witesoxfan

You don't seen many Sox fans in Indiana. I don't see many PEOPLE in North Dakota LMAO, nah, just messing. I see some now and then. And also, that's exactly how I feel too. Usually, if you are a fan of baseball up here, it is the Twins, Yanks, or Cubs(and to me, all these people are dumbasses, atleast when it comes to baseball). Last year, during the NLCS, I think I was the only person in the bowling alley I was at that was rooting against the Cubs. Great fun.

Now that I think about it a little more...make him a $20 mill a year guy if he can reach all his incentives. Make it 6/70 guaranteed, and if he reaches every incentive in his contract, make it so he can get up to $120 mill over 6 years.

That's not a bad idea. Give him 6/70 guaranteed, and if he reaches some goals(making the World Series, making the All-Star team, winning a Silver Slugger, making it to the playoffs, winning in the playoffs, winning the World Series, top 5 MVP finish, top 3 MVP finish, winning the MVP, putting up a certain number of stats, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc), he can get up to $100 mill(and that would be if he reached every goal...the odds of that are very small, so you should basically guarantee him about $80 mill if he just shows up and plays his best).

I don't believe it. A lot of players say that, but I think few actually mean it. As they say, money talks. And as I say, money is a great negotiator and is a great persuader. And in the same sense, money can be an insult. To be quite blunt, JR has probably insulted plenty of people in his day.

I am not at all surprised to see him struggle. For those of you unaware of it, Tom Verducci, a writer for SI, has this thing that he follows called the year-after effect. It is quite intriguing and in most cases, holds true. Last year, it kind of looked like Mark Buehrle suffered from it a little, and Jon Garland did to an extent as well. The year-after effect is basically a pitcher who is 26 or under that pitches 40 more innings in a season then he did the year before(in the article I am looking at right now, the pitchers he uses are Chad Durbin and Chris George of the Royals...this from March 4th of 2003). What I am suggesting is that while Loaiza is not 26 or younger, and while he did not pitch 40 more innings than he did in a previous year, he will probably suffer atleast partially from the year-after effect. To me, the year-after effect is what Verducci says it is, but is also when a pitcher becomes a dependable pitcher and takes on a large portion of his team's workload. Loaiza threw 226 innings last year, and while that is not even 30 more innings then his previous career high, it was a significant increase from the years he did not throw 190 innings(duh). Really, all I'm saying is that he could be rough for the first part of the year, and the only thing that can be done to help get through it is to let him work through it. If the Sox can get him 10 runs a game, that will help him work through it a whole hell of a lot. BTW, for anyone who wants to read the article I'm using... The Year-After Effect

And once again, Yahoo lags behind. According to them, Tony Graffanino is still batting.

Welcome to the club. I joined in early March.

Not a bad move IMO. Ozzie shows Koch that he does have confidence in him going against the Royals. Gives him a shot to pitch against the Royals. Maybe Koch got on the phone and called Oz and asked to pitch. Who knows that the reason is? It's not a bad move though. We do have Politte and Marte in case we need them tomorrow...that's a luxury we have.

You know what's sweet as hell? We could give up those 6 runs that we did last week, and we'd still be looking at a win. KC is really getting their ass kicked.

As they said in the old McDonalds commercials... "Hey, it could happen."

That would be stellar. Mulder is f***ing good....probably a top 3 lefty in the AL(probably behind Zito...but other than Zito, I can't think of many other lefties that I would rather have then Mulder) Mulder in the Sox uni =

Too many Krispy Kremes after games.

:banghead

I agree you can. You have to have a s***load of young talent on your roster for very cheap and you have to get lucky as hell too. Over the past 3 years, do we fit that criteria? Personally, I say we do not; therefore, we cannot spend $15 mill on one player per year...it just doesn't bode well for your future success. Which is exactly what I'm suggesting we do. And that's your opinion and I respect that. I do not feel the same way you do. Let it be known that I do want Maggs resigned and I think he is a very good player...but not at $15 mill a year. If he does it at $12-$13, I'll take it. $2-3 mill may not seem like a lot, but really, for a team like the White Sox, it could really be the difference between hoisting the World Series trophy above their heads and watching the playoffs from their home in Chicago/watching from their offseason home, as proven quite well by Brando. We had 3 wins out of our 5th starter last year, and if we have 5 or 6 in April through August, the division is quite possibly ours. Basically, it was signing Jeff Suppan for $1 mill, or trading for Paul Wilson in Tampa Bay. We do that, and we see the White Sox bathing in champagne and preparing to destroy the Yankees in the first round. But enough on 2003...that year was so hard to take as a fan, and I'm still a young guy...I can't imagine what it was like to be one of our "old-timers" who have seen dozens of Sox teams and seeing that Sox team. I know for a fact that that team had just as good a chance to be a big winner than any in the past 30 years, and I've only been around for 16 of those years..that team could have been that good. But as I said, enough of that s***. Just so you know, Maggs at $15 mill is not as bad as Konerko at $7.5 mill a year, or even Buehrle at $6 mill a year(with a backloaded contract). I would much rather have a guy on my team in Maggs at $15 mill that I know will give me .310 30 110 .900 OPS every year than a guy in Konerko who is slower then frozen honey and is a guy who usually only gives you one good half for $7.5 mill, or even Buehrle who while is a solid starter is not a great starter who is among the league's best. For $6 mill? I kind of question that move. Also, Carlos at $9 mill next year could be just a bit much. Just so it is known. Brando...I'd take those 2 as well. Just saying that, in this situation, quantity is more important than quality.

Wording is very important here. The way you have it worded(using satisfied), yes, I am satisfied with a 3-3 record. It could most definately be worse. However, had you used the word "happy"(as in, are you happy with our 3-3 record), I would have to say hell no. As I said in another thread, we could and probably should be 5-1. But I'll take 3-3.

What position did he play?

That she is. Everytime I see her I get a grin on my face.

stu·pid adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. 3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake. 4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied. 5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job I win.

I can guarantee you that St. Louis and Houston are celebrating right now. Without Prior, the Cubs are toast. Their rotation is deep, but it is not deep enough to fill in for Mark Prior, who, IMO is the best pitcher in the majors, no doubt about it. They lose Wood, Zambrano, Maddux, or Clement, they are fine and dandy, but they lose Prior and they have no shot. Without Prior, they are a .500 team(if they're lucky). Pettitte is a mediocre pitcher for the money he's making, so with Clemens, Miller, Oswalt, and Redding, they are fine. Pettitte was not THE piece, THE ace of the Astros. Without Pettitte, Houston can survive. Without Prior, the Cubs may as well pack it in. If he is not back by July, the Cubs could be sellers at the deadline, because they could be 10 games back.

Are they going to buy him or what? The Yankees have f***ing nothing to give the Indians. If Cleveland does it, they are by far the stupidest team in the majors.

See, even though Maddux got his ass lit up by the very weak Pirates, it was still a good performance. Why you may ask? Because I am a dumbass who knows nothing about baseball.

I gotta feeling karma will get this fatass when the time comes.

Maggs at $15 mill, or Everett at $3.5 mill? Maggs will put up good numbers...maybe .325 40 140 .950 at his very best...he's a great guy in the clubhouse, never complains, busts his ass all the time. The kind of guy any fan can enjoy watching play, whether you love the White Sox or hate them. And, even after saying all that, I still agree with Brando 100%. Everett can be a show-boat, can be rub some people the wrong way, is not always great in the media...but that's about the only negatives about him. He still busts his ass all the time, is a fun guy to watch, and is a great guy to have on the team. The fact that you can get him and a .270 25 80 .800 or so for $3.5 mill is pretty damn good. Consider the fact that we are saving $11.5 mill by taking Everett, and we could then bring in Mark Loretta, Ugeuth Urbina, and Kris Benson and could still be under the $15 mill we spent on Maggs. The best way to win games and to win a lot of games is not to spend boatloads of money on 1 or 2 guys, but rather spread it out equally and have a team of good players, instead of a team with 2-3 superstars and the rest mediocre players(unless you can get 2-3 players that are Curt Schilling or Vladimir Guerrero good, and even then you may not be able to compete). So I'll let you take Maggs, and I'll take Everett, Loretta, Urbina, and Benson. Is that OK?

Sweet. Here's to hoping he wins it for 12 straight weeks.