iamshack

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 09:18 AM) Intent can't, and shouldn't matter. The runner has a right to an unobstructed path to home plate. I explained this in my first post, so I won't re-hash the advantage/disadvantage explanation. Why should the base runner be punished for trying to run home to score a run? The runner wasn't inside the base line, he was right in the base line. The white chalk isn't the base line. You can't just say oh it looks like everything is an accident here, guess we'll let everything go. People are just upset that the winning run wasn't scored on a routine base hit or something. It's not a big deal. If this happens in game 45 for the White Sox and it's an easy call, no one says a word. Or better yet, everyone here goes nuts if it was a Sox runner was obstructed and no call is made. Just because it's the World Series doesn't mean rules go away. The players' actions decided the game and the result of the play. Appreciate you knowledgeable opinion here, IK. Is there anything the runner could have done, other than to somehow get out of the baseline in time, to avoid that call? I guess there's just no way around the call unless you don't put yourself in the baseline there. Is it not true that the defender has a right to play a ball in the baseline? If so, he just can't remain there after he's made the play on the ball?

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 26, 2013 -> 02:48 PM) Nah, don't be an iamshack. Excuse me?

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Oct 24, 2013 -> 08:31 PM) Aaron Sanchez is one of the elite power arms in all of minor league baseball. He's incredibly polished for his age, and the number of scouts who talk about how "easy" his fastball looks is pretty remarkable. I've never heard a negative about the kid from any scouts. And Stroman is MLB ready. Great numbers at AA and had he not been suspended 50 games, he might already be in the bigs. Stroman is the real deal. He surprised a lot of people with some dominant outings this season. Well if Sanchez is that talented, why are they going to give him and Lawrie up for Quintana?

I'd have liked to hire someone out of the Red Sox system...but I suppose this is close.

Isn't this pretty common sense stuff? I just started this job, I should probably not be talking to a major news outlet about the most controversial thing having to do with this employer...perhaps if I do, and say something negative, I could lose my job? Nooooooo!

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 25, 2013 -> 08:28 AM) They obviously did not feel Manto was doing it the right way though, would you agree? And they feel Steverson will. That's why the change has been made. Ahh luv it when you analyze...

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 25, 2013 -> 08:06 AM) I think that's what people wanted. Supposedly the Sox offered Ramirez for Martinez, but St. Louis turned it down. Martinez was nasty last night. Loved that Matheny left him in to finish the 8th instead of going to Choate.

Was watching Wacha and Martinez last night...what the heck were the Cards supposedly offering us at the deadline? I remember one rumored deal that was Alexei for Martinez, and I believe some others involving Wacha...

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 24, 2013 -> 09:02 PM) Love that teams now run the shotgun victory formation because Schiano is such an asshat. Just fire him already. No, keep him! At this point I bet against the Bucs solely because he is their coach! And I win every week!

QUOTE (scs787 @ Oct 24, 2013 -> 09:36 AM) An interesting question that I was pondering as I too had those first world problems shack had(couldn't sleep)..... If San Fran came along and offered the Sox Sandoval for Q and a much lesser prospect which would you guys rather do? Sandoval/lesser prospect or Lawrie and the 20th overall prospect? I'm kinda torn here. While Sandoval has been the better, more consistent hitter overall, Lawrie might have the higher upside but is much less of a sure thing. Does the potential of a potential front end of the rotation starter a year or 2 down the line push you to take the risk on Lawrie, or with this offense the way it is now make you disregard the high end prospect for the more sure thing offensively? What says you? Lawrie

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Oct 24, 2013 -> 09:12 AM) Why are they so similar to you? Because Mark is a convenient comparison who played in Chicago for 12 years or whatever it was? No. It's more their mental makeup than anything else. They both don't exactly wow you with stuff, although Q is showing a fastball Mark never really had, but they pound the zone with strikes and don't give a f*** who is at the plate. It's just sort of a moxie they both seem to have. Here it is, hit it.

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Oct 24, 2013 -> 09:05 AM) The only things Quintana and Buehrle have in common is they throw with their left hand and have low walk rates. Oh, ok...thanks for clearing that up for me.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 24, 2013 -> 08:00 AM) Definitely. I actually think it looks like a fair deal, where it is tough to say which team will win. They get what seems to be a higher degree of certainty, we get more talent at a position that is weak on our squad and in the league on the whole. Lawrie has done fine during injury-riddled seasons and may really break out if healthy. Q has been healthy and relatively consistent, but not dominant. A very interesting deal. Was thinking about this a bit last night as I struggled to fall asleep at night (I know, #firstworldproblems)...with the shift in the run-scoring environment, and therefore the emphasis shifting from finding young pitching to finding young position players, and coupled with our recent ability(or disability) to develop each, respectively, maybe this is a move we need to make. I often think about Quintana as a Mark Buehrle clone, and I think that is a fair comparison, but how valuable is that really in a much lower run-scoring environment? Probably a lot less valuable than we think of Mark being worth over the course of all those years. Maybe we need to take some chances on some position players, because as Eminor mentioned, you're not going to get a guy that hasn't had some of the shine worn off him.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 01:02 PM) Before I'd make that deal, I'd have to see who the best hitter 26 or under Quintana could bring back regardless of position. I'd think it would have to be better than Lawrie. Yeah, for sure. Have to do your due diligence.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 12:48 PM) Blue Jays top prospect and the 20th prospect in the whole league, big 6'4" RHP. Just 21 years old and he pitched a full season in A+ last year, probably starts the year in AA. Getting him AND Lawrie for Quintana would be incredible. I guess I would listen to the scouts. If they were insistent on Lawrie bouncing back and this kid really having a solid chance to be a #1 or 2, then I'd probably try to squeak out another prospect from them, and if I could get that, I'd probably pull the trigger.

QUOTE (Leonard of Berwyn @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 12:42 PM) How about Santiago, Beckham and Flowers for Lawrie, Gose and Arencibia. Fills holes for both sides as well as change of scenery for the two catchers. I don't think the Blue Jays would have any desire to do that.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 12:38 PM) Oh ya I'm definitely with you when it comes to Q. Lawrie and Sanchez at least makes some sort of a starting point when before we were just talking Q straight up for Lawrie which was ridiculous to me. If it were up to me, Q would be a guy I would hold unless someone specifically came to me asking about him.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 12:20 PM) I've been very against trading a starter for Lawrie but you add in Sanchez and it gets much more interesting. I mean I guess it depends on what your scouts think of Lawrie and why he is regressing the last two years. Is it just injuries? Is it something mechanical? The thing that frightens me about Lawrie (and our ability to accurately scout him) is the fact that he IS so similar to Gordon, who we can't seem to get on track. I just think trading Q is difficult because he isn't flashy. I don't feel like you're going to get fair value for him very easily.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 12:05 PM) He makes a mean beef brisket Even with that very important strength, I don't like the idea of trading Quintana for a prospect and another guy that seems to be on the same path as Gordon Beckham. Sure the 22nd best prospect is nice and all, but I'll take the guy who has been proving it in mlb for the last two seasons anytime unless I am getting something better than Lawrie.

What can you folks tell us about this Aaron Sanchez, other than the fact that he is a chef on the Food Network?

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 09:58 AM) Grossman has great arm strength and a history of collegiate success. I think sometimes, it's intangibles as much as athleticism that allows you to succeed in the NFL. The two most important things are accuracy and understanding how to read defenses. If you can do those things, you don't need to have incredible arm strength or athleticism.

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 09:34 AM) Both of those players don't play 3B and haven't had a recent history of success. 2007 for Upton, 2010 for Uggla. DA was just teasing Marty

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 08:24 AM) Manziel could be good in the NFL. You dont put up those type of stats if you dont have some talent. The problem, like I said earlier, is that many of his stats come from broken plays and some of those throws are pretty dangerous. I could see a team like the Eagles take a chance. Marcus Mariota

Coach Tom Emanski

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 02:23 PM) Jay is an excellent fit and is, honestly, a lot like Rich Gannon - they act like him having a bigger arm than Gannon simply makes him "different" than Gannon. Jay happens to be highly talented. Sweet. He's a great fit for the offense we're running. I'm sure they'll consider everything, but it will be very difficult to sell letting the best QB we've ever had go with so many other veteran assets on offense. If I'm letting Jay go, I'm probably cutting Forte as well and going with Bush for the near future. You sure as s*** aren't going to stick a rookie on an offense with so many high-salaried stars Isn't that the exact scenario you would want to slide a rookie qb into?