IlliniBob72

What's with these retards picking Frank Thomas to hit for the cycle? When's the last time he hit a triple??

For the record, the series is tied at 5.

"[Garland] has a tendency to let some people back in the game after he gets the lead," Manuel said of his decision to remove Garland. The above is from chicagosports.com. What a crock of s***. When Garland pitched in KC last week, they came back and gave him the lead and he settled down and was dominant. As someone above said, if he felt that way, why even have him start the sixth? The sixth inning is way too early to start setting up lefty-lefty matchups. I think the Sox definitely need to take the next two. Hell, if they don't watch out, the Twins will be passing them up.

The Mariners aren't the Mariners because they lose series in Safeco Field. I was most worried about being swept in Seattle because of a letdown and of course, the Mariners are a fairly decent team *cough*. With the Royals playing Tampa at home and the Sox going to Seattle after an emotional series, I dreaded being 4 back right now. They're 2 back. I'm happy. Also, we don't have to see our #5 starter for the Royals series. Very good.

I feel that the team doing the ass-kicking should stop scoring runs when, and only when, the losing team promises to give up and not try to come back. Until then, pile the runs on.

already given up on THIS year and lookin for NEXT year??????? i still think this was a total waste of time.....as you said rafa we could have used the #5 instead for the remainder of THIS year.......wait and see i guess, but i dont see how this helpes us get any better this year and strengthens us for right now.......i dont give a s*** about next year right now....were doing something now and i want it to continue...... its kinda one of those wash type of trades imho............neither one is that much better than the other... the only difference is the lefty righty thing.......oh well........ I'm still searching for where someone gave up on this year. Nope...can't find it. It's really a minor deal. Hard to get too excited about it either way. Schoeneweis certainly can't do less for the Sox than Glover did. bob look at rafas post.. in there he quoted kw as saying " he can start next year" talking about schow.......thats where that quote from me about giving up on this year came from.... who gives a s*** about next year and what he does, what can he do for us right now that will be so outstanding to make this trade not be a waste of time........i dont see it...... I saw the post. I just don't understand how you inferred from that that this season was being given up on, unless you somehow see giving up Glover as giving up on the season. Surely acknowledging that there is a 2004 season doesn't mean that the current one is considered lost. You have exhibited a lot of venom about this trade. I just don't see the reason. A waste of time? Well, this is obviously a minor deal and may have been made in 30 minutes. Either way, it's not my time so I don't care, as long as he didn't tell Billy Beane he was too busy to talk about getting Zito because he was working the phone for Schoeneweis

already given up on THIS year and lookin for NEXT year??????? i still think this was a total waste of time.....as you said rafa we could have used the #5 instead for the remainder of THIS year.......wait and see i guess, but i dont see how this helpes us get any better this year and strengthens us for right now.......i dont give a s*** about next year right now....were doing something now and i want it to continue...... its kinda one of those wash type of trades imho............neither one is that much better than the other... the only difference is the lefty righty thing.......oh well........ I'm still searching for where someone gave up on this year. Nope...can't find it. It's really a minor deal. Hard to get too excited about it either way. Schoeneweis certainly can't do less for the Sox than Glover did.

Schoeneweis will be another good leftie out of the pen and can be a serviceable 5th starter, either this season or next. Glover was expendable. Hell, I forgot he was even with the big club. Even if he doesn't pan out, they didn't give up anything for him. If nothing else, it keeps him from pitching against the Sox in the future. He had the Sox's number.

Any information I've given I've accompanied by sources. When I've made a mistake, I've acknowledged it and corrected it. If only other people could do the same. I like the way you blew off the fact that you were wrong in that he tried to give it back the very next day. Very skillful. You must be a lawyer. Or want to be when you grow up.

I edited that post and put up a new one. Yes, he did try to give back the money, but only after the Series was over. See my post a few posts ago for my feelings on that.

Yes, Holtzman states the Jackson tried to give the money back, but not the day after he got it, like you state, but after the Series was over. Huge difference. It's too late to do anything than other than salvage his team. Feeling guilt about receiving blood money doesn't make him innocent. Judas hanged himself after betraying Christ, doesn't absolve him of his sins.

This is a joke, right? If some jamoke who lives in his parents' basement puts something on his website, that has more credence for you than a book? My goodness. And for the umpteenth time, I have never seen anything that shows that Joe tried to tell Comiskey before the Series, nor have I read that he tried to give back the money right after getting it. Everything I've read tells me that Comiskey desperately wanted to win the Series and would have gone to lengths to stop the fix had he had time and the knowledge, but he didn't. When he did find out about the fix, once it was too late, he tried hard to avoid losing the players. They were good players and he had paid a lot of money to obtain them and didn't want to lose them.

ok, let me see if i got this right, a book which is nothing but a book say all this and it is gospel. the court reports of the case says some thing different............ ummmmm the grand jury accounts mean nothing, a second trial agains means nothing. right. and holtzman who was not there at the time say all this, and this guy should be believe b/c of what, his intergity and he has no other reason into this. well for 19.95 you and everyone can buy the jerome holtzman book where in addition to you you wrote, you neglected to add this little paragraph, and of course he would not lie or misread or mishear anything right. >>> According to newspaper reports, apparently leaked by the prosecution, Jackson also confessed his guilt in testimony to the grand jury. But in the official grand jury transcript, which Frommer located through a librarian in Greenville and included in his book, Jackson said nothing of the sort. Indeed, under oath, he testified that he did not attend the meeting in a New York hotel during which other players agreed to throw the Series and was told by Gandil that the fix was in regardless of whether Jackson went along. "I tried to win all the time," Jackson said. and for those who want to look at the site in which what his name only took a paragraph to support his claim, here it is http://www.cincypost.com/2003/02/25/rose02...02-25-2003.html so i want to see this actual artilce of these two writers who name can't be found or verified. show me the actual reporters link that states that. the yr is 1920, not something that is made up or recreated many years later. let see, actual invesitagated reports say something else, all the case reports say something else, everything that was reported says something else, but we should not believe this b/c of one reporter who listen to old tapes say according to his opinion it doesn't wash. only one person opinions after soooo many others opinions neve said anything else, of course you could read it in a 19.95 book by holtzman. but selling a book was furtherest from his mind right. lets see, in 8 men out, it showed pitcher Eddie Cicotte did not get the bonus that was promise him, if he reach 30 wins. the yr was suppose to be 1919, however that happen to 1917 accoding to baseball library. ref to the game by game account, well look at this http://www.blackbetsy.com/19atbat.htm every at bat for joe during the series of 1919 against the reds. Now let me get this straight. I shouldn't believe Jerome Holtzman or Eliot Asinof because, according to you, they're trying to sell books, but I should believe Shoeless Joe Jackson while he's on trial for fixing the Series? Wait, what's that? Joe said he tried to win all the time? Well, hell's bells!! He's innocent! I didn't "neglect" to add anything, and yes, I used one paragraph from the article, because frankly, I don't have hours to do research to prove what's already been proven, that Joe Jackson threw the World Series. You're right, the trial and grand jury finding don't mean much. That trial was such a farce, that it is used as evidence of innocence is laughable. You point to a grand jury testimonial in which he says he tried to win the whole time, but neglect the little thing about the signed confession stating otherwise. Well, which are we to believe? Really, I care little about Joe Jackson. Do I think he threw the Series? Yes, I do. If Jerome Holtzman is to believed, and I see no reason why he shouldn't be, Jackson admitted to doing things to help the Sox lose. Jackson demanded $20,000 for his role in the scheme. With Joe Jackson being the darling of revisionist historians, why would he stick to his stand that Jackson's guilty if it were built upon lies and fairy tales? Certainly not to enhance his popularity. And your mention of the movie Eight Men Out, I never have and never would use a movie as a source concerning the Black Sox. The movie takes great liberty with timelines. For instance, it doesn't show how the 7 Sox players that actively threw the Series also continued to throw games through 1920. But I guess that is made up too, since I read it in Eight Men Out. get real look at your post you were the one who mention 8 men out, not i. i just pointed out something else that was different. i have never heard or read anything about 20,000 so unless you can produce a link to back up this new info, i am not going to even respond to new stuff. did anyone else ever heard of this? answer me this, why would joe go to comiskey before the series started, and try to tell him this? ref to whether he threw it or not, i really don't believe he did or tried to, and i don't believe that weaver did either. No s*** I mentioned Eight Men Out. You said, "a book which is nothing but a book say all this and it is gospel. the court reports of the case says some thing different............ ummmmm". I think the book is an excellent source. You seem to pooh-pooh it. I'm sure a hell of a lot more research went into that book than any of these precious websites you keep refering to. And I can't provide you a link about the $20,000. I'll do you one better. A book. Page 34 of the book Eight Men Out... "Gandil was nervous. He saw himself having trouble from all sides, not the least of which would be the ballplayers. Here was Lefty Williams saying he didn't want anything to do with the deal. Gandil told him he was a sucker: they were going ahead with it regardless. And when he cornered Jackson, the big Southerner insisted on getting $20,000 for his participation. Since Gandil needed him, he was forced to agree to it. And what was going on in Buck Weaver's head?" As for your claim that he tried to tell Comiskey BEFORE the Series, I've never heard that nor read it. He told Kid Gleason he didn't want to play and that he could tell Comiskey, but that's not the same as what you're claiming. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Eight Men Out is the Bible on the subject, but it's probably a lot more factual and unbiased than any of these "Canonize Joe Jackson!" websites. It seems like the greatest evidence people use of Jackson's innocence is his performance in the Series. Seems natural enough, no? A player can still hit .375 or score 40 points and still throw a game. A two-out single isn't much risk of turning a game. A solo home run when down 11-1 is pretty safe. Not getting to a ball doesn't show as an error. Neither does throwing to the wrong base. Demanding money, receiving money, keeping money...sounds like the recipe of a fix if you ask me.

Carl Everett was an All-Star. He must have some value. If they aren't within 5 by July 28 (10 days), start selling.

ok, let me see if i got this right, a book which is nothing but a book say all this and it is gospel. the court reports of the case says some thing different............ ummmmm the grand jury accounts mean nothing, a second trial agains means nothing. right. and holtzman who was not there at the time say all this, and this guy should be believe b/c of what, his intergity and he has no other reason into this. well for 19.95 you and everyone can buy the jerome holtzman book where in addition to you you wrote, you neglected to add this little paragraph, and of course he would not lie or misread or mishear anything right. >>> According to newspaper reports, apparently leaked by the prosecution, Jackson also confessed his guilt in testimony to the grand jury. But in the official grand jury transcript, which Frommer located through a librarian in Greenville and included in his book, Jackson said nothing of the sort. Indeed, under oath, he testified that he did not attend the meeting in a New York hotel during which other players agreed to throw the Series and was told by Gandil that the fix was in regardless of whether Jackson went along. "I tried to win all the time," Jackson said. and for those who want to look at the site in which what his name only took a paragraph to support his claim, here it is http://www.cincypost.com/2003/02/25/rose02...02-25-2003.html so i want to see this actual artilce of these two writers who name can't be found or verified. show me the actual reporters link that states that. the yr is 1920, not something that is made up or recreated many years later. let see, actual invesitagated reports say something else, all the case reports say something else, everything that was reported says something else, but we should not believe this b/c of one reporter who listen to old tapes say according to his opinion it doesn't wash. only one person opinions after soooo many others opinions neve said anything else, of course you could read it in a 19.95 book by holtzman. but selling a book was furtherest from his mind right. lets see, in 8 men out, it showed pitcher Eddie Cicotte did not get the bonus that was promise him, if he reach 30 wins. the yr was suppose to be 1919, however that happen to 1917 accoding to baseball library. ref to the game by game account, well look at this http://www.blackbetsy.com/19atbat.htm every at bat for joe during the series of 1919 against the reds. Now let me get this straight. I shouldn't believe Jerome Holtzman or Eliot Asinof because, according to you, they're trying to sell books, but I should believe Shoeless Joe Jackson while he's on trial for fixing the Series? Wait, what's that? Joe said he tried to win all the time? Well, hell's bells!! He's innocent! I didn't "neglect" to add anything, and yes, I used one paragraph from the article, because frankly, I don't have hours to do research to prove what's already been proven, that Joe Jackson threw the World Series. You're right, the trial and grand jury finding don't mean much. That trial was such a farce, that it is used as evidence of innocence is laughable. You point to a grand jury testimonial in which he says he tried to win the whole time, but neglect the little thing about the signed confession stating otherwise. Well, which are we to believe? Really, I care little about Joe Jackson. Do I think he threw the Series? Yes, I do. If Jerome Holtzman is to believed, and I see no reason why he shouldn't be, Jackson admitted to doing things to help the Sox lose. Jackson demanded $20,000 for his role in the scheme. With Joe Jackson being the darling of revisionist historians, why would he stick to his stand that Jackson's guilty if it were built upon lies and fairy tales? Certainly not to enhance his popularity. And your mention of the movie Eight Men Out, I never have and never would use a movie as a source concerning the Black Sox. The movie takes great liberty with timelines. For instance, it doesn't show how the 7 Sox players that actively threw the Series also continued to throw games through 1920. But I guess that is made up too, since I read it in Eight Men Out.

Here's a quote from the Cincinnati Post, attributed to Jerome Holtzman... Holtzman disagreed. "Close inspection of the play-by-play shows that he left about 10 men in scoring position in the first four games," he said. "He got all his RBI in the last four games and hit the home run in the last game. And he admitted to (reporters for) both the Associated Press and United Press on the steps of the courthouse that he was purposely slow in fielding, that he threw to the wrong base, that Cincinnati got some runs they wouldn't have because of his slow fielding." In Holtzman's estimation, "If anyone deserves to be restored, it is Buck Weaver." The third baseman "sat in on the meeting but didn't take part (in the conspiracy)." I believe I read this first hand in Eight Men Out by Eliot Asinof, but can't seem to find the page right now. Or another quote from Eight Men Out... "All week, Joe Jackson had been a disappointment to himself, playing ball with only a part of himself working. He tried to hit, he didn't try to hit. Half the time, he didn't know whether he was trying or not. He had taken only one real vicious cut at the ball with his famous black bat and conveniently failed to make contact. The $5,000 Lefty Williams had handed him in that old envelope was part payment for his lethargy." Eight Men Out makes no mention of Jackson warning anyone BEFORE the Series began. Afterwards maybe, but not before. Before the Series began, Jackson demanded $20,000 for his role. Hardly a good sign. If guilt after the fact, or even during the Series got to him, that hardly makes him innocent.

I believe in the version where he admitted in an interview that he didn't try his best to make some plays in the Series because it would help them win.

Why the hell not?

A guy who helped throw the World Series is being voted the White Sox greatest player of all time. Either a sad commentary on the Sox or on the voting.

So now the reason PK is scuffling is because he took part in last season's HRD? Wow. So, how many swings does he need to recover from the 25 or so he took in that? Can we expect him to start producing next season...or the season after that?

How old is Gload? He looked like he may be upper 20's.

Ya know, I'm not the biggest KW fan around, but when I hear people claim that he dismantled the 2000 team, I just have to scratch my head. Unless I'm mistaken, the 2000 lineup was as follows... 2B- Durham SS- Valentin DH - Thomas RF - Ordonez 1B - Konerko LF - Lee 3B - H. Perry CF - Singleton C - Johnson/Paul With a rotation of... Sirotka Baldwin Eldred Parque Biddle or whoever Bullpen of... Howry Foulke Simas Wunsch, etc. Other than Durham and Foulke, who of that team is gone and producing elsewhere??? The lineup is essentially the same! And Foulke was a big reason why last season was as bad as it was, so he shouldn't be considered. Sure, the entire starting rotation is gone, but none of them did anything after they left. Same goes for Howry. And if Sox fans are pining for Chris Singleton or Herbert Perry as the missing pieces of the puzzle, God help us all! OK, I forgot about Rocky Biddle, but I didn't hear too many wails from Soxdom when he was traded. The core of the lineup is still in tact and the players let go in the "dismantling" have rarely gone on to productive careers.

Clarification: When I say you can't put "this" on KW, I mean their recent tailspin that is knocking them out of contention. Whether you want to blame him for the fact that they're not already 12 games over .500 is another matter. KW is certainly not blameless, but he can't be faulted when his team lays a half dozen eggs against the dregs of the league. That's on the players and the manager.

I think this past week is a perfect example of JM needing to go. Surely the Sox have more talent than Tampa, Detroit, or Cleveland, no? This is the week that is killing the Sox's season, and it's by teams with far less talent than the Sox. There's no way you could put this on KW then. It goes on the players and their "leader" Jerry Manuel.

Wait, did Simon pull out a knife and slash the sausage??? It's also pretty hasty to call for the guy being waived without even seeing the incident. From seeing it it is obvious that he didn't mean to hurt anybody, and really, no one WAS hurt. He tapped the big sausage head *ahem* with the bat and she tumbled. For the Brewers front office guy to say he'd never seen anything so sickening inside or outside a stadium, he needs to watch the news more. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the girl overreacted, since she probably had no clue as to what had happened, but like the other racer said, those things are top-heavy and it doesn't take much to send it out of kilter. And I doubt Simon had a big plot to do this, so he probably didn't consider the consequences. Everyone needs to just laugh it off and move on...and get that Brewers official out into the real world.