Gregory Pratt

Where does all the Tony Romo love come from? I was watching it and everybody was swooning over him; I know he's had a fine year, but I still remember him as the guy crying on the sidelines and until he's beaten a good team in the playoffs I'm not going to pretend that that didn't happen.

I love Tom Brady.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 9, 2007 -> 12:53 PM) He didnt want Podsednik back last year. Thats why he started the season off as our leadoff hitter and starter in the OF. The only reason that they soured on him was due to the amount of injuries he had over the previous years. If Pods was healthy he would still be on this team, and would still be in LF. If Pods were healthy he'd still be fast would still be effective would still be a reasonable baseball player as he had been for, what? Three years? Other than that -- yes, Ozzie Guillen did not want Podsednik back and KW "talked him into" accepting it. It was in one of the major newspapers, oh, midway through the season -- Ozzie was tired of Podsednik being hurt and sucking, KW said there's nothing better on the market, please accept it and Guillen had to make do. Let's not let any of that get into the way of anything.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 9, 2007 -> 12:47 PM) Ozzie can talk all he wants about OBP and such. But push come to shove, a bantam weight track star will be our leadoff guy. He can't get the f***ing Marlins experience out of his head. The only weigh that Owens doesnt start is if we waste money and pick up Pierre. I don't know -- Ozzie has been witness to two World Series victories with speedy leadoff men, so it isn't as if he's delusional; but besides that, there is nothing to truly suggest that Ozzie wants "a bantam weight track star" to be our leadoff man. Ozzie Guillen wants someone who is good at the game of baseball, period. He didn't want Podsednik back last year; I'm sure he doesn't want Jerry Owens back next year, at least not as number one. He isn't stupid, whatever anger people want to project on him cast aside.

Hey...is the fight starting at 8 or the card? What time's the fight start?

"This isn't When Harry Met Sally. This is 'Greg, The Delusional Sick Man on the Phone'". (I'm ill at the moment.)

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 10:08 PM) IFF...he stays healthy and doesn't wind up in jail Yeah, I got it -- Bonds is scum. But he's probably not going to wind up in jail during the season and he'll be healthy enough.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 10:07 PM) And a lot of other people, like me if I were up there, would stay the Hell away from A's games because of that chemistry experiment. I really think you underestimate how much Giants fans love Bonds.

Also: the LF production for as "little" as Bonds will make will be phenomenal.

Well, yes and no.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 12:16 PM) those are damned lies

BELICHICK HOODIE

It's been like that for years. Several times, the Giants have been outbidding themselves because nobody else wanted him; when he was drafted, people passed on him -- including the White Sox -- not because they didn't see great talent but because 1. they worried about his father's money demands 2. they thought he was an "asshole" (as one scouting report said when he was in high school and showed up the opposing pitcher) and worried about him being like his father (who had many, many problems). That was rather interesting to know, that through the years there's been some interest here and there but people are more than happy to let him go because of the hassle. Only McGowan loves him, and even he's let him go. Will Beane sign him? I wouldn't, since they already have a fine young DH, but if he'll come cheap (and I suspect he will) I'll bet Oakland would take him. That's moneyball, baby.

Umm, neither Pierzynski nor Bonds is particularly physical. Bonds, according to childhood friends in Pearlman's Love Me Hate Me hated playing football because he doesn't like getting hit and according to people who have "fought" him, physically and non, in locker rooms he is a classic bully who likes to poke from afar but can't stand being hit. AJ? IMO, all-talk, and I base that on his silly bird slaps after Barrett knocked him down and his refusal to defend himself from Padilla's two beanballs and his general reputation as an irritant -- not an instigant, or a man of violence. So I doubt there'd be a "fight" and they didn't really have any problems in SF that I know of, although Pierzynski complained in that locker room that nobody liked or trusted anyone "unlike in Minnesota".

Haha, from TalkingChop

Bud Selig and Scott Boras don't refer to this as the Golden Age of Baseball because Albert Pujols and Ichiro Suzuki and Barry Bonds have pretty smiles.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 02:26 PM) Who is going to check to see if Ozzie and Kenny have grown up yet? Ozzie isn't immature; he's just young AND old-school. One day, he'll be like Bobby Cox or Tony LaRussa -- assuming he can get a General Manager and Owner who give him good horses, anyway.

Rodriguez and Sizemore Cano

I just think there are a lot of people who flatly refuse to ever consider the White Sox "losers" in any sense of the term unless it's absolutely literal -- "they lost to X by a score of X and X". With that in mind, here's why they are the biggest losers in the deal: 1. They have a terrible team and failed to upgrade it. 1.a) Their targets -- Hunter, who was the clear #1, and Cabrera, who was their greatest fantasy -- went elsewhere, including their division rival, leading to 2. The Red Sox and Yankees are in as good a shape as before, to be Kings of the East and WC; the Indians have a damn good ballclub and don't need huge changes or an overhaul; the Dodgers picked up their center fielder, middle-of-the-order-hitter; Angels' rivals didn't do s*** to beat them out. 2.a) Even if another team -- say, the Cubs -- loses out on their target (Fukodome) they can't be the "biggest losers" because they're in a bad division with what might well be the best team in that s***ty division; they are, after all, the returning division champions. Further, after this, there isn't much that the White Sox can do to fix their club, is it? Who are they going to trade for to match them up, on paper, with the Tigers or the Indians? It's effectively over. What you see -- short of a rebuilding -- is what you get, essentially, because there is little else we can do at this time, what with the limited options available.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 12:04 PM) I wasn't aware of some of those players that were not suspended actually using those performance enahncing supplements during a time when they were banned in baseball. Are you saying you don't believe that MLB and the MLBPA have not been, since the beginning, trying to cover this all up and keep it under wraps?

Umm, MLB has given out drug suspensions before. The Eighties Drug Trials say hello, as do these guys: * Joaquín Andújar * Dale Berra * Enos Cabell * Keith Hernandez * Jeffrey Leonard * Dave Parker * Lonnie Smith

I was only referring to the NFL/MLB in terms of money. Baseball is getting much closer and baseball is setting profit records. By that standard, Bud Selig is a great MLB Commissioner; the game is more popular than ever. And I, for what it's worth, would add that the NFL does not have integrity any more than baseball does. But I ask: you think football is classy?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 09:51 AM) What a joke. Baseball hasn't learned a damned thing from a near decade of these drug "scandals" splashing accross the newspapers. Bud Selig needs to read some baseball history and look up baseballs first real commish, and see how he solved problems. GROW A PAIR BUD! The counter to that: Bud has learned a lot, and his wallet has increased. Baseball is now nearer to the NFL than it has ever been, and they're continually setting profit records. This isn't much of a scandal. The fans don't truly care. They want dingers, and those are really responsible for the revenue increases. Ergo, why should Bud Selig fight it?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 01:35 AM) Rowand is a better offensive player than Pierre and light years better in the field. The real question should be; is Juan Pierre, at this point in his career, really that much better than Jerry Owens? The answer . . . no. Especially when you factor in the 4 years and $36.5M remaining on John Peter's deal. Pierre is much better than Owens. Owens will never be as "good" as Pierre. Not that Pierre is worth his contract or that I want him -- I'm just saying that I doubt Owens hits over .250 for a full season, let alone anywhere near .300 and I don't think he could ever get 200 hits unless he had something ridiculous like 1000 ABs.

Mr. SSM says he found him and has him on tape; I'm a little skeptical.