whitesox61382

Waterboy doesn't qualify you as part of the athletic department. If you are any sign of the character that KU has in their program then I have no lost respect for them. I have a feeling that someone is lying though. Thats the beauty of the internet though, you can make yourself out to be anything you want. I also have an insider subscription to rivals and it mentioned that Self was interested in Livingston AFTER he accepted the KU job. Go ahead and call me a Illinois fan, because I am not and have a object view on the matter(as an IU fan).

"OK Boog/613whatever..." FLAWS...FLAWS...FLAWS...Thats your new nickname considering that you arguement is filled with them and has NO stats/facts/evidence to support your opinions and theories. Whats wrong southsider? Are you going to leave this board like you left the ESPN board because I am picking apart your FLAWED arguements with logic like Boogs did to you at ESPN? "The Orioles duped many into thinking Ponson was a better pitcher by pitching him in as many ideal situations as possible." You keep pointing to this, but you have yet to show anything that supports it. Besides I have already showed you that the only thing that adjusting the rotation does is affect the win total(and it doesn't have a big affect at that). The way he pitches, ie his 3.75 ERA, is BY FAR the biggest reason why he had 17 wins, so quit falling back on this weak theory of yours. "The fact that he only pitched 3 times against the two best teams in his division only bolsters that arguement. When you have your #1 pitcher you skip your fifth pitcher to make sure that your best is going against the best competition you face. The Orioles did not do this against the AL East with Ponson. He should have faced those teams at least 5 times if not 6 or 7 because they were skipping their bad pitchers to face the divisions elite." Please check the stats so you will have a clue about what you are talking about. If Ponson should have had 5,6,7 starts against the teams in the AL EAST, than why did he only have 4 combined starts against the other AL EAST teams(Toronto and Tampa Bay)? The fact that he had starts against 22 of the 30 total teams gives you no logical reason to complain about starting against only weak teams. He faced almost every team in the majors and pitched against no team more then 3 times. Furthermore, 4 of the 8 teams that he faced more then once ranked in the top 12 in overall offense, so the stats don't support your weak offense arguement. Sorry, nice try though. "Also you would want your best pitcher, going at home in a stadium that is much harder on pitchers, because it gives you the best chance to win. Ponson pitched barely 40% of his games at home." Proving you wrong is like taking candy from a baby, all I have to do is check the stats. If you would have checked the stats you would see that Camden Yards ranked 18/30 in runs scored per stadium and Pac Bell ranked 21/30 in runs scored per stadium, which makes both better pitchers park then hitters park. The fact that he only pitched about 40% of his starts at home supports MY ARGUEMENT. Thanks for helping my arguement. My suggestion would be to check the stats next time so you don't end up going against your own arguement, that and it will make it a little harder on me, but like I said proving you wrong is like taking candy from a baby. "The "how they pitch" arguement is BS. How they pitch doesn't change based on who they pitch against, but the results do. When Ponson can only manage an era of 5 against the Yankees in two starts, and get hammered for an era of almost 20 in the only start of the year against the Red Sox, (not to mention getting hammered in the playoffs, not to mention getting beat up by Atlanta, not pitching against Oakland, and not to mention an era of 6 1/2 against the Twins) it just goes to reason that his mystical 3.75 era would have been much worse if the Orioles had faced him up with the Yanks and Red Sox ( and other division winnters) as often as a #1 pitcher should have been. To quote the fact that he started against 22 different teams only bolsters that arguement because in a day and age when a team plays nearly 50% of their game against one division, The #1 starter should be starting against their own division at least 50% of the time, if not more, because a good manager would be trying harder to beat the teams in his own division!" Almost ALL pitchers have terrible ERA's against the top offensive teams in the game. Thats why they are ranked at the top offensively. The fact is that ERA is an average of the good and the bad and accurately and evenly measures both. Is it better to have a terrible ERA against a bad offensive team instead(for example Colon had an ERA of 5.94 against Detriot and because of it was 1-2 against the worst team in baseball) is that any better then having a bad ERA against one of the top offensive teams EVER(Boston)? You are really trying to grasp at straws because you have no logic to support your weak arguement. I showed above that he didn't pitch at the AL EAST powerhouses(Boston and NY) or weaklinks(TB and Toronto) so quit trying to use this weak excuse of an arguement. You above arguement isn't supported by anything. Thats your problem. I have shown you stats to support what most people would consider common sense(for example that ERA is a better indicator of a pitcher then wins and that there is a strong correlation between wins and ERA which explains Ponson's high win total) and what have your shown me? Conspiracy theories with nothing to back them up but your own stupidity.

"Damn dude, first of all learn to use the quote function. Your post is a garbled mess. Second of all, why is this so f***ing personal to you?" The first sign of someone without anything logical to say. When people start attacking the person or the way they present their ideas it shows that they have little to say about their actual points. Its not personal, I just hate when people throw out common sense and come up with some BS idea that has no logic/stats/evidence/ect. to support their BS points. You are better then that. Using solely wins to judge how good a pitcher is shows a lack of common sense on your behalf and I know you are better then that. "Ponson's wins have everything to do with where he was pitching in the rotation." No it doesn't. If you honest think where a pitcher pitches in the rotation is more important then HOW THEY PITCH, than you have no understanding of pitching. HOW THEY PITCH is BY FAR the most important thing in determining wins, and this is supported by the strong correlation between wins and ERA. There is absolutely nothing that supports your theory of where a pitcher pitches in the rotation has the greatest affect on wins, partly because too much interpretation is needed to accurately classify starters in the rotation(and it still leaves a TON of interpretation and arguement). "He didn't win anything until the Orioles rigged his starts to be against inferior opponents so that his trade value would escalate, because he had already turned down a 3 year $21 million offer" He didn't win many games before last season for 2 reasons. 1) The most important reason that he had never won more then 12 games in a year before 2003 was the fact that only in 1 season did he post an ERA below 4.71. This goes with the away statement about the strong correlation between wins and ERA, which supports my idea that HOW YOU PITCH is far more important then WHERE YOU PITCH IN THE ROTATION, which has NOTHING to support it. 2) He plays for Baltimore!!! You don't think he would have won more games if he pitched for the Yankees opposed to Baltimore(assuming his numbers are the same). This only further supports the idea that wins are a terrible judge of talent because the team you play for often affects your win total. Not once since he was in Baltimore have they had a winning season. This goes back to me idea of factors that the pitcher can't control: run support, defense, bullpen pitchings, ect. all areas that Baltimore has struggled in since Ponson has been in Baltimore and that drastic affect his win total. "His era was a product of not pitching against the Yankees and Red Sox (who kicked his ass), but of pitching on the road in bigger ballparks, against inferior opponents less apt to beat him." You have got to be kidding. If this isn't the most ridiculous case of nitpicking then I don't know what is. Not only that, but it simply isn't true. Once again it would help your arguement if you actually checked the stats before throwing out some random statement and calling it fact. The fact is that Ponson had one of the most balanced GS vs opponents in the league. He started against 22 of the 30 total teams, and only had more then 1 start against only 8 teams(one of which just happens to be the Yankees). Nice try though. "As for Loiaza how the f*** are you going to tell me that wins are a flawed stat when I use them to talk about Ponson but quote wins in the very next f***ing paragraph??? What kind of bulls*** is that? At least have the decency to live up to your own f***ing arguements!" Simply to prove you wrong. AT NO POINT do I say that wins are a good stat to make a judgement. I was just pointing out flaws in your agruement, and this case you said that he had fewer wins in the second half because he faced more top of the rotation starters, and I simply showed you that wasn't the case considering his wins remained consistant from the 1st half to the 2nd half. That doesn't mean that I think it is a good judgement, it just means that your statements are flawed and I am trying to help you out considering you are out of your league in this arguement and have nothing to support your BS opinions. "As to Fernandez and Navarro that was an example of taking a pitcher coming off of a career year and comparing him to someone who had a consistant career." And I showed you that last year wasn't a career year for Ponson, so your Fernandez and Navarro comparison holds no water. That was my point. "Don't put words in my mouth." Ditto...please see you statement where you accuse me of using wins as a good indicator when I was simply correcting your MANY flaws in your statements and use of stats.

"The guy has been in the league 6 years and has won more than 12 games one time." Come on southsider, I know you are smarter then this. Using wins to determine how good a pitcher is EXTREMELY flawed. That is your first mistake. Wins are determined by the team. Things like run support, defense, bullpen pitching, ect. go into a win and these are things that the starting pitcher has no control over, yet you deem it an accurate stat to make a judgement on a pitcher? Use common sense buddy. Do you think it is a coincidence that most of the leaders in wins are among the league leaders in run support(something they have no control over). That is why the fact that Ponson pitched against other teams bottom of the rotation pitchers has absolutely no reliavance in determining how good a pitcher he is. "And if you don't think Loz's number's weren't extremely padded by going against 4 and 5 starters for the first two months of the year, look at his first and second half splits." He won 11 games in the 1st half with 19 starts and won 10 games in the 2nd half with 15 starts. Maybe you should check the splits before you throw out statements that you claim are true but aren't. BUSTED. "His numbers are way worse in the 2nd half when he was at the top of the rotation, instead of the bottom." And you honestly think that was because he faced more front of the rotation starter? Good luck proving that when it is the opposing offense that is responsible for the numbers that a pitcher puts up. Face it you have nothing to support your arguement that being at the front of the rotation has any affect on any stat besides wins and loses. Please use common sense so I don't have to explain things to you like you are a 10 year old kid. Your better then that southsider. "The last time I heard this similarity arugement was between Jaime Navarro and Alex Fernandez, and we all know how that went." Navarro's and Fernandez's numbers had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with where they pitched in the rotation and EVERYTHING to do with their stuff, how opposing offenses did against them, and injuries. Why can't you grasp the simple concept that it is the opposing offense that is responsible for the pitchers ERA, hits, BB, SO, HR, ect. and has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the pitcher they are facing. "Comparing a guy coming off a career year to a guy coming off of an average year and having them come up about equal should say something." Ponson isn't coming off a career year. A career year is a season that far exceeds any previous seasons. The fact that Ponson posted a very solid 4.09 ERA in 2002 shows that his 3.75 ERA in 2003 isn't a fluke/career year. He has been extremely consistant over the past 2 years, and based on the normal progress of a young pitcher there is no reason to believe that similar numbers aren't in the near future. "We also made the same arguements for Todd Ritchie about him being young, and his numbers improving as he came through." Have you ever taken a look at Ritchie's stats? To begin with he was 29 when the Sox traded for him and was a career minor league till he was 26. His numbers improved? How does an ERA of 3.50 in 99, 4.81 in 00, and 4.47 in 01 show improvement. I am sorry but you have to improve more then 1 year before you can make the arguement that he had improved. Furthermore his 99 ERA of 3.50 WAS a career year unlike Ponson, considering that it was .97 lower then his next lowest ERA. He also showed no consistancy. The previous 2 years(before coming to the Sox) he averaged an ERA of 4.63 in the NL opposed to Ponson who averaged an ERA of 3.90 in the AL over the past 2 years. I was opposed to the Ritchie trade from the beginning and these are things that I brought up about Ritchie right after the trade occured. Ritchie was anything but young, consistant, talented, or proven. So that makes your Ritchie comparison a terrible comparison that holds no water. In a perfect world the Sox would use the 12M they offered Colon and sign Ponson(7M) and Batista(5M). That would give the Sox an extremely talanted starting pitching rotation that would be better then the 2003 rotation and keep the Sox in the race even if they have to trade 1 or 2 big offensive players.

Will you quit spewing this BS southsider? The ONLY stat affected by stacking a pitcher against other teams 4 and 5 starters is wins, which is a stat determined by the entire teams performance to begin with. Is Ponson's ERA, hits, BB, SO, HR, ect. any better(or worse) because he faced other teams #4 or #5's? Of course not, so use some common sense and pull your head out of you ass. If you want to take away a few wins because he faced #4 or $5 starters then you better do the same for Loaiza as well. Over the course of a season the pitching rotations get mixed up AND rarely to you get TRUE #1 facing off. Only a handful of times do managers actually set their rotations over the course of a season, so please stop using this lame excuse because it holds no water. Compare Ponson's numbers to Colon's number and you will see that they are almost identical. The only difference between the 2 of them is that Colon has been more consistant throughout his career, however, you have to remember that Ponson is still fairly young(27), has seen his numbers improve the past 2 years, and has been pretty consistant the past 2 year(4.09 ERA in 2002 and 3.75 ERA in 2003). For 6-7M/yr he would be a great option and probably put up similar numbers to Colon.

" Well I'd like to package Konerko to the Yanks. I am not convinced that the Yanks would be interested. I still say some team could get interested in Konerko considering this was one down year and the previous three were all improvments." I do think that Konerko has some value, but why would the Yankees trade a younger, cheaper, BETTER player in Johnson for Konerko. That makes absolutely no sense. Not only that, but the whole reason why the Yankees are shopping Johnson is because they plan on moving Bernie to DH and Giambi to 1B, which leaves Konerko with no place to play. Mark my words, the Yankees have NO interest in Konerko. "I also think the yanks would be very interested in Borhard and a pitching prospect along with magglio and I think if the Yanks really want to dump Soriano, then its definately doable." That is another point that I think you are missing. I don't think that the Yankees WANT to move either Soriano or Johnson, however, if they feel they can improve their team by moving either of them then they will trade them. I would stay away from Soriano as well. I would much rather have Johnson. "I couldn't say why they would trade cmopared to signing someone like Maggs. I don't think it would be very smart for them to sign Sheffield, Maggs is better, imo, or at least a better long term investment." You are really grasping at straws here. Sheffield has posted 1.000+ OPS's 3 of the last 4 years(including 2 in the great pitchers park in LA) opposed to Maggs who has never topped the 1.000 OPS mark. Sheffield is similar and probably better defensively, and has similar and possible better speed. The only advantage that Maggs has is age, but if they want a younger player then why not get Guerrero, who GS has always been a huge fan of? "In regards to Jose, I wouldn't give him near 3 mill, 1.5 or so max. This market is incredibly soft and its being shown already. I think the union will make an incredibly hard push for collusion but in the end it won't pay off." I highly doubt that Valentin will take 1.5M. He made around 5M last year, put up an above average OPS for a SS, and had his best defensive year. Add that up and you are almost guaranteed not to get him for around 1.5M. " 61382, I dunno. An outfield of CLee, Rowand, and Reed scares the bejesus outta me. Theres relatively no power(cept CLee), no real outstanding defensive outfielder either." Don't tell me that you were blinded by the solo HR last year? This team needs to get rid of some of the power and substitute good average and OBP players. Remember that the Sox ranked 4th in HR's, but only 8th in runs scored(the most important stat). The lineup would still have 4 guys that will probably hit 20+ HR's(Johnson, Thomas, Lee, and Crede), 2 high OBP/good plate disipline guys at the top of the order(Castillo and Guillen), and a couple of solid hitters in the 7 and 8 holes(Reed and Rowand). Factor in the drastic increase in speed and drastic decrease in DP's and you have a similar and maybe even better offense then last year. If an outfield of Clee, Rowand, and Reed scares you defensively then a defensive outfield of Clee, Rowand, and Maggs must be giving you are heartattack. Clee has made improvements in LF, Reed is a pretty solid CF, and Rowand moves back to his natural position of RF, which makes the defensive outfielder better then the current defensive outfield, so I really don't know why you made a comment about the defense. "And that bench would make me sick if we had to pinch hit, cuz we would have ZERO power for late innings. Gload IMO will not be here next year, the move to the 40 man was just to protect the organization against the Rule 5." Opposed to this past years bench that also had no power? Borchard has power potential and Gload hit over 60 extra base hits and posted a .524 SLG % last year in AAA. Why would the Sox protect a career minor leaguer if they didn't have the intention of giving him a good shot at making the club, especially when you factor that Daubach is as good as gone? "Idon't wanna see Guillen signed at that price, I'll take....GULP...JosE6 at that price before Guillen." That makes no sense. Valentin is also going to cost around 3M and you rather have him then a younger, better defensive, and better offensive SS in Guillen. How much is a mid-.700 OPS(in a great pitchers park), young, solid defensive SS worth? "Unless we use Wright as the clsoer in that bullpen, Marte's arm will fall off enxt year as the only lefty with versatility(READ-can pitch to more than 2 hitters, unlike Wunsch)." I figured that either Timlin or Ligtenberg would close. Both have closed in the past and been relatively sucessful. Marte being the prime set up guy and possible closer, which was the exact role that he played last year. Wunsch being the left-handed specialist. The bullpen would be fine and better IMO. My projected team not only fits the financial constraints(unlike most peoples projects) and makes sense(trades and signings). The offense would be similar and possible better, the defense would be better, the team speed would be better, the starting pitching would be better, and the bullpen would be better. Add that to a team that won 86 games and you have a team that will almost certainly win 90+ next year. Not bad considering the financial constraints that this team has. It also shows the creativity that KW will need to be sucessful in 2004.

I am just curious, but how do you expect to get BOTH Soriano and Johnson from the Yankees? Please don't say Konerko and Maggs. Take my word on this, the Yankees have NO interest in Konerko. I also highly doubt that they would tade for Maggs with Guerrero and Sheffield on the FA market. I am a big Guillen fan at SS, but you don't think he is worth 3M/yr, yet you would be willing to give Valentin that much? I am a big Guillen fan because he is solid defensively and I love his plate disipline(his .359 OBP would look great in the #2 hole behind someone like Castillo). That offense would also probably cost you about 30M, which would most likely be over half the payroll. In a perfect world these are the moves that I would like to see. Trade Maggs to NYY for Johnson Trade Konerko and cash to Seattle for Guillen Trade Koch and cash to NYM for mid-tier prospect Sign Castillo Sign Batista Sign Ponson Sign Ligtenberg Sign Timlin Resign Graffy Here is a realistic 2004 team 2B Castillo(7M) SS Guillen(3M) 1B Johnson(500K) DH Thomas(6M) LF Lee(6M) 3B Crede(500K) CF Reed/Borchard(300K) RF Rowand(500K) C Olivo(400K) total: 24.2M LH Buehrle(3.5M) RH Ponson(7M) RH Loaiza(4M) RH Batista(5M) RH Garland(1.5M) total: 21M RH Ligtenberg(2M) RH Timlin(3M) LH Marte(500K) LH Wunsch(500K) RH Wright(500K) RH Ginter/Rauch/Diaz(300K) total: 6.8M IF Graffy(1.5M) 1B/OF Gload(300K) C Rivera/Burke(300K) IF Harris(400K) UT Miles/Borchard(300K) total: 2.8M Total Payroll 54.8M + approximately 4M in Koch and Konerko trade = 58.8M

I would MUCH rather have Johnson instead of Soriano. I have a feeling that pitchers are going to start taking advantage of Soriano's aggressiveness and give him little to hit. He is a good enough hitter to put up respectable numbers despite this, but I do think he will see a decrease in his numbers next year. Johnson on the other hand is a possible stud that could get better. His plate disipline is remarkable(70 BB in only 324 AB's and an impressive .422 OBP), he is a good hitter with 20+ HR power, is a better overall athlete then Konerko, is solid defensively, is only 25, and is very cheap. I would do a Johnson for Maggs trade straight up in a heartbeat. Not only do you get a player that will probably put up similar offensive numbers, but you free up 14M to address other weaknesses. I highly doubt that NY will have much interest in Maggs though. The Sox would also have to find someone to take Konerko off their hands.

forkit, what do you consider to be a solid CF? All I want is a guy that will post an OPS around .750+ and play solid D. IMO that defines a solid CF. In limited playing(582 AB's which is about a full season) time Rowand has posted a .743 OPS and played solid D. What makes you think that he can't put up similar numbers next year. Furthermore, I think Rowand was affected by his offseason injury at the beginning of the year. You also pretend that Rowand wasn't a good prospect, but he put some pretty impressive numbers up, especially power numbers and was consided a top prospect. Rowand has the inside track and deserves to get a shot in CF. If he struggles then the Sox can turn to Reed or Borchard.

Great minds think alike. This is exactly what I would like to see happen. I think you made a typo though and meant to say that Batista and Ponson would probably cost as much as Colon(instead of Ponson). I think a rotation of Buehrle, Ponson, Loaiza, Batista, and Garland would be better then the 2003 starting staff.

"- Sox trade Joe Borchard, Matt Ginter, and Aaron Miles for Nick Johnson" I would love to see Johnson in a Sox uniform, unfortunately I don't think the Yankees will take a utility infielder, middle reliver, and an outfielder on the verge of being a bust for him. They aren't looking to get rid of him that bad, and I think they would want some players that are proven and would help right out of the gate. "- Sox sign Carl Everett to a 1 yr 5 mill deal" Like someone else pointed out, I don't think Everett will take almost half of what he got this past year, especially after the solid year that he put up. "- Sox sign a shortstop (Guzman/Aurilla/Jose) for 2 mill" Guzman isn't a FA and there is no way that you get Aurilla for 2M. "Maggs is worth Johnson and Soriano IMHO" I love Maggs, but when you factor in the contracts of the 3 players there is no way that Maggs is worth Johnson and Soriano. "Not to mention, you want to give up entirely too much for an average OF in Johnson." To begin with, Johnson is a 1B and not an OF. I never knew that an OPS of .894 was average. Johnson has future star written all over him, and I would personally rather have Johnson instead of Soriano for Maggs. "Ponson ain't worth 7 million a season. He's Jon Garland, but he throws harder." 15-13 3.87 ERA 1.20 WHIP 34 GS 242 IP 223 H 30 HR 67 BB 173 SO 17-12 3.75 ERA 1.26 WHIP 31 GS 216 IP 211 H 16 HR 61 BB 134 SO Can you tell me which stats are clearly better then the other? You are underestimating Ponson. The only difference between Ponson and Colon is that Colon is a little more proven and consistant, but besides that they both have similar stuff and numbers. Maybe you should check the stats before making statements that aren't true. Comparing him to Garland shows no understand of Ponson or his ability. I will play along and show you what I would like to see done. Sign SP Ponson for 4yr/26M Sign SP Batista for 3yr/15M Sign 2B Castillo for 4yr/28M Sign OF Cameron for 3yr/21M Sign OF Lee for 3yr/18M Sign SP Garland for 3yr/ 4.5M Sign SP Buehrle for 4yr/18M Sign RP Timlin for 2yr/5M Sign RP Ligtenberg for 3yr/6M Sign IF Graffy for 3yr/3M Sign OF Daubach for 2yr/2M Trade OF Ordonez to NYY for 1B Johnson and SP/MI prospect Trade 1B Konerko and cash to Seattle for SS Guillen Trade RP Koch and cash to NYM for a SP/MI prospect Your lineup would look like this: 2B Castillo(7M) SS Guillen(3M) LF Lee(6M) DH Thomas(6M) 1B Johnson(500K) CF Cameron(7M) 3B Crede(500K) RF Rowand/Reed/Borchard(500K) C Olivo(500K) total 31M LH Buehrle(4.5M) RH Ponson(6.5M) RH Loaiza(4M) RH Batista(5M) RH Garland(1.5M) total 21.5M RH Timlin(2.5M) RH Ligtenberg(2M) LH Marte(500K) LH Wunsch(500K) RH Wright(500K) RH Ginter/Rauch/Diaz(500K) total 6.5M IF Graffy(1M) OF Daubach(1M) OF Borchard/Reed(500K) C Rivera/Burke(500K) IF Harris/Miles(500K) total 3.5M TOTAL PAYROLL: 62.5m + approx 3.5M(cash involved in Konerko and Koch trades) 65M 65M is a little more then JR is going to spend this year, but it shows that for just a little more then 60M the Sox can put an extremely talented team together that is improved in EVERY facet of the game. This is my DREAM team(semi-realistic) for 2004. Oh well. Its fun to speculate and will be interesting to see what KW and company will do this offseason.

How about this player for 5M/yr 01' 11-8 3.36 ERA 139.1 IP 113 H 13 HR 60 BB 90 SO 02' 8-9 4.29 ERA 184.2 IP 172 H 12 HR 70 BB 112 SO 03' 10-9 3.54 ERA 193.1 IP 197 H 13 HR 60 BB 142 SO This player has been moved between the pen and rotation over the last 3 years, but has been used almost solely in the rotation the past 2 years. I really think this guy would be a great option for 5M/yr to replace Colon. I really think he could put up a similar ERA to Colon, and the only difference being about 20 IP. I still think there is a decent shot to land Colon. The one sleeper team that I worry about for Colon is San Diego. With there new stadium they have started to spend money and got themselves a superstar offensive player in Giles to add to the mix, and now will probably look for a front of the rotation pitcher. The big hispanic community in San Diego might also be incouraging for Colon. The fact that Colon has said that he doesn't like NY and Gammons said NY won't go after Colon hard is encouraging. Unless Boston moves either Garciaparra, Ramirez, or Pedro they won't have the financial flexibility to add Colon. Baltimore and Tampa Bay have some money to spend, but if Colon is interested in winning he will probably turn them down like all the other big name FA over the years. Texas might be a possibility. I think Atlanta and Philly will go after Millwood and Maddux instead of Colon. Houston might go after him if they strikeout with Pettite. So I think the market will be weak for Colon IF the NYY aren't big players.

I think they could live with an outfield of Bernie LF, Matsui CF, and Maggs RF, but that is a below average defensive outfield. All rumors have Bernie moving to DH, but I don't see why it is out of the realm of possibility that Bernie can play LF. Another rumor floating around is Soriano for Beltran, which would be a great trade for the Yankees IMO(although I am a huge Beltran fan). Beltran might be the closest thing to a TRUE 5 tool player in the majors. The most impressive stat is his career 88+% SB sucess rate add that to GG calibur D in CF, 60+ extra bases a year, a solid BA, and improving plate disipline and you have yourselves one of the most complete players in the game. Bringing a 3rd team into the mix is certainly a possibility, however, not many teams are breaking down the door trying to acquire Konerko.

Chisoxfn, I generally agree with, but you are missing the point on this topic. Maggs and Konerko for Soriano and Johnson is NOT a realistic option. The only reason why the Yankees are shopping Johnson is because Bernie is no longer a servicable outfielder and is probably going to be moved to DH with Giambi playing 1B. I am sure that they would love to keep a young talent like Johnson around, but this leaves him without a position, and it will be much easier to move Johnson and his minimum contract instead of Bernie and his 12+M/yr or Giambi and his 11+M/yr. The point is that they are moving Johnson because they have no room at 1B/DH so they would have absolutely no interest in Konerko, else I am sure that they would much rather keep Johnson who is younger, cheap, and better. So Maggs and Konerko for Soriano and Johnson isn't a realistic option, although I would love to see that trade. The only way that the Sox get BOTH Soriano and Johnson is if they offer a top of the rotation starter, or a dominating closer, or a very good 2B/CF WITH Maggs. The current rumor has Johnson AND Soriano going to Montreal for Vidro and Vazquez. This should help illustrate what it would take to get BOTH Soriano and Johnson. I would love to see Soriano and Johnson in a Sox uniform because of their youth, potential, early sucess, and cheap salary, but it depends on the cost via trade. Giving up Maggs is asking a lot, but the thought of giving up Maggs AND Buehrle(probably what the Yankees would want) for Soriano and Johnson is too much. I would still love to see the Sox get rid of Konerko and a trade idea that might work is shipping him to Seattle for Guillen. Seattle needs offense and with Martinez likely to retire and Olerod getting older and seeing a decrease in his numbers I think they would have an interest in Konerko. They also have SOME financial flexibility and might be able to take on ALL of Konerko's 8M with the Sox taking about 3M for Guillen. This would rid the Sox of Konerko's contract while giving the Sox a solid realitively cheap SS.

I would love nothing more then to get rid of Konerko and somehow bring Johnson here. Mark my words, Johnson is going to be a stud in the majors. His plate disipline is remarkable and I think of a left handed version of a young Frank Thomas when I see Johnson(maybe not as much power potential though). The guy posted a .894 OPS in only his 2nd full season, which is quite a bit higher then Konerko's career high for OPS. Most scouts feel that Johnson is going to develop into a .300+/25+/100+ 100+ BB guy. I am a HUGE fan of Nick Johnson.

.291 with 31 HR and 113 RBI. Damn you're right. This guy sucks. What was I thinking? Yansy, quit overexagerating. At no point did I say that he sucks, I simple said that he might be a little overrated by some Sox fans. The fact is that OPS is probably the best single stat to measure a hitter, and Lee's OPS of .830 is only slightly above average and not all that impressive for a corner outfield, yet you make it appear that he is the best thing since sliced bread(if you overexagerate then so will I). I would argue that Maggs(.926 OPS) and Thomas(.952) were ahead of Lee as far as being the best/most productive offensive players. I would hate to lose Lee, but a solid middle infielder is harder to find then an average offensive corner outfielder, and it is that simple. If Seattle throws in a solid pitching prospect you have yourself a fair deal for both sides. It is that simple if you look at things from a realistic perspective.

"I don't really have that high of an opinion on Ponson....when it was discovered that the Orioles were setting him up to pitch against other teams #3 and 4 starters, so that if and when a trade was made. they would receive mor than he is worth. Add on to that the fact that he absolutely was putrid in the postseason...we have enough guys that can" This has got to be one of the most overrated statements I have seen. Over the course of a season rotations get mixed up and very rarely do #1 face other #1 ect. Rotations are generally only set during the start of the season, SOMETIMES after days off, SOMETIMES after the AS break, and SOMETIMES during the stretch run. Attempting to make Ponson look worse because of this is a joke. If you truely believe in what you wrote above, than the same should be said about Loaiza. Did teams put in their 3rd and 4th string offensive players? Because last time I checked the starting pitcher faces the other teams offense. Does the pitcher they are matched up against affect the amount of hits, runs, walks, strikeouts, ect? Use your head buddy before you make statements like the above. The fact is that Ponson would be a nice replacement with little drop off from Colon. He is young, a workhorse, and has seen his numbers improve almost every year. With that said my top choice to replace Colon is Batista. I am really surprised that few guys have mentioned him. He has been very good over the past 3 years, has nasty stuff, and could be had for only 4-5M.

I hope not. If thats the Sox middle next year, than the Sox won't make the playoffs.

I was surprised. Gammons gave a list of the FA that GS would go after and Colon WAS NOT on the list. This might be good news for the Sox considering few teams have the financial flexibility to offer Colon more then 12M. There was also a segment on sportscenter that said Colon rejected the Sox 3 year 36M offer, BUT that the Sox will probably going to make one more offer later this week.

"I think Johnson is overrated" You might be the only person in the world that thinks this. The guy posted a .894 OPS this past year in only his second full year(higher then everyone except Maggs and Thomas on the Sox). His plate disipline is amazing, he has good pop, has shown the ability to hit for average, is a pretty solid defensive 1B, and is a decent athlete. This guy is far from overrated. He reminds me a little of a left handed version of a young Thomas. This guy is going to be a great player in this league, and is probably better then Konerko even if he gets back to his old ways. "I could see Konerko for Nick Johnson." There is no way that they do a deal like this. Johnson is better, cheaper, and younger. You are really underexagerating Johnson's value.

Gammons just said that Johnson and Soriano will probably not be back in NY next year. I would love to see the Sox go after either of these guys, especially Johnson. I think Johnson is a future star and would be a great CHEAP replacement if Thomas and/or Konerko are gone. If the Sox are going to trade Maggs, than Johnson and a good prospect or two would be an interesting idea. What do you guys think.

"I think you'll find a lot of people in here that think Carlos was our best position player last year. As I said, I'll stick with Lee." Certainly debatable, especially if you use stats to make your decision. I love Lee, but I still think people are overexagerating his 2003 season. I personally thought that last year was a better year then this year because of the drastic improvement in plate disipline, which is usually a good sign of development in a young hitter, however, the fact that he regressed this year is discouraging to me. Improving the middle infield is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT IMO then keeping one-dimension power hitting LF/RF/1B/DH's.

Lee for Guillen and a good prospect is a fair trade for both sides. I am one of the biggest Lee supports on this board, but I think you are overexagerating his TRUE value. Everyone assumes that because Lee hit a few more HR's and RBI's that last year was his breakout year, however his .830 OPS was LOWER then his .843 OPS in 2002 and was almost identical to his 2000 OPS of .829. So I ask how much did Lee REALLY improve? His plate disipline was the worst since his rookie year. His 37 walks in 623 AB's is down right terrible. I predicted that Lee would improve in 2003, because of his improved plate disipline in 2002, but I couldn't have been any more wrong. Guillen on the other hand has seen his numbers improve across the board over the last 2 years and if he is moved away from Safeco could see his power improve(has had a higher SLG on the road the last 2 years). So you have to ask which is harder to find and more important to a team, a power hitting LF/DH or a solid complete SS? When you factor in a good prospect, and that the Sox would have about 6M(likely amount Lee will get through arbitration and the money saved not resigning Valentin) to fill other holes it becomes a good deal for the Sox any way that you slice it, especially when you open your eyes to reality and realize that Lee really didn't improve in 2003.

Let face the facts....NIU just isn't that good. Make all the excuses you want, but sooner or later NIU fans were going to have to face the truth. They are still a solid team and will go to a bowl game, but mentioning them as a team that is good enough to go to a BSC bowl is a joke.

No, that is incorrect. Palmer has stated in an interview with theinsidershoops.com that Illinois is his current favorite. The reason that he isn't ranked in the top 100 on rivals is because they haven't done a list yet. Type in any of the big names for '05 and they aren't ranked. Also, aboz, the site you use must be pretty off on Palmer because Kansas and Illinois aren't going to be recruiting the 38th best player in the state. I am just going by what Rivals is saying. There was an article on Rivals on the 15th of October that said Kansas was the team to beat for Palmer. I haven't seen any other articles or interviews relating to the favorites for Palmer, so thats what I am going to base my opinion on since I feel that Rivals is one of the top recruiting sites. Its still extremely early and favorites can change within a matter of minutes, so don't read to much into it, but at this point Kansas is the team to beat(according to Rivals). I remember 2 summers ago when Indiana was on about 10-15 top 100 recruits final list(was the favorite for 3-4 of them), and they came up COMPLETELY empty, so the favorites now mean very little While Rivals doesn't have their top 150 list for 2005 up yet, they have started to give star rating(1-5) to the top players and they have yet to give Palmer any stars, which doesn't mean much. However, I justed checked another ranking site and they DON'T have him ranked in their top 50 for 2005. Taking rankings with a grain of salt, because the only thing that matters is how well they develop and play at the college level/NBA. Palmer does appear to have good size and the fact that programs like Kansas and Illinois are recruiting him must mean that he is a pretty talented kid. It will be interesting to see how things unfold. Illinois better bring in a good class to match the impressive class that Indiana brought in this year, and you know that Izzo and Michigan State will bring in some top recruits as well.