witesoxfan

What do I recall about 2005...almost everyone felt good about the team going into spring training while all the critics were saying the Sox were a 4th place team. However, the phrase "the Sox did not make the sexy move the media likes" or something in the whereabouts came up about 100 times. We knew that team was going to be something good. Hell, I recall people mentioning that the question mark of the team was the backup utility infielder - turned out to be Pablo Ozuna - and that simple fact just made people say this team has the makings of something special. And, looking back, that team really didn't have any holes to fill except backup catcher (WIDGE) and the utility infielder (which actually turned out to be like a combination of Willie and Pablo). The bullpen didn't fill out the way we thought it would - Marte sucked, Cotts dominated, Hermanson was one of the best relievers in baseball for a while, Politte was ridiculous, Shingo was gone mid July, and Jenks came almost literally out of nowhere - and I'm not sure how many of us predicted that the Sox would have 4 starters post ERAs under 4, but we knew something special was coming. Going into September, we were s***ting our collective pants as Timo Perez led off for a month while the Sox were playing sub-par baseball and the Indians were playing out of their minds, but then someone - I want to say Gage (Chisoxfn) - came up with the term 'Rally Crede' to counter the 'Rally Monkey' of the Angels just before the Sox had a game with Cleveland on the 20th of September, the Indians 2.5 behind the Sox. Joe Crede had a 2 homer night and hit a walk-off home run, and the name still holds its place in history. I recall being crazy happy that night, but still a bit scared as they lost a few games after that. However, the division was clinched shortly thereafter (want to thank Grady to this day for dropping that flyball), and it was pretty much history after that.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Aug 25, 2007 -> 01:39 AM) If all one needs to do is suck balls to get promoted, we've got a lot guys in line. I want to make sweet love to you

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 24, 2007 -> 01:23 PM) Well with Pratt's thinking, every team should sell off players at peak value, regardless of whether you want to make a run at competing at all. As long as you bring in more and more and more prospects that are highly rated. Of course out of the last several WS champions I think maybe one had a young team of players before their primes or in their primes, the majority had veteran players playing a majoe role, but dont tell that to the spect lovers on this board. Cause we all KNOW that minor league scouting is the KEY to winning in the MLB. You are slightly exaggerating, and I surely don't feel it is the key, but it is, currently, probably the most important aspect for this franchise winning in the long run. Perhaps 2-3 years from now, if the minor league system looks tenfold better, then the most important aspect can change. I'm just currently of the opinion that this team needs to look for a ton of changes before it can compete next year, and that's largely why I feel that scouting is the most important part.

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Aug 24, 2007 -> 11:21 AM) I completely agree. I think Garland may have peaked. My one caveat is please get more than a Class A pitcher for him. we'll get a bag of balls along with him, don't worry

I don't feel Owens is a good player, but I don't believe he has no shot at stealing 70 bases. Podsednik stole 70 bases in 2004 with a .314 OBP; Owens can be atleast just as good as a basestealer as Podsednik, and perhaps a better one. That means all he has to do is get on at about a .320-.330 clip and have a hell of a year stealing bases. That's not an out of this world number, and it's reachable for a 2nd or 3rd year player in the league, whether you hit .250 or .300.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 10:30 PM) One thing we know for sure. If Thome joins another AL team, especially in our division, he'll whack about an average of a homer a game versus the Sox. I really don't see how it would be possible for Thome to end up in the AL Central.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 02:47 PM) If peein your pants is cool, then consider me Miles Davis! That's the grossest thing I've heard in my life

QUOTE(michelangelosmonkey @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 02:28 PM) Look I didn't slightly skim over it...I pointed it out and it was against my argument. BUT...I've always been slightly irritated at the Baseball Prospectus crowd for completly ignoring W-L as if it is irrelevant. Buehrle has never gotten the credit I think he deserves because his K rate is so low...the strongest indicator for him that he's going to win is...he keeps winning. At some point knowing how to win a game has some relevance. But I'm NOT saying Floyd is going to be good. I'm saying it CAN'T be said that Garza will not only be good but as good as Santana. In Garza's first 15 innings this year he gave up 0 ER. The next 31 innings he gave up 17 runs. Both pitchers are 24. Both have good stuff. Both have shown glimpses of being able to be dominating. Both have been hit hard as well. Floyd's K to W rate this year is 3 to 1. Garza about 2.5 to 1. I know this will open me up to more name calling because people love Garza and hate Floyd...but until the guy starts winning more consistently...he's just another young pitcher that might or might not be good. And yes...that goes for Bailey and Hughes and Haeger. Tim Wakefield has 166 career wins and Brien Taylor has 0. Still I will say that you make a helluva point with the Twins bullpen. Man they keep turning these guys up. So lucky with Santana and skillful with the bullpen. I hope you know that you are talking to (probably) the biggest Floyd fan on the site, and there is still no way you can compare Garza to Floyd. Garza has a plus fastball, a plus curve, and I'm sure he has a 2 seamer and/or a change in there as well which is adequate. I'm not sure if Floyd has anything besides a sinker and a curve; those two pitches can someday make him into a Jake Westbrook type starter, but you aren't ever going to depend upon that to be atop your rotation. Garza's ceiling is higher than Gio's, and the only arm within the organization making under 7 digits a year that has a shot at being as good as Garza is De Los Santos, and he's in W-S. On Buehrle, B-P hates him because he doesn't have the outstanding peripherals they look for. However, Buehrle is good because of his control, plain and simple; not necessarily BB control, but rather just control of the strike zone. When he is getting groundballs and not leaving the ball right over the plate, he succeeds. When he gets the ball up, and he leaves it over the middle of the plate, he puts up an ERA of 6 and a half for half a season. He's not just good because he's a winner; he's good largely because of location. Oh, and on Haeger; Jared Fernandez has 4 career wins, Roger Clemens has 353. I can play that game too.

QUOTE(michelangelosmonkey @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 11:49 AM) Liriano at this point is nothing. He's another Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, Mark Fidyrich, Jason Jennings...appears on the scene as a very young pitcher...looks unbelievably dominant...then blows out his arm and is never the same. Maybe he'll come back and be great...then you have two data points for the Twins...hardly at trend. As for Garza showing flashes...man did you see Floyd pitch last month? That guy looks like the real deal (except the other times when he got globbered). There is absolutely no way that you can sing the praises of Garza over Floyd...because neither has proven anything in the majors. Each has pitched roughly a 100 innings. Floyd has an 8-7 major league record. Garza a 5-10 record. Floyd has a worse ERA by two runs. But so little data to point to for either. If I was here on this website singing the praises of the #4 pick in the draft from a few years ago...who's won more than he's lost in his major league career...and say Floyd could "conceivably be another Santana" as you did about Garza? I'd be banned. Twins are ok...just not to be worshipped. Sox are ok...because we LOVE them. They won the World Series two years ago. And maybe next year when Floyd and Danks and Gio are dominating...well it COULD happen. Why are you using W-L as an indicator of success? Why do you just slightly skim over the fact that Garza's career ERA is 4.58 while Floyd's is 6.98? Why are you essentially saying Homer Bailey, Philip Hughes, and Charlie Haeger are equals? Look at the Twins bullpen over the last 5 years; you'll see roughly 10-12 different names putting together very good years for them, and then go elsewhere and perform mediocrely. Is that luck? Look at the Twins rotation, and you'll almost always see 5 effective starters without spending $40-50 mill to do so. Is that luck? Now compare that to the White Sox, and you'll see why people are praising the Twins and are critical of the Sox.

It's a terribly composed piece too. Just random thoughts about some sports around the world he felt compelled to write down and then publish. Content aside, this piece needs way more organization and a better flow so it can actually get to a point and make some kind of statement. All it seems as though he's saying right now is that sports suck but they play a big part in our lives.

Danny Richar partakes in his erotic fetish, shoulderf***ing.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 01:52 AM) They should have been there THIS season. Namely Carter and Shelby. Hey Carter, your rockin that terrible .901 ops so you stay in low A and work on your swing. But I can see the sox brass taking their time with these kids, even though they're taking their sweet ass time with them. What use do the Sox have to rush Carter through the system? They have a 1Bman and DH for atleast the next 3 years, so it's not like his presence is going to be needed anyways. And Shelby just started hitting in August....280 with no power doesn't mean you deserve a promotion, it means you are performing moderately well.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 11:32 AM) Float his name around as being available and see who offers what. You get something worth biting on, you bite. I'd being doing that with almost every player in the organization right now.

I really don't think the value for Garland will be up or down whether the other option is Scott Elarton or Johan Santana. I understand what people are saying...the prospect of acquiring Garland goes down or up based on the pitchers available, but it won't make or stop a team from giving up the value for Garland. Just because Johan's on the market doesn't mean a team is going to offer scraps for Garland, and just because Garland is far and away the best pitcher on the market doesn't mean a team is going to give up their entire farm system for him. It just won't happen.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 01:48 PM) Because it'd never happen. No use getting your mouth watering for meat you'll never eat. Santana and Peavy to Atlanta will never happen either, unless they want around $40 mill locked up between 2 pitchers, which would be absolutely stupid.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 08:47 AM) AL-NL conversions are overstated. By some, yes, but the conversion is there. Pitchers generally pitch better in the NL than they do the AL, and there are multiple reasons too. Rock posted this sometime last week in the Zambrano thread. It's a good read.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 11:12 PM) Well, he won't wind up in Chicago, I'm pretty sure of that. I think there's a great chance the Braves go after him because of where he's from, how much Schuerholz loves "The Rotation" ("the Rotation is dead, long live the Rotation!"), because of their new ownership and because they'll definitely have the talent to deal for him if they wish. My wet dream is for Atlanta to wind up with Santana and Peavy in two years but that won't happen. However, Peavy + Atlanta is almost a match made in heaven. So why wouldn't your wet dream to be Santana and Peavy ending up in a Sox uniform? Just curious, of course.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 03:48 PM) I wouldn't say that. I just think if you think Uribe is garbage, I think Fields needs to show you a little more to be categorized as a future star. Who has called him a future star? If anything, you're cherry picking stats here comparing Uribe's career to Fields'. Uribe's OBP over the last 3 years has been roughly .280, and his OPS around .680. How does that compare to Fields this year? Back to Fields, I'm excited as hell about him because it appears as though he has potential. He's still striking out waaay too much, but that should be a correctable problem. He also has a ton of power, and that's shown with his 14 homers in 260 PA's and IsoSLG of 212 (for comparison's sake, Paul Konerko's is 227). Basically, that says if he hits .270, he's putting up an OPS of around .810-.830, and as he gets a feel for MLB pitching, his power numbers could go up even more. As mentioned before, the only real concern for Josh are his K numbers, but if he can keep from striking out like 150-160 times, he should be a really good player, and perhaps a star. Uribe's been mediocre or worse for 3 straight years. I love the defense, but he's best served as a super utility player, and it doesn't make sense to bring him back. Add to the fact that Fields' OPS is over 100 points higher than Uribe's, and you are arguing a losing argument. Uribe's called garbage because he has comparable numbers to Erstad and Podsednik, who are absolutely terrible. Now, if you were saying look at Jerry Owens' numbers compared to Uribe's, I'd listen, because Owens looks like a s***ty singles hitter, and singles that don't hit .310-.330 suck to begin with. You bring up Fields, and I'll call your argument ridiculous.

QUOTE(Markbilliards @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 02:13 AM) I can't believe how many people here can't think outside of the temporary box. Come on guys, most of you were probably agreeing that Jon was the real ace of the team back between June 4 and July 1. If you want to trade him because you want to free up money that's one thing, but don't say you want to trade him just because he's pitched bad for the past month and a half. He's not a Cy Young by any means, but we all know he's a lot better than he is right now. Are you still going to be yelling for a trade when he's putting up zeros and getting us wins? I'm not sure about anyone else, but I've backed the trading of Garland for quite a while. He's a league average, perhaps slightly above league average pitcher, he's making $12 mill next year, and it's not going to make sense to sign him long term; there are pitchers out there, either within the minor league system (Gio and Egbert come to mind) and within other organizations that can put up similar numbers (meaning anywhere from a 4.00-5.25 ERA) for about a 36th of his price tag. On top of that, you can likely get some good pieces from him in return, as he's going to be an attractive option for a contending team who is in need of a starting pitcher. If anyone is suggesting that Garland be traded primarily because he's pitched poorly for a month and a half, then they should be pretty pissed off that the Sox resigned Buehrle.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 10:01 PM) It's kinda retarded to pay any attention to OPS for a speedster leadoff guy like Owens (Pierre, Pods, Figgins etc). My understanding is that there are stats out there (though I haven't seen them) which incorporate steals (and caught stealings) into the Total Bases number when calculating what would be the SLG component of OPS. Owens has 3 singles and 2 SBs tonight. That's just as good as a single and two doubles and an approximate stat to OPS needs to incorporate that for a base stealer. You're thinking of Total Average. Of course, along the exact same kind of logic, he can go 2 for 4, get caught stealing once, and GIDP. That's 2 total bases, but essentially he went 1-4 while making 4 outs. And OPS is important for leadoff hitters. There's a reason why Reyes, Hanley, Rollins, Sizemore, Granderson, et al, are all good leadoff hitters, and it's not solely because of their speed and on base ability. Being in scoring position is just as important as being on base; if you're on 1st base, you can be a world class sprinter and it still takes 2 singles to get you home. If you are on 2nd base, you can get score on one hit. Hence, slugging.

No class till the 4th for this guy, meaning 2 weeks of summer left for this guy. I

So, just hoping I'm not alone, in that I'm completely weirded out by the "Viva Viagra" commercials. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Viagra...I'm just not for a bunch of guys sitting around singing about how good it is to each other.

Bought a 360 last Thursday, along with Oblivion and NCAA. It has taken over my life. I think I've already put 20-25 hours in on Oblivion, and I've gotten through the first 2 regular season games of Legend mode on NCAA.

I really don't know how I stand on this...Hunter's an above average bat in CF, he brings speed and a good instinct on the bases, and an above average, though slightly overrated, glove in CF...but 3 years from now, I've got no idea what he'll bring, let alone 5. It'd be a wonderful short-term move, but I don't think you can depend upon Hunter to still be an active and good player come the next phase of players, which in turn makes it a bad long-term move. I'll say this...if KW can sign him to a 4-year, $60 mill deal, with either no or a limited no-trade clause - or something similar financially without going to 5 years - I'll openly applaud the move from the first day to the last, regardless of where the Sox finish in the standings in 2008.

K, that last one didnt even make sense