whitesox61382

The fact that the Sox upper minors are very thin makes me question the idea of rebuilding at this point. I would like to see the Sox make some moves to fill holes and attempt to contend for the weak Central. If the Sox fall far behind by the AS break, than I think they should pull a move similar to the Tribe a couple of years ago, and move a couple of big contract veterans and get solid prospects in return, However, last trading deadline showed that they only way that you get solid prospects is IF you pick up the remainder of the veterans contract. Take note of that JR, so we don't get stuck with some marginal prospects like Mitch Wylie . The Sox can then use the 2nd half for auditions, and decide which prospects have the potential to be everyday players and which do not. The one thing that I am encouraged about is the talent at the lower minors. I do realize that most will never be in a major league stadium without paying, but the potential in the lower minors is the best that I have seen in a long time. As Rex pointed out, a lot of it has to do with solid drafts the last 2 years, especially this past draft. I go to the U of A, so I saw Anderson play on a daily basis, however they doesn't make me a pro-scout or an expert on him, although if I were Rex that would make me an expert on him who knows more then the scouts. Sorry, I had to take that cheap shot. I really think Anderson has a chance to be a very good CF if he can stay healthy. The only concern that I have is that his plate disipline was suspect at times. Other then that he showed all 5 tools and has a good potential. I really think that Sweeney has a chance to be the best of the bunch, based on what I read. Valido put together a great 1st year and gives the Sox a TRUE middle infield prospect. Nanita come out of nowhere to put together some great numbers. King even had some solid numbers. The one thing lacking was quality pitching from this years past draft. The Sox also got good years from Bounds, Young, McCarthy, Castro, Lopez, Tisch among others. Next year will be a big year for some of these guys as they attempt to make the jump from rookie ball to A ball, which IMO is the biggest jump. You generally see quite a few good prospects fail at that level, conversely you see which prospects are better then the rest. It will be fun to watch all of this talent in the lower minors develop and hopefully help bring the Sox back in a couple of years. I have a question, what happened to Rodriguez, the big, lefty, drafted last year out of high school, who has tons of potential, and put together a solid year last year? Was he hurt? Any info would be nice, because it appears that his potential is unlimited. Reports say that he was consistantly in the low-90's last year with good control, and that he was only starting to tap his potential.

"No doubt Purdue is capable of beating michigan, but not this year, not with the way this team is playing right now." You are not getting it. Did Purdue win this year? No. In fact they got beat pretty bad, but that was by far the worst game that they played. Everything that could have went wrong for Purdue did. Conversely, Michigan probably played their best game, and every break seemed to go their way. I guess you can argue that their play created the breaks, but that is certainly debatable. The point is that every now and then even a good team plays s***ty. Thats why you see good teams get upset by lesser opponents AND why good teams can get beat bad by other good teams(the case of the Michigan-Purdue game). However, that is not a good indication of how good Purdue is. You said that it is easy to stop Purdue because Michigan did it, but thats what you are not getting, Michigan was the exception and not the norm. No other team has been able to do what Michigan did, and thats because Purdue is better then they showwed in Ann Arbor. The fact is that you think Michigan is perfect(the 2 loses would argue otherwise) and that if Purdue would have no chance of winning if they played again, which is a pie-in-the-sky view based on one bad game. "I suppose that is a typo typical of a redneck fan! " Sorry cwsox, you come off as a redneck. "the classic defensiveness of a cubs fan - we have a Sox fan who us arguing cubbie style for a team that lost 31-3 and yet still wants to proclaim his team better." Learn to read and comprehend before you post, and put words in my mouth. At no point did I say that Purdue was better then Michigan. In fact MUTLIPLE times I admitted that Michigan was better. My point is that Purdue is more then capable of beating Michigan and are better then you are giving them credit for. Thats not to say that they are better then Michigan though. Please learn to read and comprehend. I realize that reading skills are far from a top priority for rednecks, but its a nice skill to have. "Probably dealing with a high school student from Danville with superior wisdom from watching games on tv rather than actually attending and has all of 2-3 years of tv viewing to draw on. Whatever." You couldn't be any more wrong. Not only have I watched TONS of college football in my time, but I PLAYED D2 FOR 2 YEARS. Do you know what it is like to actually be on the field at the college level(and I don't mean rushing the field after a big win)? Thought not. You can watch thousands of games from the stands, but until you are a player and actually on the field you don't know s*** on the matter. You are like one of those nerdy sports writers who think they know everything even though they have never played a sport their entire life. Its a whole nother world on the field that gives you the closest and most realistic understanding of the game that you will never know about watching it on TV or in the stands. So don't think you know more about the subject.

What do you expect? Your a Michigan fan whos bias is so great that it blinds you from reality. I love Purdue, but I am smart enough to view things in a realistic many, a lesson Michigan fans have yet to learn. "Michigan is a damn great lot better than Purdue." Is this redneck slang or do you lack the ability to put complete sentences together? At this point Michigan is better, but if you base your opinion towards Purdue on one game, than you are dumber then the above sentence would indicate. What if I pointed to Michigan's performance against Oregon, Iowa, or Minnesota(for 3 quarters) and made a decision based on their poor performances in those games? It also shows that on any given Saturday you can play your worst, and depending on your opponent lose(assuming your opponent is some 1-AA team or bottomfeeders). If you think Purdue can't beat Michigan, especailly outside the Big House, than you are high on crack, because that is nothing more then pie-in-the-sky bias. "Seldom - and I suspect that I have seen a hell of a lot more football games than you and have seen Purdue play more games than you've seen Big 10 games in person in a life time - seldom have I seen a team dominate as Michigan dominated Purdue in 2003. Didn't matter where that game was played. Not one bit." BS, pull your head out of your ass. Have you been drinking because you make absolutely no sense. You must not have watched much football if you think that was the most dominating performance you have seen. Hell, you saw a more dominating performance AGAINST Michigan for 3 quarters earlier in the year against Minnesota. I watched both games, and the way that Minnesota ran all over Michigan and shut them down defensively was MUCH MORE DOMINATING then what Michigan did to Purdue. The fact is that Purdue played their worst game that day and Michigan played their best. On any given Saturday things can be versed, and thats why upsets occur. Why do I waste my time, its obvious your bias is so great that it prohibits anyone from having a logical conversation with you. Continue to show your lack of knowledge on the subject by making a judgement towards a team based on one bad game and I won't have to say a thing. There is a reason why Michigan fans are considered to be some of the dumbest in this country and you help prove this. "Purdue will finish at best and maybe at worst the 3rd place team in the Big 10. They should get a New Years Day bowl. That sounds exactly right to me. I am not trashing them at all. But they at worst and at best the 3rd place Big 10 team. That is it. They are no more, no less." At no point did I suggest that Purdue was the best team in the country or the Big Ten for that matter(I even admitted that Michigan is probably the best team in the Big Ten) I was just pointing out that your fellow retard(I mean Michigan fan) gave Purdue no respect based on one performance, something you also did(shows your stupidity and lack of knowledge on the subject no matter how many games your old ass has seen). You also believe that if Purdue and Michigan played 10 time(5 at each place) that Michigan would win all 10, which is also not true. But like I said before you, your bias blinds you from reality and Michigan is perfect according to you. Get a life old man.

"I said that if a team were to take Orton out of the equation like Michigan did, then Purdue is in trouble. I did not base a team on one game per se.' BS. You made you 17 point prediction based solely on the Michigan game. If you would have seen any other Purdue games you would have known that they are much more talented then you made them out to be and DESERVED to be ranked #10-11. If you knew anything about Ohio State you would have known that they had only beat 2 teams by more then 17 points(hapless Indiana and Northwestern) and that they didn't have the personal to beat Purdue by that much. You can try and wiggle your way out, but the fact is that you made your prediction based on one game(which was not a good indication of how good Purdue was), and then critize me for doing the same. Pot meet kettle. "I gave one example of how to stop purdue, that was based on one game." Stopping Orton is easier said then done. You said it as if it was an easy thing to do, but the fact is that Michigan was the only team able to do it, which only further proves that you based your prediction on one game. Watch out next year! Orton will probably be one of the favorites for the Heisman. He struggled most of the game, but showwed how good he is by leading Purdue on that 90+ yard drive to tie the game in the 4th quarter. You also underestimated other aspects of the Purdue team. Their D that was ranked in the top 10 and once again played well(allowed 6 points tonight against that great OSU offense...I don't count that last FG since they start on the 25 yard line in OT). They have a very solid RB in Void. They are very good on special teams, although the usually reliable Jones buckled under the pressure today. This is much more then a one-dimension team that can't win without Orton. In fact, they have been more of a running team this year. This is a complete team that you underestimated based on one poor performance. "Purdue's defense forced me to go with Ohio St. as much as their offense. Purdue's defense (even though it is ranked 9th or whatever you said it was), did not impress me against Michigan, Wisconsin, Bowling Green, or Iowa." How old are you 10? Is that picture in the next post a picture of you? How does a top 10 D force you to pick the other team? That makes absolutely no sense. The Purdue D is great at stopping the run and has a great pass rush to nullify the passing game. This team has shut down every team they have played except Michigan and thats why they are ranked in the top 10 nationally. "As far as the whole defensive rankings goes, there was no need to say that Purdue's defense is better than michigans, I don't care how the two defenses match up statistically, the fact is Michigan f***ing dropped the hammer on Purdue." What if I based my analysis of the Michigan D on the 1st 3 quarters of the Minnesota game in which they were dominated and looked like a high school D. You keep refering to the Michigan game, but continue to realize that wasn't a good indication of how good Purdue is. If they were to play again IN WEST LAFAYETTE I think Purdue wins that game. Next time don't disrespect a team you know nothing about because it will come back to bite you in the ass.

Where is 1549? Its time to eat your chow. While Purdue didn't win they certainly weren't blown out by 17 points like you predicted. Shows that you can't judge a team based on one game. Purdue just buckled in the Michigan game and are a lot better then they showed. I don't think they can beat Michigan in the Big House(Michigan is clearly the best team in the Big Ten with no disrespect to Ohio State IMO), but I am sure that if they played again it would be much closer. That was about the most even game you could have had, and I have to give Ohio State their due. The keep winning no matter what. I think there was a 4 yard difference in total yards. Mistakes are what lost Purdue the game(2 turnovers and 2 missed FG with 40 yards including the one in OT). The Ohio State punter was their MVP. How many times did he stick Purdue inside the 10 yard line? That was amazing. It seemed like every Purdue drive was starting on their own 7 or 8 yard line. Its hard to go 90+ yards against one of the top D's in the country, and thats why they are sucessful. I have a feeling that they will need more then luck against Michigan though. That had to be one of the top games this year. Good old Big Ten football. Too bad I missed most of it because the west coast felt it was more important to show the great WSU vs. ASU game.

Purdue's FG kicker better hope I don't see him next time I am in West Lafayette. I am going to punch him in the face if I do. He misses two FG under 40 yards that would have won the game. I f***ing hate kickers.

Have I mentioned how much I hate ABC? The Pac 10 game is as good as over, and the Purdue-Ohio State game is going into overtime, yet they continue to show this s***ty Pac 10 game. f*** ABC and the west coast. :finger

"First off, Purdue may be ranked #11, but that does not mean that they should be. Yes they have had some great wins, but when Orton is taken out of the equation they are not even a top #25 team. Ohio State has a strong defense, and will try to take Orton out of the mix as Michigan did. If they are successful, which I think they will be, then you can forget about Purdue scoring points." Let me get this straight you critize me for making a judgement based on one game, and come right back and make a judgement on one game. Just making sure I understand. When you contradict yourself you lose credibility. What if I judged Michigan on the 1st 3 quarters of the Minnesota game, or the Oregon game, or the Iowa game. Does that give me an accurate idea of how good Michigan is? Of course not, so don't use one lose to say you accurately now what is going to happen or how good Purdue is. Why don't you take the best player away from each team and see how they do? That is ridiculous and a very stupid way to make a comparison. Besides, if you knew the facts you would know that Purdue's D is ranked in the top 15 in the national(higher then Michigan last time I checked) and also have one of the top rushing attacks in the game that tore up the 4th ranked Iowa rush D(opposed to Perry and company who were held to 74 yards). Maybe if you learned to make decisions on more then one game and knew the facts you would be better off. This team has won because of amazing balance both offensively and defensively, both running the ball and passing the ball, both stopping the run and stopping the pass. "That is why I am predicting OSU by 17." My advice would be to stay away from Vegas because you would be living on the street if you made stupid bets like that. When you factor in that Ohio State has only won 2 games by more then 17 points(Indiana and Northwestern) you get a retarded prediction like OSU is going to beat Purdue by 17. You are really going to eat some chow today. As it stands now it is 6-6, but your right OSU is going to kill them based on one bad lose to Michigan. Your a joke loser. "By the way the fact that you think you can judge a team by one game seems to imply that you are the one who knows little about college football, not me. (USC lost to a very mediocre Cal team, obviously that means USC can not blow anyone's doors off)" See above. Pot meet kettle. "Wolverines 31 Wildcats 3" Why don't you update the Purdue-Ohio State game since you are so sure that OSU is going to kill them.

Me too...I live on the west coast and the continue to show these s***ass PAC 10 games instead of the best game of the day. It pisses me off to the point were I want to march up to ABC and kick the s*** out of one of their executives. It doesn't help that I am a huge Purdue fan and want to see a game that has both BIG 10 and BCS implications, as well as being a good, close, hard fought game.

This will be my last post on this issue because it really isn't worth fighting over. I will let you have the final word because I know you are itching to respond because you always have to be right(although you might not respond now that I have called you out in an attempt to try and prove a point). "Take who's word you want, but I have seen him pitch more than any one you are quoting." This proves my point, you have no clue if that is the truth or not, but you always have to be right. Grow up and open your eyes to other peoples opinions and perspectives. The world doesn't revolve around you, and I don't know if there is any other poster that is more selfish then you. I always attempt to view things from both sides of the arguement and realize that people are welcome to their opinion. I don't doubt that you have seen him play, but to make the assumption that you have seen him more then any other scout is nothing more then a selfish attempt of your to try and prove a point since it might or might not be true. Sad buddy. "If you can't comprehend the fact that I can sit with a scout and see the radar gun consistently at 91-92 when he pitches, then you are hopeless." Why should I HAVE TO COMPREHEND something that may or may not be true? Once again another selfish attempt on your behalf to prove a point. If I have learned one thing from the internet it is to not believe everything you read. It is very easy to lie, so why should I have to comprehend something that can't prove and may or may not be true? I have learned to believe only what I can see or read from a credible site. I could say that I am a millionaire and then say why can't you comprehend this fact, which is what you just did(whether it is true or not). Maybe if you learn to see things from both sides you will have a better understand of baseball and how the world works. Sad buddy. "I would rather you say "wow, Rex, I had heard he didn't throw that hard, I'm surprised to find out different", but you can't because you are the one that always has to be right, which is idiotic." Of course you would, this only shows your selfishness. You want people to agree with everything you say whether it is true or not, which takes away their own opinion which they are more then welcome to whether you like it or not. Please tell me that you really aren't this selfish in real life. "if you want to site numbers rather than knowledge gained from actually watching someone pitch, then look into the numbers." Why can't you comprehend that I have also seen him play numerous times? How do you like your own medicine. When I say him pitch(one of the three times) he wasn't throwing that hard and was throwing slower then his opponent(who was reportedly throwing 90-92). Based on that, and multiple credible scouting reports that say he throws in the upper-80's I have formulated my opinion and can support it? You can't so why should I believe you? You are welcome to your opinion, but unless you can prove it you better not call it fact. "If you don't understand the difference between a guy that was very good for 22 games and s***ty for 2 and a guy that was consistently average, then you are looking at the game with blinders on." Anyone who thinks they can take away a few selected games to make their point stronger is the ones with blinders on. Even Brando agrees. For some reason you can't understand that you can't take out selective starts to prove a point. The reason is that you would have to take the 2 worst starts from EVERY starting pitcher at that level to make an accurate comparison. If you do that, than the average ERA will fall drasticly and when you compare Wylie's ERA without those 2 starts to the rest of the league it will still be below average. This is why it is worthless to remove selective starts. What if I removed his 2 best starts(keeping his 2 worst starts) and show that his ERA is in the high 4's? Is that a good indicator of his average start considering I just did the exact same thing you did? Its not that hard to comprehend why that is an inaccurate way to look at things. "Okay, take away his two best and his two worst and his ERA was 3.76, still more than respectable." No, you didn't comprehend that right. Keep his 2 worst starts and take out his 2 best starts, which will result in an ERA in the high-4's. Couldn't i say that is a better indication of his average, because thats what you are doing? It helps when you see things both ways. "It does when I can watch him throw 91-92 with my own eyes, consistently. You act like I saw him pitch one time...." You can call me selfish and say that I always have to be right(which is debatable), but with statements like this you PROVE that you are selfish and feel that every one of your OPINIONS is fact. You simple can't aspect the fact that you are not always right and that you could be wrong. Sad buddy. "Hate to break it to you, but that is the pot calling the kettle black. You think you know everything and are not open to new information. That is not my problem." I have said that everything you claim to be true MIGHT be true, and I am not open to new info? Please see the above statements in which YOU PROVE that you aren't open to new ideas, are selfish, and always have to be right. Once again evidence is hard to argue against and you show your true colors in this post. "And sure, I've been wrong before. But I generally am not because I pick and choose my battles. I generally find I am wrong before I decide to post something, but if I am wrong, I admit it." When have you ever admitted that you are wrong? Besides it proves, in most cases NO ONE IS RIGHT OR WRONG, thats the beuaty of opinions, and something that you continue to not comprehend. "So how many times have you seen Mitch Wylie pitch?? How many times have you watched a radar gun measure his speed?? Perhaps you should hold off forming opinions on guys you have actually seen." Perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions that you have no clue about. How do you know I haven't seen him pitch? You ask how come I question that you have seen him pitch and then do the same thing later in your post. It would help if you didn't contradict yourself. "The stupid part of all of this is that I think Mitch has a so-so chance of making the big leagues and you think he has none." For the record, I NEVER said that he has no chance to make the majors. I said that it is HIGHLY unlikely(I don't want him to get a cup of coffee and then you say I told you so). I will go out on a limb and say he will NEVER be a solid everyday plitcher in the majors. "but because you refuse to believe I have actually seen the guy pitch a time or two and know that he is not a "junkballer", you have to try to prove me wrong." This is your opinion. Just because you don't think he is a junkballer doesn't mean pro-scouts and myself can't have the opinion that he is, does it? Its not about proving you wrong as it is about opening you up to other peoples opinions and perspectives. I respect your opinion whether I came out and say it or not, but you continue to fail to realize that other people are welcome to their opinion, and just because it doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean it is wrong. "Get a life!" Ditto!

I will agree that playing in the AL East or AL West would be tougher, but based on their overall record against each division I would argue that that they would have still won 84-88 games. I guess it is just a matter of opinion between being good or very good. I will hold by my orignal arguement that they are a very good team, and we can agree to disagree. In regards to the Ponson arguement, I really don't like to show people up and make personal attacks, although it might seem like it at times. I believe that everyone is welcome to their opinion, however, in the case of southsider's agruement about Ponson, he made up some theory that the coaches attempted to make Ponson look better by pitching him against weak opponents(both teams and opposing pitchers), but he didn't bother to check the stats and I simply showed him the stats that proved that wasn't the case. I think the fact that he neglected to reply shows that he realized his theory was BS. I still believe that Ponson would be a nice addition to this team.

The big thing that you are missing is that there are weak links in both the AL East and AL West. You say that they would have to play 19 games against the Yankees, Red Sox, Athletics, M's but they also get to play 19 games against teams like Toronto(who has a good offense, but a terrible pitching staff), Baltimore, Tampa Bay, Anaheim, and Texas. That is why they have a record above .500 versus both divisions. Why do you believe that they would continue to have a record above .500 against both divisions if they played each team 19 times? The stats simply are arguing against you. The fact that they have an above .500 record against each division is a hard stat. They might not have been a playoff team, but they would still be above .500 and a very good team, which was the orignal point of the arguement.

"He was consistently in the low 90's this year after his first few appearances. Remember all those "scouting reports" that had Royce Ring throwing in the mid-90's?? Ring rarely ever reached 90 this year, let alone broke it. He was consistently throwing 87-88, yet BA, Sickels and everyone else who never actually watched him continued to spout off "mid-90's" and "blazing fastball". Can't always trust what you read." Yes, but in 99% of these cases the scouting report OVERESTIMATES the velocity of a pitcher not underestimates it. BA says that his velocity is also in the upper-80's, and I will take their word(as well as a couple of other credible scouting reports) over yours, since they get paid to scout talent. "If you did, you might have found that ecluding two terrible starts against Carolina his numbers were:" I absolutely hate when people do this. Why don't we just take away the 2 worst starts for every pitcher and then compare ERA's? The only time people say s*** like this is when the stats are arguing against them and they are trying to grasp at straws to make an arguement that supports their believes. ERA measures the good and the bad equally, so taking away his 2 worst starts proves nothing and is a poor attempt on your behalf. You are going to have to do better then that to play with the big boys. "I would much rather look at his numbers over 22 starts than two bad days against one team. They are much more representative of what his season was like, but you didn't go that far, did you?" Because that is the most worthless thing you can do. You can't take away a couple of starts and make a comparison. What would you do if I took away his 2 best starts and showed that when you do that his ERA is in the upper-4's? How is that any better/worse of an indicator then taking away his 2 worst starts. His ERA was 4.21 in a great pitchers park and he has failed to improve since then. You can continue to make weak arguements to support your pie-in-the-sky beliefs, but sooner or later you will open your eyes to reality(probably when Wylie never becomes a decent major league player). "To write a guy that is coming off an injury based on incorrect scouting reports, while acting like you are an authority is assinine." The injury arguement works against him more then it works for him. You say that his injury problems are the cause for his struggles and that we should be patient, but once again you fail to look at things both ways. The fact that he has been injury-prone works against him more then it helps him. It leaves doubts in the coaches heads, affects his ability(the fact is that only a small amount of pitchers come back from MAJOR surgery and regain their pre-injury form), and allows other prospects to pass him on the depth charts(Ginter, Majewski, Diaz, Rauch, Pacheco are just some of the righties that will most likely get a shot before him). These are facts that you continue to neglect because it argues against your beliefs. On a different note, just because a couple of credible scout reports disagree with you doesn't mean they are wrong. Has it ever crossed your mind that you could be wrong? Probably not considering that you come off as one of those guys that always has to be right not matter how wrong they are. I am still going to take the scout reports from pro-scouts that get paid to scout, then you with your pie-in-the-sky bias views. "Go out and watch a few games and see a player before you act like you are an authority on him. You might be surprised! You might actually find my head IS out of my ass and I do know a thing or two." You need to learn to read and comprehend better. Please go back to my orginal post in which I state that I do watch games in which I formulate my own opinions(although I also know that I am not a pro-scout, a concept you fail to grasp). My older brother lives in Greensboro, NC and my old college roommate lives in Birmingham, AL so I do see anywhere from 5-10 Sox minor league games a year. Not only that, but I currently live in Tucson were I get to see some of the Sox top prospects play on an everyday basis for an entire month during ST. So quit pretending that you are the only one to watch the Sox minor leaguers.

Liriano was the PTBN for the Twins, however I do believe that the Twins have a choice. They can either give San Francisco cash or a PTBN to complete the deal.

Please refer to my previous post in which the Twins have an above .500 record against BOTH the AL East and AL West, and I will then wait for your reply with hard stats arguing against you. "You must not have read most of my posts in which I pick apart almost everything White Sox, from attendance to Magglio Orgonez to WhiteSoxInteractive. Pulease." Maybe you aren't that bias towards the Sox, but that doesn't mean you don't have a negative bias towards the Twins. "but if you don't think 2003 Twins would have finished 5th in NLE and 4th both ALE and ALW, you're simply not looking at things intelligently." Looking at the stats is about the most intelligent way to look at things in this case. Please refer to the Twins record against the AL East and AL West. Thanks and have a nice day.

Just for the record Brando, the Twins were 17-15 against the AL East and 20-16 against the AL West, so your theory that if they were in the AL East or AL west and be lucky to finish above .500 is BS in which you let your bias towards the Twins affect your better judgement. The Twins are a very good team and the stats support that theory, so give them some credit and quit making lame excuses.

Open your eyes to reality, take away your bias, and give the Twins some credit. You need more then smoke and mirrors to win 90+ games the past 2 years. I don't care what division you play in, when you win 90+ games the last 2 years you are a very good team, whether you want to admit it or not.

Minnesota is still going to be very good. I really think that Mauer will be up by the AS break if he doesn't make the team out of ST. I think he is the type of guy that can come into the majors and is good from day one. This guy has some serious skills, and I could see him hitting .260-.270/8-10/40-50 good BB to SO ratio as a rookie. Losing Pierzynski hurts(he is one of the most underrated catchers in the game), but it isn't as drastic as most people are making it out to be. Their offense should be good. They have a lot of solid prospects ready to break out and put together solid years. The question is going to be their pitching. The good news for the Sox is that they will lose Reed and Rogers, and possible either Milton or Radke, which means they will need some cheap replacements and minor leaguers to step up. The bad news is that none of those guys were very good(only 1 Twins starter with 20+ starts had an ERA below 4.49) so the Twins starting pitching can't get much worse. The bullpen won't be quite as good, although I could see them resigning either Guardado or Hawkins, and the addition of Nathan will help easy the lose. Another thing that people are forgetting is the other prospect that Minnesota got. Everyone mentions Bonser, but Francisco Liriano is a lefty with great upside. He was actually ranked higher then Bonser by BA. The only major question mark about him is his stamina and health. The Giants were very cautious with him because of his past injury problems, but if this guy stays healthy look out. Reports say that he can get up to the mid-90's with good control. This trade has a chance to be great for the Twins in the long-run IF Mauer lives up to his billing and EITHER Bonser OR Liriano develop into a front of the rotation starter. It was a good trade for both teams, and I am glad to see Pierzynski out of the AL.

"Keep in mind, the guy won 15 games in AA in 2001." He also had a 4.21 ERA in a great pitchers park, not to mention a 1.33 WHIP and 13 HR's in 141 IP(which is pretty good unless you pitcher in a huge ball park). How come you don't mention that? Its easy to mention things that will help your arguement, but the true test is to look at things both ways. His numbers over his minor league career have been very marginal and don't suggest that he will amount to anything. Here are his ERA's over the last couple of years: 4.34 in 2000 at high A ball 4.21 in 2001 at AA 4.76 in 2002 at AAA 4.40 in 2003 at AA Does that look like a future major league pitcher? Factor in that he is injury prone and going to be 27 next year, and you have yourself a career minor leaguer whether you like it or not Rex. Come on Rex, pull your head out of your ass and open your eyes to reality. For the record I have a subscription to BA among many others. I follow the minors religious(that also means going to a few games every year). I will summize a scouting report from a credible scouting report in regards to his stuff: Wylie is consistantly between 86-88 with his fastball with some movement and good control, and will top out in the low 90's. He doesn't have one breaking breaking ball that is above average, but can throw them for strikes, which makes them effective. Last time I checked BA they had a similar scouting report on him. He doesn't have one very good pitch and has to rely on pin point control to get by. That is the description of a junkball pitcher. Sorry Rex, but in this case your pie-in-the-sky beliefs don't hold water. Please don't think that you are the only one that knows something about the minors.

"I think Northwestern and Purdue will both get their doors blown off today." Northwestern...yes. Purdue....no. In fact I think Purdue is going to beat Ohio State. Purdue has more talent then Ohio State and is a much more balanced team. What makes you think that Ohio State is going to blow out the #11 team in the country when they can barely beat teams like hapless Penn State and 4 of their victories have been by less then a touchdown? Ohio State doesn't have the talent or personal to blow teams out, especially a top 15 team, and I can tell that you don't watch much college football if you think they are going to blow out Purdue. You are also underestimating the #11 team in the country.

"I'm sold on Wylie to be a long reliever, as I believe he could help us. Honestly, from what I hear from scouting reports, this guy is the s***." What scouting reports are you reading? The guy has no stuff, he is a 26 year old junkball pitcher, with poor numbers in a great pitchers park, who has little or no chance to be in the majors. Mark my words, Wylie is nothing more then a career minor leaguer. This is a make or break year for both Rauch and Ginter. I think at least one of them will be on the major league roster to start the year. I have always been a critic of Malone because he has had one good season sandwiched between a couple of poor seasons. However, his stuff from the left side is very good, he was injuried some the last couple of years, and he finished the year very strong. Next year will tell us a lot about Malone's future, but the jury is still out on him. None of the guys you mention will be front of the rotation starter, baring a miracle, but they could turn into decent major leaguers. Be patient, and read a creditible scouting report next time.

"I see a bigger deal going with the Dodgers. I see the Sox trying to land Itzuris, Mota and Perez. I don't know how they will do that, but its something I think the Sox will look at." I would love to see those 3 come to the Sox. I am not sure if a deal like Lee, Valentin, and either Borchard/Rauch would be enough, but it would be interesting. "Then the Sox would look to the Yanks to move Magglio for Soriano and if they can bargain maybe a little more...if you give up a good enough prospect, Johnson too." I am sorry, but there is NO WAY that the Yankees give up BOTH Soriano AND Johnson unless they get 2 impact players. Mark my word, there is no way that they would take Maggs and Borchard/Rauch for Soriano AND Johnson. The Sox would probably have to package either Buehrle or Loaiza with Maggs to get both, and I wouldn't do that deal even though i love Soriano and Johnson. Besides, the Yankees have put a power hitting corner outfielder on the backburner. It is clear that pitching has become their top priority. I also think that they would rather have either a leadoff/2B or TRUE CF before a power hitting corner outfielder. "Only way I see this happening is if Sheff and Vlad go elsehwere; Best scenario of that happening, Vladdy staying with Montr and Sheff staying in Atlanta. I think these are both very reasonable options)." At this point I would say that it is very likely that the Yankees don't get EITHER Sheffield or Guerrero. From what I have heard, Atlanta is likely to resign Sheffield, while Baltimore appears to be the clear leader for Guerrero. You are right though, if the Yankees miss out on both of these guys AND they want a power hitting corner outfield it SHOULD increase Maggs value. "Elo Buehrle Perez Garcia Garland" I would really like this rotation, but how would you get Garcia? If the asking price is too high for Garcia then I would rather have them go after Ponson or Batista instead. It would probably cost less salary wise and wouldn't cost anything via players. "Need Leadoff Hitter Ned 2 hole hitter Soriano Thomas Johnson Crede Need Hitter Miguel Itzuris" I would love to see the Sox spend a little money and bring Cameron back, and then put Reed and Rowand in LF and RF respectively. That would be a great defensive outfield and could give you some decent offensive numbers. The problem is that you really don't have a true leadoff hitter. I guess you could try Reed in the leadoff spot with Cameron and his solid OBP and speed batting 2nd. Or you could spend money to bring in Castillo to play 2B and leadoff, and then put Soriano in CF flanked by Reed and Rowand in LF and RF. Then you could put Castillo leading off and then have Reed bat 2nd. I think either would result in a solid affordable offense. The only problem is that I just don't see the Sox getting BOTH Soriano and Johnson. I am not sure what you plan on doing with Konerko as well? I highly doubt that Seattle will want him considering they have Olerod and Martinez playing 1B and DH respectively. "Then you sign a firstbaseman like Fullmer who isn't gonna be expensive and all of a sudden you got a pretty serious team." Are you planning on putting Nick Johnson in LF? Because the way that I see it the Sox have Johnson and Thomas playing 1B and DH, and I don't think Fullmer can play LF on a regular basis. "but if we could get him for Konerko or Koch straight up then I would do it. " "I agree Would rather trade Konerko for Perez" You guys have to realize that Konerko has almost no trade value at this point. While Perez and Garcia are coming off of disappointing seasons they still have much more value then Konerko. Konerko was arguable the worst player in the majors last year(all things considered) and would make almost 18M over the next 2 years if traded. While I do think he will rebound, it is far from a guarantee. Imagine if another team was trying to trade a Konerko like player to the Sox. Everyone on this board would be up in arms and call for KW's head if he did a trade like that. Only then will you begin to understand the trade value of Konerko(or lack there of).

I think that would be a great trade for the Sox. Lets face the facts. The Sox can't afford to pay Maggs 14M/yr and he is going to be a FA next year(wouldn't it be nice to see the Sox resign him for 10-12M the next offseason after trading him away). Add an overpaid SS like Valentin and you are trading away 19M in salary while only picking up about 6M in salary. They would also do a good job of building for the future, while still being able to contend now. I am not a huge Izturis fan, but I am starting to come around on the idea that as he gets older, and if you move him out of the best pitchers park in baseball he could be a decent offensive player to go along with his GG calibur D at SS. Add the fact that the Sox have no good SS prospects in the upper minors and trading for him might not be a bad idea. I have questions about Perez as well, but he is a young lefty, with decent stuff, who has had sucess in the past, and would look good in the middle of the rotation. I am a huge Mota fan, and believe that he would drasticly improve the Sox pen. Throw in a good pitching prospect, and a little change to spend on the FA market(most of the money saved will go to raises and arbitration eligible players), and you have yourself a deal.

That is far fetched, but giving up Gonzalez, Zambrano, Farnsworth, and pitching prospects is a steep price for a guy that is going to make 25%+ of the Cubs payroll. We would see how they feel about the trade when they start losing key components in a few years and are stuck with a huge contract and little financial flexibility. The key point of the article is having under 10M to pay for 14 players. That would be a terrible trade for the Cubs IMO, especially in the future. Leave it to a Cubs fan to write an article like this.

Here would be my Big 10 rankings: Illinois Wisconsin Michigan State Ohio State Purdue Indiana Michigan Iowa Minnesota Penn State Northwestern