iamshack

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 07:09 PM) Was this 4.4 in pads? How long ago was it? Sounds like it was back in high school. The dude is way bigger now than he was then though...I doubt he can still move that fast.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 06:48 PM) He's put up OPS+ numbers of 112, 121, and 106 since he became a regular in Texas, and those are ballpark adjusted, although IIRC it slightly overweights the HR numbers. He's hit .281 and put up a .742 OPS away from Texas over the past 3 years (and remember, most people tend to perform a little worse on the road anyway). He's not likely to give us a 30 HR year. But We can probably expect an OPS of .750-.800 out of him with, you know, 15 home runs or so, maybe a few more because of our park. He'd basically be an average OF, and I have little problem putting an average OF out there in the 7th/8th spot in the batting order. Texas has said he wants more than they are really able to give him, so I imagine he is trying to cash in on a couple solid years just as Scottie is trying to cash in on his year here last year. My guess is he is hoping for a 2 or 3 year deal worth $14-20 million. Probably not in our price range.

He'd be a stud TE. I don't think there is a chance he still runs a 4.4 though...

This is probably just more evidence, in my mind anyways, that Thome will be back. I'll be happy to have him.

These write-ups are all kinds of wonderful. Thanks for compiling these, knight... I am learning all sorts of things. I recently met a girl who was a good friend of Brandon Flowers while they were in high school here in Las Vegas. Funny to hear those stories against the backdrop of some of the "official" band histories...

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 03:27 AM) Bud to tighten playoff schedule I guess no more 3 man rotations for NYY. He should use the days saved to tighten the schedule in order to make the first series best of 7.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 12:26 AM) The Bills signed Brian "The Bomb" Brahm. Print the 2010-11 Super Bowl tickets. The Packers released him and no one else picked him up until now?

QUOTE (qwerty @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 02:11 AM) Truly it should be like that every day, but even better. We could do without the little old lady bickering (snark like comments) that goes on, which is the first thing someone resorts to when they don't know what else to say. Such a thing is truly what keeps me away for extended periods of time. I wish i was posting 20 plus times a day, rather than the 20 per month, if that. I always hope for the best, so maybe the tides shall turn this off-season. Says the guy who's avatar is giving me the bird right now... Actually, I think you're one of our best posters Qwerty. Wish you did post more...

Anyone planning on heading out to South Africa in 2010?

Negativity can definitely get the best of discussions on message boards, especially on White Sox message boards. It's been fairly well-chronicled that White Sox fans are a pretty fickle bunch, so we've definitely seen that here. In fact, one of our better posters is actually nicknamed Mr. Pessimism or something to that effect. As for the groupthink concept, you're right on there as well. Often times, one or more of the more established posters goes one way with something and a big part of the group will follow. Sometimes there will even be two or three separate "camps" that an issue gets divided amongst. Then there are some guys who I think enjoy playing the role of Devil's Advocate, and will argue a point just to present a different perspective. We do have a lot of good debate here though. Some days are better than others, but as far as Chicago team sports goes, this is the best place I have seen for really good discussion. I've been mentioning this for the last several days now in different places, but I'll write it again here. There is some really solid stuff in the older Adrian Gonzalez thread that is amongst the best baseball debate I have seen here thus far this offseason. One more thing about negativity....you deal with so much of it doing the postgame shows that I'm sure you're pretty tired of it by the time you turn on your computer and come here...So I don't blame you for that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 02:50 PM) To be fair, he ought to know better, even if it was a spur of the moment thing while on TV, but I'm sure I've screwed up units that badly at some point before as well. Yeah, we still get the point. It's really, really hot down there...

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 03:35 PM) Mark Scioscia continues his journey to become the most over-regarded manager in the history of the game. I don't think he's terrible, i just despise a lot of what his approach to the game entails. He did, however, improve this year. Not so over-regarded that you got his name right though... Actually, I think he's overrated a bit too, but when you win as often as he does, these kind of awards find their way to you...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 09:34 PM) Former Bears safety Mike Brown named AFC Defensive player of the week I didn't even know he was still in the League. Good for him.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 09:47 PM) Maybe someone's just not trying hard enough. . . Hah, that made me spit up my green tea.

QUOTE (wsgdf_2 @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 10:38 PM) Goldstein said he has 'elite' tools in the chat. He also said he could move up to 5 Star with a good showing in the minors this year/ Oh he definitely has elite tools, that's what got him drafted in the first round. He's just very raw, from what I've read and seen on television. I can see how a good year in professional ball would rise him up to 5 star status though.

I think Queens of the Stone Age has some major talent. As for the other two, hey, to each their own.

Interesting that Mitchell is our #2 now...I dunno if that is good or bad...

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 08:59 PM) You are right, he could've done that. But the difficulty in doing that is that there are SO many rumor blogs out there that it is almost impossible to fact check every single one of them every time there is a report of a potential trade. He may have done that if SoxNet were already widely regarded as a credible source for White Sox information. Now, don't take that the wrong way. I'm NOT saying that SexNet is unreliable. What I'm saying is that the majority of media consumers don't know if it is or not, and most have probably not even heard of the site before. I mean, I do because it's my job to try and know what's out there. But I would argue that most casual fans of the team are not familiar with this site. SoxNet may be right every time, but for all most people know, it could just be another rumor blog. You know what I mean? After a while, SoxNet may develop a reputation that would force mainstream outlets to check into everything the blog reports. At which point, SoxNet would essentially become mainstream. No, I hear what you're saying. And to be honest with you, as NSS mentioned earlier (and now I see Knight has reiterated), we should have made it clearer that Soxnet is part of Soxtalk.com. As you stated, you've been lurking here for some time. My guess is Joe has been here a few times as well. And if he hasn't, well, he probably should start. To most of us, at least from what I have read, this isn't about having the information dismissed by Joe. All sorts of web media have now dismissed the information. More importantly, it was simply his lack of awareness of what goes on here or what the site is. If my job was to cover something as complex as professional baseball, one team in particular, and there were all these people online constantly discussing the issues and arguing the statistics, and hashing out the economics over and over again, you'd better believe it I would be reading this stuff. As you mentioned, you do.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 08:41 PM) Yes, that is part of the problem. There are more unreliable websites than there are reliable ones. Because, really, anybody can start their own blog or site. Whereas, to join an established media outlet, there is usually some sort of vetting process. So at least, there is the perception credebility if there is not actual credibility. Now, mainstream media outlets also have to be careful, because they can fall into the same sort of aura of unreliability if they don't do their jobs right. Just ask the New York Post. Though it could change over the next several years, it currently stands that there is usually more at stake with mainstream outlets in terms of accountability. This may be not be true for some blogs, but for the most part, bloggers do what they do as a hobby. It's usually not their livelihood. There usually isn't huge pressure from sponsors, bosses, editors, program directors, etc. The medium is less rigid and less formal. It may get to the point someday where bloggers dominate the press box. But with that, will come a whole lot more responsibility. Websites/blogs are perfectly capable of breaking stories. And often times they do. I understand, however, how they can often times be dismissed. This is all very true. However, the issue which occurred here is that someone affiliated with a mainstream media outlet immediately dismissed blog/website in question, characterizing it as something run out of a trekkie's basement, without doing any research as to any credibility it may have had. While that may be true of some blogs/websites out there, one look at this site and one realizes that is simply not the case. There is more intelligent White Sox discourse going around this website than any other medium I am aware of. Disrespecting bloggers and website owners, as well as the many, many fans of the team one is affiliated with is probably not the best course of action to take. Joe could have easily stated that his sources did not indicate there was any truth to the report, and left it at that. Unfortunately, he did not.

I guess I should've just put it this way, there is a lot of bs rhetoric in my previous post: The information would have been better represented as "A source has indicated that such discussions have occurred," rather than as "these talks are in preliminary stages." Sorry for anyone who wasted 3 minutes of their life reading that previous post.

I think it's irresponsible and even a misrepresentation of the truth to throw something out into the blogosphere with the magical word "source" attached to it, and then fall back under the veil of "these were ordinary preliminary discussions, not separate and apart from anything in the course of a GM's ordinary dealings." Obviously, this information would not have been posted in the manner it was unless it did carry an air of legitimacy to it, regardless of the fact that the odds were still long of it actually occurring. I think the key point here is not that there may have been "preliminary discussions" in regards to the players and teams mentioned, as Chris implied, this phrase has been overused by the baseball media so as to include a range of meanings that could include mentioning a player's name in passing to actual details of a deal being discussed. Rather, the point is that the "source" is claiming that the actual players were discussed with the actual teams mentioned, and some discussions, whether they ever reached a critical or material point, did occur. THAT, is what Soxnet was reporting. Rather than offering a disclaimer that such discussions may have only been preliminary, I think a better approach may have been to simply state that Soxnet is not claiming that any deal is imminent, that the progress of these talks is unknown, and could indeed have ceased, and that Soxnet is not making any claims about any proposed deals, other than simply stating that it believes such discussions have occurred. Unfortunately, as one can tell, a lot of this is about semantics. Perhaps the same exact course of events would have unfolded, irrespective of how Jason presented the information. But the phrase "preliminary discussions" gives the consumer of the information the idea that the two parties are still sitting at the bargaining table, hammering away at some prospective deal, which is why a lot of people took issue with this in the end. That being said, if you're going to run with the word "source," you're going to have to stay in the kitchen when things get hot, and I think Jason has done a very nice job of doing that.

QUOTE (G&T @ Nov 17, 2009 -> 11:50 AM) I guess I should reserve judgment but I can't imagine that working. It's actually pretty good. The trendy name for it is an "eclipse."

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 02:26 AM) wikipedia mostly. Oh, so you're compiling them from multiple sources yourself. Very well done, sir.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 17, 2009 -> 06:52 PM) The next five will start early-ish tomorrow. Hopefully, they'll get done in time before work. Knight, what database are you pulling these write-ups from?

Ugh.