witesoxfan

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 27, 2007 -> 10:49 PM) Remember how the day after the Crede homer, Comcast was messed up for like 4 innings? Not a good day for them after one of biggest wins in Sox history. I actually seem to recall watching that game on mlb.tv and it going out. Or maybe I was watching the Indians feed. I can't remember which one it was exactly. I just remember that game sucked hard.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 27, 2007 -> 11:52 PM) Mediocre? Before Monday's game, he had batted .183/.213/.192 when leading off an inning. He's hit .197/.228/.221 with nobody out, and .208/.250/.226 in his first at-bat of the game against a starter. I want Timo back

QUOTE(kevo880 @ Aug 27, 2007 -> 11:40 PM) From Fields' history though it seems he has a lot higher ceiling batting average wise compared to Dunn. Too lazy to look up Dunn's minor league batting averages but i'm assuming it wasn't close to .300. I'm really hoping Fields' k:walk ratio improves the next couple seasons. Um, you lose. Adam Dunn .334 between AA and AAA in 2001, to go along with an OPS just slightly over 1.100. Add to it that Josh Fields struck out at a higher rate than Dunn as well in the minors as well. Fields is a better athlete, but to suggest he has a higher upside than Adam Dunn is a bit loony. Perhaps in his all-around game Fields has more potential, because I really don't see Dunn hitting .300 anytime soon, and I don't see him ever becoming a league average defender in LF, but never at the plate. Adam Dunn is one of the best home run hitters in the game. If he's not taking a walk, or striking out, he's probably putting a ball in the stands. If Josh Fields gets anywhere near that, I'll be shocked.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Aug 27, 2007 -> 10:26 PM) Though, his age 39 season was ideal for what we need- .360 OBP 24 steals. Pretty good at 37 and 38, too. Is he done? Can he rebound? I don't know. You don't know. It's a crapshoot. Is Vizquel worse than Uribe this season? Will he be next season? What are better options at SS, and what are their costs in dollars/trade? putting nobody there costs $0. I think that's a better option than either Vizquel or Uribe at this point.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Aug 27, 2007 -> 11:06 PM) KW inherited a team coming off a division title in 2000, and has guided us to 1 playoff appearance in 7 years, that's NOT a very good GM. And how are all the moves we made to fix the bullpen working out? How about our farm system, where is our Hunter Pence? Really fair to say KW was coming off a division title in 2000 when the team's rotation consisted of Jim Parque, Mike Sirotka, James Baldwin, Cal Eldred, Jon Garland (as a f'in 20 year old), and Kip Wells. Sure it was a division title, but there was no pitching core on that team whatsoever. That entire season - great as it was - was a fluke. And then, from the best minor league system in the MLB comes Aaron Rowand, Joe Crede, Mark Buehrle, Jon Garland, a s***load of relievers, and a few AAAA/5th starters.

Not that I'm disputing Rally Crede here, but people tend to forget that the Sox lost their next 2 after that, and the Indians won 4 in a row. The most underrated moment in that White Sox season happened in Kansas City when Grady Sizemore dropped a flyball...the Indians, including that game, lost 6 of the last 7 and took themselves out of the division race.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Aug 27, 2007 -> 06:35 PM) or do the same with Jerry Owens. Chris Young is like 4 times the player Jerry Owens is.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Aug 27, 2007 -> 08:06 PM) I'm probably in the lesser, but I woulda prefered a L. Well that's just absolutely the dumbest thing I've heard all day...you must not have watched the game then. It was a fun win...b2b2b with a go ahead 2 run homer...I am actually happy about the Sox effort today and enjoyed a game I got to watch. And Richar is fun to watch

actually kind of a fun game to watch. What a 7th inning

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 27, 2007 -> 01:56 PM) The cost is prohibitive. You have to pay Vazquez $11 million a year. You will have to pay a Rowand or a Hunter $12million to $18 million a year. You could have Young making close to minimum in CF and $25 million a year to play with. and who's the 3rd starter?

I was gonna say something about the nose, but I actually kinda like Owen Wilson.

I think Hunter is slightly below those two in terms of quality, but if some team believes he is, then Robo is right.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Aug 26, 2007 -> 05:32 PM) I doubt that. You did also say you thought Ryan Sweeney was better than him too, so....

Sooooo if they know exactly what's wrong with him, why wouldn't they change it? It's not like his .220/.315/.430/.745 line is going to keep him from getting a monster deal thanks to Boras, so why wouldn't they have changed what he's doing already? I think you are giving them a bit too much credit here dude.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Aug 26, 2007 -> 10:50 AM) If Fields move to LF is permanent, then I fully expect to see Owens in CF because he can "leadoff." And why should I believe that the team will upgrade at SS? Uribe is probably gonna stay. And as for Hunter, anything more then 4 years and 48 million would be to much, and he will get more then that. Plus, the team that signs him won't see any numbers close to the ones he's putting up this year. 4/48 is what Rowand will ask for, though he'll probably get 3-4 years at $8-10 mill per. Hunter will almost assuredly get $14-16 mill, and atleast 4 years, potentially 5. If I'm the Sox, I go 4/$58, mutual option for the 5th year at $13 mill for Torii and $15 mill for the Sox with a $2 mill buyout, and a team option for the 6th at $16 mill with a limited NTC. Thus, it essentially turns into about a 5-year, $73-75 - depending on the buyout of the 6th year - with the potential to be a 6-year, $90 mill deal.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 26, 2007 -> 11:40 PM) I think Vazquez is a very good 3/4 pitcher, nothing more, strikeouts be damned. I expect his ERA to wind up higher than it is and higher next year than it is for sure. That said, he's a good guy to have, as above-average and even average-innings are extremely valuable, but either he or Garland can be dealt and I'd have no issue with it, especially if we can get them to overpay but nobody's going to overpay for either because KW doesn't know how to force people to overpay and besides that, the time to make people overpay was when Jon Garland was coming off a great and good season with some years left on his contract and not now. You can get teams to overpay for Vazquez, especially if he's coming off a good year. So long as Johan Santana doesn't become available on the trade market next year, Minaya will be calling about Javy, and that I have no doubt about. Schuerholz could be too, but he kind of traded every last chip he had that the Sox should be interested in, unless they are willing to deal Escobar - at that point, the two can atleast talk. Add to it that there are several others who would be interested in a pitcher whose stuff has not fallen off the table, and a pitcher who has never had injury problems in his life. Garland I agree with partly because of his bum shoulder, partly because he always has been a mediocre pitcher, and partly because he only has 1 year left on his deal. I was all for the Sox dealing him at the deadline, but they felt it necessary to hang onto him; now, I'd be surprised if the Sox can get Hu and a reliever from LA for him (though I may actually take that deal). QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Aug 26, 2007 -> 11:46 PM) I'll rip on both. Neither one of Garland or Vazquez is a top-tier or even second-tier pitcher at this point in their careers. Neither one is more than a #4 starter on a playoff team. Both are overpaid. And if Williams has any clue what he's doing, Vazquez needs to be traded this offseason. He's having a decent season, and someone might get suckered like the Sox did. So would you rather have Gil Meche, Ted Lilly, or Javier Vazquez? Overpaid my ass, he's going to give you 200 innings of atleast average pitching with the potential to be more; Meche has a history of injuries, Lilly put up an ERA over 5.50 as recently as 2005, while the worst ERA Vazquez has put up in the 2000s is a 4.91. They aren't aces, but you try and find me aces who have signed contracts after 6 years of service (thus, excluding Johan because he signed his contract after I believe his 4th year in the league) that have signed for $11.5 mill, let alone the $10 mill a year that Garland got. Vazquez I will depend upon to be my 3rd starter all day long, and Garland is a good 4th. And needs to get traded, GTFO...there's something wrong with a pitcher who puts up a sub 4 ERA nowadays huh? Who are you going to replace him with, Nick Masset? Or would you rather have Garcia and McCarthy too? I'm all for a rebuild - which would involve trading Vazquez - but if the Sox think they have a shot at competing, Vazquez is going to be here no questions asked. The Young trade isn't haunting the Sox, because this situation would not have been avoided had they kept Young, Duque, and Vizcaino. People are merely using the trade as a scapegoat because Young is having a good rookie season. I'm not going to lie, I think the world of Chris Young, but he couldn't take this chicken s*** and turn it into chicken soup. It would be nice to have him penciled in CF for the next 5 years, but it's also nice to know that the Sox have a valuable trading chip in their rotation who just so happens to be a really good starting pitcher.

One bad outing and the flood gates open up for Vazquez, yet we can't trade Jon Garland because he's one of the best starters in the league. Where is the ripping on of Garland? Pratt has, but if you are going to say Vazquez blows up for a good portion of the season, you have to include Garland. ERA of like 6 or 7 since the ASB and an ERA of like 6.50 in the first two months of last season. I don't know about you, but I'll gladly take a pitcher with a 3.89 ERA who got roughed up by one of the best offenses in baseball, instead of tearing into him for his first bad outing in like 2 months. 7 ER in 6 innings is his worst outing of the year...I wonder how other Sox starters stack up to that...?

QUOTE(South Side Fireworks Man @ Aug 26, 2007 -> 11:52 AM) I hope Pablo rehabs quick enough to play 3B regularly in September. what the hell would be the point of that?

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Aug 26, 2007 -> 11:13 AM) I didn't go for business (IIRC it's pretty tough to get in to), but I had a pretty good experience at Illinois. I was used to small schools before going there (high school graduating class was about 200) and I didn't really see it as a drawback. The student services that I actually used were pretty solid, and there are a ton of organzations if you want to go that route. You'll probably get some massive lecture hall classes early on (especially for gen-ed stuff), but they got considerably smaller once I got to my major courses. The one thing that took some getting used to was large amounts of social drinking. Unless you never plan on leaving your room you'll probably have to deal with that since that seems to be just about all people do out in those cornfields. Get used to the idea of going out to the bars on a Tuesday night. THIRSTY THURSDAY

Good to know Joe's back is starting to feel better too.

they all suck compared to USD

QUOTE(TheHolyBovine @ Aug 25, 2007 -> 10:09 AM) Apples and Oranges. Dye and Contreras were dominant players at their peak. Garland wasn't. don't mind the fact that Garland's best ERA in a season is (slightly) better than Contreras's. And that Jon Garland has never finished a season with an ERA above 5 - though that's in jeopardy this year - whereas Contreras is assured of his 2nd season with an ERA over 5. If you consider Contreras dominant, you consider Garland dominant. I see no way around it.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jul 30, 2007 -> 08:08 AM) What brought you to that conclusion? (My first instinct is to say, No way, but I want to see what you looked at to get you there.) Got to this a little late. Anyways, that was just a first thought from reports I had heard about his hitting...solid power, good speed, and pretty solid plate discipline. I don't know that I'd back that comparison right now from what else I've heard, but I still have never seen him play, what with working 40 hours a week at night, so I don't know that I can make a solid comparison.

QUOTE(spiderman @ Aug 25, 2007 -> 01:40 AM) Isn't it obvious ? Do you really want to give Tori Hunter a 4 or 5 year deal worth at least $12 million a season, probably more OR would you rather give Crede 1 year at $5 million for 2008, and then see where you stand after next season ? Besides, I'm looking at this pitching staff, and seeing lots of holes. Is signing either Rowand, a fan favorite, but most likely overachieving this season OR Hunter, who is getting older, but still very good, for a long-term deal something we might regret later , especially if that is our main off-season move? You tell me, since you have the answers. Well, you are the one advocating bringing back Crede; what is he going to produce next year? You can't depend on him to stay healthy past May, you can't depend on his defense remaining anywhere near gold glove caliber after back surgery, and he never was a very good offensive player to begin with. I would guess, absolute best case scenario, you're looking at .270/.310/.490 from Crede at 3B with (slightly) worse defense than before surgery. Worst case, he's done before June, and $4-5 mill is absolutely wasted. With Hunter, I see worst case scenario being about a .750 OPS with good defense in CF with potentially a season ending leg injury in early August, but he's been quite healthy since 2005 and I'm not sure I'd even look at that, with best case being great defense and an .825-.850 OPS with good speed added to the lineup in place of Joe Crede's slowass. I also don't see the holes in the pitching staff as easily replaceable; if you want to sign a reliever nowadays, it costs $3 mill a year, and a league average starter costs $8-10 mill. Personally, I'd rather take a chance with Egbert, Gio, Floyd, or Haeger than spend that kind of money on mediocrity.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 24, 2007 -> 08:14 AM) You can make a sort of checklist of what you'd want out of a non-power hitting CF (in order of importance)... --Good or better OBP (forget AVG) --At least solid CF defense, preferably plus --Basepath skills (stealing, taking extras, speed) --Extras (bunting, situational hitting, flexible to other positions, etc.) So you don't mind a CFer that puts up a .675 OPS? I mean, forget average, cuz by forgetting average, you are also forgetting slugging; by forgetting slugging, you are forgetting that it takes 2 singles, which is by and far the most common hit in all of baseball, to score a runner - any runner, regardless of speed - from first base...unless you're Enos Slaughter. QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 24, 2007 -> 07:04 PM) I like the 6 tool approach. Hit for Contact Hit for Power Plate Discipline/Ability to draw a walk Defense Arm Strength/Accuracy Speed I whole-heartedly agree with this. Eye can come with MLB experience and a player's maturity at the plate; however, it usually does not. If a player does not take a walk to begin with, said player is almost assuredly not going to take a walk in the long-term. It will likely improve, but not by leaps and bounds.