witesoxfan

QUOTE(buckweaver @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 04:02 PM) As I said in the first post...consider the time, temp., and dearth of insight of late. I know; it's just that Dye is going to have to be one of the cogs of the lineup, and the Pads are shooting for a guy with a lower price tag. The Padres would assuredly take Dye for the .825 OPS bat he is, but with the contract the Sox gave him this past season, they value him more as a .900 OPS guy, and the Padres just simply wouldn't pay up.

QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 05:10 PM) I think its more the fact the Roberts is a proven Lead off hitter, which the Sox don't really have. Unless you are counting on Owens...Cabrera is better suited to be a #2 hitter. Not to mention he is a solid 2b and speed and good range... but no the Sox couldn't use him. A proven leadoff hitter to me is a guy who can get on base and score a lot of runs. If that's Jim f***ing Thome, then by all means have Thome leadoff. The "position" of leadoff hitter is overrated. He leads off once a game and is supposed to get on base and score runs; that's the goal of every hitter. Some do it differently than others. Danny Richar is more than suitable as a 2Bman; if he busts, the Sox can go with Bourgeois or Getz or whoever else, just by simply putting them out there and seeing what they can do. There is no need for Roberts when he doesn't clearly put the Sox in a position to win the division. He helps, but to me he might add 3 wins; the only difference between 82 wins and 85 wins is about 4 slots in the 1st round and every subsequent round thereafter. Save whatever prospects the Sox would have to give up and just go with Richar.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 09:34 PM) Yessssssssss!!!! Still no failed test eat s*** Bonds haters.. Barry is the man!! I love you

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 05:51 PM) Well Livan had a 5.34 ERA for Washington pitching in a real big pitchers park in the NL. Is anyone going to trade for him if he has an ERA over 6, just because he is a veteran who can log innings? Because that's the most likely scenario I see occuring here. I don't see an ERA over 6, not when he's pitching in the dome

CNN reporting up to 15 injured Hopes and prayers for everyone at NIU right now...hope everyone stays safe now

I prefer the time machine threats much much more

Basically, you are suggesting a drop off of production from Dye to Owens; that could be as much as a 300 point difference in OPS, and is almost assured of being about 150-200 points difference.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:58 PM) Aside from the Mets the Cubs have as good a chance at winning the world series as any team in the NL IMO. I like the DBacks way more than I do the Cubs It goes Mets-DBacks and then it's a dogfight

QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 10:52 AM) Hell KW should be adding Uribe and others in a deal to get Roberts....Sox could use him. 1) Uribe has no value in a deal for Roberts. He'd go to Baltimore simply in a salary dump. 2) The Sox would have to give up 3-4 minor leagues to get Roberts, further destroying any depth the Sox may have at the minor league system.

f***.yes.

QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 04:40 PM) It sure did work with Dye and you never can tell it might have worked with Edmonds, if we had gotten him. Whatever the issues/concerns are with Edmonds you can't deny that he hustles all the time and gives the game 100%. We need hard nosed ball players like that. We don't have him, but it wouldn't be all bad if we did. We need players who are good at baseball. If they hustle all the time and give 100% too, as well as being hard nosed, by all means, but good players are better than Charlie Hustle lite. Darin Erstad did exactly what you said, and he is absolutely terrible. Manny Ramirez dicks around all season long, and he's still a pretty damn good hitter. I know who I'd rather have, and that's the dude coming off a World Championship.

QUOTE(lvjeremylv @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 04:07 PM) Good point on Dye. I've already thought something was up with the great year he had in 2006. Again, I hope not though. I would like to believe that all of the Sox players' achievements have been based on merit and hard work and not thanks to a vile. But to have your best offensive year at the age of 32 seems suspicious. His best year before 2006 was in 2000 when he batted .321 with 33 bombs and 118 RBI in 601 at-bats for the Royals. In 2006 he hit .315, 44 bombs, and 120 RBI in 539 at-bats. In the case of Crede, almost all hitters have their best years from the ages of 26-28. In 2006, he was 28. Paulie's 2006 wasn't much better than his 2004 and 2005. And Thornton was always gifted with a good arm. Like someone mentioned in a different post (which I agreed with), perhaps working with Don Cooper was what he needed to get it figured out. I don't find it weird at all, honestly. Step back away from the statistics for a second and realize that there are more circumstances to them than just the numbers themselves. Jermaine Dye went to Kansas City, which was pretty neutral through his tenure there; he then went to Oakland, which is a cavernous ballpark. He then comes to USCF, which has a short fence in LF, and Dye's pretty much a dead pull hitter. Hence, once he gets comfortable and the plate and starts seeing the ball in May of 2005, he starts crushing it. From May 4th until the end of the season, Dye hit for a .900 OPS. Then the next season, Dye's still confident and comfortable, and this year he has the protection of Thome and Konerko hitting in front of him. Hence, the explosion. He struggled in September, got lost at the plate, and started the year off terrible last year, putting up a .214/.271/.402/.673 in the first half. Once he got healthy and a new contract, he put up a .298/.368/.579/.947 line in the second half. There should be no reason at all to speculate; it's really not that hard to do the math with some of these guys and understand how they can struggle or succeed. And why should you speculate? There's no real rhyme or reason to it.

We love you Deadspin

How about a reality show where Heads gets drunk

QUOTE(lvjeremylv @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 02:29 PM) I don't have any factual evidence (how on Earth could I?), other than the stats that I provided. Those stats, by the way, are not "weak analysis". They are legitimate facts that I took a few minutes to compile. And I didn't say "These guys all had a great year when we won the World Series". I said "These guys all had a great year when we won the World Series after being very mediocre for years before (and years after) that. Big difference. Please don't confuse raising a legitimate question with a witch hunt. QUOTE(lvjeremylv @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 11:19 AM) Neal Cotts in 2005 = 1.94 ERA Career (excluding 2005) = 5.60 ERA Cliff Politte in 2005 = 2.00 ERA Career (excluding 2005) = 4.87 ERA Dustin Hermanson in 2005 = 2.04 ERA Career (excluding 2005) = 4.31 ERA Jose Contreras in 2005 = 3.61 ERA Career (excluding 2005) = 4.89 ERA Jon Garland in 2005 = 3.50 ERA Career (excluding 2005) = 4.58 ERA Neal Cotts seems like a one-trick pony of sorts; he succeeded by having a fastball that came in at 92 but looked like it was coming in at 97, confusing the hell out of hitters. Since that point in time, they have figured him out and he's toast. Cliff Politte had a very good 3 year stretch from 2000-2002, and he was a pretty solid, though unspectacular, reliever in 2004. Hermanson always had a great combination of stuff, and he had 4 fantastic months in 2005, keeping his ERA down to 2.04. Jose Contreras always had and still does have very good stuff; with his family in the United States and a friend in El Duque at his side, he calmed down and was arguably the best pitcher in baseball from July of 2005 until he was injured in May of 2006; he hasn't been the same pitcher since that point in time. And Jon Garland was a 25 year old pitcher who matured, stayed healthy all year, and pitched 6 good months of baseball; normally he has 4 good months, so I really don't see what's wrong with his year. There are definitely outliers, for sure, but the offense itself sucked; there were only 3 above average offensive players in the starting lineup. I don't know how you can really even consider PEDs on the team, it just really doesn't make sense to me. There are perfectly logical explanations for everyone's (meaning like 4, 5 players?) "career" year. So why not 2006? Jermaine Dye hit 44 homers, and he's never gotten anywhere close to that in his entire career, Joe Crede had by far the best year of his career, Konerko had a very good year as well, and where did this Matt Thornton guy coming from, putting up a 3.33 ERA?

Clemens is a dirtbag and I hope after everything's over, he gets the book thrown at him.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Feb 12, 2008 -> 08:48 PM) Lost 3 pounds this week. Working out every day, drinking lots of water and not so much beer, as well as eating junk really pays off! Shells are not going to help you lose weight though.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Feb 12, 2008 -> 07:51 PM) This moves the Twins up in the 2009 draft. That's the motivation behind this move. Saves the mileage on some of their young arms. And teams are always looking for an innings down the stretch, even if it's just to be a 5th starter or a long reliever. I actually really like this move for the Twins; Livan is going to start 30+ games for them, throw 200+ innings, and if everything pans out right for them, he'll net them a prospect come deadline time. Not that it's like an earth shattering move by any stretch of the imagination, but a lot is probably going to have to go right for the Twins to compete this year anyways. May as well bring in a guy who is as much of a guarantee as any to throw 200 innings for you. Honestly, what kind of hitter or reliever are you going to get for $5 mill on a 1 year deal right now? Probably a pretty terrible one, if anything, and the Twins scouting/developing is so good that they don't have to go spend a ton on their top draft pick. I do figure he's probably 2-4 years older than his listed age...pitchers don't burst onto the scene at 22 and then fall off the map at 31-32. That's a pretty meaningless point on a 1-year deal though.

Bonds=GOAT

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Feb 12, 2008 -> 01:30 PM) I have to retract that statement, due to the south park evidence presented by WiteSoxFan. South Park is greatest evar

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Feb 12, 2008 -> 01:21 PM) I didn't group anyone. And I respect people's right to religious freedom, but I know the world would be better off without religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go It's impossible to even consider, because if religion were eliminated, some other form of religion would be created, even if it weren't called religion.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 12, 2008 -> 01:13 PM) a hundred thousand college graduation parties in May just got lamer.... ...as every major beer company in America realizes that they just lost 50,000 in keg beer sales

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Feb 12, 2008 -> 01:07 PM) Yeah, I guess...I don't respect religion and that story guarantees Mr. Fields will never be one of my favorite players. Respect religion whether you want to or not, but you have to respect other's beliefs. Grouping lunatics like the KKK with good-willed people is incredibly ignorant and is flat out wrong.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 12, 2008 -> 12:33 PM) yup. that's what happened to me in 2002. NOOOOOOOOO

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Feb 12, 2008 -> 12:55 PM) Knowing that the KKK and other wack-job groups use that book to justify their extreme hatred, I don't think its very ignorant. I think that book is dangerous. And this coming from someone who went to catholic grade school, high school, and a jesuit university and got an A in an Islam class. I think my years of experience in life and school give me plenty of background to make such a statement. And I'm a big fan of Seventeen. Good stuff. So because the KKK uses the Bible, it's a bad thing? So, because I read the Bible, I'm also part of the KKK or some other wack-job group? That's ignorant as hell too.