I don't see how Sosa will.

QUOTE (scotty22hotty @ Jun 5, 2009 -> 11:12 AM) I would... if it was offered today. Richard is still a question mark. To me Zambrano is a better pitcher/player than Peavy... He's also a headcase, an embarrassment, a bad clubhouse guy, and his ERA+ has been steadily declining over the past five years. Somebody else can overpay for that nutjob.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 5, 2009 -> 09:25 AM) McGwire used creatine and probably steroids, but he didn't hit 600 homers. 583 is pretty close to 600, and he also had a higher career OBP and OPS. I'd say that they were roughly equal as hitters.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 5, 2009 -> 09:08 AM) Thats means McGuire, Bonds, Palmeiro, etc will all get in, which I dont think will happen. Sosa cheated and got caught with a corked bat, and he is one of the more obvious juicers in the game. I dont think he would get writer's votes, nor the vets. I don't think that the corked bat incident alone means much, but it tells you that he was willing to go to great lengths to cheat. Add that to his (rather obvious) rapid change in physique in the mid-90's and startling change in numbers in the late '90s, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that he was on the juice. IMO, McGwire and Sosa's chances are about equal. Both had very similar careers (great power, mediocre BA, below-average fielders) and both refused to answer questions about steroids before Congress. If Mark doesn't get in, neither will Sammy. And given how the writers have given McGwire the cold shoulder, I don't like Sosa's chances. Palmiero is dead in the water because he was caught red-handed. Bonds had about 400 HRs, 300 SBs, and 3 MVPs before he began roiding in the late '90s (if you believe what has been written about him), and I'd say that his pre-PED accomplishments get him in.

QUOTE (Felix @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 08:21 PM) Greg Maddux from 1994 and 1995 says hi. It's pretty much impossible to match Pedro's 2000 season, but I'd take Maddux from both of those years over Pedro in 1999. Of course, when you're debating between a 271 and 262 ERA+ and a 243 and 291 ERA+, it's all amazing anyway and I'd be more than happy to take any of them Indeed. I'm biased, but I'd take 1993-2004 Randy over both of them. Dominance is great, but dominance over most of a decade (with the first third in a hitter's park in the AL) is pretty much the definition of a HOFer. I'm still pissed that Randy got screwed out of the '04 NL Cy Young... would've been his sixth.

My favorite non-Sox pitcher of my generation...

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 09:24 AM) I'll also keep in mind how good Dustin Pedroia and Evan Longoria were their rookie seasons. Or how Jay Bruce was able to make an impact right off the bat. Like I said, I'm not expecting Gordon to dominate. But I'm not expecting 4/31 with 12 K's either. From what I've read, Beckham was never projected to be on Longoria's level. That's not to say that he can't get there, but I don't want people to start calling him a bust here if he does go 4/31 with 12 K's.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 09:10 AM) i don't think we expect him to be. but pedroia-like isn't completely out of the question in a year or so I'm sure that Beckham will be a very solid player in 1-3 years (maybe even an All-Star), but keep in mind how awful Ventura was in his first season in the bigs.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 08:35 AM) His range was awful and his arm was below average. His glove was decent but when 2 out of 3 are below to well below average that doesn't make for a good defensive shortstop. Not really. Jose Valentin had good range and solid arm strength, and lost his job to Royce Clayton because he was a freaking error machine. QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 08:36 AM) not really, he's a terrible defensive SS, flat out terrible. I realize that people here are sick of listening to the Yankees fans on SportsCenter hold his nuts every night, but this piling-on groupthink is just as bad.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 08:14 AM) For the money Rolen makes, I am willing to see what Fields and Beckham do for at least month. If I am going to spend money, it will be a for a leadoff hitting CF or a stud SP. I agree. If the Sox are going to give up something valuable in a trade, it should be for somebody who's going to help them for at least the next three seasons. Rolen is declining, injury-prone, and overpaid. No thanks.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 08:05 AM) no, Jeter defensively is just flat out horrible, hence the report that a group of scouts put out in the offseason naming Jeter the worst everday defensive player... The bashing of Jeter's defense is one of the greatest examples of hyperbole in the history of the internet. He should've been moved to 3B a few years ago and he never had great range to begin with. But he was far from a "horrible" defensive SS in his prime.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 09:31 AM) Luckily the organization feels differently than you and has already said they wouldnt have even dealt Becks straight up for Peavy. Yeah, because it would be incredibly foolish to trade a prospect who's done nothing in the majors for a two-time All Star starting pitcher in the prime of his career and under a manageable contract through 2012.

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 09:09 AM) if Beckham wasn't in the Peavy deal, he won't be in any deal. I don't see how there's anybody that KW would deal for that he would give up his top 2 prospects. Arizona would also be dumping a pretty sizable salary so that, in itself, is attractive for them. Don't get me wrong, it will take a very good deal but i seriously doubt Beckham is involved. I don't know about that. It depends on several factors, including the money that Kenny would have to pay out over the course of the contract and how desperate the trading team is to unload the pitcher's contract. I imagine the fact that (1) SD is desperate to shed payroll and (2) Peavy is owed an assload of money factored heavily into Kenny being able to complete a deal for Peavy without Beckham. Haren is owed much less than Peavy, he's younger, he's pitching better right now, and my understanding is that Arizona isn't as desperate to shed payroll. Those factors will definitely come into play during negotiations. I wouldn't hesitate to include Beckham in a package for Haren. I realize that Beckham is the best left-side-of-the-infield prospect we've had since Ventura. But if there's one thing that I've learned from the Ron Schueler era, it's that you don't fall in love with your prospects. If you can trade a highly-touted prospect for a better player at a more important position, you do it.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 08:15 AM) Okay, here's the plan... we get Josh Byrnes filthy drunk. Then, we convince him to trade Dan Haren for a package of Poreda, Allen, Shelby, Colon, and Gilmore. It would take both Beckham and Poreda (and most likely another player or two) to get Haren. And if I were Kenny, I'd seriously consider it. Even if Beckham becomes the next Robin Ventura, Haren is still more valuable.

QUOTE (watchtower41 @ May 28, 2009 -> 01:40 PM) I can be pateint enough to see him on the Opening Day roster in 2010. If he gets the call-up this year, we'll already be in real deep s***, and then to make matters worse lets go ahead and put extra pressure on our young prized phenom to pull a team out of a funk. No thanks. I agree with this. But, the evidence seems to suggest that this will happen instead: QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ May 28, 2009 -> 02:07 PM) He is coming sooner than later. If the plan was to keep him down, he would be in AA playing with the new core. The only reason he is in AAA is to play 3rd. And the only reason for that is the Fields struggle. The minute they moved him up, started a clock that only the braintrust knows. He is coming.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ May 28, 2009 -> 09:54 AM) I dont think NL, AL, hitting, or team preference played into it. To me, it was and will always be the option. It was the exact same thing with the Cubs in the offseason, its just too much of a beast to sign off on right now I'd agree if he didn't request that yearly "out" option as well. If the news regarding that is accurate, it would seem to me that he doesn't want to play in the AL. I can't even think of a precedent for that, on top of picking up a $22 million option.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 28, 2009 -> 08:35 AM) I can't believe how naive some people were about the whole thing. The only way Peavy would ever be "comfortable" in the AL is if some team picked up his option or gave him an out clause. What a p****. I hope he gets traded to the Cubs and then blows out his elbow. FWIW, one of the baseball commentators (forgot if it was ESPN or MLB Network) suggested that Peavy prefers the NL because he likes to bat (career .181 BA in the majors). Apparently he wanted Auburn to allow him to play a position in the field on the days that he wasn't pitching. I'm not sure if any of this is true, just reporting what I heard on TV.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 27, 2009 -> 04:46 PM) You know why Peavy is a better alternative than Oswalt? He's the better pitcher today *and* he's four years younger. Still, I'd have big problems picking up his option. So a potential age-induced loss of skills doesn't matter in Halladay's case, despite the fact that he's slightly older than Oswalt. Gotcha. You're right. They should just sit there with their thumbs up their butts, rather than take a relatively small financial risk on a guy who is younger than Halladay and has dominated the NL for the past six years.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 27, 2009 -> 03:06 PM) Peavy, Halladay, and Haren. Those are the guys you go after if they are available. Don't want to pay Oswalt-type money for the third best pitcher on the staff. If they are in contention and a pitcher short at the deadline, I'd make a play for Bedard. LOL, first you whine about the risk of picking up Oswalt, and then call for Peavy (who has had recent elbow problems and will be owed roughly $70 million) or Bedard, who is a massive headcase pu$$y that won't pitch through minor pain. Your posts make no sense.