Friend of Nordhagen

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.

QUOTE(103 mph screwball @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 09:42 PM) Rick Hahn was on Comcast Sportsnet Trib Live show. Not a whole ton of new stuff, but here is a recap for those interested. Pods workout routine went to full throttle last week and he aggravated an old injury on the right side of his groin that he had previous surgery on 3 years ago with the Brewers. Not the same injury as last year. 6-8 weeks, but since "speed is such a part of Scott's game, we have make sure that he is absolutely 100% healthy and confident in his ability or he's not going to be able to help us as much as all of us would like." They are going to be conservative with him. This was not discovered earlier because he didn't have a problem until he turned his workouts up to ten. Again we hear that Podsednik needs to believe that he is fully healthy at all times. This goes far beyond his health; it's his state of mind. This is just all too fragile for me to have any confidence in.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Jan 23, 2007 -> 08:52 PM) as long as he does to joe mauer and victor martinez what he did to johnny estrada..ill be ok with this... Its on the June 6th highlights.... http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/NASApp/ml...a&ym=200506 Great announcer quote: "Johnny Estrada holding onto his face."

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jan 22, 2007 -> 10:10 PM) He recently said it himself that he may not be able to play CF anymore, period. His lateral movement is all but gone as well as any makeup speed he had at one time, his arm is subpar and his instincts are completely out of whack after being away from the position for 3 years and barely playing baseball at all last season. The funny thing is I used to be a HUGE fan of his because of my love of all things defense, he and Edmonds were about as good as it got during the 97 and 98 seasons, super fun. However, that Darin Erstad is long gone the new no power slick fielding firstbaseman Erstad is all you're going to be seeing these days. I didn't know that he'd said that about playing center. Aren't the Marlins looking at him as a CF, too? Or is something else going on? Agree about him and Edmonds, both. By the way, Edmonds doesn't look so good out there these days, either.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jan 22, 2007 -> 09:24 PM) At this point in time there might not be much of a difference defensively between Erstad and Mack in CF and Rob is the far superior offensive player. C'mon now, Kalapse. I know that Erstad's old, is always an injury risk, and is overrated offensively. Believe me, I know that those are all really valid points. But not much of a difference in center between him and Mack? Even with diminished range, Erstad is a natural outfielder. What that means is that he can judge a fly ball, which by itself makes him much better than Mack out there. And he'll throw to the right base, too. No question, though, that Mack is better offensively.

QUOTE(dwalteroo @ Jan 5, 2007 -> 02:54 PM) I'm not an attorney, but this seems like a judge making it known that he's in charge. I don't think this would last unless there were really something to the case, in which instance Uribe would perhaps be in custody or out on bail and not allowed to leave the country anyways (assuming that's how it works down there). I am an attorney. And my conclusion is that Juan Uribe is still fat.

A couple of thoughts: 1. We can talk about trying to get a top-flight deal for Buehrle, but it's pretty clear that what many here think is a top-flight deal differs from what Kenny Williams actually secures. Just a few weeks ago, we all thought Garcia would bring a King's ransom, or at least major-leaguers to fill needed positions. What came back was possibly good, but hardly proven. And I think the McCarthy haul, while potentially good, took many of us here a little time to process. I'm not saying Williams couldn't get more, but I think we should be ready to accept that the haul will be less than we think. 2. There's a reason that some pitchers -- not all -- but some pitchers get more expensive as they approach free agency -- beyond a crazy market. By the 6 year mark, a lot of growing pains have been suffered. Jon Garland today is a vastly different pitcher than Jon Garland 2 years ago. Experience does that. For that reason, I think it's a little foolish to continue to insist that we want cheap pitching, guys with 6 years service time, and not expect that they're going to struggle. Again, sometimes the salaries are just out of whack -- like with Lilly and Suppan -- but sometimes you have to just say that you're paying for experience. John Danks is a great prospect, but let's not pretend that he's not going to struggle at first. (By the way, his numbers at every level shows that is exactly what he does, before becoming a very good pitcher.).

This all reminds me of the 1980's Bears -- won a title and then management decided that they had a "plan" to replace old parts with new parts. So you let a Wilber Marshall and a Willie Gault go, proclaiming to the fans not to worry -- because you've stocked up with Ron Rivera and God knows who else. But before you know it, the fans have lost guys they identified with, watched grow up and become attached to. And they were talented guys. That was bad. Now, to be fair, McCarthy hadn't done a ton. But the degree to which Williams has now let the new free agent market for pitching get into his head is now clear for all to see -- because, presumably, McCarthy would be PART of a plan shaped around young, talented, under-your-control-for-many-cheap-years pitchers. But even McCarthy, apparently, doesn't satisfy the Williams plan. Instead, I gather, the plan says that it's better to get two good young, under-control arms -- even if less tested than the arm you're trading -- for the price of one young under-control arm. I would imagine that if Williams could trade Danks and Masset for 3 really good AA pitching prospects, he'd do that. That would be the next logical step. Then you just repeat the process until you have 24 top-level "power arms" in rookie ball. Can't wait. Strange.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Dec 6, 2006 -> 11:28 PM) An hour of tape swung their decision in favor of trading for him? Well, that's either incredibly good or extremely bad news. Ah, in the hands of mere mortals, it would be bad news. But, this is Coop and he can fix him.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 6, 2006 -> 09:59 PM) Which further illustrates how much of a disaster the Vazquez trade was. Also true.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 6, 2006 -> 09:53 PM) Didn't he say he wouldn't make any moves that wouldn't make us better in 2007? This isn't the time for the Sox to be going about things like a middle market team. There's too much at risk with the momentum in the city we've established. Totally dead on. I feel like, during the past week, we've just heard Williams cry over and over about how out of whack the market is. I felt like we were being set up for some mid-market bull move, and sure enough, here it is. Even if that 10 million from Garcia gets re-invested into the team, it's net neutral for payroll -- just the way you think when you're a mid-market ballclub. Silliness.