witesoxfan

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 12:03 AM) I'm down bro, but where in the living hell have you been? he is always flopping around

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 10:52 PM) It's mind boggling how much they have underacheived even though those 3 are the only 3 who can hit in their lineup (excluding Hermida here even though Uggla has powerful muscles but is a bit overrated IMO.) Just look at their pitching roster. Makes you want to throw-up. They are very young, but terribly bad. Not to mention guys like Willis, Olsen, etc.. have pitched horrid. They are clearly 3+ years away. Not sure how Dan Uggla could be underrated when he's been just as productive this year as he was last year; just doing it in a different way. Also goes to show that even though Girardi was a totalitarian drill sergeant dick of a manager who hurt some young pitchers careers by overworking them, that he knew how to manage a team.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 11:48 PM) Fathom is correct. In fact, went one of them just proved it. Off Topic, but Votto went 3-3 HR, RBI, BB, 2 R in his first big league start (PH a day eariler and K'd) Supposedly one of the better (perhaps the best) 1B prospect(s) comming out of the minors. I hope we get that type of impact player when he develops in 2+ years in the upcomming draft. Player A - .291/.383/.522/.905 in low-A Player B - .302/.419/.486/.905 in low-A One of them is Joey Votto; another is a current 20 year old within the White Sox organization. Carter looks like he could potentially be an impact prospect and could be a top 5 prospect in the organization next year based on potential. They are going to take it very slow with him though, what with Thome here for the next 2 years and Konerko and Dye for the next 3, there's no need for his bat to be in the majors until about 2010 or 2011.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 04:24 PM) Girls are crazy. Crazily insane. stating the obvious, duh. what's the story though?

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 11:10 PM) Federer will always PWN Roddick. Ya, Roddick brings his A game, Federer his C+ game, and Federer wins in straight sets.

QUOTE(michelangelosmonkey @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 09:45 PM) I think #1 is different because you have no defense. If you have the #9 pick you can always tell fans and management...well we WANTED Jeter...but he was already taken. I think there's more pressure on organizations with #1 overall. So they groom a path for him. If Brian Anderson was #1 overall pick...the Sox would have had him in CF this year...Ozzie's doghouse or not. Still you are right for slamming me for my view on "serviceable". Having someone like Johnny Peralta or AJ Pierzinski (ie: .750 OPS guys) for 10 years is part of building a team. I disagree with the first part, but going on further is just arguing a moot point. #1 is the absolute best position to be in while you draft, even if it sucks getting there.

dont f*** with Timo that is all

QUOTE(michelangelosmonkey @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 11:29 AM) My only quibble is...if you get the #1 pick in the draft you don't want a guy that gets 3000 at bats. I think an organization that picks #1 overall will do everything to ensure that guy gets at bats. Just how is that any different from the 3rd or 9th overall selection? If a guy is drafted in the first round, they are going to want to see how he performs and they will give him a shot. In theory, if a guy is drafted in the 1st round, he's one of the best 2% of players taken within that calendar year; you are going to do everything in your power to get that player in the majors because of his talent level. So in that regard, I don't believe the #1 overall pick is any different than the 2nd, 5th, 10th, 17th, 23rd, or 30th. You apparently do not appreciate the value of serviceable, nor do you appreciate longevity.

I don't care who we compare him to, he needs to cut down on his K's.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 02:06 AM) This is interesting stuff. I'd be interested to know if there were more than 3 .900 OPS guys taken at other spots in the draft. I posted this in another thread last week, but may as well mention again as it's germane here. I looked at position players taken in the top 10 picks from 1977 to 2003. At the various slots, it ranged from 10 to 18 position players taken over that span. I looked solely at whether or not a player reached 3000 at bats in his career, and with younger players like Delmon Young, Nick Markakis, etc, I used my judgement and gave those players the benefit of the doubt that they'd reach 3000 (true, they might get injured, but whatever). Of those 10 draft slots, in 7 of them, the percentage of players that DID NOT reach 3000 at bats in their career was 50% - 70%. The #2 and #3 picks were both at 41% NOT reaching 3000 at bats. The number 1 pick however had just 11% not reaching at least 3000 at bats. Just 2 out of 18, and none since Shawn Abner was taken in 1984. Perhaps the guys who become superstars are randomly distributed among the top half of the first round of the draft. I don't know. There have certainly been a lot fewer complete busts at #1. There clearly has been a much higher percentage of guys who, even if they don't become superstars, manage to have a career of at very least 5 years, which is really quite rare among all of the players drafted. While not a superstar, a guy like Phil Nevin who manages to get 4000 plus at bats with an .815 OPS is actually very rare. This post should end the debate. Very good stuff.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 08:20 PM) I believe in selecting the higher ceiling. I believe Poreda represents lousy principles ("draft slots..." "no Boras..." "no big money..." "safety"). Poreda might be hot now, but I'm not jumping all over his bandwagon though I do like him a little. 6'6, left handed, hits 96, good movement on his fastball; that sounds like someone who could be a good pitcher to me. I believe in drafting the highest ceiling as well, but money doesn't grow on trees, and taking Porcello - as sexy as it would have been - would have been a terrible move.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 07:52 PM) In a very ironic, iconic sort of way it would be. Of course, we've skipped top five talents because of signability concerns and "slot limits" before...(this year...) You'd seriously rather have Rick Porcello at $7.3 mill instead of Aaron Poreda who put up absolutely filthy numbers this year as opposed to Porcello not even pitching (as far as I can tell)? Just think about that.

Kevin Slowey had a 1.89 ERA this year in AAA. That's under 2. That's wild.

QUOTE(drive like jehu @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 03:30 PM) My question was rhetorical. It was an attempt to display that both he and I are whiners and I think he tolerates his whining much more then mine.... I didn't view my post as whining, and the only part of your post I viewed as whining was the stadium part. You are making a big deal out of something that has been fixed. It's like b****ing that the team sucked in 2002 even though they won a World Series in 2005 - whining and manufacturing a reason to be pissed, when really you shouldn't be pissed off about it at all.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:21 PM) Hell, just in a 4 year span the #1 overall pick produced possibly the greatest offensive 3B the game has ever seen (Jones does have the highest OPS for a 3B , though I'm sure Schmidt would get the majority of the votes) and quite possibly the best player to every play the game. Bonds was drafted 6th overall :D

get the man a bench coach

QUOTE(drive like jehu @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 02:41 PM) Who is the bigger whiner? The whiner or the whiner who whines about the whiner? probly the whiner

QUOTE(michelangelosmonkey @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 02:39 PM) Winning is always a good thing. Rooting to lose so we move up a spot because we're terrible just has not proven to be a great stategy (in baseball). Everyone loves the Twins here...and the twins were horrible in the 90's and here's there top ten drafting: Year Overall pick PLayer 1991 3 David Mccarty 1994 8 Todd Walker 1996 2 Travis Lee 1997 9 Michael Cuddyer 1998 6 Ryan Mills 1999 5 BJ Garbe 2000 2 Adam Johnson That's 7 top ten picks in ten years...and the best is Cuddyer who's a RF with a career .790 OPS? It's SO unknowable...that I would rather have the brief happiness and hope of going into the off season with a 18-6 last 24. Use just the 90s so you don't have to bring up Joe Mauer. I like it. A franchise catcher is something I'd absolutely love to have. Ironically enough, he was the #1 pick.

QUOTE(drive like jehu @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 09:45 AM) 1) Money doesn't always buy championships, what have the Yankees won recently? 2) Jerry didn't win the championship... The players did. 3) If championships influence your thinkings, why doesn't 1994 factor into your opinion. It would have been nice to see our guys have a chance to win it that year. 4) Jerry wouldn't have had to fix the ballpark if he had done it the right way in the beginning. 1. The Yankees have won 9 straight division titles and made 3 World Series appearances in the 2000s, winning one of them. 2. Sweet...last I looked, Jerry and the owners employed everyone in the organization. So Jerry did win the championship. 3. Feed the family before you feed yourself...Jerry obviously felt negotiations on the new CBA were not going well, and that they wouldn't be babies about it. 4. He made a mistake and fixed it; quit whining.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Sep 3, 2007 -> 11:35 PM) Only thing that shockes me about Santana this season is he giving up a ton of homers regardless if they are mostly solo shots. I believe he leads the league in homers allowed this season. If he's not, he's damn close cause every time I watch a highlight of him this season, he pitches a good game, but an opposing player(s) takes him deep. This is what you would call a "bad" season for him even though alot of pitchers in this league would kill to have his numbers this season. Johan does lead the league in homers allowed. Howeve0, if I were given 600 chances, I imagine I would guess right atleast 5% of the time...welcome to the major leagues. And, if EVER a pitcher for the Sox had a bad season and put up 2.87ERA 0.97 BA. 210, I'd probably blow my load about 20 times a year. That's cuz there' never been a pitcher as good Johan for the Sox in their history with perhaps the exception of Ed Walsh. He was good.

HOME 37.2 IP 2.87 ERA WHIP 0.88 OAVG.183 AWAY 39.2 IP 1.82 ERA WHIP 1.11 OAVG .220 I mean, Heath's been better on the road, but it's more than Petco.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 12:02 AM) I wouldn't. Gload at least sprays the ball to all fields and might have been nice to insert in the lineup this year at times. I know how you feel. Honestly, I do. As has been explained before though, there's no difference between 66 wins and 86 wins if you don't make the playoffs, except draft differential. The Sox are in a position to make a top 3 pick, and even before the season, there was not much use of Gload in the future, and Sisco atleast has the stuff to be a very good setup man in the future. All Gload was ever going to do with the Sox was be a 4th OFer, because he wasn't playing 1B but 20 games a year (depending upon injury of course), and that has as much value to the Sox as, quite frankly, Andy Gonzalez or Luis Terrero.

QUOTE(gosox41 @ Sep 3, 2007 -> 10:17 PM) The problem is Ozzie and KW are being idiots about how they are handling Floyd. Remember, I'm in the anti-Floyd camp, but since the beginning of August I've been saying that Floyd should be pitching every 5th day to see if there is any hope for him. Why not run him out there for 10-12 starts on 4 days rest. This crap that KW and Ozzie are pulling with spots starts is BS. I'm a firm belieber that young starting pitchers need to be in a routine when they first get called up to the bigs and get their feet wet. Kind of like teams not keeping a young stud eveyday player on the roster because it doesn't do him any good to get 3 at bats a week, it doesn't do Floyd any good to start him every 15 days. Floyd and the Sox needed to see Floyd get those starts to see if he can be relied on for next year. The last month of the year, they finally decide to do that, but even that's not written in stone. KW is a fool. Bob Bob, I actually like how they've handled the situation. They've raised (if that's the term you want to use) Contreras's value just slightly, they're saving Danks' arm for next year and beyond, and they are getting a more extended look at Gavin, both from the bullpen and the rotation. Gavin doesn't necessarily have to end up in the rotation next year, and thus, seeing him out of the pen and rotation, IMO, is absolutely necessary. I wanted to see him in the rotation for the rest of the year as well, but the way they have handled it has been absolutely fine.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Sep 3, 2007 -> 06:38 PM) the only person from that trade I would have wanted is Taveras. I would bat him 9th however, and not leadoff. what the hell, are you seriously looking to create the world's least powerful offense?

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 2, 2007 -> 12:58 AM) It has already been said. I said it because you said it originally, so it's a playful gesture, but I'm as serious as you about it too.