almagest

I really would not mind having OC back for one more year. I think it would be one of the best things that could happen -- hit him 2nd, 8th, or 9th, and keep Alexei at 2nd for another year. Hopefully get a lead-off hitter for CF, and give Beckham, Lillibridge, and Jordan Danks a chance to build up some confidence and experience in the minors. If he puts up .280/.330/.370 or more, with decent defense, he's worth it, jackass or not.

I second the Picasa suggestion. Also fantastic, but far more advanced, is the GIMP.

Why do you need 10 megapixels? Are you printing lots of oversized images, or doing any photo work that requires digital zoom? 10 MP is way overkill for most people -- you're better focusing on a camera with a better lens, photo sensor, image stabilization, and/or faster shutter time. Also, are you looking for a simple camera, a small camera, a "prosumer" level camera, or a professional/DSLR camera? Do you have a price range in mind? What's the memory card format on your HP? Do you have a preferred memory card format? Do you want a rechargable battery, or a camera that takes AA/AAA batteries?

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 11:52 PM) LMAO A pitcher can control where he throws the ball and how he throws it. Some pitchers have trouble keeping their body under control, but that is not because they are unlucky. If a pitcher can control the opposition hitting home runs, why do pitchers allow that stuff? And BTW, if you've never seen a pitcher's pitch hit for a home run then you have never seen a very good hitter in action. If this were the case, then HR/9 wouldn't be a sustainable stat -- you'd see wild variations for almost every pitcher. A little research shows this isn't the case at all. Also, just because a good hitter hits a pitcher's pitch for a home run doesn't invalidate the point. I'm not sure why you'd even say that.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 10:51 AM) No two draft picks =/= young players because they will be more expensive (if they even sign,) have less experience, and cannot be immediate trading chips for a possible larger package.If they don't sign, we get compensatory picks in next year's draft. Experience doesn't always outweigh potential. Who cares if we can't trade them right away? You don't base a player's worth on whether you can spin him off for someone else or not. QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 10:51 AM) Wait. Are two draft picks equal to two young players or not? Garland would've brought back compensation for the sandwich picks which evens out Cabrera's. So why are we even saying it's two picks when in reality it's a draft pick no lower than 16th in the draft at best. There's even a possibility that Cabrera's pick won't even be in the first or second round because the same team might sign another type A free agent.Garland is type B, Cabrera type A. We get two picks for Cabrera -- one between the first and second rounds, and either a first round pick after the 15th pick, or a second round pick, depending on who signs Cabrera. I also don't think we'd get a pick lower than the second round, for any reason -- where did you find that? Even if true, I think it's a little much to say that the Cabrera trade was bad because we might get a 3rd round pick in the draft for him if the team that signs him also signs another type A free agent.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 08:50 AM) That's true, but I'm not going to get a boner over getting them based on the Sox's history of draft picks over the past 10 years. Draft picks are more exciting and important to smaller payroll teams who live off their farm system. High payroll teams who cannot settle for rebuilding years don't care about draft picks as much. Look at the Yankees declining arbitrtation to everyone yesterday. For once and for all can we please stop assuming that someone who doesn't/didn't favor the Cabrera acquisition thinks/thought that Garland should've been on the team? I didn't want either of them here for 2008. I'd rather trade Garland for a package of young players (or even something like the Garcia deal at the time) or a prospect that might be 1 year away. That way we wouldn't have to worry about paying million dollar signing bonus for guys 2-4 years away. So two draft picks doesn't equate to "a package of young players"? I also don't know how you can criticize Kenny Williams for not making a deal that might not have even existed. Speculating that one year of mediocre ol' Jon Garland was worth some nice package of young players is dreaming, and assuming that Kenny Williams wouldn't have considered taking Gavin Floyd-esque "projects with upside" for Garland is silly.

All I've been playing lately is Tecmo Bowl: Kickoff, and Chrono Trigger DS. My girlfriend has been hooked on Mario Party 8 -- I need to send that back to Gamefly to liberate the TV.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 01:48 AM) Willy Taveras is an aggressive hitter whose OBP depends entirely upon his average, and if he doesn't hit for a good average, he won't be a good player. It's as simple as that. If Willy Taveras is the last ditch effort and the Sox trade for him in the middle of January, I'll understand. Willy Taveras should not be the major move for the White Sox this offseason. Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. You can ignore and/or cherry pick whatever stats you want, and you can post however many "intimidating" walls of text that you want, but Wily Taveras is a one-dimensional player who relies entirely on his batting average for offensive production -- if he doesn't hit ~.300, he's worthless.

Everett posted an OPS+ of 92 in 2005 -- same as Nick Swisher last year. So if we replace '05 Everett with '08 Swisher, we lose nothing. Everett also managed to hit .300 (all singles!) with 1 walk, and 3 RBI in 40 postseason at-bats in 2005. Fantastic. You all can have your fond memories of Everett and his majestic 2005 season. I'll live in reality and continue to think he was mediocre, and thank Kenny for getting Thome instead. P.S. We won in 2005 because of pitching.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 14, 2008 -> 03:05 PM) I see a signing announcement this weekend for us, I really have a good hunch.Any ideas/info on who? Viciedo? Hudson?

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 02:52 PM) I'll recap quickly BA's take on Marquez from last season... Sinker-Slider guy. Power sinker 89-93. Curve and change improved to solid-average pitches. Great pickoff move. Doesn't miss any bats meaning he relies heavily on his defense. Projects him to be a workhorse number 3 or 4. Again, that was last year's scouting report when he was the Yanks' #7 prospect. Sounds like Jon Garland.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 04:56 PM) No, Gomez's upside doesn't even come close to what Gonzalez's. Gonzalez is a legit five-tool guy. He was the centerpiece of that Haren deal. Gomez's will probably top out and about 15 hr's per year, Cargo has abour 35 in him. Gomez is a plus-defender with great speed, Gonzalez combines these elements with a bat that allowed the D-Backs to be comfortable with trading Quentin.Like I said, they both have talent, and are very young, but have a long way to go to live up to projections. Does Gonzalez have a far higher upside? Yes. Does that mean he'll be better? No. I'm also curious why a guy with Gonzalez's talent would be traded twice in 2 years.

If the Cubs couldn't get Roberts for their best trading chips, there's no way they'll get Peavy for what's left over after the Harden trade. The Cubs are turning into the consistently-losing version of the Yankees -- they apparently can get any player they want for Kevin Foster and Ryne Sandberg's wife.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 04:01 PM) Street sucks. Gonzalez may be a good one. I don't know how Smith is a solid #3 yet. Its funny how on this board Carlos Gomez will never be any good and Gonzalez who had worse numbers is going to be a star. They either sign Holliday or flip him at the deadline if they aren't contending. It could be a disaster for Oakland, but for 2009, they received the best player in the deal.He basically is Carlos Gomez -- talent, but a long long way to go to realize it. I don't see Holliday putting up an OPS much over .800 in a better league, with better pitching, while playing in the least hitter-friendly parks outside of Chavez Ravine and Petco. Unless Beane plans on spinning him off for something else, or really knows what he wants to do with those comp. picks, I think this trade is a solid win for Colorado.

Picked up Star Ocean: First Departure for PSP and Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia for DS last night. Both are very, very good.

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Oct 21, 2008 -> 03:07 PM) Who would you rather have at bat in 9th inning Sunday night with the man on first. If you think every Red Sox fan was wishing they had Manny in the 7th, 8th or 9th on Sunday you are kidding yourself. Was, or wasn't? I know they were.

QUOTE (rangercal @ Oct 20, 2008 -> 12:35 PM) There is no way I can believe that. Rays in 6 Pat Burrell has been better almost every year of his career. The only thing Crawford has over Burrell is stolen bases. Crawford was also injured for about 1/3 of this year, and didn't really have a good year in the time he was able to play.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 20, 2008 -> 11:06 AM) That'd be impossible, as he's always been one of the best. Now, you show me which player put up better numbers each year, as that is the question being asked in this thread.Sure -- it's almost even, unless you consider defensive stats, VORP, and WARP, then A-Rod pulls ahead. I mentioned before that this was the case. Alex Rodriguez is certainly not better because he tries harder, which unfortunately seems to be the popular argument.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 18, 2008 -> 04:38 PM) I see them all the time. Everything Dick Allen is saying is true. Here's the thing. Manny might be better than A-Rod. When he actually tries (which he only does on specific occasions, such as this contact year), he puts up incredible numbers. The problem is that he hardly ever puts in that much effort, and therefore, A-Rod puts up better numbers. I suppose you might be saying that you'd take Manny on pure talent alone, but he doesn't put that talent to full use. If you can convince him to give 100%, then good for you. You can have him. See, that's strange, because I watch tons of baseball, including lots of Red Sox games, and I recall Manny putting in about as much effort as any other major-league star. I also know lots of Red Sox fans, and all but one say Manny worked pretty hard at becoming at least decent in left field, always seemed to play hard when it counted, etc. So it looks like we have completely different interpretations of Manny's play style. That's fine; everyone has an opinion. Looks like all that's left is stats, so I'll re-post the question no one has answered: show me a season where Manny Ramirez hasn't produced. Show me how his numbers in previous years don't live up to his billing as one of the best right-handed hitters in the game.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 17, 2008 -> 02:46 PM) I don't even follow the Red Sox....Yet you somehow know all this. M'kay.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 17, 2008 -> 01:47 PM) The problem is that Manny dogs it a lot. Trust me, I see him play all the time. He plays just hard enough, but he has the ability to be much better. Therefore, most people would take Rodriguez over him.Who cares? He "dogs" it at a hall-of-fame caliber. I don't care if he takes a dump in the outfield every game if he posts a .900+ OPS, which he's done pretty much every year of his career. I really just can't understand the Manny Ramirez hatred going on in this thread.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 16, 2008 -> 05:38 PM) And Rodriguez played a pretty solid SS for quite a few years and is now a suitable defensive 3Bman. Manny Ramirez plays a terrible defense in LF. ARod also has a 40-40 season under his belt and he could get his 300th stolen base sometime next season. Add to it that he's going into his age 33 season, and it's quite obvious who the more valuable player is.I'll agree that A-Rod is theoretically more valuable because of his good defense at a premium position (SS), and good defense at an average position (3B). Giving a player grief for playing a mediocre LF is about as logical as getting on a DH for not contributing to defensive win shares, though. LF is the least important defensive position, and we were doing just fine with Quentin's sub-par defense out there this season.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 17, 2008 -> 10:02 AM) ^^^^ With A-Rod I know he's going to give me max effort every night. With Manny, once he has the cash guaranteed, I'm not certain who is going to show up. Advantage A-Rod. So when has Manny Ramirez not produced?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 16, 2008 -> 05:38 PM) Similar offensively. Defensively, no contest. ARod could still probably play SS at least as well as Manny can play LF. The title of the thread was who was more valuable. Its amazing how many nauseating "Manny being Manny" moments are forgotten because some guy forced his way off a team that paid him handsomely and treated him well and went to play for a contract with a team located by his agent, Scott Boras, and was awesome. Sorry, you'll never get that Manny for a whole season if he's signed for multiple years anymore.Yeah, you don't like Manny Ramirez. I get it.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 16, 2008 -> 05:28 PM) Jason Bay also isn't walking away from $40 million the next 2 seasons which is one of the conditions Manny put on being traded. Teams cannot exercise the $20 million a year options. At least you know with ARod, he's going to show up and play hard every game. That and Madonna will be watching.Isn't A-Rod's agent Scott Boras? Didn't he go to the Rangers because they had the highest bid in for him, even though other, better teams wanted him? Didn't he ask for the trade from the Rangers to the Yankees? Didn't he also opt-out of his old contract, become a free agent, then re-sign with the Yankees for even more money? Using A-Rod as a paragon of contract virtue isn't really a good idea. Might want to rethink that one.