BearSox

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 11:17 AM) Anyone else find it funny that her run-ins range from Shaq to Delonte West to J.J. Redick???? Lol, I noticed that as well and I find it awesome. From a 7 foot, 300 pound monster; to a 6'3" gang banger; to JJ Redick.

If we miss the playoffs this year, I want heads to roll. We have such a good pitching staff ready to dominate, but our offense is severely lacking.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 01:50 PM) Vizquel's UZR/150 numbers at SS the past three seasons: 32.6, 13.1, 20.6 (2009, 08, 07). As far as 3B is concerned, the position you are endorsing for Nix, Nix had a 4.9 in limited play in 2009. Vizquel in the same year? 56.1. Vizquel is still a GG caliber defender at those positions. At 2B, Nix is better, 14.1 last year. Vizquel has a career 0.3, making him average, in limited play. As far as hitting goes, the offensive juggernaut that is Nix hit .224 last year, with a .716 OPS (which works more in his favor, as a power guy). Vizquel? .660, on a .266 average. And as far as Nix developing, keep in mind he struck out 64 times in 255 at bats - the equivalent of 150 times in a full season. Vizquel has never struck out more than 64 times in a full season, with 27 last year in 177 at bats, and still has speed (as Nix does), and can bunt with high effectiveness (Ozzie's favorite). Vizquel is far and away the better fielder on the infield as a utility man, and pretty equivalent as a hitter. Plus all his added benefits as coach and mentor. I'll take Omar. Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree. I prefer the some-what young guy with some potential left who provides more offensive power off the bench and can mash lefties over the old-relic who is only going to get worse.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 01:05 PM) Because Vizquel is a GG caliber defender at 2 or even 3 infield positions? Because Vizquel is an ideal teacher for Ramirez and Beckham? Because Nix' defense is OK at 2B and less than that at SS and 3B? Because nix isn't a very good hitter, and if we want another bench guy, we want a better bat? First off, if Vizquel is needed to be a teacher for Ramirez and Beckham, what the hell are Joey Cora and Ozzie Guillen doing? Im pretty sure they played plenty of MI in their MLB careers, and they are being paid to guess what, COACH! Second off, Vizquel is no longer a GG caliber defender, and is an awful hitter at this point in his career. Nix plays great D at 2B and showed to be solid at SS and 3B. Plus, Nix provides much more offensive potential than Vizquel off of the bench. The only thing that Vizquel provides is the fact he is known to be able to bunt, but thats sad that we need a designated bunter. If we were talking about Vizquel from even 3-4 years ago, I'd agree with you. But at this point in his career, he'd be more useful to a team as coach and not as a player.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 06:59 PM) This is funny as hell to me - dude, you are inferior to these guys by orders of magnitude, and when you make a comparison, any comparison, it looks completely ridiculous. We are all inferior, but how is it ridiculous? So, just because im inferior, my experience as a baseball player doesn't matter. So, if I was Bryce Harper, but decided to bulk up for football, and lost my bat speed... it only matter then? Plain and simple, bulking up in muscle makes your ligaments tighten up. Having your ligaments tightening up = a reduction in bat speed. Its really not that complicated and it doesn't matter how good or bad the ball player is.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 08:40 AM) I don't think Ozzie wants Nix on the roster. He doesn't like him at all. I really dont understand why. He's versatile, plays really good D in the infield, and was actually able to hit left handed pitching. Personally, I would give him a lot of reps at 3B in spring training and see if he could be a solid backup there. I really dont understand why we would keep an old relic in Vizquel over Nix.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 07:47 AM) I think this will wind up working out terrible for Kiffin, because he's going to face like a 5 year+ postseason ban to clean up for Carroll's dirty work. I doubt USC will get anything worse than a slap on the wrist. If anything, they will probably have the amount of scholarships they can give out reduced for about 3-5 years.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2010 -> 05:16 PM) When you see a coach like Carroll bolt pretty unexpectedly, its almost assured that something terrible is going to follow. Or maybe Carroll got an offer pretty much no one would turn down?

The Vols should go after Gruden. I believe he started his coaching career there. Plus, with him being a big name and all, you could possibly save some of those recruits.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 11:35 PM) Pods got 1 year, $1.75M. We could have given him $2M and beat out the Royals by quite a bit. And while I wanted something much better than Pods, I'd much rather have Pods at $2M for 1 year than Pierre for 2 years and $8M. It'll be interesting to see what Winn signs for since, given his defense, he's the best of the bunch. Disagree on Teahen. At the time I thought it was a dumb move, and in hindsight it's even worse. We could have signed Feliz for 1 year instead of committing to Teahen for 3. Getz was well worth moving to secure Gordon at 2B for the future, so I have no problems with that. But Teahen? I'm not optimistic about him either. He was a non-tender candidate that we gave up talent for and then extended even though he hasn't shown himself capable of performing to a level that warrants his new contract. Bad deal IMO. My guess is after Tejada signs this deal will look even worse still. Agree on Damon, that would be a nice move but uncharacteristic of the Sox. I realize what Pods got, but I figure we would f*** it up anyway and still overpay him.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 10:13 PM) With Chow as OC, Monte as DC and Orgeron recruiting, I could coach that team to 10 wins a season. Kiffin and USC are putting together quite the coaching staff. Am I the only one who thinks this will work out good for both Carroll and Kiffin?

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 11:01 PM) Imagine yourself before last year began asking for Pods at 2 years, $7m. I know it's not last year anymore, but still...Pods at 2 years, $x is a bad signing. Pierre may be more expensive, but I trust his career over Podsednik's by a bunch. Fair argument. It's pretty much a lose-lose. Im just biased cause of my mad 05 crush on him.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 12:45 PM) Dye at 3M would look perfect on the southside, imo. Agreed at 100% Good hitters are good hitter. Kind of a bad example considering two of these guys are awesome, but do you think anyone in the twins org or any twin fans care about having three lefties (Mauer, Morneau, Kubel) bat in a row, considering they get the job done? Besides, if I was gonna have it heavy to either side, I'd prefer it right handed to help avoid left handed specialists, and righties generally dont have as much trouble against lefties.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 01:06 PM) Or for that matter, Branyan, Blalock, or Delgado? Branyan and Blalock are both "not so good hitters." Branyan was a good story for the first half of last year, but he came back to reality the second half. The only reason why he has lasted in the majors so long is because he's always provided a lefty bat off the bench who could hit the ball a country mile at any given time, and play below average at multiple positions. Blalock is always a question mark, extremely streaky, and you never know what you get from him. He's an all or nothing guy, and I don't consider those guys good unless they put up RIDICULOUS numbers.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 09:30 PM) ^I'll also predict right now that next year Chris Getz hits for close to the same average as Pierre, gets on base at a higher rate than Pierre, and also steals with a better percentage than Pierre, basically being a better lead-off hitter than Pierre at a savings of about $7.2M over the next two years. I would have to agree. However, losing Getz was worth getting Teahan (I still wish we could have pulled some magic and get Gordon though, but that was just a pipe dream). I still think closing the door on Pods so soon and dealing for Pierre was a huge mistake. We bought high on Pierre and lost two quality pitching prospect. If we could have gotten Pods down to even 2 years, 7 million... I think it would have been wiser than getting Pierre. Still, the smartest move would have been to forget about both and go for Damon... but this team isnt that smart.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 10:16 PM) I've said it all along. This is more or less Ozzie and what he wants this year. This offseason just doesn't seem like a usual KW offseason other than the Teahan addition (still loved that addition especially with the lack of XBH we had... I.E. the lowest in the league). Ozzie got Kotsay back, wanted a speedy/slap leadoff hitter (Pierre), etc.. If we don't win in this crappy weak AL Central (especially with our pitching staff) then Ozzie would/should face some serious heat. Agreed. We have the pitching to do some serious damage this year, but this is shaping up to be one of our worst offensive ball clubs, IMO. The whole DH by committee idea is beyond retarded. In a league that uses the DH, and it is generally occupied by a very potent hitter, going with Mark Kotsay/Andruw Jones platoon will just end badly. Personally, at this point, I'd like to see Thome back with Flowers on the big league club, and having Flowers, Thome, and AJ do a three way rotation. So... 1.) AJ is getting up there and could use 2 days off a week. 1 day off could be a complete rest, and the other could be a day at DH. You can give Flowers the starts at C in his place. 2.) Thome needs two days off a week, period, except when he is hot. When Thome is resting, you can give Flowers the start at DH. 3.) This would be a very effective way to break in Flowers at the MLB level. He could get a couple starts a week at catcher, and possibly another one or two at DH. He could learn the pitching staff and get a good 300-400 AB's in.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 08:09 PM) It certainly looks like a very strong possibility. Current 25-man roster locks: Bullpen: Jenks, Putz, Thornton, Linebrink, Williams, Pena (6 pitchers) Rotation: Peavy, Buehrle, Floyd, Danks, Freddy (5 pitchers) Starting position players: AJ, Paulie, Beckham, Alexei, Teahen, Pierre, Rios, Quentin (8 position players) Bench: Castro - C, Vizquel - MIF, Kotsay - OF/1B, Jones OF (4 position players) In total that's 23 spots already taken. One of those is going to go to a secondary backup IF, so really there's just one spot left. We either take 12 pitchers or we add a DH, and it shouldn't surprise anyone if we go with 7 pitchers in the bullpen. We're certaintly thinking very hard about that at the very least with the claim on Dolsi and the adding of Santos to the 40-man. With our current 5 in the rotation, 6 relievers should be plenty to begin the season. Another position player and hopefully a DH will be much more beneficial for us for the first part of the season, IMO. After a month or so, you can adjust accordingly to injuries, preformance or lack thereof, etc.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2010 -> 03:35 PM) How did cheaters of today make the HOF irrelevant when it has been accepting cheaters for years? Who cheated first: Gaylord Perry Big Mac Barry Bonds Which of them is in the HOF? The saddest chapter in baseball is the current chapter where people have evolved this "holier than thou" attitude, and forget that the Hall is filed with cheaters from all eras, and that baseball needed a few scapegoats to cover up the fact that everyone was cheating. Either ban all cheaters, or ban no cheaters. Throwing a spit ball is like holding in football. Its against the rules, but if the ref or ump doesn't see it, it's not cheating. Steroids and HGH are completely different because most of the use with them in sports are ILLEGAL, and are giving the players a clear physical advantage against those who don't break the rules. A pitcher can still hang a spit ball and have it be hit 400 feet for a homer. However, a batter can have warning track power, but suddenly after one offseason, become a guy who can knock out 20 easy. There is a HUGE difference, and you trying to justify it all together as just "cheating" is laughable.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2010 -> 04:04 PM) I dont think breaking the law has anything to do with baseball, the HOF, or whether a player is HOF worthy. How is a spitball not premeditated? How does a spitball not put their "entire game at an improperly different level of competition"? If anything a spitball is worse. You can scientifically see the difference between a doctored ball and a nondoctored ball. Conversely there is no absolute correlation between steroids and being a better player. There could have been hundreds of players taking steroids who sucked for all we know. Two words, Brady Anderson. If that isnt enough proof that steroids clearly does make you a better ball player, I dont know what is.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 11:33 AM) Adding muscle isn't going to reduce bat speed, unless he puts on like body-builder type mass, which isn't what anyone is talking about here. I know adding muscle won't reduce batspeed, but when I saw the term bulk up, I thought they were refering to him getting body builder mass. Sorry, but I dont think bulk is the right word. More like grow and develop is a much better way of putting it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 12:25 PM) And even if he does put on body-builder type mass...did Barry Bonds or Jason Giambi lose bat speed when they went from twigs to monsters? Id say they lost some amount of bat speed, but all the power they gained made up for it. Plus, they were rubbing their creams and s*** most likely in the key places such as their thighs, ass, forearms, and chest. Also, neither really developed big bulky muscles like body builders.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 11:29 AM) LOL right Bearsox. Thats what happens when kids grow into their bodies, they lose batspeed. Hey, it happened to Joe Mauer and Alex Rodriguez, right? oh, wait...... Mauer developed and grew. He never "bulked" up. He just developed his body and did the neccessary baseball lifts. When I hear the term "bulk up", I think of adding muscle mass and bulk, which will cause your ligaments to tighten up, therefore causing you bat speed to obviously go down. As a former two sport athlete who played both baseball and football, I used to have very good bat speed. But once I started to focus on football and bulked up with weight lifting, my ligaments naturally lost some of their elasticity and my bat speed took a hit.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 10:48 AM) The Nationals are going to get a hell of a player and is a lefty to boot that's sick and he still a skinny kid too. Imagine when he bulks up. If he bulks up, you can say goodbye to that bat speed. Grow and develop, sure, but no need to bulk him up.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 10, 2010 -> 11:13 AM) No, because your opinion is so wrong its retarded. You can still have it, but its incredibly stupid. Some people probably still think the earth is flat, but hell, its their opinion. So it is retarded to think that Colt's NFL future played a factor on the decision to sit out the rest of the game? OK butch, whatever you say.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Jan 10, 2010 -> 01:02 PM) Well HIS decision not play was a good one since HE was struggling to throw a football 7 yards back in the tunnel. You think McCoy chucking the ball 7 yards down field is better than what Gilbert could do? If so, you might want to give up watching sports. McCoy is equally as good as a runner as he is as a passer... He could have still played in the game, in any small role possible. I just dont understand how you can take yourself out completely in your last collegiate game ever.