shoota

QUOTE(beck72 @ Mar 17, 2007 -> 10:56 AM) Not much new most o fthe way through. Said they were working on pitching schedules from now until opening day. Said Danks was throwing well. But that Floyd and Haeger were still in the race for the 5th starters spot. What was new was the talk of the bullpen when Ronge asked about the race for the final bullpen spots after the 1st 3 back end guys [wanted 7 guys but sounded like he'd get overruled]. Said Masset, Sisco, Logan, Bucvich [sp?] and Haeger were right there for the final spots. No mention of Aardsma. Don't know much about Bucvich's options. But what are his stats for ST? I'm sure the sox would keep the bullpen pretty stocked in AAA. That way, guys could build up stats and trade value [ala Javier Lopez last yr]. Ronge should have asked Coop why Sisco, Aardsma and especially Floyd haven't experienced a pitching epiphany yet this spring.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 17, 2007 -> 11:32 AM) I don't think anyone here is going to say that having a guy like an Erstad, the "Grinder" who does go all out on every play and inspires other people to work harder, is a bad thing. I think what a lot of people here are getting sick of though is having the fact that a player is a "Grinder" treated like it's the only thing in the world that matters by the team and some of its fans...to the point of sacrificing what we feel is the good of the team in the process. That's what's pissing some of us off...this team seems poised to ignore some of its best talent to put a constantly injured, poor offensive guy in the OF because he's a grinder over a guy who's in his mid-20's, has shown improvement with the bat, has done everything we could hav easked of him this offseason, and who is stunningly good on defense. The logic being followed here suggests that the best OF we could possibly put together is Podsednik, Erstad, Rowand. They'll grind us to a world series! We'd clearly be better off if we just gave JD his outright release, because he's not a grinder. Fair enough, I don't disagree with that. I think Craig Grebeck should be criticizing Guillen for poor judgement instead of posters of the same opinion. After all, Guillen is the one with the power to start Erstad instead of Anderson, not fans.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 11:24 PM) Eddie Perez has always been able to hit LH well. He can play 1b, and some say he could play LF, but I have never seen it, so I really can't judge. Terrero is supposedly an above average CF, and has no bat. He really should not be on this roster. It should Mack-Anderson-Dye with Perez and Erstad as the backups. 1.Pierz 2.Hall 3.Konerko 4.Perez 5.Iguchi 6.Cintron 7.Uribe 8.Ozuna 9.Crede 10.Mackowiak 11.Erstad 12.Anderson 13.Dye 14.Perez 15.Buehrle 16.Garland 17.Count 18.Vazquez 19.Floyd/Danks 20.Jenks 21.Thornton 22.Macdougal 23.Masset 24.Logan 25.Haeger. Thanks for the explanation. Judging from what you've said, I don't see the value in Terrero since the Sox have Anderson starting and Erstad backing up. Because of the team's poor performances against left-handed pitching, I agree Perez has value to this team. He and Hall should improve the team's record against lefties. I completely agree with your starting outfield and outfield bench. You listed Perez twice though, accidently leaving off Thome.

QUOTE(Craig Grebeck @ Mar 17, 2007 -> 07:40 AM) I like BA, but I by no means think he's the greatest player ever. it's just it is absolutely ridiculous to have a player like Darin Erstad playing everyday. he has been so bad the last six years and now he is getting in the lineup because he's a grinder. one more ridiculous comment from ozzie/kw about grinders and my baseball allegiance may be up for grabs until they're both gone. Why do you believe grinder-type play has no value? I agree with you that the superior baseball player--Brian Anderson--should be starting over the inferior--Darrin Erstad--but Erstad does have value as a bench player.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 05:12 PM) That's right, it's all Mack's fault 26-23 (which equates to 86-76 over a full season. SOOO SCARYYYY) When Mack started in CF Sox score_opp score 2_8 5_3 4_2 4_0 9_2 6_5 6_5 4_1 4_5 4_8 5_2 6_1 4_7 9_3 3_2 2_3 7_5 0_5 8_12 8_6 2_6 0_8 8_1 13_5 1_0 7_4 6_5 9_10 4_2 11_15 4_2 6_9 4_6 2_5 5_0 4_7 7_8 6_4 6_5 4_10 4_1 1_7 7_5 4_5 7_8 5_7 3_2 3_4 2_4 Mack is insanely underrated. He had a .384 OBP and .837 OPS against RHP. ...and as I type, he just won the f***ing game off a lefty on the scrubs. :rolly Once I saw the beginning of the lengthy score listing, my subconscious clicked santo=dorf. QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 07:48 PM) My biggest fear by large is that the OF plan is Pods-Erstad-Dye with Mackowiak and Ozuna as the backups with Perez making the roster. That's why Pods is such a sore eye on this team. Not that he can't change a game; it's that the Sox have other guys that can change the game too when they are playing well and then the Sox would actually have a backup OFer on the roster. I like the way you're thinking. Podsednik is throwing this entire roster off. Trade or cut him. Someone please explain the difference between Perez and Terrero. I've been getting them confused as I haven't been following spring training, outside of confirming my suspicion that Gavin Floyd is a scrub. Is Perez the one who hits lefties well? What does Terrero offer?

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 04:04 PM) GrindErstad with the catch to end the inning. Boone cruising.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 02:59 PM) The thing is, I think Erstad is perfect for us if he were to be used correctly -- as the fourth OFer. Or hell, even as our starting left-fielder. Remove Podsednik from the picture and everything is perfect. Eduardo Perez makes the team. Mackowiak is the backup corner OFer. Erstad backs up Anderson in center. Everything comes up roses. I agree.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 07:00 AM) If he's lazy, it's absolutly unacceptable. I'm not sure what kind of team you'd like to see us build -- but a CF who has NEVER prooven himself in the majors has ZERO room to be lazy, EVER. There is no excuse or arguement you can counter that on, either...so please, do not bother. If you'd like to build a team of lazy stars...move north. Herb Brooks, the coach of the amazing 1980 USA Olympic Hockey team said it best, "I'm not looking for the best players, I'm lookin' for the right ones." If Brian Anderson is going to be lazy, and not take his job seriously -- no matter how good he CAN be or IS defensivly -- he doesn't belong on this team. You're basing your evaluation of Anderson on an assumption--that he is lazy--and I'm basing my evaluation on fact: that Anderson is the team's best center fielder.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 12:00 PM) I agree but isn't this pretty much true for most manager's and coaches. If they don't like your work habits, attitude, tlaent or whatever you aren't going to play. This isn't only Ozzie. He seems to give most players a shot before he goes this route. It's up to the player to change what the manager perceives as " the problem." The problem I would have is if Ozzie doesn't communicate to the player what the problem is. But he seems to do that even if people don't always agree with the method. He is the manager, they are the players. Until he is no longer the manager they need to do what he thinks is best. It's acceptable for person X to error because persons Y and Z errored also?

QUOTE(supernuke @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 10:49 AM) Back up the Bus. I never said Ozzie likes young players. I was just trying to show that some young players have been given a chance under his watch. I really don't believe that Ozzie dislikes BA because he is young. I think he dislikes him because he believes he is lazy and doesn't or didn't want to put in the work to improve. Weather or not BA actually is this way or not I do not know but that is how the situation looks to me. Even if Anderson is "lazy" and doesn't take his job seriously, he's still the team's best center fielder. Like last season, Guillen is weakening the team by letting personal relationships dictate playing time.

QUOTE(G&T @ Mar 12, 2007 -> 12:05 PM) It mentions that the White Sox won the Series. The article is about the Cubs' futility, not where they fit with Chicago Sports. Why would it talk about the Sox? Exactly. QUOTE(Reddy @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 11:30 AM) i love how they're STILL b****ing about Bartman. good lord. Bartman cost the Cubs one out when they were five outs from the World Series. He deserves criticism for that. It's fitting that the Cubs, a team known for absent-minded fans who know little of the game of baseball, would have its World Series chances diminished by one of its own fans.

QUOTE(Balance @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 11:32 AM) I went to a Brewers game in 2005. It was a beautiful late-summer evening game. The roof was open. I really had a great time. The stadium is extremely clean; the employees were helpful and friendly, and the food and beer were both cheap and good. I think I'll unofficially adopt the Brew Crew as my pet National League team. Oh yeah, the Brewers vending employees are much better people than the ones working at Comiskey. Fast, pleasant, and not lazy like many in Chicago.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 04:39 PM) I've done it, but my sister hasn't. I might make her do that when she's up here (only a three hour drive)--but she'll have to get a passport first too. . . You don't need a passport to drive into Canada until January 2008. Though on returning to the States she'll need to show a birth certificate and driver's license. A passport is a good idea, but if she doesn't obtain one by your planned departure date, don't let it cancel your trip. I hear Illinois's own Starved Rock is a romantic getaway. You might want to look in to that.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 05:52 PM) 'Killing an animal' is not the story here, at all. It's the fact that the animal was killed for no respectable reason, and the cruelty of intentionally traumatizing the dog's owner. winnar. Someone's playing head games with the owner.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 05:11 AM) So the Sox should be able to see into the future to know exactly what ever varaible for attendence is going to be, and adjust prices and expenses accordingly. Sounds reasonable. Actually I have a better idea, since the flux capacitor got destroyed by a train in 1985, and Doc hasn't come up with a new way to break the time/space continium yet, the Sox should really play out the season, and then if they have a profit just roll the money back into the team. I think that is a great idea. Huh? What's that? They have been doing exactly that forever now? No way! Even if Doc were capable of creating a new flux capacitor, I don't think Marty is able drive in a straight line anymore.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 06:46 PM) You're right, they shouldn't have listened to the fans when they said the park wasn't intimiate enough. Stop and think about it for a second. The fans want a paradox out of the the White Sox. They want infinate front row seats to the best games, for a dirt cheap price, a full stadium (except no lines anywhere, ever), and a $200 million payroll... Yeah good luck with that. You might want to meet my friend "Reality" Everything has a consequence. People b****ed for 10 years about the top of the upper deck, and now they are going to b**** because those eight thousand seats are gone? Cripes. Talk about never happy. These are the economics of modern baseball. You want cheap seats and plenty of availablity, I am sure the Royals can help you with that. The Sox are putting a top 5ish payroll on the field, and I for one understand the sacrifices that go with that. The Sox should just operate as a non-profit company, aiming to break even every year. Pass the savings along to the fans with cheaper seats, concessions, parking, etc.

I've missed the entire game so I'm hoping someone can tell me how Floyd pitched. I'm guessing badly.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 01:31 PM) Its not about pulling a fast one, its about making the most money possible out of the schedule we were given. People want a $100 million plus payroll, we have to pay for it somehow. This is how. Then they shouldn't have removed 8k seats. These prime and premier price discrepancies are bogus.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Mar 12, 2007 -> 02:12 PM) Hey, if anyone get's the chance, check out Crain's Chicago Business Magazine. My friend and I were featured for our work as young entrepaneurs. Heres, the online link: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag...rticle_id=27420 I'm impressed. Nice work.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 10, 2007 -> 02:14 PM) I know this is shocking coming from me, but I feel like our starting pitching could really be a disaster this season. It's making me nervous too. Worst case scenario: Garland's knot is a career-ending shoulder injury; Contreras is still injured and never again dominates like he did in 2005; Buehrle pitches like he did in the second-half last year; Vazquez maintains his mediocrity; and Floyd pitches like Sox 5th starters of old. What takes my emotion from concerned to nervous is the high level of competition in the AL Central.

QUOTE(HeGone33 @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 11:28 PM) While asked on Sportscenter what MLB Managers are on the Hot Seat, Phillips stated Ozzie Guillen is due to the disappointing season they had in 2006. Said if he doesn't get the team to perform this year he could be out. Now im not to fond of Steve as it is and I definitly was disappointed with the results of last year, but the fact remains the Sox did win 90 games. While Ozzie had his bad moves that might have cost them some games, im not ready to say if we don't make the playoffs this year that Ozzie should be gone, nor should he have to worry about being gone. The Ozzie debate is an endless one here on Soxtalk, but I pose the question, if not Ozzie, who at this point would be better? All I have to do is pull out my 2005 White Sox DVD and listen to all the players praise Ozzie to be assured that I want him running that dugout. Thoughts? Tom Kelly

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 10:31 AM) We already have a predictions thread, but I'm curious what people think on the three questions below. No matter how many stats we look at or how much scouting people do, there are always surprises when the season gets going. So what will those be? Regarding your 2007 White Sox... 1. Who will be the most improved or most surprising player(s)? 2. Who will have the biggest drop-off or most disappointing season(s)? 3. What is the X Factor on this team? In other words, what is the one dynamic, situation or player that will have the greatest single effect on the outcome of the season? Awesome thread idea. 1. Andrew Sisco 2. Uribe's going to have the most disappointing season. Expect more of the same from Uribe in 2007: free swinging, no clue of the strikezone or how to work a count, with a horrible OBP. 3. Guillen. Like the 2006 team, the 2007 squad is good enough to win the division. We need Guillen to use his personnel better.

I have never seen Floyd pitch, but I'm predicting he's going to scrub it up.

With Piniella managing, a good pitching staff and futile intradivision competition, I think the Cubs have a very good shot at the playoffs. But to publicly guarantee a Cy Young and World Series victory exhibit Zambrano's poor social intelligence. His actions are like that of a child: reactionary, emotional and short-sighted.

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 04:45 PM) no cheating! 5 questions about the 2000's era of AL baseball 1) The White Sox have the 4th highest cumulative win total since 2000 at 617. Can you name the top three in order? 2) Seven teams have over 600 victories. Can you name all seven? 3) Two teams have an over 50 game disparity between their lowest win total and highest win total. Name them. 4) What team has the lowest variance in terms of disparity between lowest and highest win total at 13 games? 5) Which 4 teams have won less than 500 games in the 7 seasons dating back to 2000? Answers later I'll guess Royals and Mariners for question 3. I'll guess Pirates, Royals, Devil Rays and Reds for question 5.