iamshack

Music critics.

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 08:46 PM) I bought Quentin's page for one year, thanks to those who are donating! What are the benefits of sponsoring his page?

Yeah, and didn't Charlotte lose Brad Eldred to Washington or something?

QUOTE (SouthsideDon48 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 11:05 PM) *...slowly raises hand* Uh, I've heard of the South Side Hitmen many times, and I've heard of the players' names before, but I just can't remember them for the life of me if I had to name them off the top of my head. Jimmy Piersall? Never heard of him, who's that? I knew about the Harry Carey thing, and I always find it hilarious when I hear people (usually Cubs fans) say that we're stealing the 7th inning stretch from the Cubs, lol. Honestly, I'm just a late-bloomer when it coems to baseball. I went to my first Sox game when I was about 8 or 9 years old and my favorite Sox player at the time was a back-up catcher named Mike LaValier (sp?). I also played little-league baseball, but at the time I didn't really learn how to play baseball at the same pace as my peers because my dad was too busy with opening can after can of beer. I ended up falling out interest with baseball only to end up watching the Sox again in 2002, and really becoming a hardcore Sox fan after Ozzie Guillen was hired in 2003. 2004 was the first season where I actually watched about 100 games, then I've been hooked ever since. So yea, I may not know of the older era, and I'm only 23, but I'm by no means a "bandwagon" fan by any stretch. I bleed black and white! Cool story. We all have come upon the Sox in our own way.... One of the great things about sports is how it brings families together, generations of them even...

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ Feb 6, 2009 -> 03:36 PM) Yes. These. Hands-down. The best shoes. Ever.

QUOTE (onedude @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 02:36 PM) Edwin Edwin is on the Detroit Tigers now.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 09:53 AM) Abreu: RISP: .296 .372 .450 (169AB) Runners on: .317 .397 .541 (290 AB) RISP 2 outs: .382 .433 .618 (55AB) Dye: RISP: .269 .304 .429 (156AB) Runners on: .273 .328 .472 (267AB) RISP 2 outs: .210 .269 .306 (62AB) Maybe their total RBI numbers are dependent, but you can clearly see what each player did last year when put in the same situations, Abreu made much more of them. And BTW, they both had about the same number of chances, so Im not sure how much the players in front of them had to do with it. Didn't Dye put up numbers like that though a few years back? Didn't he hit .400 with 2 outs with RISP or something?

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 11:56 AM) As long as we're talking nutty trade rumors,I just heard through the grapevine (internets) that the Sox and Rays are close to a package deal that involves us sending Contreras,Fields and a prospect and in return getting Longoria,Upton and Jackson...OK,I'm made it up but I want to see if I can get a job at Bleacher Report. I know you made it up, but who is Jackson?

Barely Legal.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 09:08 AM) http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_dadd...?urn=nhl,138183 The Canadiens trotted out some HIDEOUS uniforms, and the Las Vegas Wranglers had a "Rod Blagojevich Night" where the Wranglers wore old-style black and white striped prison uniforms and their opponents, the Bakersfield Condors, wore orange prison jumpsuit uniforms - you must click the link to see their uniforms. Living in Vegas, I heard them advertising this on the radio a few weeks back....they couldn't even pronounce his name....I guess the referrees actually wore "prison guard" uniforms as well...

QUOTE (scenario @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 09:37 AM) Twins Showing Interest In Jarrod Washburn story on mlbtraderumors starting on Monday MONDAY, 8:49pm: According to John Hickey of the Seattle Post-Intellegencer, the Twins have "some interest" in dealing for left-hander Jarrod Washburn. Hickey writes that the Mariners and Twins discussed a deal last week that would have sent Washburn and catcher Jeff Clement to Minnesota for 23-year-old outfielder Delmon Young. It's not known whether that particular deal fell through, but it's likely. The pieces just don't seem to fit. Washburn, 34, went 5-14 last season with a 4.69 ERA and the Twins already have a young, All-Star catcher. TUESDAY, 7:37pm: Joe Christensen of the Minneapolis Star Tribune writes that the Twins have "lost their appetite for a Jarrod Washburn trade." It probably had something to do with his $10.35MM '09 salary. Sound familiar? (1) Seattle talking to AL Central team (2) Washburn + prospect (3) Young talented outfielder in return Sounds like the young M's blogger simply swapped out Young for Quentin to create a new rumor. Hey buddy, I broke this comparison several hours ago...

Could have been the Twins that were talking to the Mariners, as they were rumored to have interest in Washburn as well as supposedly interested in moving Delmon Young. However, they would have also been trying to move some salary to the Mariners in any swap for Washburn, and that is where the talks probably fell apart. What a terrible, terrible report.

As huge of a fan of BA as I am, I just get the feeling that no matter what he does prior to the season beginning he won't get the regular time anyway...but here's to hoping he somehow does...

Bottom line, it's good that we have some exciting players in our system now. I've learned enough not to latch on to too many of these guys because of Kenny's penchant to send them elsewhere, but nevertheless, we are leaps and bounds ahead of where we were just a year ago in terms of having talent in our system. And all without the big league squad suffering too much for it. Another bow to my hero, KW.

Simple Salsa: In a blender, combine 1 16-oz can of Hunts' Whole Tomatoes, fresh cilantro, salt, garlic powder, salt, oregano, and several chili de arbol (I usually use between 7-15). Blend. Quarter an onion and add in by pulsing. Chill. Voila! It sounds ridiculously simple, but believe me, it is sooooo much better than any store bought salsa. Enjoy.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 08:42 PM) But that doesn't explain the failure of the Twins as much. Because they were more of a fundamentally-sound team constructed, one would think, to take advantage of that philosophy and executional experience and apply it in playoff situations. Or you could simply argue they overachieved from 2002-2004 (and 2006) and that the talent level of the other playoff teams overwhelmed them in the end. It's not the like the Twins or the Braves (for most of their run) lacked good (or even great) pitching. With the Braves, they were more of a White Sox "slugging" team with lots of all or nothing hitters sprinkled through their line-up like Andruw Jones and Javy Lopez, for example. But the Twins seem to be a difficult team to understand in terms of post-season failure on such a consistent basis. The Twins have the biggest home field advantage in baseball, basically. However, in the playoffs, they usually are up against teams with better records and thus are playing more road games than home games. Their postseason failures probably have a lot to do with that fact.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 07:26 PM) What I think alot of people fail to realize is that over a season the averages play out and looking at OPS works. This is because they look at averages against all teams and players. Once you get to the playoffs, the dynamic changes. You are going to face only the best pitching staffs and only the best from these staffs. This is where offenses will struggle. A good pitcher may only make a few mistakes. This is where the going from first to third or scoring with fewer hits make the big difference. With the slugging lineup unless the player hits the mistake for a HR the run isn't scored because the slow slugger didn't score from first or second on a hit or from third with less than two outs. This is what Beane found out in Oakland. The OPS with slow guys with great eyes worked against average opponent throughout the year but once they hit the playoffs they got smoked. These concepts are going to come back to the front of baseball with PEDs being phased out and especially the amphetamines. The younger athletes will take the place of aging sluggers and the slugging will go down. I think we're seeing this trend already Some real good points in there, Ptatc. I think you nailed the part about Oakland pretty well there.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 04:51 PM) someone that thinks 100% about ozzie like i do, thats feels the same I'm pretty much on board with those statements too. I love Ozzie.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 03:35 PM) Chances are, next year it will be worse. Then he'll sign another one-year deal... You think the guy is going to sign some 5-year $25 million deal? Yeah right.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 03:25 PM) an article on braves.com (i found it via rosenblooms blog) had this to say about adam dunn http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...rtnerId=rss_atl if thats true...the sox should do everything possible to nab and have him as the long term jim thome replacement I think if he were to sign a deal like that it would be a one-year deal. These guys who get lowballed aren't going to sign multi-year deals...they'll sign one-year deals and wait it out until the economy betters itself...

Honestly, I love Ozzie as much as the next guy, and I would defend him to the end, but doesn't it seem a bit upsetting that both OC and Swisher were both considered pretty solid guys and they somehow didn't work out here? I'm not saying I know anything....just saying I would not be so quick to judge based on the incredibly limited knowledge we have of what actually went down here...

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 25, 2009 -> 11:17 AM) Of course, the other scenario comes into play...maybe it's like 1930 during the Great Depression and things will only get worse over the next 2-3 years. Then it would be better to take whatever you can get now (for 2-3 years) instead of facing even more of a bear market in 2010 or 2011, right? So definitely 2 quite distinct schools of thought on this subject from the agents and owners as well. Yeah, for the sake of avoiding an economic debate in this thread, I definitely see what you are saying. And I could understand that if Jon didn't already have $30 million in earnings over the past few years. But given that he does, I think I would go year-to-year and take my chances...the difference is not worth the risk of what you might lose from one year to the next compared to what you might make with a multi-year deal in a better economy. Just my humble opinion, however.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 25, 2009 -> 09:24 AM) Strange that Oliver Perez is supposedly worth $10 million per year and Garland only $5 million. Wolf has a long injury history, and I would put Looper closer to Pedro Martinez/Schilling/K.Rogers than I would to Garland as well. Garland's not worth $10 million in this market (or even his $12 million from last year, which could have been cut to only $9.6 million had he accepted arb.), but it's equally hard to believe that he won't get $6-8 million at his age and with his durability. FWIW, I'm elated we don't have to pay Javier Vazquez $12.5 million in 2009. Garland at HALF or $6.25 million for one year, on this Sox team, would seem like a pretty good bargain, but it will NEVER happen under KW. Theoretically, Pettitte, Sheets and Oliver Perez will all sign for at least $10 million per year, if they do sign. If I were one of these guys, I would be looking for a 1-year deal anyways. Why they would want to sign a multi-year deal in this economy, I just don't understand. Wait two years and then sign the multi-year deal. I am also a bit surprised that Jon Garland is being offered deals with low base salaries and incentives. He has never missed a start. What you see is what you get. Not sure why he is being offered incentive-based deals...

QUOTE (klaus kinski @ Jan 25, 2009 -> 10:06 AM) They have plenty of $- Over 90% Season ticket renewal, Ticket prices raised, Baseball TV $ hasnt gone away, on & on. Dont listen to that stuff we hear every year about their poor finances. I really wish they'd shut up, especially since they have a high payroll every year anyway. Keep in mind that signing players to multi-year contracts requires projecting revenues into the future. I think they are more concerned with that than anything right now.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 05:43 PM) We will never agree on ths. I've had this discussion too many times to remember, but we can always agree to disagree. The game is about winning games. Pitchers can give up alot of hits, strikeout few hitters, look awful in stats but win. Jack McDowell was another example gave up a ton of hits but won very frequently and even got a Cy Young. While wins is not the only variable which tells the effectiveness of a pitcher, the Bill James and the statheads (of which I'm one) far under value the idea of actually winning. Of course pitchers can be the product of a great offense and a great defense for a season. However, over a number of seasons pitchers who consistently win are the ones I like regardless of the stats. I think the problem with this argument is no one has really figured out a way to analyze or quantify the idea that many pitchers will "pitch to the score." Now I know many people will argue that because of the emphasis on peripherals in the free agent market, pitchers no longer pitch to the score, but rather, always try to produce the best statlines for themselves, I think the argument still has plenty of merit. Over the course of 36 starts, it certainly seemes beneficial to pitch to the score a bit rather than to always attempt to produce the best peripheral statistics. While some stats in earlier starts may suffer from trading outs for runs at times, the cummulative effect might indeed prove to be beneficial in later starts because of wear and tear and fatigue avoided in earlier starts. I am sure that some team or teams has figured out a way to quantify this or more adequately recognize the difference between pitchers that pitch to the score and those that get the majority of their wins simply when their offense produces several runs, but I am not aware of a stat that has been widely disseminated to the public which articulates as much.