jenksycat

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 08:04 PM) So then, you think KW should be more on the "hot seat" than Ozzie Guillen...? Since the line-up is lacking in overall talent and ability, yes? Agree/disagree? I don't believe in a "hot seat", but with the soxtalk logic of "someone must be fired" I guess agree. I still trust KW, I still trust Ozzie, and anyone who thinks bringing in a new GM or skipper would make this team a contender is an idiot. I like having an aggressive GM, he's gonna win some and lose some but in the end its still on the players. The problem with that is, you can't really "fire" a player, so we as fans need something to blame no matter how stupid it is. But the fact still remains, on paper, KW has put together some solid teams that just didn't work out and some that did.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 07:38 PM) So you're telling me you would have trotted out a line-up in Arlington with Vizquel in the 2 spot, Kotsay prominently featured (or featured at all)...with no Beckham and it was either Rios or Quention/Konerko that were also sitting? Honestly? I know Vizquel/Nix/Kotsay starting along with any combination of Paulie/Rios/Jones/Beckham/Quentin sitting (2 of them) is asking for a beatdown. And yet we f***ing won with Kotsay, and put up more runs with Vizquel than without, woopdeedoo. People need something to blame, so its the lineup. Yeah it makes a bit of difference, but with only 3 sometimes 4 guys hitting, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Baseball is such a one on one sport, freaking out over the few little things the manager does control is stupid. I'll freak out over Lubbie's s*** coaching, less of VDN, and even less of Ozzie. It all falls on the players. You think the Royals/Pirates/etc fans scream about the lineup all season? If you have s*** players and/or players playing like s***, it doesn't matter

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 06:59 PM) I wonder if all these candidates could make the players hit above .200 and force Peavy to hold the lead he was given a couple of times. New manager needed instantly. Clearly it would. All this team needs is a re-order of the lineup and they'd be in first place. f***ing Ozzie

QUOTE (South Side Fireworks Man @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 05:41 PM) No. That's why it was a wild pitch. All praise to the almighty score keeper? Unless the ball was 15ft high or wide, it could have had a body in front of it.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 04:20 PM) Good win, nice to see seven runs. Bobby still looks awful though, save situation or not. He had 3 strikeouts and made 4 outs. Could AJ have blocked the wild pitch? If he does then Bobby doesn't give up a run.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 03:24 PM) Ummm, winning a 2009 ALCD championship ring, perhaps? He did that with us as well...

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 01:09 AM) I'm already sensing I'm gonna get roasted for this entire seires of posts, but I guess I am being pretty nebulous about "approach" It would seem as if based on their stats, Quentin and Konerko are the types of guys who go real well as long as they are hitting a lot of homers, and who really don't if they aren't. Relying on that as a significant part of a 2010 team approach to our offense seems dubious at best. Jones seems to be this way too, especially at this point in his career - 2005-2007 (which were decent-good years for him - including that 51 homer season) his BABIP was in the .240-.264 range. I shudder to think what his results will be when he can't hit 10 homers a month. Additionally, it would seem as though a couple of our contact hitters are lost up there, i.e. their head is just nowhere near where it needs to be. I guess that's more of an individual approach. This is more frightening to me, because so many of them seem to have the exact same illness that no one can effectively diagnose other than "they'll come out of it based on career numbers". How do you explain a 2003 Konerko with this sentiment in mind? So if 1/3rd of our lineup is great as long as its hitting homers (jones, quentin, konerko) if 1/3rd of our lineup is great as long as they are making contact (pierre, beckham, rios) and 1/3rd of our lineup is filled with question marks nobody seems to have good answers to (ramirez and pierzynski are going inexplicably really bad, teahen going well but is a huge question mark longterm) I'm trying to figure out over a baseball season exactly how this lineup, seemingly hanging on by a thread, clicks over an extended period of time. Maybe I just have unrealistic expectations. I was extremely afraid that as constructed, the team was offensively thin and one-dimensional. It seems even more that way looking at the stats. It's sad, because I think this team is exactly one impact bat away from being a true contender. But that argument is still sketchy. Of course PK/TCQ hit well when they are hitting HR's. Hitting HR's is usually an indicator of doing at least something right in the box, I wouldn't expect a .150 hitting TCQ to be hitting bombs left and right. It all comes down to this really: if you honestly believe Alexei, AJ, Pierre, TCQ, and Beckham are going to hit ~.200 for the season, then theres nothing to convince you otherwise. But if you realize that these guys are all healthy, not coming off the juice, and are not old (save for AJ) yet...they will eventually get around their career numbers in which case you just hope the 4 guys actually hitting remain hot.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Apr 25, 2010 -> 11:10 PM) And we could be 4-15 or 8-11 or 11-8 or 15-4 if our hitters were hitting the cover off the ball and our pitching staff was pitching about as bad as imaginable. Literally any alternate universe could yield any result. So what? I'm glad we got the wins. If it's the powder keg that lights off a season full of memories, I will gladly eat crow. I think the point stands that we won despite a continued s***ty approach to offense that has been generally proven to be utterly unsustainable in terms of long term success. It's unimaginable, but our dependence on the home run in terms of winning is seemingly worse than ever. For those who think I'm being too pessimistic, if we had lost two of three close well-played games featuring a more varied offensive approach I probably would have felt better about turning this thing around over the course of the season. I'm trying not to be results-oriented because in the short term, results are all over the map. In the long run, our offense, if the overall approach is left unchanged, will not succeed. What is this approach you speak of? Are you implying that the "approach" of the offense is for more than half the lineup to be hitting at or around .200? Its not an alternate universe, its simple logic. If even the majority of our lineup was even sniffing their career averages, we are easily above .500. That is not reaching, that's just truth.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 25, 2010 -> 06:10 PM) I don't really care what you guys are talking about - why would a manager pull his closer just to go with a L-L matchup? That's just not something that's done. Nothing instills confidence in your closer more than pulling him in late april when he's 3-3 in saves

QUOTE (hi8is @ Apr 25, 2010 -> 04:04 PM) If the team wins - the fans think ozzie makes the right choices. If the team loses - the fans think ozzie made the wrong choices. Even if he makes the same decisions on different days - his decision making process is not what fans use to evaluate his managerial skills... it's the players performance. Bad way to evaluate a manager =D welcome to soxtalk Whats better is when a team wins, the manager doesn't really have that much of an impact on the game. But in a loss, its almost solely the managers fault. Such stupid logic

QUOTE (knightni @ Apr 24, 2010 -> 07:19 PM) Honestly, they need to find out why Jenks' offspeed stuff is so erratic. He's been relying 95% on his fastball since the start of the season because he can't throw offspeed for strikes. Today, it finally jumped up and bit him. Or just tell him to stop f***in around and throw old man Griffey some heat which he can't catch up to

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 24, 2010 -> 04:24 PM) Defensive misplay on that one...jumped up on the fence and overplayed it. Wind really held that ball up...should have been way out on a normal June-July-August-September day. Would have gone out if it didn't tick off his glove, but should have been caught OTOH. Not ties it up, it's now 2-1 SOX. Atta boy, Alexei!!! Huh? How is preventing a homerun a misplay?

Was there a f***ing collision in this game? Nobody cares, christ these announcers suck ass

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Apr 24, 2010 -> 03:45 PM) Teahen and Kotsay. Proof ST means nothing. I do enjoy the "Man Kotsay is killin it in ST, he's gonna be AWESOME!" and then the "ST doesn't mean anything, Teahen will be fine"

QUOTE (qwerty @ Apr 23, 2010 -> 03:06 PM) How can you possibly say this about the man who brought home a world series in 2005? 2005!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!foreverandever!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So count you in as a member of the "2005 needs to be forgotten about" tribe? In that case, I hope you're not also a member of the "OMGz the Twinz are the greatest organization in baseballlll even thought they have't done anything in 20 years" club

QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 23, 2010 -> 03:13 PM) It's easy to be cynical when you see guys like Kotsay, Omar, Teahen, Jones, et. all out there and when Rios is one of your big boppers at a robust .250. Everybody's cynical. You been reading the papers? The clubhouse is dead. Oz has been all over the place with his comments. How can you complain about Jones and Teahen, the 2 highest OBP on the team?

QUOTE (TitoMB @ Apr 23, 2010 -> 09:38 AM) Bolded statements are complete horses***. Yep. You can have a fluke pitcher in the NL who does alright be cause of the league. But you don't win a f***ing Cy Young because of a flukey league and ballpark.

ehh, if we're jumping off this cliff, then KW has to go as well. Ozzie didn't put the team together, KW did. And as much as it blows ass, batting Nix instead of Vizquel isn't going to make a s*** bit of difference. The magical lineup doesn't make that big of a deal, its the players you have to put in that lineup - which falls on KW. And if you say "well KW listened to Oz", well then he shouldn't have, its on him. But would anyone want KW gone? I wouldn't, he just needs to take charge of the roster.

god this site is unbearable sometimes. Must remove from bookmarks

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 08:27 PM) Ya they moved him because it makes perfect baseball sense. They have two guys with pen experience and yet they are not moved. Performance has nothing to do with that move. hahahahahah riiiiiiiiiiight. Are you a Cubs fan? Dempster was a closer, why not move him there?

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 08:17 PM) Why Peavy is not showing me anything. At least Zambrano will take the ball every 5th day and give your team a chance. Peavy looks like he does not want to pitch. As goofy as Zambrano is he keeps his team in the game and has intensity which this team sorely lacks. Peavy had one nice start and nothing in the other 3. He is not even giving his team a chance to win. Yeah you're right. That must be why they moved him into the f***ing bullpen, because he was so dominant as a starter they felt sorry for the other teams

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 20, 2010 -> 09:30 PM) We'd be so much better with Crawford than Pierre it wouldn't even be close to funny/ Yeah man, we'd be better with Pujols than Kotsay too. WTF Kenny????

Wondering how AP was a "blown pick" when he was the main point of a trade for Peavy

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Apr 18, 2010 -> 12:27 PM) One World Series is indicative of great success (Borat voice) of one year whereas multiple playoff appearances is indicative of consistent success. While you can never take away the Sox 2005 WS, sustained success is always the goal because it gives you more opportunities for World Series. I think 90% of people here would agree the Twins have the more successful franchise the past decade. I guess we just have different versions of "success" 2000-2009 Twins- 5 postseason appearances, 6 PS wins, 1 DS win 'Hose- 3 postseason appearances, 11 PS wins, 1 DS win, 1 pennant, 1 ring I know, I know, 2005 doesn't count anymore. But really, 2 more appearances and 1/2 the number of wins is "success"? I've always viewed success as winning championships, not divisional crowns in a s*** division. And lets also remember that they will have at least 25% of their payroll dedicated to one player (yes he's a top 3 in the game) and unless they plan on being in the 9 figure range for the next 8 years, that's quite a big risk for them.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Apr 18, 2010 -> 12:10 PM) Of course we'll take it, but it's easy to see who the superior organization has been. And again, how are they superior? Who the f*** cares about division titles and no playoff wins? That would piss me off more than having a team that only puts it together every couple years. The Twins are like the Bulls, a fun little team to watch, but they can't, and won't ever, hang with the "big boys".