Friend of Nordhagen

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 02:43 PM) The sad thing is, he actually got a pretty good jump. He's just slow. That's what it looked like. Very little acceleration.

QUOTE(CYGarland @ Apr 4, 2007 -> 02:39 PM) Who bats 2nd then? I like Iguchi down in the order, and Anderson hasnt proven he can hit yet. Id leave thigs as they are for now. If anything maybe KW can pull off a deal for a LF/CF who can actually hit Just like he did in the off-season.

J.D. Always flat-footed on the catch. Always.

QUOTE(103 mph screwball @ Apr 1, 2007 -> 08:50 PM) Stone will raise Singleton's game. Stone has had to work with others who have required "patience". I like Farmer, but I did not like the way he would hang Chris out to dry last year. They did sound better in the spring. Eventually, I think Singleton will be fine. DJ and Stone would be a nice combo when Hawk decides to retire. "You see, D.J., only mere mortals ever retire. Mickey Mantle never retired. He's still playing, actually. So, rest assured, my heinie is going to be right here for the next 150 years."

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 04:26 PM) This DBack pitcher has an ERA over 10.00 and has allowed 20 hits in less than 9 innings. I bet KW has his eye on him. Good arm angle!

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 01:12 PM) Not good. We're not better for this. That is, unless the team becomes so incredibly inspired from the loss that everyone has career seasons. I think that this is the most likely scenario. Toby Hall was the most inspiring figure in all of baseball, and someday we'll all look back and see that his torn labrum was the catalyst for the White Sox in 2007. So let me be the first to say: Thanks, Toby Hall's labrum!

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 25, 2007 -> 10:13 PM) The thing about all the young guys we traded for is that only Danks has a legitimate chance to be anything more than a 4th starter in his career. Coop . . . will . . . f-i-

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 25, 2007 -> 07:53 PM) I can't imagine that KW is satisfied with the bullpen the way it is right now. I'm still trying to find out how we managed to not upgrade at either offense, defense, starting or relief pitching this offseason. But we have a lot of AA pitchers locked up for 2009. And Floyd's arm angle has never looked better!

I'm with Kenny Williams. I think you guys are all overlooking how great Floyd's arm angle is. I mean, he has a nasty arm angle. I predict that Floyd will be the 5th starter, go 1 and 7 with a 6.52 era, but lead the league in arm angle. And that's why we got great value for Garcia.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 04:34 PM) This sounds similiar to Rossindo Gloadriguez that used to be on our team. Grindero Grindoguez.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 04:17 PM) Thome walks. I'd assume Rogo will replace he or Thome, cause it's spring. Not Latin.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 03:17 PM) Floyds line 6 runs 6 earned 2 walks 1 k 8 hits Good arm angle, though. Gavin's right on track.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 02:50 PM) 4-3, Floyd gets roughed up. Wonder if was more of those grounders through the hardscrabble Arizona infield that Kenny Williams was talking about. Anyway, I'm sure that Gavin's arm angle is great, and that's all that matters.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 03:32 PM) Well lets see, when pitchers challenge the zone and try to pitch in we rock them into the stone age. When teams pitch low and away and bounce the breakin pitch in the dirt, we barely scratch 2 hits together in 6 innings. If we were a line drive, hit to all fields approach that he mouths in the papers and all we would be able to solve crappy pitchers spotting low and away. Pull only, try and go for the fences approaches are what get shut down left and right by low and away. Totally agree with you -- just thought it was really something to hear that Walker is preaching to pull MORE.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 03:15 PM) Nice to see a soft tossing lefty spotting the ball low and away is dominating our lineup. We are in midseason form once again. I heard Greg Walker this morning say that Iguchi had gotten into some "bad habits" batting second, like not trying to pull the ball often enough. This is from our hitting instructor. Southside, I thought of you immediately.

QUOTE(Wedge @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 08:25 AM) That is his epitaph. Totally hilarious.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 07:14 AM) If you use the argument that Buerhle was the worst starting pitcher in the majors the second half, and I do think you may be right, check Vazquez the second half of 2004. He may have been the worst starting pitcher in baseball. It was bad enough the Yankees thought he was hurt and couldn't wait to dump him. I can see where Buerhle in 2007 is a question mark, but it makes absolutely no sense that Vazquez is a sure bet. He's been like he was last year most of his career. Put another way, if the Sox had signed a guy with Vazquez's numbers from another team, my guess is that most people here would wonder why we wouldn't put that money toward Buehrle (or, for that matter, extending Garland even further).

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 08:30 PM) Thats not the scouting report on him. If you have watched him this spring though, its hard not to get excited about the guy. I watched him Sunday. He looked good. But he didn't look overpowering, or even like he had plus-plus stuff. I thought that's what we traded for.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 08:18 PM) I am as big of a brandon supporter as you will find on the site. And I have a ton of autographed stuff from him, and was hoping that he would be here for a while. The Buerhle situation probably did more to get this trade going than anything Bmac did. If you look at Danks, what does he remind you of. A slightly harder throwing Buerhle with a better curveball. Danks has been targetted for a few reasons. He is young/cheap/left handed. The way a lot of teams get their young starters into the game is to use them in relief. Buerhle, Liriano, Santana, Papleboner, etc. These are all starters, or would be starters that all started in the relief role. These are all examples of guys who started their whole life, and had to adjust to warming up quick and throwing strikes out of the pen. It helps them work on a limited number of pitches, get some experience and work in game situations with a bit of pressure. Bmac didnt do to well in this. He missed in the strikezone, and then had to come over the plate with a fastball late in the count. Bmac uses his changeup as a pace changer to keep people off of his fastball. He had a hard time getting command of that at times, and the scouting report on Bmac is to lay off the curve, because he has a hard time throwing it for strikes. So basically you have eliminated 2 of his 3 pitches and you sit on the fastball. McCarthy is gone because most likely he failed the litmus test, and because we could get Danks who is lefty and projects with similiar stuff. You could be right. But that's a litmus that Jon Garland failed, too. He was a decidedly so-so reliever, and he turned out fine. Plus, Buehrle hadn't started in the majors when they dropped him in the bullpen in 2000. McCarthy, on the other hand, had started -- under pressure -- and performed. That's the part that irritates me. In 5 starts that September, I thought McCarthy showed more composure and savvy than Vazquez did all of last year. In fact, if McCarthy resembled anyone that year, it was Buehrle. It could be that Danks becomes like Buehrle. But that's my point. When the trade was made, Williams made it sound like we were getting a young Mark Langston, not a younger Mark Buerhle.

QUOTE(Frankensteiner @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 08:11 PM) I thought that was the whole point of stockpiling young arms, so as to avoid overpaying for mediocre talent. Yep. And one more thing. I said earlier that, much as I question it, the contract is movable. But let's be clear: Williams record "moving" these contracts is that we get far less than we start out thinking we will. So, yeah, the contract (and Javy's 6th inning meltdowns) can be traded, but I wouldn't expect much.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 08:11 PM) Danks throws 90-94 ish. It is spring remember. And he is a much better groundball pitcher than BMAC who gives up a homerun about every other inning. Plus BMAC didnt fit in with this team, which is an automatic out in the clubhouse. We'll see, Rock. Last I saw was that his Double-A pitching coach said he got it up there between 88-90.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 05:11 PM) How does his love afair with Vaz cost us bmac. I understand the Young part, because he was traded for him. But bmac. Hey, Southside. I'm referring to the fact that Mac pitched great down the stretch in 2005, only to be booted as the potential 5th starter for 2006 because KW traded for Javy. McCarthy never fit in the bullpen, and I seriously question whether he was put in a position to succeed in that position. Then Ozzie and Kenny got down on him (that's pretty clear), and off he went to Texas. Yeah, there's some assumptions in there, but I'm convinced that Brandon would have fared much better as a starter -- and, in fact, better than Vazquez. (As for the trade of McCarthy to Texas, I think KW is full of it. When McCarthy was traded, the implication was that Danks's stuff made him a better fit for the Cell. Now all I hear is that Danks throws 89-92. That was McCarthy's velocity. So, Danks may become great (and Masset, too), and he's certainly left-handed, but what I heard Kenny say is not what I'm hearing now that Mr. Danks is actually in Tucson.)

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 03:43 PM) Because I would rather go with younger pitchers who EVERYONE is tauting in this McCarthy deal, who will put up .500 numbers at a circa-5.00 era for about 8 million per annum less. How hard is this to understand? Vazquez has great stuff. He's also a loser. The contract is fair for the market, and it's probably moveable. But for me, it's just chasing bad money. I didn't like trading Young for Vazquez, I didn't like putting McCarthy in the bullpen because of Vazquez, and I don't like being on a longer hook for Vazquez. Maybe he'll do better. Maybe he won't. But Williams's love affair with this guy has effectively cost us the top two prospects in our system (Young and McCarthy). He better do more than pitch 200 innings with a 4.7 ERA. Because he's cost more than the money he's being paid.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 4, 2007 -> 10:53 PM) Man, I lurked into their game thread too, I completely forgot how ridiculous they are over there. Blaming the strike zone, wind amongst other things. They went from World Series champs to bums over the course of a spring training game. I love the rivalry. I must say that I'm a little confused by John Danks, both by what I'm now reading and what I saw today. He was effective today. And I don't doubt his talent. But I do doubt what Kenny Williams said right after the McCarthy trade. The clear assertion was that Danks had the kind of stuff to fare better in the Cell than McCarthy. I thought that meant that he had power stuff. Sure, he's supposed to have a great curve, but his velocity is pretty much what McCarthy's was (high 80's, low 90's). So, what am I missing here? Was that just a smokescreen for how much the Sox wanted to get rid of McCarthy? Was it that Danks is left-handed? Was it that they got Masset, too? Whatever the reason, that stuff about "stuff" seems totally false.

QUOTE(StatManDu @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 01:13 PM) PS-I was banned from WSI for linking to my blog in my web signature and 'questioning the mods decisions' That's because your intelligence and research capabilities are a threat to the linear-thinkers who run that board. Welcome.