whitesox61382

Its hard to shop at Tiffany's when you don't have any money. KW is strapped financially by JR penny pinching. Therefore, that means there are certain players that KW just can't go after because of their salary. If your Brian Cashman and Steinbrenner gives you 150 million to play with chances are you are going to put together a better roster then KW with his 50 million. The big market teams still rule this game, and although the Sox are in a big market JR hasn't shown the willingness to spend the money needed to improve these team. There is little parity and small market teams like Oakland and Minnesota are exceptions and not the norm. I am one of the few KW supporters, or to put it better I don't think he is as bad as most Sox fans make him out to be. Everyone points to the Ritchie trade(which was a terrible trade), but forget the little moves that have worked out(Loaiza, Jimenez, Colon, Olivo, ect.). The fact is that KW has put together a talented enough roster to challenge for the division, but unexpected slumps have hurt this team. Is the players struggles KW fault? Give the guy a break he has been better then most people give him credit for.

Blaming the offensive struggles solely on the hitting coach is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Brando, you have topped your yourself again with such a stupid opinion. Once again everyone disagrees with you, but they are all wrong and you are right because you are God and everything you say goes. You are a very angry man and I suggest a little anger management. There is no need to get so worked up over a message board. Ask player and experts and they will tell you that the hitting coach does very little for each hitter. He makes suggestions, but it is up to the player to make those changes. Its not as if Walker and Ward have made all of the hitters change the approach that has brought the hitters sucess in the past. The HITTERS are to blame and it is that simple. Other posters, experts, players, and coaches will tell you this over and over, but you are to near sighted and self centered to see it.

Been sucking ws61382's dick much lately? He is running out of knee-jerk banalities to throw at opponents who have proven him wrong (as I have with regard to DJ and Nolan Ryan among other things)...and so obviously are you. 1. You are completely wrong about past accomplishments of these hitters. They've all been quite capable, certainly MUCH better than they are this year. Mental aspect is also the reposnsibility of a hitting coach....not that their mechanics and inadequate pitch-recognizion aren't an issue, mind you....Are you even watching the game? 2. You are clearly not grasping the said dichoTOmy, I've received no coherent response yet. Quit hiding behind...what exactly is your reason for not replying again? 3. If you don't think I change my mind, then you have a memory/attention span of a slightly retarded bulldog. Just to remind you here are some of the players about whom I have changed my mind for one reason or another: Lee, DJ. Thomas, Maggs, Gordon, Koch, Konerko, Crede, Borchard, Harris, Burly, Wright, Rowand, Loaiza, Joe Mauer....ah the list is too long to list and everything is documented in concrete evidence- my posts on Soxtalk....Whereas I have yet to see you truly change your mind ONCE. So I wouldn't open your hypocritical mouth so quick if I were you, partna? Nice try baiting me though, Smarmy. Where is your patented insight? Or is that you being all "real" on message boards? Brando, what is your problem? Why do you personally attack anyone who disagrees with you? You know that you lose respect from other posters with each attack. Why do you assume that your OPINIONS are always right as if the world is centered around you and everything you say is right? You proved nothing in either the DJ or Ryan arguement except that you revert to personal attacks when anyone disagrees with you. What does that say about you? If there is one thing I have learned on the message board it is, when people start using personal attacks they are conceding that they have nothing knowledible to counter the arguement. Hmmmmm. If you truely believe that this message board is about proving someone wrong or that stating your opinions will automaticly make others change their opinions you are solely mistaken and have a few things to learn about people. Once you figure out that your OPINIONS aren't fact or the only point of view on a topic let me know. Until then you will be the laughingstock of this message board. To think that I thought you were a knowledgible poster until your reverted to personal attacks on any poster that disagreed with you. Now thats sad buddy. Grow up.

"I love using Beltrran an example...please reflect on the above statement some more and you will see that for high-% runners like Grissom, Alomar, Jeter, Carlos, Willie, Patterson, etc......the "gamble" as you put it is definately worth it even if you count a CS as 2 SBs." These guys are the exception and not the norm. There are only a hand full of players that steal 20+ bases and do so at a 75%+ sucess rate, so don't pretend that it is common. Add to the fact that I never compared Jimenez to some of the great basestealers. Once again you are putting words in my mouth to attempt and build a strong arguement against me. I said that Jimenez has above average speed, the potential to steal 20+ bases, and take the extra base. I also said that if you get caught more then 25% of the time you do the team more harm then good, and since on average the league gets caught 25-30% of the time it is a risk not worth taking in most cases. "And consdering how many crucial DP's Sox hitter hit into with zero outs in games that counted, I think the "gamble" was absolutely the right thing to do." Once again you need to stop passing speculation off as fact. While we are speculating though, what about the 25-30% of the time that a attempted basestealer is caught and one of the hitters behind him hits a double, triple, HR, error, ect. that would have scored a run. Its funny how you never mention that. That is why attempting to steal a base is a risk not worth taking in most cases. As someone who likes to compare eras you should know that the game today isn't based around guys like Henderson and Coleman that steal 50+ bags as will. It has evolved into a slugfest where the SB has become much less important and is not worth the risk of an out. That is why a 50+ SB guy is so rare in todays game. Like baseball you also need to evolve. You continue to see things the way that you want to see them with no regard for others point of view. That is why it is so impossible to hold a logical conversation with you. You need to see the positives and negatives of each arguement before you make you point and decide to use only one point of view. I have never meet a poster as near sighted and self centered as yourself and that is why you also must evolve. That kind of posting might have been good in a different ERA as you might put it, but today is only seen as selfish. Here is a little advice that might help you in life. Learn to put yourself in other peoples shoes and attempt to understand things from their perspective instead of believing that your point of view is the only way to see things. Do this and you will live a much more sucessful life. "This may sound strange, but Brando is really growing on me. I actually look forward to reading his babble" Don't say anything that he disagrees with though, because he will start to personally attack you for not seeing things his way. He did so multiple times on the Jimenez thread to posters simply posting their opinions. It was a pretty sad display on his behalf. Personal attacks on a message board are the signs of the weak. "Compared to what he is repsonding to, that isn't babble at all..." Its nice to see that southside entered his snide 1 line remark that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

"over 162 games, a great speed is way MORE than just SBs- it's effortlessly going from 1st to 3rd with 1 out on singles to the left side....it's scoring from 1st on long, Konerko-esque singles off the wall with less than 2 outs...it's a dozen+ extra bases taken on ball in the dirt (think Valentin but with speed)......it's DP stayed out of and force outs to second beaten out....it's bunting....it's making a pitcher nervous and affecting defensive alighnment......etc, etc, etc...." Jimenez does all of the above and thats one of my main points. He does have the speed to go to 3rd from 1st on a single, or score from 2nd on a single, or score from 1st on a double, or score from 3rd on a lazy flyball. The only aspect that his speed doesn't show is SB and I simply pointed out that SB were overrated IMO. Thats why he is still a very good leadoff hitter in my book even though he doesn't steal a lot of bases. "What the difference between a leadoff double and an infield single plus a stolen base?" The difference is that a leadoff double means that you are on 2nd and a single and an ATTEMPTED stolen base means that you can make an out that wasn't needed. On average I would say that 25% of the time you get caught. That means that 1/4th of the time you go from a man at 1st and no outs to no man on base and 1 out. That is a pretty significant difference and way that you slice it. "First of all, Juan Pierre isn't getting caught stealing 25% of the time....he's getting caught stealing 20% of the time." At no point did I say that he had been caught 25% of the time. In fact I didn't even look at his numbers so for all I know he hasn't been caught the entire season. The 25% was a general number thrown out their to prove a point. I was simple making that point that if you get caught in 25% or more of your attempted steals then you are doing the team more harm them good by costing them an out and a baserunner way to often. "Secondly, stealing is not overrated. Getting on base is important, yes, but if you can steal 2nd, you are getting a runner in scoring position, and a base hit then most likely scores a run. And if he gets out, so what....you lose an out and are back to a good hitter in Jimenez who is just a second leadoff hitter. Simple as that." Most people would disagree with the above. The way that the game is played today, in the offensive era as Brando would put it, baserunners are more important then ever. Risking an out AND a baserunner in an attempt to take an extra base is often a risk not worth taking(Bobby V said the same thing). Like I pointed out above, if a base stealer is getting caught 25%+ of the time then he is doing the team more harm then good. You fail to point out some of the positives of having a baserunner on 1st, such as a hole between the 1st baseman and 2nd baseman, or the fact that the pitcher has to usually use a slid step(even if the runner isn't that fast), or the chance to still drive him in with a double, triple, or HR, ECT. "A better version of Willie Harris? Hardly. Willie could be a player much like Pierre some day, but he isn't there yet." Thats the point of being a better version of Willie Harris. They have similar games and use their speed as their main weapon. I do think Harris can develop into a similar player as Pierre and thats one of the reasons that I don't like a trade for Pierre. Why trade for a guy when you have a younger version with the potential to be as good? ps. i went back to the old way of doing things(using quotes) just for brando to prove a point.

Whats the difference between a good #2 hitter and a good leadoff hitter? Not much. I hate the fact that you guys don't think Jimenez is a good leadoff hitter because he doesn't steal bases. The stolen base is one of the most overrated stats in the game. In most cases it isn't worth the risk of an out to take an extra base(as Bobby pointed out on baseball tonight a while back). If a player is getting caught 25%+ then he is usually doing the team more harm then good. You ask a manager today which is more important out of the leadoff spot, OBP or SB, and I guarantee that a majority of them will say OBP. Its the new Beene way of baseball. Yesterday I say Dunn leading off for the Red because he draws a ton of walks and has a decent OBP. That just goes to show how much more important that OBP is when compared to SB for a leadoff hitter. Sure it would be great to have a guy that does both leading off, but please quit pretending that Jimenez isn't a good leadoff hitter and that the leadoff spot is a weakness that needs to be filled. Just as a side note, Jimenez actually does have above average speed. Pierre is simple a better version of Harris. So why give up a top pitching prospect for a guy like that? If you think Pierre alone would turn this club around, than you are in for a rude awakening. Which is a bigger weakness, starting pitching or CF? As of right now you can make the arguement for CF, but in the very near future starting pitching is going to be the biggest weakness on this team. The Sox don't have many TOP pitching propsects in their system, but they do have quite a few CF prospects. So why trade from a weakness for a short term solution to a position that will probably be a strength in the near future? It just doesn't make sense, especially for maybe 1 or 2 extra wins.

I think they should wait until the as break before trading anyone. Trade value doesn't change that much from month to month. The Sox are playing better of late. They took 2 out of 3 from a very good Dodgers team. They were 1 inning away from taking 2 out of 3 from the 2nd best team in the NL. They took 2 out of 3 from San Diego. And they took the 1st game in this series. With all of their struggles the Sox are still only 6.5 games out with a big series against the Twins coming up. I think 88 games could end up winning this division. We will get a better understanding of things at the as break and if the Sox aren't 5 games or less back of the twins and/or over .500 then they should start thinging about trading veterans for prospects. I would do a colon and gordon for 2 of the following player: Nixon/Fossum/Sanchez.

Why do you personally attack everyone Brando? You called one guy stupid because he didn't agree with your opinion on Ryan(although I did something similar but my comment was more about the idea and not the person). Now you tell someone that his ideas aren't respected because you disagree with him. Here is a news flash, not everyone agrees with you, you are not always right, people are welcome to their opinion, they shouldn't be called an idiot for it, and the world doesn't evolve around you. While I might disagree with your OPINION on Mr. Ryan I respect your point of view and don't call you an idiot because I disagree with you. I suggest you do the same thing and remember that we are all Sox fans voicing our opinions. Key word OPINIONS.

Pierre is a solid player, but I don't think he improves this team that much. I can live with Rowand and Harris as a stopgap in CF until a better option comes. 2 of the Sox top 5 prospects are CF and they used their 1st pick in this years draft on a CF. There will be help on the way in the near future, possible as early as mid-season next year if Reed continues to develop. So I don't like the idea of giving up a good prospect or 2 to get a guy like Pierre, especially a guy like Rauch. As Sox fans we have to realize that we could lose 2/5ths of the current rotation and Rauch could be a very important part to the future, more important then acquiring Pierre IMO. How about that kid Willis? That kid has a serious arm from the left side. His arm is living up to his potential. How come Sox pitching prospects can't do the same? It seems that Sox prospects are overhyped in the minors. To often I read minor league scouting reports on a rookie pitcher that say he consistantly throws in the mid-90's only to seem hi struggle to keep it in the low-90's. Or that he has great control only to see him constantly fall behind in the count and walk hitters. Or have a great breaking ball only to see him hang it and not be able to throw it consistantly for strikes. ECT. When you look at Willis and his stuff you see a future front of the rotation starter. I never got that feeling with guys like Garland, Wright, and even Wells.

"WS...Please learn the f***ing 'QUOTE' feature. Until then your points will be duly noted and ignored." I know how to use the quote button I just do thinks my way. For example, I did the above solely to mess with you. I have a feeling that people will still read my post no matter what way I quote things, so don't pretend that I would be ignored or use more speculation to come to conclusions that aren't logical. Whether you continue to read my post matters very little to me. I have a good idea that you will still read what I have to write, but not might respond in order to say "I told you so". "I didn't; his 300 losses and 3.20 career ERA are NOTHING to brag about when you are applying for the "greatest pitcher of all time" honor" At no point did I say that he was the best pitcher ever. You and the other oldtimer are putting words in my mouth in order to formulate arguements against me. He is probably one of the top 10 alltime, but I personally don't think he is the best of all time. I was just defending him because people attempted to use his loses to take away from his legacy. "Compare to his contemproraries ands then do the same for Pedro/Maddux and theirs- this is the standard approach used in all of sports." Find me a contempory that was significantly better then Ryan during his prime. How is that any different then Perdo or Maddux? He was the best during his era while in his prime and arguable one of the top 10 pitchers alltime. Most EXPERT would argue with that although you seem to disagree. "(Not that my "speculation" about offensive eras and stadiums wasn't warranted, mind you- how many old Texas stadium warning track flyouts are long home runs at BP Arlinton or Enron for instance? And so on...)" While we are speculating, what would happen to his wins and loses if he played on a better team? There were many times were he was among the leaders in ERA and also loses. Or what if he only pitched 5 innings like the pitcher of this great offensive era. I am sure that there were many occasions were Ryan just ran out of steam towards the end of the game and got hit hard. You can speculate that in this era he might have went 5 or 6 innings more times and been able to let it all out more often and not have to suffer a couple of late beatings. I mean almost 30% of his starters were complete games. How many pitchers can say that in this era? Its funny that you neglect to mention things like this. Its easy to be near sighted and see only want you want to see in order to back your arguement. And by the way, there were a good share of small parks back then as well. Some of the older staduims are currently some of the better hitters parks today(Fenway, Wriggley, ect). "As far as his Ks go, I already said this once: out are outs just like RBIs are RBIs for hitters. That's why both SO and HR records are virtually meaningless. Cool, flashy but meaningless." In a way you contradict yourself. While I believe that HR's and SO's are a bit overrated it is also the best way to accoplish the 2 things you find most important(RBI's and outs), yet you call them meaningless. That doesn't make much sense now does it? Show me a more productive way to drive in runs then hitting a HR's. Do you find it meaningless that most of the RBI leaders usually are among the HR leaders? What is the most sure fire way to get an out? Answer...a strikeout. The only way to get on base with a strikeout is with a WP, but when you put the ball into play there are so many ways to get on base that I don't feel like listing them all. So tell me which is more likely to result in an out, a strikeout or a ball put into ball? So much for being meaningless. "That's just stupid. You're better than that. Want me to run a quick comp for you?" Because someone disagrees with you they are wrong. How near sighted is that of you? Most experts would disagree with you as well. Does that mean that they are all wrong as well? If you have all the answers can you give me the winning lottery numbers? "Ooooh, the searing diss! You guys are sad." It was a little joke not meant to be taken personal. I am not one to personally attack someone on a message board. I think that is classless. he mentioned something about me being young and he being old, so I simply called him oldtimer. Nothing personal.

"I'm assuming those last numbers are of Jose Valentin or something like that?" Actually they were just random number used to prove a point. I assume that Miles would put up similar numbers to the ones that I made up. I don't understand why everyone thinks a guy with no D, no speed, and no plate disipline is a better option then Jimenez. "Since Jimenez can't turn a good DP and has no range, his errors are more weighty than you think. Have you any idea how many runs he already cost the Sox on the D.? That error in Oakland alone accounted for 3. Compared to him, both Crede and Valentin are gold glovers this season" How many full seasons has Jimenez played at 2nd? Show me how many youngsters come to the majors and are good defensively? Tell me that you don't think Jimenez has the athletism to become a solid defensive player? Tell me that under a manger that would motive him he wouldn't have the ability to improve? Defense is like every other aspect of this game, it can be improved with expereince. "As far as his offense, he needs to out-OPS Willie Harris by a good 70-100 points margin in order to be considered a starter at 2nd. Granted so far he is doing that, but Willie ain't going anywhere, he is hanging ropes all over the place in almost every atbat nowdays and DJ is looking like a shadow of his former self." I am also a big fan of Harris and think that he has a bright future with this team. You don't hit .400+ at AAA for an extended period of time based on luck alone. I love his speed, he is very good defensively at both 2nd and CF, and has decent plate disipline. Why not keep both a motived Jimenez and Harris? "Just say you know nothing--or care nothing-- about "other" eras and be done with it. "Speculation" doesn't have to be an exact science in order to be something legitimate or valid, the fact remains that pitching in Enron or in BPA is a little more difficult....ah forget it, I am sure it will fall on deaf ears. There is nothing legendary about 3.20 career ERA, ok? Compare him to some of his contemproraries if you want. And I couldn't care less about his 5710000000000 SO's just like I caoun't care less about Ripkens record or about Aaron's 750+ homers...." You say that I know nothing/care about other eras and then you say you care nothing about some of the greatest accomplishments in the history of this sport whether for show or not. Pot meet kettle. YOU CAN'T STATE AS FACT THAT PLAYERS WOULD BE BETTER OR WORSE IN A DIFFERENT ERA. It is fun to compare eras and speculate, but i will repeat you can't use that alone to factually say that a player would be better or worse in a different era. There are so many things that you have to take into consideration when comparing eras that you can't logically do it, yet you continue to do so and pretend that it is a FACT that Ryan would have had a higher ERA in the current era. He also played over 3 decades so I think it is safe to say that he played during multiple different eras. Some offensive and some pitching. "1. Sorry I am too stupid to please you. Will you ever forgive me?" We will see. As long as you learn not to use wins and loses to solely make a decision on whether a pitcher is good or not. "2. Wins and losses are what, a matter of, say, production? If baseball is a game based on production, then how do we measure that apart from the final product? Production, product - that would be wins and losses." 2 pitchers with the same ERA(similar overall numbers for comparison sake) and one on a team that averages 6 runs a game and the other on a team that averages 3 runs a game. The pitcher on the team averaging 6 runs goes 20-5 and the pitcher on the team averaging 3 runs goes 5-20. You can honestly tell me that the 20-5 pitcher is better because his team scores more runs? That is the point. You get it now or do I have to break it down even further for you. "3. A superior pitcher will triumph over a bad team. Look at Steve Carlton in 1972." You don't honestly believe this do you? Calton is the exception and not the norm. There is only so much that a pitcher can control. He can't control the D behind him or the lack of offensive support, yet he is suppose to overcome it? Do you actually read what you post oldtimer? One of the original points is that Buehlre has pitched better then his record, which only helps prove my point. "I find it a tad amusing when someone who wasn't alive when a player was playing tells me what that player did when I saw that player. Nolan Ryan had a hall of fame career. He stayed in the majors the first part of his career because of his potential, not so much because of what he was actually doing. And his no hit games were amazing but so was his lack of control and his essentially 500 pitching record." Sorry that I am not eligible for social secruity like you(although I wouldn't be bragging about that if I were you). Just because I am younger does that mean that I am any less of a fan or care less about past era or don't follow past eras. You have Eminem on you signature should I assume that because he isn't a major part of your generation that you know any less or more about him then me? Do you realize how bad some of the words that are coming out of your mouth make you look. And just for the record I did watch Ryan pitch towards the end of his career when he was a shell of his former self(remember when Venture charged the mound and got his ass kicked). "4. Try suggesting to Selig and the Cy Young voters that counting wins and losses are "stupid." Maybe you can find a way to talk us into the World Series and Todd Ritchie could win the 2002 Cy Young retroactively." You read what i posted but you failed to take the time to comprehend it because you are so steammed. At no point in any of my post did I say wins and loses aren't important. You assumed that because I called you out and you needed something to form an arguement about. If you go back and look at what I said you will see that. I said that it is stupid to use SOLELY wins or loses to determine how good a pitcher is(see my example above about the 20-5 pitcher and 5-20 pitcher) and at no point did I say that they weren't important. Nice try though oldtimer.

Your point about Ryan having slumps and Buehrle pitching better then his 10 loses would indicate are well taken. However, using wins and loses alone to determine whether a pitcher is good or not is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Wins and loses are determined by the team more then the individual pitcher with Buehrle as a prime example. The fact that he lead the league in ERA and still had 18 loses should alone tell you how little wins and loses should be taken into consideration in determining how good a pitcher is. If Clemens played for the Tigers his whole career should that take away from his other accomplishments and overall greatness? You also have to remember that pitchers went longer into games and usually had both more wins and loses, something you don't see a lot of today from the starters that go 5 and call it a night. Will people quit comparing eras and saying that if this player played during this time he would be so much better or worse. There is no way that you can logically determine how players from different eras would react to another era, so quit using speculation and opinion to assume that you know that players would be better or worse in different eras. Ryan is in a league of his own and if you don't know that then you know nothing about baseball. Using his loses to take away from his legacy is retarded. Buehrle has a long way to go before being mentioned in the same breath as Ryan. They aren't even similar pitchers. On a different note, I would take a lazy Jimenez that is producting then another player with heart that isn't producing. This is a game based on production. Jimenez putting up these numbers .280/15/75 70 BB 10 SB 10 errors is better then a player with heart putting up these numbers .250/5/50 40 BB 5 SB 15 errors. So keep Jimenez and get a manager to motivate him and get his full potential. That is what the Sox do end of story because he is currently, and in the future, the best option the Sox have at 2nd.

Is Jimenez ever going to be a GG? No. Can he be a solid defensive player? Yes. I think Jimenez needs a new manager more then anyone on this team. Someone who will light a fire under him. A player shouldn't need a manger to get him going, but if it means that he develops into one of the top all around 2nd baseman in the league then i could live with it. He has some great potential. Look what he is doing despite the fact that he doesn't play that hard. He is a good enough athlete that he could be a solid fielder. He isn't much worse then Durham defensively. He also has solid speed and 20+ SB potential if he is motivated, allowed to run, and becomes a smarter base runner. He has been in a slump this past week, but he has still been one of the most consistant hitters. Most fans hate the fact that he is lazy, but it is hard to argue with his potential and production, especially in a season where there hasn't been much to cheer about for Sox fans. For the last time Miles isn't the answer. On Jimenez's worst day he is still better then Miles. Heart can only make up for so much lack of skill.

I know that most Sox fans don't want to hear this, but I think Maggs should be traded in the next couple of years, IF some of the outfield prospects develop. 3 of the Sox top 5 current prospects are outfielder(Borchard, Reed, Webster) and the Sox spent 5 out of the top 10 picks this year on outfielders as well. I think the outfield could become a strength and that the Sox could afford to move Maggs. Maggs would probably net the Sox 2 or 3 VERY good players to fill in other holes(like a SS for the future). It would also save the Sox 14 m/yr that could be used to sign other young players(I don't like spending a ton of money on one player). I think trading Maggs is an idea that the managerment should ponder IF some outfield prospects live up to their potential and a good deal is on the table.

I really like Vazquez and would love to take him off of the Padres hands. I have followed him some in the minors and he had a great year at Seattle's AAA club in 2001. He doesn't do anything great, but he does a lot of things well. He will hit for a solid average, has double digit HR potential, has decent speed but more importantly is a smart baserunner(ala Valentin), and is solid defensively(he reminds me a lot of Clayton in the way that he doesn't have great range but he isn't going to make a ton of errors). The thing that I like most about him is his plate disipline. He draws a good amount of walks and this was one of the reasons that I have always liked him since his AAA days. I am a huge fan of plate disipline and this guy should be a consistant .350+ OBP guy. He is actually very similar to Jimenez offensively and I think a 1-2 combination of those 2 at the top of the order would be nice. Thats what the Padres wanted to do, but they lost patience in Jimenez. Neither guy has great speed, but it is decent and they do the other things that you want a top of the order hitter to do. If the Padres feel that Greene is their future SS and are willing to trade Vazquez, than I would love to see KW pull off another steal and take this kid. At 26 he is still young enough to build around and could be the SS of the future after Valentin.

He did the hop last night on a ball off the wall and was almost thrown out at 2nd. That would have been really funny if the hope costed the Cubs an out on an easy double.

I forgot the Sox got Yan along with Marte for Guerrier. What a trade that is turning out to be. Last time I checked Guerrier was really struggling at AAA.

Its good to see that Charlotte got some good pitching. I think Diaz, Majewski, and Ginter could all play an important role for the Sox in the near future, especially Diaz.

Thanks for the happy birthday. 21 this Friday. I am going to get stupid drunk. I have given my personal comments on Anderson a few times, but have no problem doing so again. As a matter of fact I contemplated trying to walk onto the U of A team after playing 2 years of D2 ball out east, but knew that there was no chance that I could play big time D1 ball. It would have been interesting though because my natural position is CF and if I were backing up Anderson I could have given you a very indepth scouting report. With that said, I went to about 8 U of A games this past year and came back with mixed feeling about Anderson. The scouting reports will tell you he is really a toolsy guy, and thats no lie, but at times he wasn't the best player on the team. He needs to improve his plate disipline some, and that might be a little of a downfall at the upper levels in the minors. He has developing power although at this point looks more like a gap power guy. He is tall and long and runs very well. He has a pretty level swing and usually makes solid contact. He has a solid arm and good range. Another thing to look for is consistancy. This year was his 1st big year. He was hurt last year, and only this year realized his full potential. IMO, he wasn't a 1st round player though. From what I saw more of a 2nd-3rd rounder. He will probably take more time to develop then most college players. I don't think he has star potential, but he has the ability to be a solid major league player if he continues to develop. A player to keep your eye on in future drafts is a kid by the name of Van Houton. It helps that I usually sit next to his dad and listen to him talk up his son, but he is a very good player. He also told me to keep an eye on Anderson because there were scouts watching him for the upcoming draft. He doesn't have the physical gifts that Anderson has and when I meet him and stood next to him I was quite a bit taller. If I had to guess he is probably only 5'8-5'9, but he is one of those leave it on the field guys. His dad video tapes every one of his AB's and he studies it every night looking for ways to improve, see how pitchers are pitching him, what he is doing well, ect, so he has a great work ethic and willingness to improve. He lead the Pac 10 in hitting for a decent part of the season before cooling off some towards the end of the year(still hit above .400 I believe). He has a very good eye and doesn't strikeout much(about a 1:1 strikeout to walk ratio if I am not mistaken). He has some solid pop for a guy his size and I believe finished in the top 3 on the team in HR's. He has solid speed as well. He played the corner outfield, but his dad said he could play some 3rd and possible move to CF with Anderson gone. I was probably more impressed with this kid then Anderson.

I like the sound of this kid. He sounds like a great defensive catcher, which is the 1st thing you look for in a backup. He hit 33 HR's in AA and 20 in AAA the next year. It sounds like this kid has a little pop as well. He was a high draft pick and pretty highly thought of. He is only 26 and didn't cost the Sox anything in return. I really like this move. He could be the Sox backup of the future and adds depth to a position that has none. Good move KW.

There is a difference between talent and heart. I have the heart to play major league baseball, but it is something that will never happen. Miles heart doesn't make up the talent difference with Jimenez. Jimenez was the right choice out of ST no questions asked. I go to school at the U of A and say almost every Sox game in Tucson, and Miles wasn't better. Miles is a career minor leaguer, with no speed, terrible defense, and zero plate disipline. He is a future utility infielder at best. Jimenez is the present and the future. Imagine how good this kid could be if he starts trying. Why should Miles be starting over Jimenez? If you think Miles should be starting over Jimenez then you definately have a bias, that or you are smoking crack.

"Chicks just don't dig DJ." Thats suppose to be B J's. Chicks just dont dig BJ's.

If given a choice I would take Beltran over Edmonds. I might have underestimated Edmonds and overestimated Beltran, but not by much. IMO, Beltran might be the 4th best defensive CF in the game behind Jones, Hunter, and Cameron. Edmonds does get good jumps, but he still ranks in the bottom half in range for CF. He would be better defensively then what the Sox currently have, but I would still take Beltran defensively, especially considering that Edmonds is on the wrong side of 32. I think you are overestimating Edmonds and underestimating Beltran offensively. Here are the numbers that they have average over the last 3 years(for Beltran its doesn't include the 2000 season because he missed almost half the year). Beltran .280/25/100 100 runs 30 2B 5 3B 50 BB 120 SO 25 SB .850 OPS Edmons .300/30/100 95 runs 30 2B 1 3B 90 BB 130 SO 5 SB .970 OPS The only big difference is walks. Edmonds hits for a little better average and power as well. However, if you look Beltran has steadily inproved both his walk total and HR total. He is on pace to set career highs in both catogories this year even though he missed the 1st couple of weeks in the season. Also take into consideration Beltran's SB, especially the fact that he has a great percentage. Finally add the fact that Beltran is entering his prime, while Edmonds will probably start decreasing in the next couple of years when father time catches up, and the offensive difference between the isn't as great as you make it out to be. Beltran is one of the top offensive CF's in the game, and when you factor in his defense you have arguable one of the top 5 CF's in the game who is just entering his prime. I think 10-12 m/yr is very reasonable. If you have been following FA since ARod you will notice that prices have actually been coming down. Also Boras is starting to get shafted by teams not wanting to deal with him. The best evidence of this is the way Boras represented drafties fall in the draft to later rounds then their talent would dictate. I really think people will be surprised by how much less Beltran will get then they had figured that he would. Is Edmonds contract steady, ie does he make 8.5 for the rest of the years or does it steadily increase each year? I like Edmonds, I just think Beltran would be a better fit for a team that is restructing/rebuilding. Beltran is also on the market, while I am sure that St. Louis won't be trading Edmonds any time in the near future. It is a pipe dream to get either though as we know all to well that JR will not increase the payroll.

Getting rid of the Sox most consistant hitter this year isn't a good idea. Jimenez has cooled some, but is still hitting in the .280's. He is 2nd on the team in walks and has done a very good job leading off. If the Sox are going to get back into contention they are going to need the middle of the order to start hitting, but they will also need someone at the top of the order getting on base, and Jimenez is that guy. Who do the Sox leadoff with if not Jimenez? And don't say Miles. Miles is a career minor leaguer with no plate disipline. His .300 OBP would be great at the top of the order(J/K). He is just as bad defensively as Jimenez and if you think Jimenez doesn't have great speed, than wait until you see Miles. Miles makes Jimenez look like the 2nd coming of Micheal Johnson when it comes to speed. Miles is a young TonyG. He is a future utility player and nothing more. Jimenez is the present and future at 2nd base. Lets hope we can get a new manager that is know for motivating his players, and hopefully will teach Jimenez to give it his all on the field. If this is how good Jimenez is when he isn't trying, imagine how good he could be if he was motivated. Getting rid of Jimenez is probably one of the worst ideas I have heard all year.

I have never been a huge fan of Borchard's to begin with. I am a huge fan of plate disipline and believe it is a good way to measure a youngster and how much he is going to progress. There are rare occasions when players with terrible plate disipline(Soriano for example) suceed, but for the most part you have to have decent plate disipline to develop. I can live with a guy that strikesout a ton as long as he draws walks(ala Thome) and after Borchard's 1st year of pro ball it appeared that Borchard was going to be one of those players, however, he has since regressed over the past two year and it is no coinsidence that his overall numbers have also fallen. His swing needs some major work and that work should be done at AAA. I am also not sold on him being an everyday CF. I think he will be much better suited as a corner outfielder. I think Harris should be given a chance to start once he comes off the DL. You have to be doing something right to hit .420 for almost a month at AAA. He also has very good range in CF and is a better option defensively then Borchard. He would also add an element of speed to the lineup, which this one dimension power or nothing lineup needs. I say give Harris another month in CF and if he doesn't improve some, than give either Rowand or Borchard(whichever is performing better at AAA) another shot. Either way the Sox should be able to get more production from CF then they currently have.