whitesox61382

Mike Davis got outcoached by Synder today and that was the difference in the game. The final 5 minutes is were coaching becomes important, and Davis once again showed an inability to get the job done and hold on to a lead late, while Synder was able to pull out a win, on the road, down by double digits, with his best player fouled out. Some of the heat on Davis was lifted by the great recruiting class this offseason, but the fire will start up very soon if the Hoosiers fail to make the tournament for the 1st time in a couple of decades, which appears likely at this point. If Smith and Wright go pro next year, and IU doesn't have a great season, than look for Davis to be out as the coach. My patience, and more importantly, the patience of the alum and boosters is wearing thin, and if Davis wants to keep his job he better pull his head out of his ass. The weakness up front was once again exposed, and is going to keep this team from making the tournament. As an IU fan this is going to be a hard season to swallow, but I will always support this team through thick and thin.

Don't get me wrong, I think Wright is going to be a very good player, however, the combination of lack of weight and inability to hit a jumper consistantly leads me to believe that he is a little overrated. Some people have him in the top 10 and I think that is a little too high for him. He is extremely athletic, but until he adds some weight and/or improves his jumper I don't see him as a top 10 calibur player.

Are you sure...I have been checking some inside recruiting sources and none of them have mentioned anything about it...On a different note, I think Wright is a little overrated...He is extremely athletic, but is a poor shooter.

I really like Gload. I think he COULD be the everyday starting 1B IF the Sox can deal Konerko AND decide to go the cheap route to save money by not bringing in a replacement. I have seen Gload play numerous times in person and on TV, both in the minors and a few brief stints in the majors. He reminds me a lot of a John Olerod/Mark Grace type hitter(without the ability to draw a ton of walks). However, he still has good plate recognition(doesn't strike out much and is a good 2 strike hitter) and a smooth, short, level, compact swing. He also impressed me as an athlete. He has the ability to play the outfield and 1B without a defensive dropoff, and is the second coming of Michael Johnson speed wise when compared to Konerko. I really think he should get a shot and prove why he is a career .300+ BA and .850+ OPS hitter in the minors.

"Hmm, gee I wonder who is looking to start more arguements? The instant I ask you why you flip flopped you made it personal. Really that is just sad. it is painfully obvious by your own words that you will just say whatever just looking for a fight. That might be fun for ESPN with the rest of the trolls, but it doesn't fly here as mature posting." In all likelyhood I don't think the Sox will have the money to sign a player like Castillo, and I point that out in both of my post, however, with the volatility and uncertainty that is the offseason it is certainly possible that other senerios are possible. I simply looked at things both ways and threw out a couple of possibilities in which case the Sox could spend a little money on a decent FA, and you jump on me in an attempt to prove me wrong. Now who is the one making this personal? Pot meet kettle??? How did I make it personal; by bring up the Ponson arguement? That was a little joke that you clearly overracted too. I often take the other side of an arguement in an attempt to see both sides and you critize me for that? Your right, maybe we should all agree on everything, because thats better. You need to understand that your point of view isn't the only way to look at things. I like to play devils advocate just to show that their are other points of view that you aren't taking into consideration(neither side necassarily being wrong or right). That tends to make for more interesting conversations, unless you think that everyone agreeing on an issue is more stimulating. Maturing posting...now thats funny. You sound like a 10 year old kind who thinks he is better then the other 10 years old because he thinks he is more mature. "The bottom line is, until salary is freed up, there is no money to sign Castillo or anyone else with any halfway decent sized contract. And even then, I am not convinced that KW would commit to him (or any player) for 4 year." In general I would agree with the above, however, I point to the Colon issue to agrue against it. What if Colon accepted the Sox offer? Sure it wasn't likely, but the Sox management had to take that possibility into consideration before offering him a new contract. If that would have happened, than the Sox would have contradicted your above statement. They would have added a HUGE contract without freeing up any money. So the question I have, is why wouldn't they do it again, especially if it is a significantly lower amount of money(5.5M/yr opposed to Colon's offer of 12M/yr)? I am not suggesting that it is likely or that I necassariliy agree with it(although I would love to see Castillo in a Sox uniform), but based on the Colon issue I think you have to understand that their is a slim possibility that it could happen.

"You just went on and on about how we wouldn't be spending any money even if we traded Maggs, but then you ask why we aren't going to spend $22 mil on a 2nd baseman, doesn't one answer the other???" It depends on how much money the Sox save in trading Maggs. I have a feeling that they will have to take some guys with big contracts in return(ala Garcia or Percivil for example) as part of a deal. If this is the case, than the minimal amount of money that is saved with go to the big contracts the Sox already have. However, it is possible that 1 of 2 things(or both) COULD happen: 1) The Sox only take on a minimal amount of payroll in a Maggs trade. For example, if they save 10-12M, than they could use some of that to sign a player like a Castillo and use the rest to address the other big salaries. This is not likely, but certainly a possibility and/or 2) The Sox are able to trade away Lee, Koch, and/or Konerko and save some money. The savings won't be drastic since the Sox will either have to pay some of their contract or take on a big salary in return(in all likelyhood), but I think they could find a way to save at least 5M by trading 1 or all of those guys. That money can then be spent on Castillo(assuming that Maggs is traded as well). Furthermore, if the Sox traded Maggs and no one else, that would leave them with a payroll in the 50-55M range when you factor in the likely amount that players will get through arbitration and attempt to estimate the salaries in return for Maggs. There would still have major holes at CF/RF, 2B, SP, and RP(some of the holes might be filled by the players received in a Maggs trade). For example, I think a trade of Maggs for Gibson, Johnson, and something else is a possibility(I don't necassarily like it, but it would work for both teams). In this example the Sox would fill their CF/RF hole, their SP hole, and have about 5M to spend to fill either/both the 2B or/and RP holes(assuming they have a payroll around 60M). So that 5M could be spent on Castillo. This senerio isn't likely, but certainly possible, and shows how the Sox could afford Castillo even though the majority of money saved in the Maggs trade would go to current Sox salaries. My point is that it is nearly impossible to accurately predict what is going to happen, which direction this organization is heading, and/or how the market/salaries will break down. I am simply throwing out a couple of different senerios that could change in the matter of hours because of the volitality of the offseason, so please take it with a grain of salt. ps. Southsider, are you still mad at me for proving your Ponson theory wrong? Don't let your hate affect your judgement. "With what money would the Sox use to get Castillo? They are trying to get rid of some payroll, not take on another $5+ million/year." Here is a new concept that you haven't heard of or you wouldn't have made the above comment; they get rid of enough salary so they can actually spend some money to address major holes. Has that thought ever crept through your mind? I guess not, but it is certainly a possibility and appears that it could be likely. For example, if Colon were to accept the Sox offer, than the Sox would have to deal some big salaries to compensate(something Sox management had to take into consideration in the possibility that Colon accepted the Sox offer). This is a perfect example of the Sox getting rid of salary so they can spend money to address other major holes. Anything else that you want me to breakdown for you Rex? You can also see the above senerios that a laid out for southsider as another example.

I don't understand why the Sox aren't players in the Castillo race, especially since it appears that he will get less then what most expected(I was predicting that he would get 7M+/yr). It sounds like 4 years guaranteed for about 22M would be enough to get him. He would address the Sox need at 2B, give them the leadoff hitter that they desperately need, give them a GG middle infielder, and give them a young option to play there for years to come(with little help in the upper minors for the Sox). At this point I have no clue which direction this organization is heading and have given up the use of logic to attempt to accurately predict what is going to happen, because it appears that it is a crapshot at this point. I just hope for the best.

I wasn't necessarily using injuries as an excuse for the Colts record, but simple pointing out that that was the reason why they haven't looked quite as good the past couple of weeks. When you are playing without half of your starters you are going to not be as strong, and thats the point I was trying to make. I think that the Colts have heald their own and played solid despite their injuries, and to me that shows a lot. Most of the injuries are minor, and they should be healthy within a couple of weeks, which should help for the playoff run. I give credit to the Pats, because they have had a similar amount of injuries(over a longer period of time) and have been able to pull out some victories despite not being 100%. The other point is that I don't think there is enough evidence to clearly say that the Pats are a better team then the Colts. I know that they beat them, but you have to take into consideration that 1 inch was the difference, and you can't clearly say that 1 team is based on 1 inch. "they had to sign J.J. Stokes and Dedric Ward just so they had enough recievers because Troy Brown, David Patten and David Givens were all injured. With Deion Branch, Bethel Johnson and Ward as their top 3 recievers against the likes of Harrison, Wayne and Walters there's no way the Colts should have lost." Not to over due this point, but the last couple of weeks(not including this week) the Colts starting receivers were Wayne and Moorhead(off the practice squad), with Dallas Clark lining up as a 3rd receiver in 3 receiver set because they had no other options, and their 3rd string TE Joe Dean Daveport starting at TE. I would argue that that is just as bad as the Pats situtation when you have a practice squad receiver and 2nd string TE lining up as your 2nd and 3rd receivers. You also have to remember that Harrison isn't 100% and is playing with a pulled hamstring. "The bottom line is that Tom Brady is clutch and Peyton "0 playoff wins" Manning is not. You're right, the Colts were an inch away from beating the Pats, but Manning didn't get that one inch. Brady would have gotten that inch because that's what he does." You can't blame todays lose on Manning. James and the O-line were responsible for 3 of the goal line plays, and the other play Manning had no shot because of the coverage. I have been very critical of Manning over the years, but he was responsible for bring them back, and the inability to score from the 1 yard line isn't his fault. "If the playoffs started today...I think it would be Titans Eagles and the Titans would play the Pats in the AFC championship game with the Eagles against the Panthers." My prediction would be the trend picks KC-Tennessee with Tennessee winning and Philly-St. Loius with Philly winning. Tennessee winning it all. Although if the Pats and Colts matched up again I really don't think you can say that either would be favored. The game was too close to say that one team was better then the other. The Colts heald the stats advantage and were 1 inch away from winning, although the Pats should get respect for winning. It is just too close to make an accurate prediction, and with the parity that has hit the game there isn't one team that is clearly better then the rest.

I like your Seattle purposal a lot more then your Baltimore purposal. I really think that Garcia is better then people are making him out be. His stuff is still very good, and his overall stats are still very good. The only problem is that he has given up more HR's the past 2 seasons. If he can get back to his old ways with good sink on his fastball, than he might be a very good front of the rotation starter. I think it is worth the risk, because the worst case senerio is that he doesn't improve, but is still a decent middle of the rotation starter. I also really like Snelling as well. I brought him up in 2001 on the ESPN message board(along with a couple of other top Seattle prospect). I can't remember exactly, but the Sox were thinking about trading a veteran to the M's for prospects, and 4 names that I brought up were Snelling, Vazquez(now the SS for San Diego), Pineiro(before he had established himself), and Christenson(a catcher that has seen his stock fall). Snelling is one of those 5 tool outfielders that has a great work ethic and hussle. He plays the game a lot like Erstad and Rowand, and that is a flaw in a way because he has been prone to injuries over his career. I still think he would be a great pickup, and if he can ever stay healthy you will have yourself one hell of a ballplayer. For the record, there is no way that Seattle gives up Soriano in a trade. He is as close to untouchable as there is. Both Nageotte and Blackley are very good pitching prospects, and I would love to see the Sox get their hands on either of them. A Garcia, Snelling, and Nageotte/Blackley for Maggs deal is good deal for the Sox, although Seattle might think they are giving up too much for a 1 year player scheduled to make 14M next year. I am not a huge fan of your Baltimore trade. I doubt that Baltimore would give up Julio, and I think he is a bit overrated to begin with. I like Mora, but I am smart enough to realize that last year was a fluke year for him, and that he will most likely revert back to his mid-.700 OPS days. I am not a huge fan of Markakis(although it is still too early to project what kind of player he will be), and as someone pointed out, he can't be traded yet. I like the idea of getting Gibson. He is a solid young player that would give the Sox a decent replacement for Maggs in the outfield. Another guy that I would like to see the Sox get their hands on is Matos. I like the idea of an athlete like Matos on the Sox roster and outfield. If the Sox added Gibson and Matos, than they could trade Lee to fill another weakness and save some money if they wanted(and possible go after a big name FA like a Tejada or Colon for example). Have Baltimore throw in a decent young pitcher, and you would have yourself a very good deal for the Sox(Gibson, Matos, and a young pitcher for Maggs), although once again Baltimore might feel like they are giving up too much for a 1 year 14M player. A name that might come up is Jason Johnson. Baltimore has been trying to trade him, and might try to get the Sox to take him to help balance the salaries and give the Sox a middle of the rotation starter. I am not a huge Johnson fan though, but I can see a Gibson and Johnson(maybe something else) for Maggs deal going through unfortunately.

"If those wins aren't convincing, then I don't know what it is. I still think Kansas City is the team to beat in the AFC, but the Pats are number two." At this point I don't think you can clearly say that this team is better then that team in the NFL, and AFC for that matter(among the elite). The Colts were literally 1 inch away from beating the Pats. Does that make the Pats clearly better then the Colts? The way that I see it is that there are really 4 elite teams in the AFC, and all have an equal chance to make it to the Superbowl. It is going to come down to which team is hot and getting the breaks during the playoffs, because it isn't clear that one of the 4 teams is better then any other. All of them have weaknesses that can be exploited and have a similar amount of talent. Attempting to say that 1 team is clearly better then any other is an clear case of bias. Don't forget about the NFC either. While I don't think the top NFC teams have the same amount of talent as the 4 AFC teams, there are some teams that are really hot right now and could most certainly beat the top AFC teams(the Pats a couple years ago are an example of a team with less talent winning the Superbowl). The fact is that there is parity in the NFL and that almost any team that makes the playoffs has a good shot at winning it all. "I just don't see the Chiefs as being that good. They give up a ton of points, although part of it has to deal with al ot of the time teams are passing trying to come back, but they are still giving up the point." You answered you own question. In almost every game they have a big lead, and their D is simply trying to not give up the big play that could let the other team back into the game. That means that they will give up some yards and points, but doesn't mean their D is bad, although it isn't great. I do agree that the Chiefs aren't as good as people are making them out to be(their schedule is extremely weak), but they are still as good as the other 3 teams in the AFC and certainly have a good shot of making the Superbowl. "4 weeks ago, I would of said the Colts were one of the top teams out there. I give them credit for the wins, but I try to watch how a team is playing at this point. The Colts are good, but I think the Titans and Patriots are better. Things can change a week from now or two weeks from now. Right now the Colts aren't clicking on all cylinders and they are still in the games." The Colts were literally an inch away from beating the Pats and you can honestly say that they are clearly a better team? That just doesn't make any sense. If you truely follow football like you claim, than you would have known that the Colts have been hammered by injuries the last couple of weeks. This includes missing their top receiver, their #3 receiver, their #4 receiver, their #1 TE, their #2 TE, their #1 O-lineman, another starting O-lineman, their starting DT, their starting safety, plus some key role players/backup, ect. at some point over the last couple of weeks. There might not be another team in football that has been hit as hard with injuries the past couple of weeks. If you follow football so religiously you would have know this, and figured out that was the main reason why this team hasn't clicked on all cylinders as you point out. I usually don't like to point to injuries, but when you are missing almost half of your starters you should at least point that out. I think the fact that they have overcome most of those injuries, and won 2 games against solid(but not great opponents) as well as coming an inch away from beating the Pats has showed me that the Colts are truely a top team. If healthy this team is clearly a top team in the NFL, with injuries they are still very good, please see the Pats game for evidence. Call me crazy, but I just can't find the justification that would allow you to say that the Pats(1 inch away from losing) or any other team is clearly better then the Colts.

"Its amazing how Ewing Jr looks exactly like his Dad from the back... He is an even better aththlete than his dad was too from what i've seen and heard so far..." Ya, unfortunately he is about 4 inches shorter and 50 lb lighter than his dad. With IU's lack of talent/depth up front, they really need Ewing to mature quickly and become a solid contributor(he has a long way to go). Can you imagine how good IU would be if they were able to nab Kris Humphies? Oh well, every team misses out on a few top recruits every year so I shouldn't be complaining, especially after IU has landed the top class in the country this past year(please go to IU Josh Smith). The Big Ten should be a very talented and open race.

"I mean how many huge comebacks have the Colts already had." This is your problem, you are under the misconception that comebacks are a sign of luck, which they aren't. I would argue that you could say that it shows MORE TALENT(especially offensively). How many teams in the NFL have the talent/personal to comeback like the Colts have this year(and in previous years)? Is that not an example of good talent? You also have to remember that a key ingredient in a comeback is defensive stands as well. Besides, you make it sound like the Colts have had to comeback in every game, but the fact is that this was really only the second game this year that the Colts had a big comeback. Furthermore, if you check the stats in most games the Colts have dominated. There 3 loses have come by a combined total of 12 points, including 1 overtime lose. Not to mention that they have played one of the hardest schedules in the NFL. This is a very talented team that was good last year, has improved, and has a bright future(especially if they get some defensive help in the draft). "Well the Pats had the Colts convincingly beat until they let the game get away." Come on, you are smarter then that. Just because a team has a big lead it is far from a guarantee that they are going to win or should win for that matter. The fact is that if the Pats didn't get that kickoff return before the end of the half, it would have been a 7 point game with the Colts getting the ball to start the second half. "They have some talent, but they really haven't been playing good as of late, but I can say that about a lot of teams." What do you define as playing good, because they have been winning(which is the #1 sign of playing good)? "while the Pats and Titans are the favorites to go to the superbowl (I think it will be the Titans)." You realize that you are excluding the team with the best record in the NFL? You need to better research your football info. If you truely believe that the Pats are the favorites for the superbowl, than you must think that the Colts aren't too far behind, considering they were literally an inch away from beating the Pats. The Colts have almost nothing in common with the fluke Bears of 2001. The Bears three previous seasons before 2001 were: 98' 4-12 99' 6-10 00' 5-11 So jumping to a 13-3 record in 2001 had fluke written all over it, especially when you looked at the talent on the roster. The Colts on the other hand have done the following the 3 previous seasons before 2003: 00' 10-6 01' 6-10(injury plagued season) 02' 10-6 The Colts have had 2 10 wins season the in the previous 3 years, and in 01' they were devasted by injuries. They have been consistantly good offensively over the past couple of years, and have been improving defensively, so how does that equal a fluke? The fact is that the Colts are a very good team, and if they can address some of the defensive weaknesses they could be the best team in the NFL with their offensive power.

I am a Pacers fan, so I really don't have a bias either way, and I have to say that this trade has me scratching my head from the Bulls standpoint. The Bulls should continue to build for the future. I think they have a couple of good building blocks up front with Curry and Chandler, but the guard talent is the weaknesses, so adding 2 30 year old PF's who are really only good at rebounding puzzles me. I am not a big Rose fan, but I do think the Bulls should have gotten more in return, especially since they gave up a solid player like Marshall as well. The one thing that this move does is give the Bulls a lot of solid front court players that they could trade to address their weakness at guard. I would really be questioning the direction that the Bulls are heading. ps...Thanks for Artest, Miller, and company in the Rose trade.

As much as a hate to admit this, being an IU fan, I think Purdue could be a sleeper in the Big Ten. They don't have one player that is great, but they have good depth, good size, and good fundamentals. I wasn't that surprised that Purdue beat Duke, partly because I think Duke is overrated and Purdue is underrated. I really don't see 1 or 2 great teams this year. Like someone else mentioned, I think there is a lot of parity in college basketball right now, and any team could win it all. I am still sticking to my preseason pick: Texas. I think Texas is another sleeper team. Sure losing Ford hurts, but they return the other 4 starters from a very talented team last year, and added a solid recruiting class to that core. It should be a interesting year, go Hoosiers. The Big Ten better look out for IU next year, assuming all their recruits go to IU.

The Colts aren't like the 2001 Bears. They have actually been pretty good the past couple of years, unlike the Bears before the 2001 season. The Colts also have A LOT more talent, including the top offense in the game. They have had 1 or 2 lucky wins, but this is still a very good team with a bright future, unlike the Bears of 2001. They should have won this game. Not being able to get the ball into the end zone on 4 tries for the 1 yard line is unacceptable(give some credit to the Pats D). I don't understand why they didn't do a QB sneak on 2nd down when the ball was on the 1 inch line. Manning is 6'5, and I am pretty sure that he could reach the ball over the goal line. I also didn't like their 3rd down call when they threw a fad, to the short side of the field, to a former practice squad receiver, who didn't play in most of the game. I would have much rather seen them either run the ball twice or rolled out Manning and have him either run it in(if there was no one there with everyone clogging the middle) or throw to the TE coming across. Its easy to second guess after the fact, and Dungy and Moore are great coaches despite the results today. Another thing that upset me was the fake injury by McGinist to stop the clock, stop momentum, and give the Pats D a much need rest when they had no timeouts left. You still have to blame the Colts inability to execute first, but the fake injury could have impacked the game. Oh well, it was still a good game, and a preview of a possible playoff match.

The only problem is that few teams are willing to add salary, especially for overpaid players like Konerko and Koch. The 2 Koch trade purposals that the Mets shot down were: Cedeno and cash for Koch and Weathers for Koch In both cases the Sox would have gotten a good amount of salary back in return, and both deals were shot down by the Mets because they wanted an even salary dump, which helps show the market for players like Koch and Konerko. The simple fact is that the Sox aren't going to be able to get rid of Koch or Konerko without doing 1 of 2 things: 1) Paying a good portion of their contract and/or 2) Receiving some bad contract players in return Either way the financial relief that the Sox would get from trading Koch and Konerko would be minimal, and not enough for the Sox to be big spenders on the FA market. The Seattle trade purposal would interest me. Maggs for Garcia, Lopez, and maybe Guillen would be a good deal. I think Garcia is a good pitcher and would be worth the risk. Lopez would give the Sox a top middle infield prospect in the upper minors who could be in the majors by possible 2005, which is something the Sox have very few of. Guillen would address the Sox middle infield needs and give them a solid top of the order hitter. The Sox would only save about 3M, but it would address a couple of major weaknesses in the present and the future. I have tried to speculate about this offseason, but it is so difficult, especailly since we have no clue what direction this organization is heading AND what the market is going to look like(wheather salaries are going to increase or decrease, ect).

You guys have to realize that the money saved by trading Maggs isn't going to be spent. The Sox have some big salaries on the books for next year and they need to get rid of 1 or 2 of them to free up money to pay the rest. Unless JR decides to come out of LF and spend 65+M, the money saved in a trade that involves Maggs will go to players like Konerko, Koch, Thomas, Valentin, ect. in an attempt to maintain a payroll under 60M. You are really looking at things with your rosy glasses if you think the money saved by trading Maggs will be used to sign a big name FA, yet alone a starting pitcher, a reliever, an outfielder like Cameron, AND a MI like Tejada or Castillo.

cwsox, I am not here to make friends. I like to spark arguements, and sometimes I do it by not being polite. If that bothers you, than you need some thicker skin. I think it is pretty obvious that Cameron is more talented then Lee all things considered, although you are welcome to your opinion.

In a perfect world this is what would happen. Trades Trade Konerko, Valentin, and cash(we will say about 4M, so they essential get Valentin for 1M) to LA for Perez - LA gets some much needed offense and only adds about 5M in salary, and the Sox get rid of some payroll and pick up a decent starter. Trade Maggs to NYY for Johnson - This would only happen if the Yankees don't sign Sheffield. I really like Johnson more then I like Soriano at this point, plus this move saves the Sox about 13M. Trade a decent young pitcher(Wright/Diaz/Pacheco) to San Diego for Vazquez - The Sox would get a solid young SS, and San Diego gets some young pitching. Trade Koch to NYM for Weathers - The Mets have turned down this deal, but if they take it the Sox would save about 3M and get a solid innings eater out of the pen. Trade Wunsch to TBA for a cheap utility OF - Improve the bench by trading from a strength. Signings Sign Castillo for 4yr/28M Sign Cameron for 3yr/21M Sign Ponson for 3yr/21M Sign Ligtenberg for 2yr/4M Roster 1) Castillo(7M) 2B 2) Vazquez(500K) SS 3) CLee(6M) LF 4) Thomas(6M) DH 5) Johnson(1M) 1B 6) Cameron(7M) CF 7) Crede(500K) 3B 8) Rowand/Reed(400K) RF 9) Olivo(400K) total = 28M I would love this lineup. It would have a lot more speed and athletism with the additions of Castillo, Vazquez, Johnson, and Cameron. It also has more high OBP guys: Castillo has had a .360+ OBP in 4 out of the last 5 years, Vazquez has had a .340+ OBP the last 2 years, Johnson posted an impressive .422 OBP last year, and Cameron has posted a solid .340+ OBP each of the last 5 years. It would still have a good amount of power with 5 potential 20+ HR guys in the middle of the order. Defensively it would also be drasticly improved with the addition of 2 GG's along with improved D at SS and 1B. LH Buehrle(3.5M) RH Ponson(7M) RH Loiaza(4M) LH Perez(4M) RH Garland(2.3M) total = 21M This staff would be solid 1-5 with really no true ace. It is possible that none of the 5 starters would post an ERA above 4.50, which would be very impressive. With the addition of Perez you would have 2 lefties, which I am a big fan of. This stuff is solid enough to take this team to the playoffs, especially if Loiaza doesn't revert back to his old ways. RH Weathers(3M) LH Marte(500K) RH Ligtenberg(2M) LH Munoz/Sanders(300K) RH 2 from the group of Wright/Ginter/Rauch/Diaz/Majewski(1 of them would be part of the Vazquez deal) total = 6.5M The bullpen wouldn't be great, but you have 2 solid right handed relievers in Weathers and Ligtenberg, along with one of the more dominating lefties in Marte. Hopefully some of the young arms can flourish in the pen to make this a very good pen. IF Miles(300K) IF/CF Harris(400K) C Alomar(500K) 1B/OF Gload(300K) OF - part of Wunsch trade(500K) total 2M A young bench with little experience, however, they can't get much worse then last years unproductive bench. Total payroll 28M + 21M + 6.5M + 2M + 4M(part of LA trade) = 61.5M I think this is a fairly realistic team financially and personal wise. It would have the talent to contend for the division as well, and might even be the favorites with Minnesota cutting payroll. Truth is that I have no clue what this organization is doing or what direction they are heading. Lets hope they make some good moves and put together a solid contender.

"Getting back players we have gotten rid of is not my way of building a team. Its like you can't get a date on Saturday night so you go through your phone book and calll former girl friends. Yesterday's gone. The past is just a goodbye. Turn the page." I am sorry, but this is a poor analogy that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Cameron can't help the fact that he was traded. Do you honestly believe that adding a player that will help this organization is a bad idea just because they traded him earlier in his career? If so than that is one of the stupidest things that I have heard. "and his overall stats aren;t so awesome. We can do better. We already have better." Who is better? Maybe Maggs, buts thats it. I would even argue that Cameron at 6-7M is worth more then Maggs at 14M when you take all things into consideration. Maggs is better offensively, but Cameron is still very respectible, and would probably be a low-mid .800 OPS guy away from Safeco(based on his away splits). Than you factor in the SIGNIFICANT defensive improvement at a much more important position. Add in the drastic increase in speed, and it is clear to see that Cameron at 6-7M is a much better investment then Maggs at 14M. "I'd rather pay CLee." If you think CLee is a better player than Cameron, than you have no clue how to judge talent.

Beane is a great GM, and I buy into the high OBP and OPS stuff that he looks at, however, I think he puts TOO MUCH stock into it. The fact is that the A's offense has been average at best the past couple of years, despite picking up players that fit Beane's mold. Some of that can be attributed to the financial constraints that the A's have. Still everyone seems to buy into his philosophy despite minimal results. These past 2 trades are typical of Beane. Kotsay and Kielty are high walk guys that generally produce solid OBP, however, I don't think either are the answer to their lack of outfield production. Both have been extremely inconsistant in their careers, and at their best still aren't that special. Furthermore, Beane gave up quite a bit to get them. A young, relatively cheap, AS calibur catchers is one of the hardest things to find, and when you trade an AS catcher you should get more then a corner outfielder whos best year produced an .812 OPS. The A's also created a hole at the catcher position without many realistic option to fill it. I bet that Beane wishes he had Olivo now. He also gave up a very cheap, good, left handed starter, who is coming into his prime for a decent, but unproven corner outfielder. The good thing is that he traded from his strength, and losing Lilly doesn't hurt that much, but given the need for starting pitchers he could have gotten a lot more for a pitcher like Lilly. Personally, I would have loved to see the Sox get Lilly, although the Sox really don't have an high OBP outfielders to offer(besides Reed). I don't think these trades were fueled by financial constraits, considering the money in both trades pretty much equals out, although I think they get some cash as part of the Lilly-Kielty trade. For the first time Beane looks human, and not like some guy who can't do wrong. I think he gave up too much in both trades and didn't receive as much as he could have gotten in return. The A's with still be very good with their great young pitching, however, I think he is creating holes and not fill others. I also hope that Olivo and Cotts continue to develop into solid players so Sox fans can rub it in his face for bragging too much. Don't worry about the Sox. In the near future you will see some big trades out of necessity(financial constraints). This is why I love the offseason. Rumors, trade speculations, and anticipation. Hopefully KW can pull a rabit out of his hat, and get rid of some salary, while putting together a team that can contend. If this team makes the playoffs next year(a HUGE if), given the big contracts they have and the little money needed to fill existing holes, I think KW should get some credit and people should back off of him. Conversely, if the Sox end next year under .500, I think the Sox should get rid of KW. This is a make or break year for KW, and I don't envy him with the tough situation that he is in.

What happened to all those people that predicted that the Magic would be one of the better teams in the East. I told you guys that you were overrating them, but still you guys continued to put them in the top 4 in the East. There team just isn't that good. It a one player team with very little supporting cast. The East has 3 elites: NJ, Detroit, and Indiana, with NO right on their tale.

I think it is a mistake for so many high schoolers to go pro, unless you are a sure-fire lottery pick. Josh Smith is about 50/50 at this point. One possitive is that he signed his LOI this past week. There was also a quote from his father that said he really likes Mike Davis and he thought his son would play at least 1 year of college ball. Most people feel that if he is a guaranteed lottery pick he will leave, but if not, he will be at IU for at least 1 year. So we will have to wait and see. With that said, if Smith does go to the NBA, IU has a wildcard. Arizona and IU are currently the favorites for one of the biggest sleepers in the 2004 class. A guy by the name of Robert Rothbert, from California(born in Europe). He is a 7'1 center/sf who has been climbing the rankings and is one of the top sleepers. He has small forward ability(shotting, dibbling, passing, athletism, ect.) in a 7'0+ body. The one thing he needs to do is add weight, but most feel that he is a sure fire NBA player in a couple of years. He might not be quite as good as Smith at this point, but would be a nice replacement without much dropoff. The reports say that he is waiting until the spring signing period to see what happens with IU. 4 of the 5 recruits signed last week, and it is pretty much in stone that White, Vaden, and Ratliff are going to be in Bloomington next year. Smith signed, but as you pointed out there are still questions about him going pro. Hardy was the only one that didn't sign, however, he has stated all along that he will wait until the spring to sign(the report is that he just wants to make sure MD is staying). All in all, the IU class is still going to be one of the tops in the country and will probably include a couple of instant impact players, which will probably make them one of the favorites for the Big Ten in 2004-2005(especially if Wright stays past this year).

Although I am an IU fan, and hate to admit this, I think Illinois or Wisconsin are going to win the Big Ten with MSU coming in 3rd. I think teams like Michigan, Ohio State, and Purdue could be sleepers, while my Hoosiers struggle to make the Tourny. It should be a fun race to watch because I don't think there are any clear favorites, and there seems to be a lot of teams that are going to be good, but not great. The Big Ten should be very balanced this next year, and watch out for my Hoosiers in 2004-2005 with the top recruiting class in the country coming in(although you can make an arguement for Texas as well).

How can you have MSU at #1 with a TRUE freshman PG and almost no front court. I am telling you that MSU is going to be one of the most overrated teams this year. It is pretty obvious that they have a Big Ten bias(Michigan in the top 25???). It appears to be something thrown together at the last minute by someone with very little knowledge on college hoops. What can you expect from a paper linked to the Cubs.