witesoxfan

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 03:38 PM) Bonds. Discuss. My lineup: 2B - Richar (Gonzalez against tough lefties) RF - Fields DH - Thome 1B - Konerko LF - Barry Lamar 3B - Crede C - Pierzynski SS - ? CF - I'm going cheap here -- Owens/Terrero platoon? Sweeney (if he can play average CF defense)? -Allows the Sox to slip Fields and Richar into the lineup without a heckuva lot of pressure. -Doesn't block any prospect and it's a one-year deal. -Attendance boost. Even if people hate Bonds, they'll show up to boo him. Somehow I doubt people will boo him if the Sox are winning and Bonds is a part of that. -It doesn't really stop the Sox from rebuilding -- they could deal Thome and slip Bonds in at DH. I believe it makes sense financially -- one year, $15 million or so -- especially if you move Contreras. And it wouldn't preclude the Sox from filling out their bench and bullpen -- even a couple million would only put the payroll at about $105 million. Hell, even let Andy Gonzalez be the shortstop. I guess I haven't seen his range defensively, and he'd probably serve better as a super utility guy, but if he can hit even .260 with a .700, it's about as good as the Sox are getting this year. That is essentially a full-fledged rebuilding mode with the greatest hitter of the past 25 years in the middle of the lineup. I'm also hitting Bonds 3rd with Thome 5th; has more to do with Bonds getting on at a much better clip than Thome, who still gets on at a ridiculous .425 clip too. That would be a hell of a lineup, and might be one that allows the Sox to compete next year with youth littered throughout the lineup.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 03:37 PM) That is complete bulls***. Fine, you love Barry Bonds, but he is no where near the level of Ruth. Ruth . . . . . . . . . . Everyone else Also, no Ted Williams? You must be kidding yourself. You definitely missed the entire argument throughout the previous 10-12 pages of fun or whatever it is; I have 75 posts per page, so it's just like 2 for me. Really, comparing Ruth to Bonds is apples to oranges because of how much different the game is now than it was back then. The foul poles are further away, but CF is closer; there are better athletes in today's game, but the thought of hitting a ball out of the park on a consistent basis had not been considered before Ruth. You have sliders and different curveballs and crazy fastballs now, but they had spit balls and sandpaper. Ruth and Bonds may be 1-2, but you can't say one is clearly superior to the other in any argument, or you'll argue the point until the end of time.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 03:36 PM) no offense, but some kid from Naperville doesn't really have his "finger on the pulse" of sox fans. Sox fans DO NOT want him, trust me on that. You don't have your finger on the pulse of Sox fans either. And, I don't claim to, but I really think you'd be surprised. More people in the country like Bonds than you think. People in San Diego rooting for him proved that to me last night.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 03:34 PM) Check out what the fans would think so far: 85.7% - No 14.3% - Yes I don't want him, and I don't care how he is in the clubhouse. To me, he has done everything the wrong way, and I expect baseball to be played a certain way. I will not pay to see someone like that. So who has done it the right way? Prove to me that PK, Thome, Dye, Pierzynski, Crede, Rowand, Everett, Iguchi, Buehrle, Garland, Garcia, Vazquez, McCarthy, and every other person who has worn a White Sox uniform for the past 3 years or 5 years or 10 years has been clean and performed like you think they should perform. You can't. There's absolutely no reason not to add Bonds if he wants to come here and is willing to play LF, other than blind bias and hatred.

Adding Bonds really is like adding 2 and a half hitters to a lineup; first, you have Bonds, who is 1 and a half players himself. Next, you take the person hitting 3rd in front of him and watch said player - be it Jeff Kent, Rich Aurilia, Benito Santiago, or JT Snow - have an amazing season getting pitches to hit because protection actually does exist. Finally, you realize that by adding Bonds to the lineup, the Sox offense could score 900 runs with 4 guys - Konerko, Thome, Bonds, and AJP - making big money. If they can find a way to keep Dye, they could very easily have the best offense in the league. This is all with adding 1 bat to the lineup.

I want to make love to the neck fuzz

And this is why I rode the Gavin train all along.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 03:15 PM) f*** off dude. the sox aren't signing a 43 club house cancel to expensive contract, escpecially seeing we need outfield speed and defense. deal with it The Sox need good players, not crappy ones. By suggesting speed and defense, you're saying you'd rather have Torii Hunter and Jerry Owens in the outfield rather than Barry Bonds.

QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 03:10 PM) Then why in a recent poll of major league players he was ranked #1 as the biggest jerk, even ahead of Jeff Kent, who is a notorious prick? Bonds will never play a day in Chicago. I hope the turd retires at the end of this year and becomes a motivational speaker for crack addicts. I actually seem to recall that being AJP, but maybe that's just my memory.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 01:16 AM) I am pretty sure that every single poster in this thread has done something that was against the law in one way or another.. whether that be underage drinking, smoking weed, or simply while driving. No way, everyone is a perfect angel (cracks open beer) Seriously though, this is the purchasing, possession, and use of an illegal and banned substance in America. Have we as people done certain crimes that are comparable? Absolutely. Does it make it right? and really, I just like playing devil's advocate on this subject because it's so fun to do.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 12:22 AM) Rose is not a top ten hitter. Gwynn is not a top ten hitter. That's crazy. It really depends on the qualifications you are looking at for a hitter. Gwynn has the 3rd highest batting average of all time for players born after 1900. The two hitters in front of him - Ted Williams and Lou Gehrig - are unquestionably two of the greatest hitters of all time. He's definitely the best singles hitter of all time, which means he probably had the best bat control of all time. You're talking about a guy whose career high for strikeouts in a season was 40. I think Josh Fields struck out 40 times in a month, and if he didn't, he was pretty close to it. And that's a career high. To me, there's no question Gwynn's a top 10 hitter. Rose isn't; he was able to stick around for forever and collect some 4000 hits along the way. He was barely a career .300 hitter. QUOTE(knightni @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 12:59 AM) Who cares if he did steroids if they weren't illegal in major league baseball? It wasn't against the rules when he used them. But it was against the law.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 09:43 PM) Chris who? yeah, I said it! for about the 306th time this season

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 11:26 PM) Jack's dead to me now. what the

Bonds is a dick, a racist, and is probably a cheater - and he's still the greatest hitter I've ever seen in my life. He good

QUOTE(BearSox @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 09:57 AM) to be honest, I'd probably promote both Schnur and Carter to AA, Schnur to play 3B and Carter to play 1B. Take it slow with Carter. There is absolutely no need to rush him through the system, what with both Thome and Konerko on the roster for a few years. Add to it that he's 20 years old, and rushing him just does not make sense.

QUOTE(briguy27 @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 11:41 PM) They asked him if he makes it to the HOF, if his speech will be in Japanese or English. He replied, "Spanish." I'll watch no matter what language he speaks in. Dude is almost guaranteed to get 2500 hits before he hits 40, and he has a shot at 3000 if he plays till he's 43 - which I have no doubt he'd be able to. If he gets those 3000, he'd have over 4400 hits between Japan and the majors, which is ridiculous to think about. He's the best leadoff hitter and flat out average hitter of this generation, and I don't see anyone changing that any time soon. Hell, he may end up with a .340 career average and I wouldn't be surprised.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 11:31 PM) Cause we still do not have the right makeup. We still have an awful bullpen except for Bobby. We still have veterans not turning their seasons around completely (Paulie, Thome, Dye before the last couple games, AJ). We still are not deep enough in starting pitching (Jose and Danks are not good). And we still have no speed. The result is we are not good enough to win more than 5 of 10 games in any stretch. Paulie's up to an .880 OPS; that's very close to the norm over the past 3 years, and he has been outstanding over the past two months, and that's without even looking at numbers. Thome's been a monster any time he's ever been in the lineup, and Dye's raised his OPS 115 points since the All-Star break, which was like 3 weeks ago. Jose is out of the rotation, and if Floyd can put up even a 5.50 ERA, the Sox will be good enough. Besides that, of course the Sox won't be able to contend; it would take a near miracle to do so. It's not the players you mentioned, it's the fact that Andy Gonzalez is leading off and playing a huge factor on this team, and that Jerry Owens is starting and expected to make a significant contribution while he has put up an OPS of .580 this year. You look at the actual s***ty players for the Sox, and it's understandable as to why they are as bad as they've been, even over the past month or so when they've played above .500 ball. Podsednik resigning and Darin Erstad - bless his grinderness, but he sucks - didn't help this team, and the s***ty bullpen - which you did mention - give this team as close to 0 chance as it gets.

I haven't made it a secret that I really think Crede should flat out be non-tendered this winter; however, if Josh can show he can play an adequate LF, there's no reason not to do so and give Crede a shot at retaining his job at 3B. Lord knows it would save the pitching staff a few hits throughout the year, and the Sox would be a better offensive team even if Crede can put up a .750 OPS...which is quite sad, really. Given, KW said Josh has All-Star potential for a reason. I don't recall him ever saying that about BA, but I do about Chris Young. I don't have links, just really memory recollections.

Quite honestly, there's absolutely no way I can have DLS - who, from what I've seen both numbers and stuff wise, is going to be an impact MLB arm someday, so long as his health remains, be it as a 2-3 starter or a dynamite setup/closer - nor Egbert, who has thrown up dominating numbers without the potential for arm problems due to height, weight, nor stuff, below Gio, who has so many potential problems ahead of him. Gio, as far as I see, is either boom or bust either as a starter or reliever. If he stays healthy AND he maintains solid control, he's a 3 starter for the Sox; without health or control, he's a 5 starter who may bounce between AAA and the majors for quite a while. I see Egbert holding a spot in the Sox rotation until he hits free agency or is traded, and I really think you could see him in the majors starting next year, especially if Garland and Contreras are traded. And there's no way I can have Sweeney, who has still yet to show any kind of power at any stop throughout the minors, at 4 on the list. Or I can, but that just goes to show how truly weak the White Sox farm is when it comes to developing hitters. Hopefully Cheat is right and he turns into an Alex Rios type, but Sean Burroughs looks just as likely right now. I put Sweeney at 50/50 at developing into a good regular someday.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 10:36 PM) I know, but we really need some strong drafts. We need a draft like the Yankees last year. If only the Sox had the scouting and coaching the Yankees do.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 11:04 PM) It's a figure of speech, and it holds a great deal of truth. You don't have to be a good GM to have a championship come your way. Generally, championship teams are built by men with a good idea, but what happens before and after is more important to judging a GM. Stoneman brought the Angels championship team together - I consider Stoneman a gunshy GM, yet a great one all the same. Beinfest is one of the best GMs in the game. Epstein had the brilliant idea of letting his owner spend $150 million on his team, and thus became a great GM because of it. Walt Jocketty won a World Series with a declining team, yet a very good core all the same. And even before that, Garagiola was able to bring together two of the best pitchers of the past 15 years in Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling on the same squad and won a World Series, and Cashman has always been in the upper echelon of GMs, regardless of how much say George has. How is Kenny Williams a fluke through all of that? The only person who I really don't feel belongs - Epstein - had $120-150 million involved in his payroll. Kenny Williams worked with a $75 million payroll. No matter what he did before or after regardless, they brought a World Championship and quite frankly, that is all he, I, or you as a fan can ask for. And, beyond that, if you suggest it was pure luck that his players did what they did, then you explain why he had no holes on his roster, and how 80% of the people on this board knew this team had almost no holes on this roster. Coming into this season, several people mentioned CF, LF, and the bullpen as holes; I don't recall the same recognition of holes in 2005, because those holes did not exist, because Ken Williams constructed a team that had no holes on it and that played up to it's expectations. I will never disagree with the fact that 3 relievers had career years, but that type of luck involves every GM in every situation every year. Quite frankly, if you suggest Ken Williams is not a great GM because of the catastrophe of a team he has put on the field this year, then you are flat out wrong; he f***ed up badly this year and put too much faith into a young bullpen and an injury prone outfield. He didn't f*** up in 2005, and due to the fact that he put such a fantastic team on the field, you saw a World Championship and a wire-to-wire run. If you tell me a wire-to-wire run - which has happened like 4 times in the history of the game - is luck, then I will suggest you are flat out wrong. Point blank, if you suggest Ken Williams is not or has not ever been a great GM, then you are flat out wrong. Period.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 08:35 PM) You guys are kidding me? You are seriously comparing Heath Bell and the stats he's put up with Petco against Bobby Jenks. The two aren't even on the same f'in level. Plus that doesn't even factor in that Bell is in the NL and pitching in the ultimate pitchers delight. Oh and whether you like it or not, one is a proven closer (and I've seen enough relievers not be able to close the door for me to know that the 9th inning isn't the same as the 8th). Are the Padres going to give up 3 of their top prospects to upgrade from Heath Bell to Bobby Jenks? That answer is no, because they can pick relievers up and turn them into demigods. I'd much rather have Jenks, but all I'm suggesting is that the Padres aren't going to have interest in him.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 11:29 AM) Does anyone want to bet that Dye outproduces WMP next season? Any takers for WMP? Come on big talkers. That's not quite fair. That's really like asking anybody to see if John Danks will outproduce Jon Garland next year; yeah, it's possible, but it's not likely in the least. However, with the money you save between Danks and Garland - which is very possibly the same difference money wise between Dye and Pena - you can add probably 2 good players to make up for that difference in other areas. That said, I'm really glad KW didn't accept Pena and Hansen. That's a ridiculous offer for a player who's almost assured of ending the season with an OPS of .825-.850, 30 homers, and an IsoSLG of .250.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 12:52 PM) Is it just me, or does anyone else think Chris Young is vastly overrated? Quite the contrary, I find him a bit underrated. He is the best prospect the White Sox have produced in quite a few years, Josh Fields included, simply because of his 5 tool ability. It's unfortunate that he can't wear a Sox uniform for the next 10 years, but Vazquez is good, so it all works.

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 01:23 PM) Maybe even 2 Class A pitchers. You mean like the two Class A pitchers the Yankees got for Randy Johnson after he sucked (read: 5.00 ERA) with a terrible contract (read:$13 mill in each of the next 2) aged more than 7 years (Thome is 37 this month, RJ is 44 in a little over a month)? Thome will net a very solid package, just like he did the only other time he was traded, because he's still a huge force in the middle of any lineup and I honestly don't see that ever changing. He's injury prone, and if a team doesn't understand that, they are lying to themselves. If you think Thome can only get two Class A pitchers, you are being dumb, plain and simple, because he will net a hell of a package, even as a 37 year old, because he gets on base and he hits for a s***load of power. Those are the types of players who are the most valuable to a franchise.