Gregory Pratt

QUOTE(Sox Machine @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 08:35 PM) In a case like Garland's, the last two years mean more than his first three. He joined the rotation at a very young age. It's not like he's Kent Bottenfield or anything. I'm not too impressed with Garland's last two years, actually. Aside from an amazing start to 2005 -- or, hell, a damn good 2005 -- he's been the same old Jon Garland as before. IMO, he's always going to be a mid-4 ERA guy and it's a stroke of good fortune from the baseball gods that 2005, wasn't. None of our starters ended the year on the DL. Contreras missed his last start, that much is true. Vazquez ended the year very well, and so did Garcia. I don't think Garcia's end was a fluke. Buehrle will almost certainly rebound next year. Contreras will be all right, too, in my opinion next year. I think the Count really needs an offseason to rest. Personally, I believe that all of our pitchers, sans Vazquez, have better years ahead of them than Garland does. Maybe I'm undervaluing him, but I just think that I'm the only one not overvaluing him. (That said, I think that even Vazquez can be, at least, the same as Jonny Hollywood.)

QUOTE(shoota @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 07:55 PM) Yes, it may be true that KW does not believe Garland is his best pitcher. I did make that assumption and constructed my thoughts with that opinion. As I stated, I understand the need to eventually replace the team's current pitchers, but don't think it is a higher priority than the immediate need for improvements at SS and LF. Honestly, I don't see how anyone can think that Garland is our best pitcher unless these people who do decide to erase all of their histories except for the last two years -- and even then, I think Garland comes off looking weaker than all of them except for maybe Javier. About SS: I don't think it's that large an area of need. If we can upgrade Uribe, then sure, go for it, but I don't think we can without overpaying and taking on a big nasty contract. Our priority shouldn't be replacing Uribe and it shouldn't even be too high up on our list, IMO. QUOTE(R.Sweeney @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 08:01 PM) Oh I totally agree. I like having Cintron on the bench to give IF's days off and some speed off the bench for late innings. I like having him on the bench, too.

QUOTE(R.Sweeney @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 07:51 PM) I understand what your saying, its almost impossible to replace his D and after having such a s***ty season that he would rebound in 07 with bat. I just hate to give up cintron b/c he is a quality SS with a good glove,good bat and brings some speed to the game. I don't think Cintron's glove is that good, and that's always been the knock against him. He's not a bad option, but, if it's between him and Uribe, I'd take Uribe every time.

QUOTE(shoota @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 07:34 PM) Good point, I see the importance of obtaining young, quality pitching; my puzzlement is born from KW's seemingly willingness to trade his best pitcher, Garland, before two other pitchers of value: Vazquez and Garcia. Williams' willingness to trade his "best pitcher" might have to do with the fact that Garland, ah, might not be the best pitcher in his eyes. Or, perhaps, it might have to do with the knowledge that God needs a rotation spot in 2007 and that he should acquire some arms that'll contribute to the club, soon. really, I'm just saying that I'd rather give up Cintron than Uribe, easy.

Wonder if we could deal Garland and Cintron for Young and the pitching prospects? Garland and Uribe, even, if we had to, but it sure be nice to ship off Cintron who is, IMO, too expensive for a backup and not as good as Uribe. Then we could ship out Uribe or Tadahito and replace whichever with Young, though in that case I'd rather move Iguchi since he's in his last year. Just speculation, of course, but it be interesting.

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 02:26 PM) That's funny, cause I think it's the exact opposite. That's funny, 'cause I think the exact opposite too. I just think Javier "Good Periphals!" Vazquez and Jon "Most Wins in the Last Two Years!" Garland are overrated, in the former's case because he has a lot of makeup questions and hasn't had a bright season since Montreal ad Garladn because, well, he's a career 4 ERA guy, if he's lucky.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 02:22 PM) I wouldn't mind them trading Garland, I think he, like the other 4 starters are overrated. I think Garland and Vazquez are overrated on our staff. I think Contreras, Buehrle and Garcia are rated right where they should be or are a little underrated.

I like the thought of dealing Garland to the Rangers.

We're reading Sula in my AP World Literature course, and there's a scene where Sula throws a boy into the river by accident. (She's twirling him and he "slips" and flies into the river, drowning.) A girl in my class compared it to the Lionel Tate killing a few years ago, and said he wasn't a murderer because he was just playing with little Tiffany Eunick. (The question was, "Is Sula a murderer?") Lionel Tate, if you're not familiar, is a boy who was twelve and his mother was babysitting a six year old girl. Lionel destroyed her and then said that it was an accident as he was simply playing wrestling with her, ala (the then-)WWF. At first, he said that he'd just dropped her a couple of times or something, and that it was an accident. As the autopsy returned, however, he had to change his story. Why? Well, take a look at her injuries: A fractured skull, a lacerated liver, broken ribs, internal hemorrhaging, and more than thirty other bruises and breaks. Lionel eventually admitted to doing more than dropping her. He said he punched her over a hundred times, threw her into a stair banister, knocked her down the stairs, jumped up and down on her, slammed her against walls...etc. etc. A Prosecutor, and a few Doctors, said that the injuries she sustained were akin to falling from a three story building, but the boy's case is forever known as "That boy who killed that girl wrestling. Shame on WWF!" The mother is disgusting, too. Naturally, Tiffany would shriek in pain before she died as she was being assaulted, and when she did, Mrs. Tate didn't come down to check what was going on. She shouted from her bedroom, "Tiffany be quiet or I'll spank your butt!" And oh, was she quiet after. Mick Foley, the pro wrestler (and fine writer) wrote about this incident in his book, Foley is Good, and of course he points out the fact that there's no way this was a "wrestling" death. No wrestling move alone could do all that damage and besides, nobody punches someone else 100 times and then jumps on them up and down in wrestling. Something about the Lionel Tate case bothers the hell out of me. This disgusting boy, this known-liar (about her injuries and how he caused them [since he'd said, "I just dropped her a few times" and then changed it a million times]) smears wrestling all over. I don't love professional wrestling anymore. It's been miserable since WWF bought WCW. But, to the day I die, I'll always be bothered by the fact that this murderer got off with a slap on the wrist because he blamed television. He should be in a jail for the rest of his life, and aside from the scene in Helter Skelter (the novel) where Ronald Hughes is murdered and his little home (a small place in his garage with nothing worth a damn except the one thing that mattered to him enough to take care of: his Law Degree) is detailed -- aside from that, the most disgusting crime-related thing I've ever read was after the murders, when Lionel Tate asks Tiffany's mother, before any apology or anything like that, "Can I have Tiffany's toys?"

Probably Buehrle, on the bold, but you never know with KW.

I'm always amazed when I go through posts about our rotation on SoxTalk and see Garland as the number one starter and McCarthy either at number two or three and Buehrle/Contreras are at the back of the rotation. I'm under the impression that Garland wouldn't win anywhere near as many games as he's won in the last two games if he were named our number one/number two because I still believe that Jon Garland is a slightly-above-average pitcher. The only thing about Javier that gives me pause about trading him is his K total. It be nice to have a Sox pitcher who can K guys consistently. I think it's kind of cool that Javier is fifth in total strikeouts amongst MLB pitchers since 2000, although I still feel antsy about him as a starter because of his lack of composure on the mound. But that said, I was impressed by his change to his delivery with runners on in late-2006, and I was impressed by the fact that he just about stopped blowing up in August on up. Of course, I don't really want Freddy to go, either, but he is the one who makes most sense from a financial standpoint. Personally, though, I wouldn't be too mad if we could deal Vazquez to the Mets and Garland to the Rangers and stock up on young pitching and, I don't know, extend extensions to Garcia and Buehrle.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 02:02 PM) I'm not sure exactly how we got here, but I'm having a real difficult time deciding between the better beer and the Peppermint Pootang.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 05:24 PM) Does anyone else realize the ridiculousness of this "proposed" trade? There have been a couple of posts about how successful Freddy has been pitching in Anaheim, but then look at Santana's home numbers. Over the next 5 years, chances are Santana will win more games than Freddy and get paid a few lifetime's worth of money less, couple with the fact that Garcia could walk after 1 season, but Santana is still under the club's control for another 4 or 5. If the deal really is Santana + for Garcia, KW would have jumped at it so fast before the Angels could change their minds. I doubt that the Angels are offering Santana for Garcia straight up, but I wouldn't be stunned if they were willing to part with Santana for Garcia and some throw-ins.

I'm quite ashamed of some of those quotes -- most of them, actually -- though I do feel that I can explain them quite well. I stopped thinking that Freddy was on steroids after I had an exchange with Nathaniel Whalen on his blog about Freddy + Steroids and it was then that it was brought to my attention that he'd pitched almost five hundred innings in the last two years. You know, I was and am aware that Freddy's a horse, but I wasn't as aware of his 2005-2004-WBC inning-totals. I'd have taken back my comments long ago but I've been away. I will say this, though: Freddy did get a little fat, and through some of the season gave the impression of being quite lazy (at holding runners, for one), but, I can't justify what I said in that second comment. At the time, that was certainly true and hardly offensive, though as it came out in September through Cooper and Garcia, he'd been experiencing arm troubles (deadarm) from being overworked, and I personally think this accounts for the dip in velocity. I still think he's a fragile man on the mound, though I don't feel the same way about the punching or to the extent about his fragility. Though the fact that he's fragile is about as indisputable as the fact that Mark Prior is fragile. Part of my frustration with Vazquez and Garcia was that early on through the season -- and in Javier's case, up until August -- I was one of the few who defended them and I ended up feeling foolish because they'd keep burning me by proving my predictions about them wrong, and I kind of got antsy. Silly, and I don't stand by any of it, but that's what happened. I often have said that I was proud of the way Freddy pitched, given his arm issues, and of the way that Javier pitched. I thought his game against NYY where he went five and gave up two and loaded the bases in almost all the innings was one of the ballsiest outings I've ever seen from a Sox pitcher. Same as above. I'm ashamed of the fickleness in those entries. It must've been the August heat. His back-to-back one-hitters had something to do with it, to be sure, if we want to have a game of Interrogation, but the thing that made me feel bad about Freddy was when I read Cooper's comments about his arm not being 100% and when I had an exchange with Whalen at the Southtown about steroids. His one-hitters, after, reminded me how much I've always enjoyed Garcia and I appreciated him more than before. You can call it a flip-flop, if you'd like, though I don't necessarily think so. I take back the nastier comments, but I don't take back the fact that he probably could've stood to lose a few pounds this season (Buehrle, too, and it seems to me like he knows this cause he's said that he didn't work out well-enough this offseason). If you want to judge me by it and go, "FLIPFLOP!" or whatever, feel free, because I could really carel ess. I was wrong about Garcia's attitude, and I was wrong about Garcia being lazy and not trying, and I was wrong about Garcia not being clean, and I was wrong to bash the only player whose jersey I have more than one of (black and white, respectively). I'm ashamed of it, but we all make mistakes.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 08:22 AM) Wow. 6 months ago Anaheim wouldn't move Santana for anything, and how they are offering him AND other players for Freddy? Wow. Well, I think they might be overpaying for a guy in his contract year, but we've seen this movie before when Kenny traded for Freddy. Frankly, I think Garcia is one of the better starters in the league, and I can't blame the Angels for wanting him. I'd imagine they'd try to extend him, and my guess is that they believe he'll be back in top form next year, something I believe, too, once he's had a full offseason since he's pitched so many innings in the last two years. Freddy's very undervalued, IMO, not just around the league but in his own city, too. I think the coolest thing the crowds at Comiskular did this year, though, was cheer his name in his last homestart against Seattle. (Needless to say, I'd love to have him back and deal one of the other four, and probably extend him, too. Ah, if only we lived in an ideal world.) Question: let's say the Sox deal Freddy for Santana. Anybody got a problem dealing, oh, Garland and Uribe for Young and a couple of pitching prospects? How about Cintron and Garland? Then we'd have a rotation that looks like, Buehrle Contreras Vazquez Santana McCarthy Frees up money and looks good to me. If we can land Santana, I think we should deal another pitcher.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 05:06 PM) Based on what? Wins? Somebody please break it down for me. I could make a strong argument that Garcia was better in 2006. Garcia spent the year experiencing the deadarm of two 200-plus inning + playoffs + WBC and wound up being insignificantly weaker than Garland in ERA. I feel that Freddy is seriously underrated by Sox fans.

I'm glad that Cotts is gone and, frankly, I think it's for the best. I like Aardsma a lot and I've always thought Cotts a fluke. Hooray!

When is the election.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 10:26 AM) Thank you for your follow up questions, I'll try to be as forward and honest as possible. What I meant by "virgin" is simply that I have not engaged in intercourse. I don't know if I would consider anything I've done as "abuse" as you described. As I said, I treated my girlfriends well, but I know that I should have used more self-control to avoid sexual interactions, i.e. light or heavy petting. Some may not consider this to be as big of an issue as I feel it is, but I hope that is a testament to my character. I think all females should respect themselves by avoiding situations where they'll give in to guys, but what I'm getting at is that I think men, myself included, need to have more self-control and more respect to not put women in that place. I hope that's seen as a positive thing. Let me know if you need more information. Sincerely, PA I do think that's a respectable thing, and I appreciate your answers.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 10:16 AM) What has been your most significant accomplishment to date? Some things I'm proud of: I edited the school paper in the eighth grade and afterward, once my term was up (I was term-limited, see?) I founded my own school paper which was a parody. The Saucedo Onion. My political blog is, I think, the best thing I spend my time on beside my girlfriend. My blog's been in Slate Magazine's Today's Blogs section, I've engaged editorialists in dialogue through email and have made friends (although my favorite correspondence came with John Podhoretz who called me a piece of s***, among other things), and I have a very good, healthy readership that writes me. Oddly enough, I have more Conservative friends than Liberal friends. I'm proud of my leadership on my school's Debate team, and the fact that I founded it. My school wasn't there in the League until I pushed for it and now my partner and I are always 4-1, 5-0 and make the Elimination Rounds everytime. We're a strong team. Beyond that, I take pride in my time as a soccer goalkeeper and in helping take care of my mother who is ill. Yes please. No, I don't have any specific ideas, but I have had issues with this site's moderating and Administrating in the past. Overall, I think it's a great message board, and I enjoy it, but I dislike websites that moderate profanities, for one (though more and more message baords do it) and I'll keep my other issues with the Staff of SoxTalk between me and the Staffers that I've discussed things with before. Like I said, I enjoy the site, but more for some of the people and the general concept of SoxTalk than for the leadership. But it's all rather moot as I'm not running for SoxTalk Administrator.

I'm throwing my hat back in the race. You'll find my platform and such in the platform-and-such thread. Ask away. Anything at all.

Actually, throw my hat back in. I'm in the Race again.

PS: Who's that in your avatar?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 10:03 AM) I'll answer these to the best of my ability, but I'll tell you right now that I won't get into names or details out here on the web for all to see (this is where my "candidacy" ends and the real me begins). The worst thing I've ever done was violate the trust of a significant other. I'll leave it at that. If this was a real election and I was out there in public, I'd be willing to be more specific. The best thing that has ever happened to me is my wife. She has helped me become a much more complete person in every important way. Well, I wasn't asking for names. But thank you for the answer. Have you ever been in a fistfight with someone not a relative?

Same as I asked PA: I am interested in my candidates as human beings, and I think that one's answer to the following can be quite telling: What is the worst thing you've ever done, in your opinion, to another human being, that you regret? How about: what's the worst thing you've ever done that you don't regret? What's, in your opinion, the best thing to happen to you? (And please note: "White Sox winning the World Series doesn't count. ) If you choose to say, "these are unpolitical questions," I understand fully, let me say, but I do hope that you answer them and feel comfortable answering.