chw42

This sucks. Hard.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Oct 6, 2011 -> 12:06 AM) Yeah, tell me about it. Girls on Facebook saying "Thank you Steve Jobs! If it wasn't for you inventing the iPod, we would still be listening to CD players!". Oh really? Because I am pretty sure Mp3 players were around well before Apple starting making them. I think she meant "Thanks for making this shiny device that I can buy as a status symbol and allowing me to purchase things purely based on brand name and nothing else. Shopping made easy!" He did a lot, but he didn't do everything, and he certainly didn't do it alone. And him dying isn't going to cease the advancement of technology, I assure you. Yeah seriously. Thanks for setting a high price point for all the latest technology.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Oct 5, 2011 -> 11:08 PM) There have been wayyyyy to many statuses about this, it's amazing how people just can't resist saying "Apple sucks" whenever they get a chance. The thing I don't like is that all these people are making it look like Steve Jobs did EVERYTHING associated with Apple. Sure, embrace the guy, but come on. Some guy said he wouldn't be able to listen to the music right now if it wasn't for Jobs. REALLY?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2011 -> 08:26 PM) Not even just that...before Apple there was no concept of a "personal computer." A computer was something businesses and governments and astronauts needed, not schoolchildren. IBM was first to the party with PCs. http://oldcomputers.net/ibm5100.html But you're right, Apple did really bring the experience home. Although somebody would have done it later.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 5, 2011 -> 09:40 PM) RIP Steve. Thanks *Posted using a Mac I'm surprised this thread hasn't blown up with posts this, because my Facebook is filled with them. I'm not going to state my opinion on the man, because it's simply too soon. But RIP nonetheless.

I have Ahmad Bradshaw, Willis McGehee, and LT as my backs. It's unfortunate I had to pick f***in' Jamaal Charles...

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 4, 2011 -> 10:55 PM) I can't believe grown adults, people I respect on here, still think that Ozzie should have benched Rios and Dunn. It slays me. You are gonna be just as frustrated with the new manager when he plays guys who make the loot. So if they hit .160 and are ALREADY costing the team $12 million, they should suck more and cost the team even more in value? Huh?

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 4, 2011 -> 09:29 PM) Given =/= lure You deserve a trophy.

I've been offered Desean Jackson and Maurice-Jones Drew for Calvin Johnson. My team is lacking a #1 back and I have a boatload of #2 and #3 receivers (Colston, Maclin, Henderson, Manningham). I had Jackson on my team last year and he annoyed the hell out of me. One week he'd put up 25 points, then he'd put up 2-3 the next. Any suggestions?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 4, 2011 -> 01:38 AM) I appreciate the long post. I disagree with some of it, but I don't think you or anybody else wants me to reiterate my position on Ozzie. It's more of the same. If u have a specific question I'll respond. I mainly get a kick out of the postseason cause normally the games are close and when a team loses, the team's fans can squarely point at some managerial decisions. I laugh cause I hear it all year about Ozzie's decisions, but now that everybody's watching these games, I get to FINALLY hear people bag on managers not named Ozzie. Lots of bad decisions cause when u lose a game you can always second guess the manager. I rarely second guess Ozzie. I usually make my mind up about things before the fact and I'm sure a lot of the posters on this board do as well. If Ozzie brings in Will Ohman to face 3 right handers I know that's going to be a bad move. Even if it works out this time, the probability of it working out the next time is relatively low. And I don't think anybody was "bagging" on Manuel for not taking Lee out. My roommate is a die hard Phillies fan and he blamed Lee more for sucking, which he kind of did.

QUOTE (MAX @ Oct 4, 2011 -> 12:22 AM) Seems foolish to write him off at this point regardless. Lets say he never develops serious power, seems like people are still assuming he won't develop any more plate discipline either? Having a guy that can be Alcides Escobar isn't all bad. But if your top prospect's ceiling is a 2 win SS, that's pretty damn bad.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 09:31 PM) I still say that winning percentage of Ozzie's isn't half bad for a guy learning on the job. Isn't a win percentage over .500 pretty decent for any skipper who has been in a place a while? Do you dispute the fact he is only going to get better? Why did we train him in Chicago to go kick ass the next 20 years of his career somewhere else? Now we in all likelihood bring in a rookie like Sandy/Martinez who is gonna make a big batch of mistakes as he learns how to manage. I realize we agree to disagree. But by the end of this year's playoffs you are going to likely have a new set of managing "bums" who teams want to run out of town. If the Phillies don't win this series? Look out. Manuel will be a bum. If the Rangers don't win ... ouch. Leyland has been ripped in the past for not winning with talent. The Yankees? If they lose??? Ouch again. Girardi will be blasted. I will not blast our new manager as he goes along BTW. I wish him well as I truly believe players for the most part win games. I do hope he realizes that if he doesn't get them to learn how to bunt in preseason, then the bunt is a worthless weapon in games. If the team doesn't show the ability to steal a base in preseason, don't run in games. That would mean Jerry Manual wasn't a bad manager. After all, he had to go through growing pains (first time manager when he first signed on with the Sox) as well and was over .500 as a Sox manager. Ozzie Guillen is not a player, he's a manager. Yes, managers learn and they evolve, but Ozzie's too thickheaded to let anything influence his gut. So no, there's no guarantee he becomes a better manager anytime soon. The White Sox didn't train Ozzie as a manager. He was a manager here from the start, if anything he learned under McKeon and the guys on the Marlins staff. Plus, why is it so important to have guys who used to play here as managers? Who the hell cares? Just be a good manager, I don't care if they played with the Yankees their entire career. How do you know they will make mistakes? I'm willing to bet those guys are better in-game managers than Ozzie already. It's dealing with the players that new managers need to get a hang of and it appears Martinez does that quite well. I don't know about Alomar. Why should Manuel get fired if the Phillies don't win the WS? Sure, that would come short of their expectations, but that team's won 5 consecutive NL East titles and they've gone to at least the NLCS for the past 3 seasons. If the Sox were doing that, Ozzie would still be here. And why should Washington get fired? That team got to the WS last year and they won 96 games this year. Managers don't get blasted unless they make some horrible moves. Perhaps letting Lee pitch in the 7th in game 2 was a bad move by Manuel, I thought Lee should have been taken out given his pitch count and his ineffectiveness in previous innings, but if the Phillies lose to the Cards these next two games, Manuel isn't really responsible for it unless he makes more bad moves, moves that are even worse than that. Sometimes, managers make bad moves that have a positive influence on the game. Then there's the other time where a manager makes a move so bad that it is bound to fail, like hitting Adam Dunn against a lefty in the late innings or letting Adam Dunn pinch hit in the late innings period. Ozzie did that a couple of times this year and it was obviously the wrong move. Not only because it was against the odds, but that it was so against the odds that it was bound to fail badly. People have said this before: one bad move isn't going to turn the fans on you, a lot of bad moves will. Ozzie's done exactly that, as most of this board thinks. The issue with your opinion is that it is in the extreme minority on this board (which is not indicative of every Sox fan, but do realize that this board is filled with very knowledgeable hard core fans). If everyone else thinks differently, you might want to think about why. We didn't all hate Ozzie from the start. I didn't really mind him until 2010 rolled around. And I definitely agree that the players decide the game. That's a given, but the manager puts the players on the field and if that includes giving Adam Dunn and Alex Rios the majority of plate appearances instead of Viciedo or De Aza, then the manager is costing the team a lot more than you think.

QUOTE (MAX @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 11:07 PM) He is only 22 years old. Why is everyone so down on him? He has no power, no ability to get on base. Great defense is a plus, but that only gets you so far, even if it's at the SS position.

According to Gameday, Verlander just threw a 1014 MPH pitch.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 08:13 PM) I would agree. A few days ago Goldstein tabbed him as a likely three with an outside shot of becoming a two. If that's really the case, you're looking at a 3-4 WAR starter instead of a 1.5-2 WAR reliever.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 08:12 PM) •GM Kenny Williams told Peter Gammons of MLB Network that the White Sox are "going to let the kids play" next season. Gammons expects the White Sox to be younger in 2012. Sale to rotation no brainer........................Kids can play II.............................JR can just rehash old promo's and save advertising budget! As long as they don't trade everyone (like Alexei or Santos), I think I'll be okay with it. If Dunn, Peavy, and Rios play anywhere near the money they're paid next year, the team could be pretty competitive.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 08:10 PM) In other words, we took a future reliever with the hopes of him maybe becoming a starter. The pre-draft scouting reports were pretty consistent. Perhaps. He will be a lot more dominant as a reliever than a starter, we already know that much.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 08:06 PM) Huh? Nobody can talk to him while they're still playing. Doesn't matter when they lose. That doesn't mean they won't talk to him. Tampering happens (look at what happened to Ozzie). All I know is that there's a better probability they can talk to him if the Rays lose. It might not be much better, but it will be better.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 08:03 PM) Id love to see him average 94-95 That's what he averaged this year as a reliever. It'd be physically dangerous to have him throw that fast as a starter. Wilson lost 3 MPH on his fastball after converting to a starter last season. Sale may be different, I don't know. But a lot of relievers lose at least 2-3 MPH after converting. Ogando only lost 1 MPH on the fastball this season though. And if I remember correctly, Sale had incredibly low velocity to start the year (93-94).

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 08:02 PM) Boooooo. Tampa will still take this in 5. If you want Dave Martinez, you want the Rays to lose as quickly as possible.

QUOTE (Cali @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 07:52 PM) So what percentage are we looking at for Sale's fastball while starting sits in the low-90's instead of upper 90's? 98%? 100? You're probably looking at a 3-4 MPH drop. Sale threw 95.3 this year, so probably 91-92. I can live with that. He's also going to have to abandon the slider a bit and use his change-up more. The good thing is that he's above average on both of those pitches. With appropriate pitch selection, Sale should be a fairly reliable starter. We're talking about a lefty with two plus off speed pitches and an above average fastball.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 07:44 PM) Then you know what would have been great? Stretching him out to 165 innings this year. Best thing you could have done if you were really worried about him breaking down at the end of the year. Then we wouldn't know much about Phil Humber... Like I said, he wasn't fit to be a starter on this year's team. Any other year and I'd agree with you.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 07:39 PM) 1.) To get the team ready for the season fundamental wise (yes he failed at that the past two years with our team's s***ting bunting), to make good moves during the games (I think his moves are fine, you guys disagree), to win (he has a damn good record with the Sox). 2.) What he did this year was fireable offense, the team burying itself in April/May. However, even tho he DESERVED to be fired, I think his track record with the Sox earned him a shot to win the battle over KW and see if we could return to greatness under Oz under a new GM. I look at the big picture, which you guys get on me for. Big pix: He already won one WS in Chicago. He's very young. He learned on the job in Chicago (just wait for Alomar/Martinez growing pains, they will be there) and I hate to see Ozzie part II do great things for another franchise. I am convinced he will be one of the greats and I HATE seeing him do it for another team when he learned on the job here in chicago. 1. He didn't do any of the things you mentioned, especially the whole good record with the Sox. .525 is not a good record, it's a record of mediocrity. AND if you look at the big picture (like you said), he's underachieved with some expensive rosters filled with good talent (06, 07, 10, 11). I think the first two things you said in your first point are debatable (to a point), but Ozzie Guillen won big in one season and fell on his face the rest of the time. 2. Why should Ozzie win the battle when he a) has a worse winning percentage than Williams during their stints with the Sox and b) felt like he was entitled to a new deal when he SHOULD have been fired (like you said)? Ozzie wanted out and the only way he was staying is if the Sox fired Kenny. But Ozzie went about that in a bad way by acting like he was entitled while Kenny admitted to his mistakes and was willing to step down. JR's loyal to both of them to a fault, but it's easy to see why JR did what he did. The big picture is this Greg. The Sox won the World Series 6 years ago. My little brother barely knew WTF happened back then and he's in 4th grade already. In the minds of most (including Sox fans), that World Series is on the backburner in terms of relevancy. What people care about is, what have you done for me lately and what can you do for me in the future? The answer for Ozzie is, he hasn't won anything of relevance for the past 3 years given expensive rosters and he looked like he didn't give a rat's ass about this team during most of this season. Kenny Williams didn't change or go "Kenny "The Genius" Williams". Ozzie Guillen did and it was going to get even worse had he stayed.

Uh...what? Mike North is a joke. WSCR didn't even want him, why should the Sox?

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 07:33 PM) Well.... 1 year late is better than never I guess. Hope Kenny thought burning a year of his starter shelf life was worth it. He produced 1.4 WAR out of the bullpen. With the staff the way it was this year, being a starter just didn't fit. Getting him some valuable experience as a reliever in high leverage situations isn't a bad thing, in fact Sale had the 7th best WPA of all relievers in MLB. It's just part of his learning experience. TBH, I'm still worried about him as a starter. He just looks like a guy who will lose a lot of his stuff due to the transition and break down later on in the year.