witesoxfan

QUOTE(Hawkfan @ Feb 2, 2007 -> 01:42 AM) How do you drink a good beer properly? (and i'm being completely serious) I hope we are not talking Miller Lite and good beer in the same context here.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 09:07 PM) Well im in last place in the only category that I have ever been nominated. But what I know is true is that I am first in the peoples hearts. that is actually Jose Valentin...

QUOTE(Beltin @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 02:00 PM) Tell me what your stats say about Joe Crede's 2005 regular season? On paper he had some disappointing numbers but we all remember his clutch offensive contributions that year, not to mention the fact that his defense more than made up for his offensive shortcomings. First of all, I recall the same thing about Mackowiak as you at the plate; however, I also recall longer periods of time where he was solid offensively too. He contributed a lot to the team offensively, and was only bad for the team because of Ozzie. He shouldn't have been anywhere near the middle of the outfield at any point in time during the season. Secondly, I remember Crede having 2 completely horrendous months, and 4 very solid months.

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 04:43 PM) No, next she'll have to write about how she scarred Harry Potter as a child. All the drugs he did behind the scenes, the depression he's suffering from, how he's lost his magic powers. Only to one day, in desperate times, he will be summoned by the highest powers, which will lead him to rediscovering his old self, and saving the world once again.

QUOTE(BMac Attack @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 02:02 PM) Federer is good and all, and I really enjoy watching the guy play. But I don't think there should be any question who is the most dominant athlete currently playing any sport - it's Tiger by a mile, and I don't like to admit that, given that it doesn't make golf very fun to watch sometimes. But facts are facts. I'd disagree. The only person that can beat Federer right now is Nadal on clay. Tiger is beatable, and that has been proven in the past. I mean, Federer's 25 and already has 10 major titles, opposed to Woods having 12 at 31. It's not only plausible, but likely that Federer will have the most majors of all time, and he could have it by age 26-27. By the end of his career, he may have far and away more major titles than any man ever, and he could approach the most majors ever for man or woman (though he'd have to stick around a very long time for that to happen, and he'd have to have luck on his side, both of which are very unlikely). Along the same line of thought, Woods could too. It's hard to say at this point in time. For the moment, they kind of have to be considered just equally dominant, because I'm not sure there's any real way of determining who is moreso.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 10:22 AM) The point of the matter is, whats in it for them in recieving Lowell. Nothing more than hoping to get a prospect or two out of the gargantuan deal of Helton, similar to the Vazquez deal last year when the DBacks took on Duque.

If Rowlings really wants to continue writing in the series, she can either have Harry become a sports star who fights crime, or he can become a teacher Indiana Jones style.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 10:54 PM) isnt it? I think some people dont value the win stat enough on this message board. They just look at every other stat and say "oh the wins dont matter look at these other stats" at the end of the day what matters more than any other stat is that W. Im not saying it tells you everything but I rather have a win than a bunch of fancy stats. I agree with the general logic behind what you're saying, because quite frankly, I could give a damn if the White Sox Pythagorean W-L is 81-81 if they win 100 games and the division. Everyone will say they were lucky, and they were...but they'd be in the playoffs while others aren't. However, wins can be a very misleading number, much the same as how points scored can in football. If you were to go by strictly wins, you'd see that Rick Helling was the best pitcher in the league in 1998, when quite frankly, that is false. He was a good pitcher, worthy of being the #3-4 in almost anyone's rotation, but he won 20 games simply because his offense was good. The same concept is the reason for the Bears number of points - not because the offense was good, but rather the defense and special teams were that good that the Bears were in good field position all the time rather than starting at their own 20-30. There is a reason the Bears kicked more field goals than the Colts did.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 09:30 AM) I thought the point of offense was scoring? I guess yards are a better way of determining who wins the game? Even if you take away the difference in the special teams TD's, the bears offense isnt really that far behind in scoring. I just think that is largely ignored in this weeks overanalyzation of the game. Rick Helling is good because he won 20 games. I mean, winning is all that matters right?

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 06:40 PM) How about no? haha

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 06:21 PM) Mmmm shorts + 4 degrees = cold. I thought for the first time in my life my hands were actually frost bitten, it was the most ridiculous s*** ever. f*** YOU WINTER hey bright guy, maybe think about wearing pants next time

impossible to choose without an "all of the above" option

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 12:16 PM) Unless Iowa still doesn't show network TV, there's no reason for you to be outside during the game anyways. It is Iowa

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 10:34 AM) I have Maynard already, I got it in March. I'm only short a Gould jersey. you're not going to have Gould in time for the Superbowl, are you?

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 02:30 AM) I have a cat with one of those names too, I didn't name it though so I'm safe. I actually don't, I was simply asking a hypothetical question. But you said eat it, and it made me sad. I'm not sure I could ever eat a cat. /expects synonym of cat in next post

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 01:36 PM) Im struggling to wrap my brain around something. EVERYONE and i mean EVERYONE talks about how powerful the colts offense is, and how they do nothing but put up points. Indianapolis points per game 26.7 Bears points per game 26.7 Indianapolis total TD's 50 Chicago Total TD's 47 I guess I dont understand where all these crazy scoring games came from. Points aren't a good indicator of offensive dominance. You don't have to score points on offense. Colts YPG - 379.4 (3rd NFL) Bears YPG - 324.9 (15th NFL) Colts PYPG - 269.3 (2nd) Bears PYPG - 205.1 (13th) Colts RYPG - 110.1 (t18th) Bears RYPG - 119.9 (15th) The Colts offense is one of the most dominant in the league, and there's no way around it really. The Bears scored 5 special teams touchdowns (I'm not sure if that total is including Hester's 108 yard return either), opposed to the Colts 1; the Bears also scored 3 defensive touchdowns, opposed to the Colts 1. That's a difference of 6 right there. So, all the Indy offense does is pretty much put up points. The Bears have more than 1 way of putting the ball into the endzone, and that could play key in Sunday's game.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 02:08 AM) Eat it.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 11:18 PM) No male White Sox fan will name his pet Fluffy, Snowball, or Shnookiewookums So do I have to rename my cat, or shoot it?

QUOTE(shipps @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 01:19 AM) Sort of is such a convincing word wite.Crede has the "softest hands"you will find.Is range really a factor with third baseman anyways?They have the least amount of time to react than any other fielder,its really just a matter of getting good hops and catching every thing that is hit to you.Joe does that. First of all, that last part was pretty much completely sarcastic, hence the drawn out words. Athleticism has everything to do with natural ability. Secondly, not everything will be hit at you. You are responsible for any ball hit in your direction that you can get to. That is called range. Some have better range than others. So, if that doesn't prove that range is a factor, then nothing ever will. Thirdly, Crede having the "softest hands" I will find is kind of what I like to call an "opinion", and it is also a term that has a "subjective definition." Seeing as how Mike Lowell had the same number of total chances, and he made 4 fewer errors, I'd have to believe he has softer hands than Crede. That would make sense anyways, right? Finally, I'm only arguing that Fields may at some point in time be as good as Crede defensively at 3B, because he has the tools to do so, or perhaps better tools. I also said that, at the very least, Fields could be come a league average defensive 3Bman - which is not as good as Crede - but that he may be able to make up for it offensively, though I would venture to bet that Crede would put up better offensive numbers next year, and he might blow Fields' numbers out of the water, if Fields were able to play a whole season in the majors. That won't happen, so we're merely arguing a hypothetical point.

QUOTE(winninguglyin83 @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 09:40 PM) if we're not keeping our own expensive pitchers, why would you think we're going to sign more expensive guys from other teams? think Gio, Danks, Floyd, Massett, Broadway and McCullough not johan I bet $1000 the White Sox rotation never looks close to that, other than maybe in Spring Training Our own expensive pitchers probably won't be worth what they'd get on the open market. Johan Santana, even at 8/$200, could easily be worth it, especially if he somehow stayed healthy. The Sox have control of Garland and Vazquez through 2008 - Contreras through 2009, though I would guess he may be a potential trade candiate either following this or next season, depending upon performance - so you'd be looking 2009 at the very earliest for a rotation of that potential youth. Beyond that, the White Sox aren't a poor organization, regardless of what Chicago radio stations wish to tell you. The payroll will be around $100 mill once again, and there will be a little money to spend if additions to the club are needed at the deadline. After this season, they'll start losing some contracts, and those contracts continually come off the books until the 2009-2010 offseason when the oldest players ever (other than Julio Franco) come off the books in Thome and Contreras. Regardless of even that, Massett is seemingly going to spend the rest of his career in the pen - atleast with the Sox - while I see Gio and perhaps McCulloch as potential trade candiates in the future. I wouldn't, however, be surprised to see a potential rotation including 1 or 2 of Buehrle, Contreras, Vazquez, and Garland, along with Danks (pretty much for sure), and then after that possibilities are Gio, Broadway, McCulloch, Haeger, Floyd, Sisco, a few longshots at A+ and AA (Egbert and Russell are a couple, and there are others who have a little potential), or other pitchers KW has brought in from outside the organization. It's a complete crapshoot, but don't act like the Sox are just going to stop spending money. KW's just not going to pay $11 million a year for Gil f***ing Meche. Tell me, do you think that's smart?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 07:52 PM) They actually have a prospect who is going to displace Atkins at 3B and then they envision Atikins playing 1B Ian Stewart, sure. Mike Lowell's a free agent after this season, so they'd just be moving to Atkins over a year early.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 07:26 PM) Yes, I agree with you, wsf, I was answering my own question in the second line. He won't sign for peanuts with us cause he'll get a better offer somewhere. lol, good call. I suck at reading whole posts now-a-days

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 05:10 PM) dont the rockies have a 3B who just had a very productive season, chucky atkins or something. yeah, but they'd just have Atkins play 1B and Lowell would play 3B due to his superior defense

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 04:26 PM) Why, why should we know that with confidence. Yes, the doctors have checked and he is fine as of this moment but they can't predict if it will flare back up or another problem will occur. Honestly, he's getting that type of salary because there is an extent of questionability to him. If there wasn't someone would have given him a bit more money and a guaranteed starters job. Sorry Wite, I mis-read your post and you were implying we should know when healthy he can play CF and I think when he is healthy there is no reason to suspect he wouldn't be able to play CF (because he still has pretty good speed despite having some lower body injuries that have hampered him) and usually it would be the speed/range that would prevent him from playing CF because he has good instincts (albeit he may struggle early on since he hasn't had too many games in CF over the past 4-5 years). Jason, what the hell.

From what I can gather, Lowell, Tavarez, and Hansen. Unless Hansen offers some chance to start in the future, that's - at most - a 3Bman who's at the end of his prime, an old, psycho reliever, and a dominant closer at some point in the future (and maybe it's just because I haven't seen Hansen that I don't get the love...I would venture to guess it probably is). Helton will probably be a .900 OPS 1Bman this year still with a .390+ OBP for the next 2 years or so, and by the end of his contract, he'll probably be in the .850 range for OPS with a relatively high OBP all the same. I think that'd be well worth the gamble, seeing as how the Sawks already have a 3Bman out of position at 1B in Youkilis, Tavarez is deadweight, and they have all kinds of pitchers they can use in the bullpen to replace Hansen's presence. Colorado was picking up close to half...I don't know if I would have been able to turn that down.