iamshack

Happy Birthday Q. Enjoy your day...

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 27, 2011 -> 11:03 AM) One likely wouldn't be enough. You'll probably need two, and at least one microphone. Booooooooooooo

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 27, 2011 -> 10:59 AM) Google? I am stuck at work, but I did a search on my phone and saw the pics...pretty nice for the roller coaster she puts that body on...

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 27, 2011 -> 10:25 AM) It was still cool, and it's been a "new nfl" for a bit now and that record still stood for 28 years? That's pretty amazing. The Monday night crew tried to explain away the "new NFL" theory by saying Brees eclipsed the NFL average ypg by more yards than Marino did in 1984. However, the average ypg this year is really misleading. You've got 10 or so guys throwing for more than 4,000 yards this season (there were only 3 who did so in 1984), and then 8 rookies starting or something. The deviation between the good and the bad qb's in the NFL this season was huge, while it was much smaller in 1984. Brees really is playing a different game.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Dec 27, 2011 -> 12:12 AM) Mother-in-law got me a giant popcorn machine. It's still in the trunk. Moms came through with the cold hard cash and the VAST and Primus vinyl. Will be purchasing a Kindle. Pretty sweet that you still collect vinyl. I would love to get in to this at some point. What kind of turntable would you recommend?

Started week 2 with Core again. Much improvement over the first week...a lot of progress in individual moves and much better stamina overall. Still a few rough spots though...I find I am not particularly good at doing burpees with stamina or med balls. I can do them fairly well without, but trying to drop to the floor on one leg, and catch yourself by holding on to some ball for support, and then having the strength to do a pushup back off that ball...well, it's not something I am naturally good at. So I continue to work at those and then do them without the ball afterwards so I don't completely get a pass on the exercise. I must say, the core work in this version of P90X is far beyond anything done in the first version. I was never a huge fan of Ab Ripper X, just because I found it dreadfully boring, and so I often skipped it. But the way this version is structured builds a lot more core work into the regular workouts, and in a way that doesn't make you want to slit your throat. One week in, I must say, two thumbs up.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 05:02 PM) I won't have any problems with it either. I just focus on the rest of the roster. There's very little reason to keep Quentin around if you're not looking to compete, for example; in fact it's counterproductive, since he continues blocking Viciedo. There's little reason to keep Ohman and Thornton around if you can get anything for them. IMO, you really have to try to give PK14 a chance to move, with his age and him being a 2013 FA again. I just really dislike the 1/2 measure rebuilding, where you eat another year of Konerko, Quentin, and Thornton's contracts but you start off 7-8 WAR behind where we were last year with a pretty bad team. Well, I'm trying to remain patient to see how it all plays out. As of this moment, they've traded a closer for a SP prospect they really like, perhaps to ultimately replace the SP they just lost via free agency. Otherwise, the team remains the same. They haven't engaged in any 1/2 measure rebuilding process, as much as that is what your perception may be.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 04:06 PM) Here's my thinking Shack...if we're trying to win this division in 2012, and he puts up a 1.50 WHIP and an ERA in the 5.50-6.00 range, how long are we going to stick with him? We stuck with Danks in 2007 because we were out of the race, we were 8 games under and 12.5 games out by July 1. We were able to give him the chance to slog thorugh his issues. Take a look at Stewart's numbers last year. He put up a 4.2 ERA and a 1.42 WHIP at AA, then followed that up by a 1.5 WHIP and an ERA over 6 at the big league level. Those numbers are pretty darn consistent with what he looked like at the bigs...he has talent, but not a lot of consistency. For him to be a 4.5 ERA pitcher in the bigs, he's going to have to make a huge leap beyond what he did at AA last year. If we're trying to win this division in 2012, are we going to put up with him losing 6 starts in a row, badly? Giving up 8 runs and being pulled in the 3rd inning 4-5 times in a row and taxing the bullpen heavily? If we're going strongly for 2013, then we might just let him pitch through that. If we're trying to win in 2012, hes' going to wind up in AAA or the bullpen and we're going to be throwing someone else into the fire who isn't ready. And worse yet, if we put him in the bullpen, he's very unlikely ever to leave that spot. We cannot expect to win this division if we're putting Zach Stewart in the rotation in April next year. I can't see any way around that conclusion. He did struggle last year in New Hampshire, for whatever reason. My guess is he was working on his secondary pitches, because in the year prior, he pitched to a 3.63 ERA in the same league over the course of 136 innings. I don't think anyone's saying that trading Floyd and installing Stewart as the 5th starter out of the gate is the wisest move if winning the division is main goal. However, I do think there are some people that think the situation could be tolerated if trading Floyd were to accomplish some goals moving ahead of 2012. Additionally, I don't think it's ridiculous that Stewart will take some fairly big steps forward next season, especially after spending the Spring with Coop. Bottom line, I don't think we can expect to win the division whether Floyd is traded or not. So if Floyd is traded, as long as we get back a promising piece or two, I'll have no problem watching Stew straighten out the kinks next year. I like his arm and I enjoy watching him pitch.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 03:12 PM) You know what really bugs me about when people try to say "we can start Stewart in the rotation this year and still be competitive"? It's that I'm one of Stewart's defenders. I liked the trade to get him, I still want to see him get a chance to start th is year even if Cooper says he's meant for the bullpen, and I'm one of the ones defending his offspeed stuff when people say he has none. The thing that bugs me on this one is that I think I've been one of his defenders, but I think if you put him in this role, he's going to struggle, and he's going to struggle badly enough that it'll really hurt him long term, either by getting him dumped into the bullpen or by having the team sour on him enough that he gets jettisoned for nothing. I tend to like the young guys that we do have, but I've seen what happens when we put a guy into a role he needs time to move into, and it isn't pretty. I just don't see an argument for why it is inconceivable for him to start the season as the 5th starter and have success. He does have 4 pitches, including a good fastball, a good slider, a decent curveball and a decent change. Could he benefit from some more seasoning in Charlotte? Sure. Is he capable of getting out MLB hitters? Yes. Is he capable of dealing with being thrown into the fire and not losing confidence in himself? My guess is yes, considering he was left in to take one for the team a few times before pitching a CG one-hitter that very easily could have been a perfect game in early September. I don't understand how you could be so worried about him getting jettisoned for nothing when earlier your stance seemed to be that letting him start in 2012 could very well help him in 2013, as it did Danks in 2007 and then 2008...

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) To your point, I remember some very damning quotes about ever depending on Humber for any stretch of time. The thought was that if we started him more than five times in a season, our season would be over. While that turned out to be true, it certainly wasn't because of Humber. Stewart could do the same thing. He wasn't a first-rounder like Humber, but he also didn't have as long a track record of failure as Humber did. Which I already mentioned. However, Balta, in his infinite and superior wisdom, has already explained that away for us.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 01:42 PM) Goofy 2012 in a vacuum perspective? This whole conversation was started because I insisted that if you want Zach Stewart in the 2012 rotation, you write off competiting in 2012. The entire conversation is built on that perspective. It might well be the right move to do those things, but you better understand what it is doing to 2012. That goofy perspective is what you're trying to defend the importance of at every step. My part of this conversation started when you started posting in this thread like it was the geology thread. Whether you want to continue on this crusade about the Santos trade being shortsighted given the extension of Danks is your business, but there is absolutely enough uncertainty and unpredictability in the game of baseball to render your "I cannot be more clear" condescending crap total bulls***. You and I and everyone else can't determine with anywhere near enough certainty what is going to happen next year or any year on the baseball field to be taking that tone with anyone. While we can say it is most likely that Stewart and the White Sox, for that matter, should they decide to trade some of their veteran players for younger ones, will struggle in 2012, perhaps for the benefit of future seasons, there is no way in hell you can go around criticizing other posters for even considering the possibility of succeeding in 2012 should we trade Gavin Floyd, especially before you even see the returns of such a trade.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 02:32 PM) Using what talent from our system? The stuff acquired from Floyd and Santos, basically, right? Unless you see something else worth trading. Thus, we'd have sent away Floyd and Santos, building up the system, having a weaker roster for the first 1/2 of the season, to have the stuff we could trade at the deadline to repair our roster for August and September. See the problem here? Please don't address me as if I am beneath you. Now you're pretending to be capable of anticipating the players available at the 2012 deadline. There are plenty of scenarios whereby we could acquire talent for straight-up cash, or a player currently in our system that has a breakout (which happens fairly consistently in our system), or where the players sent back to the other team are literally filler so the other GM can point to warm bodies and say "I got these guys" (Nick Swisher to the Yankees, anyone?). Give it up, there are plenty of scenarios whereby trading Floyd could result in a high-reward, even from your goofy 2012 in a vacuum perspective.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 02:21 PM) But you ignored my actual words. That's high reward when your SP prospect is ready. I said "you may be making a move that will be high reward in terms of 2013...but in 2012, it is a very low reward, very high risk set of moves." A relief pitcher in exchange for Floyd is not making a big 2012 impact. That means that the ceiling for the performance is what you get out of Stewart + relief pticher, which as you said...is basically what Gavin Floyd would give you. In 2012, that's a low-reward, high risk move. In 2013, it could produce very high rewards, but its the kind of move that if you make it, you do so with the understanding that it is very likely to break apart any chance you have for competing in 2012. And if you're going to make that move...you ought to commit to focusing on 2013 with the rest of the roster too. So let me get this straight...in your "2012 in a vacuum" kind of way, if we make a trade of Gavin that nets us an RP and a slightly lesser SP to rplace him, meanwhile getting a talented prospect or two and salary relief, that is not a high reward for 2012? Getting almost the same performance, saving money, and banking a prospect or two? What if we use the savings from trading Floyd to make a deadline acquisition for the 2012 season? Would that count?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 02:08 PM) High-reward? So Zach Stewart is going to come out next year and be better than Gavin Floyd? I honestly doubt it. But Gavin put up a 4.37 ERA last year. What if you trade Floyd and get a young solid pen arm and a SP prospect, and then Stewart puts up an ERA in the 4.3-46 range, which certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility for him. You gain a RP, an SP prospect, and approximately $7 million in salary relief. I'd say that's a moderately high-reward.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 12:40 PM) That doesn't mean that high-risk, low reward moves are a good strategy. Zach Stewart has a very low probability of being a decent pitcher in the big leagues this year, especially compared with Gavin Floyd. If we're planning on trading Gavin Floyd...at this point, it seems incredibly unlikely that the return is going to improve the MLB Ballclub this year. That means if you trade Floyd and go with Stewart as starter 5 for this season, you may be making a move that will be high reward in terms of 2013...but in 2012, it is a very low reward, very high risk set of moves. This is just another way of you being pompous and ridiculous again. If it's anything, the move would be moderately high-risk/moderately high reward. Dress up your opinion anyway you want, the bottom line is you don't know well-enough, know one knows well-enough for sure at this point, whether or not Stewart could be a reasonably successful 5th starter if given the reigns out of the gate next season.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 01:06 PM) I assumed that you had to be saying that the Sox's private scouts were the ones saying he was going to be fine this year, since there's no one else out there saying that. I was not talking about any particular scouts or any scout's opinion on Stewart in particular. I was commenting on the fact that scouting is more of an art than a science, and there are guys that prove scouts wrong all the time. I'm pretty sure you're just missing the entire pont altogether though, because you seem hell bent on the notion that baseball (and the players) is something that you can predict with some high level of certainty. It's not.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 12:41 PM) The only non-private scout who really thought Stewart might be a useful guy in the future was Keith Law, and even he said he was a couple years out and needed time to grow as a starter. If you pencil in Zach Stewart into the 5th starter role, you are making a more that is very, very likely to cost you any chance of competing this season. There is no other way around it. If you are going to plan for Zach Stewart to be your 5th starter, and you want to compete, you better also plan to have the best offense and best bullpen in the AL. If he does better than that, great, but that's winning a sucker bet in Vegas. It might happen, but it's not a winning strategy. The only non-private scout? So are the non-private scouts usually more accurate than the private scouts? I know Alex Anthopolous stated that our scouts have been really high on Stewart for a while now, so my guess is some of the "private" scouts did actually like Stewart. Regardless, who are you putting ahead of him at this point that you feel so incredible with?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 12:37 PM) I'm no less qualified than you are. The kid's stuff just wasn't there. He's raw. I could defer to others, but I don't need to, what he showed us in the bigs bore it out. His offspeed stuff is solid but very inconsistent at best for now. His 2 seamer got ground balls, but was still too hittable. He couldn't control stuff consistently. He had all the earmarks of a guy who needs to get innings consistently, and he hasn't quite gotten that yet. He has never spent more than a couple games at AAA. With seasoning, he might well get there soon, but he's not going to step in and be a quality starter at the end of the line this year. I didn't say you were less-qualified than I am. I objected to your pompous "I cannot make this any more clear" bs. Yes, you're probably correct that he needs more seasoning, but if you think you can suddenly predict things that MLB scouts can't predict, you need to take a step back and not be so condescending.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 12:27 PM) John Danks prior to 2008: Minor league innings 435.1 Major League innings: 139 Zach Stewart prior to 2012: Minor league innings: 375 Major League innigns: 67 (50 with the Sox last year). See the difference? Stewart is basically right where Danks was starting 07, maybe even behind him because of the amount of time spent as a reliever. How do you know there is some minimum number of innings required to make the leap? What if Stewart had pitched 110 innings? Would you pronounce him not ready yet? How many MiLB and MLB innings did Dan Hudson have before putting things together? What makes you so qualified all the sudden to tell us all when a young pitcher is ready to make the leap to success as a MLB starter?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 11:19 AM) "Struggle a bit"? Not the guy I watched last year. He will struggle a lot. And this is probably the same s*** you'd say about Danks prior to the 2008 season.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 12:09 PM) Because he hasn't had the "2007" experience of pitching nearly an entire year in the big leagues that Danks had, and that was when he really got the experience he needed? How do you know that a full year is some magical number that is required by every young pitcher in order to succeed? I can't say this any more clearly: The odds are he would struggle a bit if we inserted him as a full-time starter right out of the gate, but for you to claim that there is simply no chance whatsoever that we could compete for the division with him as our 5th starter is just nonsense.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 11:01 AM) You just made my point for me though by comparing to 2007. We all saw exactly what happened that year. The end result of putting Danks in the rotation in 2007 was that he was much more ready for 2008. However...we had to entirely sacrifice 2007 to do so. If we're willing to go into this season expecting 3rd place if we're lucky, then by all means, give Zach Stewart the 5th spot and see what he can do. Especially if you get a decent return for Floyd. Putting Zach Stewart in the rotation this year is doing exactly what we did in 2007...losing the year, but building for the future. If we think we are still making moves to try to compete for 1st place, then Zach Stewart needs to start at AAA. How can you be sure that the learning experience Danks had between 07' and 08' can't occur this offseason for Stewart?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 11:45 AM) No I wouldn't have. I would have said "Counting on Philip Humber is a huge gamble. He might have had a good stretch to finish for the Royals, but you don't want him as your only 5th option." And you know what? I'd have been right. His arm had some skill in it but 4 years of bullpen work had left it not stretched out enough to endure a season. If we were counting on him, we needed a 6th starter. Stewart not only has that issue, having been a starter for only 2 years, but he's also quite a bit younger, and his stuff simply wasn't ready for the big leagues. His offspeed stuff is simply not consistent enough, and his sinker didn't strike me as nearly as "Heavy" as it needs to be. He has never started a season at AAA. You put him in the big leagues, people are going to hate him for 3 months as he struggles and tries to adapt to jumping over 2 levels. We've seen guys torn apart by that permanently. We've seen guys be given that chance but then not adapt mentally and wind up given away for nothing. The odds of that working are terrible. Oh blah...his stuff is good enough, he just needs to show consistency. And while I agree with you that he could certainly struggle if we throw him into the fire to begin the season, you don't know his mental makeup, you don't know his capacity to handle adversity, etc. Additionally, there are tons of guys who skip AAA altogether and do just fine. There are absolutely guys that have been rushed and have probably been set back or even had their careers ruined by it, but there have been plenty that did just fine. You probably would have sent Johnny Danks back to Charlotte after struggling in 2007 with us because you were worried about him being "torn apart."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2011 -> 11:26 AM) I can't say this any more clearly. Zach Stewart is not ready to be a starting pitcher in the big leagues in 2012. If you put him there, it might be ok for his development, but it is not a path to a winning record. I'm just wondering who the hell you are that you can be so sure of this...the odds are probably with you that Zach needs more seasoning, but there is no way to be sure when the light might go on that makes things click for him and results in the consistency that is necessary for him to be successful. I'm sure we could substitute Phillip Humber's name and 2011 in this post and you would have said the same thing last year.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 23, 2011 -> 04:14 PM) Either way, I think we all agree that we'd love to see Adam bounce back. From all accounts, he seems to be a good guy that got into a hole last year and just couldn't get out. He was literally the most consistent player in terms of production out there that we could have gotten. Well it's not going to do us any good sitting here whining about it. We're in a hole! We're just going to have to dig ourselves out!