Dick Allen

QUOTE (qwerty @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 02:00 PM) Getting floyd the win was not worth those two runs, ozzie. A lot of times when a manager leaves a guy in for a win, he gets his team a loss.

Quentin won't be able to do anything this year because his wrist is screwed up.

Porn queen Marilyn Chambers found dead.

Harry Kalas collapsed and died today in Philadelphia.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 11:23 AM) Career splits don't matter, all that matters is which side of the plate you hit from. Everyone wanted Thome benched against CC last year. He had been horrible against him previously. He took him deep twice. If Thome is swinging well, I also would pretty much ignore his historic splits. He hits homers in bunches and has a couple early, so let him rip, especially if we are talking 11 AB as far as his history vs. Miner.

The #1 spot in the White Sox line-up is 1-21 this year. 3-3 isn't bad considering that.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Apr 11, 2009 -> 09:26 AM) The Sox also got rid of a much better player in Tim Raines, Jr. to let him hack in Charlotte. I cannot even begin to understand such unbelievable favoritism to such a crappy baseball player. I still have worries that if the Sox finally realize Wise doesn't need to be in CF they'll respond by having him swap places with Owens. I can't believe I'm defending Jerry Owens in any way but to say Tim Raines Jr. is a much better player is ill-informed. Raines has not played in the major leagues for 5 years and has a career OPS 100 points lower than Owens. He may be a much better AAA player, a level he's probably been at for 7 or 8 years, but unless you live in Charlotte and go to Knights games regularly, who really cares? Neither would help much at the major league level, but Owens would be the better bet. I remember when Raines Jr. was just a kid and Raines Sr. was a White Sox. There was talk that Jr. was going to be a star. He obviously didn't get enough of his dad's genes.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 11, 2009 -> 09:40 PM) Shelby CF 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 .231 Beckham SS 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 .500 Flowers C 4 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 .273 Allen 1B 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 .455 Viciedo 3B 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 .333 Cook, D LF 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 .100 Gartrell RF 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 .200 Cruz, L DH 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .333 Retherford 2B 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .182 Poreda P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 Rote P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 Aselton P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 Tyler Flowers with his first homer of the season...but Barons losing 4-1 going into the bottom of the 8th. Brandon Allen just had his fourth single of the game, now 4/4 tonight. Cook just singled...11 hits, 1 run, 10 are singles, with Flowers' HR. Poreda was so-so, only one earned run in 4 IP. 4 IP, 3 H, 2 R, 1 ER, 4 BB, 4 K's Viciedo made his second error in 3 games (both fielding). Supposedly Poreda has been throwing a lot of offspeed stuff. They probably have him working on it so his results may not be as good as hoped or expected.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Apr 11, 2009 -> 09:29 PM) Corky is halfway there to matching Toby Hall's total 2007 offensive output. It was his first multi-hit game in the majors since Sept. 2003 against the Cubs.

QUOTE (scenario @ Apr 11, 2009 -> 09:35 PM) Holy Moly.... I didn't realize that game was still going on. 19-3 Charlotte losing??? LOL. Sounds like lots of people got lit up. Marquez, Jimenez, Wassermann and Gobble all pitched BP apparently.

Jon Garland, I mean Jeff Marquez, got lit up it appears.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 11, 2009 -> 09:41 AM) I'm fine with a loss today if Bartolo can show some life on his pitches. The most disturbing thing about yesterday's game wasn't the final score, but rather how little life Contreras had on his fastball. Unless Jose's mythological cutter makes an appearance, I can't see him having any success against lefty hitters. I don't think either will be consistent right away. Contreras was out for 7 or 8 months and is basically in week 3 or 4 of his spring training. Same with Colon. I would expect any postives out of them the first month of the season to be gravy. If it gets to the middle of May and they aren't near what they were, its time to plan for 2010.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 06:30 PM) 2 things. The disclaimer covers dangers associated with crowds. Also the judge is going to acknowledge that the party knowingly purchased a ticket to be in a large crowd of people and therefore put themselves in that situation under their own will. The disclaimer probably means nothing. They put them on there to discourage the people who actually read them from suing. If you get a lawyer, the lawyer knows it probably isn't binding. The small print if read, may discourage some without a lawyer from getting one. Do you read it every time you use a ticket? If one of the backs of your tickets said once you get through the gate you will owe the White Sox $5000 and you walked through the gate, do you think you would be on the hook? They can print whatever they want on the ticket, just like small print in long contracts. It doesn't necessarily making it binding or enforceable. The fact that every team has this in small print on the backs of their tickets and there never is a mention of it anywhere else indicates to me they know its not binding. If it was as iron clad as you believe no lawyer would waste their time with it. Although my wife is a lawyer, frivoulous lawsuits bug me as much as anyone. This may be a frivoulous lawsuit, but if you've ever watched how people go for these t-shirts, it very well could have merit.

QUOTE (scenario @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 10:59 PM) Cut him, eat the contract, and let him become someone else's problem. Time to cut our losses and move on. I have the feeling if they haven't already decided that, its not far off. Maybe they will throw him into a game that is out of hand and see if they can salvage something. Its too bad because the guy has a lot of ability. He's just a mechanical mess who is afraid to throw a strike. That's not a good combination and its especially annoying to watch when its 31 degrees and windy.

Has MacDougal been sent down or released yet? If he doesn't want to throw a strike, there's really not much reason to have him around. Tonight's game was pretty sickening but at least we get to see Corky Miller bat tomorrow.

QUOTE (GREEDY @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 03:34 PM) Institute "you lose, you pay court costs and lawyer fees" into the USA and frivolous lawsuits like this one go bye, bye. This may or may not be frivolous. Its really impossible to tell. He could easily be playing a game, or as I stated before, I've seen people willing to risk all their limbs and anyone's nearby in order to grab a t-shirt, so its not so crazy to think the guy could have been seriously injured by someone.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 03:44 PM) Sure it does. Just because you dont read the fine print doesnt mean it isnt binding. They put that stuff onto the ticket specifically for lawsuits like this one. Not reading the contract doesnt make you not liable. There are a lot of things in contracts, agreements, condo bylaws that are non enforceable. The "small print" may or may not be enforceable, and it could vary from person to person. The White Sox get sued all the time. Go look at the records in one of the posts above. How many got thrown out because of what was printed on the back of the ticket. I'm pretty sure if the judge doesn't think its unreasonable that someone has never looked at the back of their ticket, and how many people really do, the terms don't really mean anything.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 03:22 PM) yes, but its in line with dangers of crowds, which is clearly stated as well. When you purchase a ticket you agree to all the T's and C's that are printed on the back of the ticket. How many people actually look at the back of their ticket and read the small print? Just because its on the ticket doesn't mean the ticketholder has to necessarily abide by those terms.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 02:35 PM) And from the back of my printed ticket to a SOX game: You have the ticket, you have the fault. Not necessarily. Just because there is small print on the back of a ticket you may have purchased doesn't mean its legally enforceable. If the guy really had no clue that the small print was there or didn't understand what it meant, its like it was blank. If it was as cut and dried as that, no lawyer would waste his or her time with a lawsuit.

DJ threw me a t-shirt a couple of years ago when I was in the scout seats. They are Chevy Sox t-shirts. Cheap. I saw a guy knock over a little girl trying to get one. They should just stop the practice.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 08:58 AM) Your point regarding overreaction to the commonplace on account of celebrity is well taken. With all due respect, your rationalization of your drunk driving is not. I'll venture to guess that the majority of drunk driving accidents involve drivers with attitudes similar to yours. I don't know you, and apologize for sounding so judgmental, but I highly doubt you're as different from the rest of us as you seem to imply. If I'm wrong, I apologize and congratulate you, but even if your conduct has and remains "victimless," your behavior is still unrepentently criminal. Please reconsider, if not for your sake, then for your family's (and, in case we ever attend the same ballgame, my own). Peace. I think most have a sense they are driving a little better than they really are after a few belts. Its like when you go out with your friends and get loopy everyone seems normal, having a good time. The next week you meet up with the same group after they have been drinking for a while and you're sober as a judge, they are acting the same as before, but they don't seem the same. You notice their intoxication a little better. You are supposed to drive defensively. When you've been drinking, your reflexes slow, so even if an incident isn't because of being a little tipsy, someone may cut you off or something similar and if you were sober you may have avoided trouble, but a couple of drinks in you may be the difference between life and death, not only for you but for everyone involved.

QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 9, 2009 -> 01:06 PM) Its so annoying to read these stupid RIP threads and see so many people claim "I will never drink and drive again" just because some baseball player dies when ordinary people die from this ALL the time and its never mentioned. Actually, my own personal policy has been in place about 10 years after an incident when I probably should not have been driving, but actually got hit in a head on collision with a drunk driver. I was just coming off a stop sign here in Chicago and there was a cop right behind me. I think I was probably bordering on the limit and was a little nervous due to the cop's presence. As I got passed the intersection, the oncomming car came into my lane. It was a 2 lane road with cars parked on both sides. While it probably took less than a second, watching the incident unfold in my mind was like slow motion. I had nowhere to go. Even at the slower speed, my car was totalled. I hit my head on the windshield even with a seat belt on. I never wore seat belts, but for some reason I put it on that night. Although I know there really wasn't anything I could do in that situation to avoid the accident (besides not being there) the other drivers drunkeness, (he went into my lane while adjusting his stereo) and my borderline condition made me realize that I couldn't and shouldn't be driving after having drinks. I won't even if I have just 1 that same night. Basically, if I were to be given a breathalyzer and would blow anything but a 0.0, I will not drive under any circumstance, and as I said earlier, its pretty easy for me because I have a wife who can drive and she doesn't drink and I live in the city where taxis are plentiful.

I think those who think Quentin will be hurt by his injury this year are mistaken. He will be fine, he had a hairline fracture and most likely is 100% right now. As for those who think Ozzie made a mistake by using Jenks in a non-save situation, when the game went to the top of the 9th tied, there was no save situation any more for the White Sox. If anything, using your best pitcher out of the bullpen seems to make sense in a tie game. The notion of not using your closer in a non save situation means you would be a pitcher short if you are the home team if the game goes extra innings, and leaves you with a lesser pitcher pitching the 9th.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Apr 9, 2009 -> 03:40 PM) Why not run Dotel out there to start the inning? If Dotel came in and the leadoff guy hit a homer, you would have said Dotel is a one inning pitcher how come Jenks didn't come in?

QUOTE (qwerty @ Apr 9, 2009 -> 03:38 PM) Your best pitcher in the pen is your closer. A 0-0 game is actually more of a pressure situation than when a closer usually comes into the game. There is no one else better suited for the situation. The decision to bring in jenks was the right one, easily. I agree. If they brought in someone else and KC scored, everyone would have wondered why not Jenks.