Flash Tizzle

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Aug 30, 2007 -> 08:23 PM) HAHAHA, Andy Gonzalez at 3rd rules. Throws it over PK's head, throw it short of PK, had an error last night. How long will this useless experiment last? As long as necessary. Someone needs to play 3B while Fields in becoming accustomed to LF. All Gonzalez is doing is speeding up a loss. Instead of losing late because of the bullpen, we're giving up the lead now in the 3rd.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Aug 30, 2007 -> 03:56 PM) ^^^^^^^^^ BTW, someone should bump the record predictions for this team when it's all said and done. See who came close to the win total. http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...56867&st=75 I didn't place a number down, but I know in the Toby Hall thread discussing his injury I predicted 82 wins. It's surprising to me how many were optimistic of the Sox.

I'm definitely adding Nick to my death pool for 2008. In addition to every overweight wrestler over 50.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 30, 2007 -> 01:59 PM) There are some days that I will admit I like the way WSI runs their boards... It begins.......

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 30, 2007 -> 01:48 PM) That does call into question it's suckiness for sure. My go-to site for horror, bloody-disgusting.com, ripped it as well. Not looking good for Mr. Zombie. http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/review/591

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2007 -> 12:56 PM) Even if we're at the top of the draft...the odds of us getting anyone who is a legit option for 08/09 is almost zero, and it'd probably be fairly silly to sign someone to a contract (a-la Andrew Miller) requiring they come up and start their arb clock anyway. So, if we're looking at a top-3 pick, I think you have to take into account where the holes will be after about 2-3 years down the road, because that's where that player's impact might appear. And if you look 2-3 years down the road, you do see names like De Los Santos and Poreda on the horizon...along with guys like Gio, Egbert, Buehrle, Danks, and Vazquez...which suggests to me that there's still a line forming to get into the rotation. I didn't mean to suggest whomever is selected, if they're a pitcher, will be available for 2008/09. I was merely addressing your original post where you suggested our collection of SP prospects gives lower priority to drafting a pitcher in the first round. IMO, the list is four deep with only two available within the immediate future. If a starting pitcher is selected and has a fast track to the majors, they may be alongside Poreda/DLS. It'd be in a our best interests to solidfy some of the positions you mention, such as SS, C, or an OF position; but if there's no one worth taking with a Top 3 selection, no use overdrafting to fill the need. Take the best player available. If they're talented and fit our needs, great.

QUOTE(StatManDu @ Aug 30, 2007 -> 12:35 PM) 2004: In a matinee makeup game, the White Sox received a 504-foot home run from Joe Borchard – the longest in the history of U.S. Cellular Field – in a 9-8 win over Philadelphia before 5,747 on the South side. Borchard’s blast came off Brett Myers in the second inning and reached the concourse behind the seats in right field. I knew this day was special when I woke up. It truly was the personal highlight of his career.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2007 -> 11:39 AM) Gio Floyd Egbert De Los Santos Broadway McCullough Poreda in a couple years And if you're into that kind of thing, Haeger. Taking another pitcher only makes sense to me if you've already dealt a few of those guys to fill your gaping position holes, especially, to my eyes, middle infield. I think we'd be far better off with 2 of the guys we already have sliding in to fill those spots and drafting a position player right now than we would be going the pitching route and having to find someone who'll give us a position player. Balta, of those names only Egbert and Gonzalez are legitimate options for 08'/09. I'm sorry, Broadway and McCulloch are dead to me. DLS and Poreda are stills a ways off. Williams' love child Floyd may be given a long look as a starter, but he'll probably ride out in the pen. If we're selecting Top 3, obviously the preference should be for a positional player. I would hope the decision is so difficult for our scouting staff because all available players are that talented. But if Matusz, the lefthanded starter out of San Diego, is about the closest thing to Verlander/Lincecum in the draft you have to weigh your priorities. Obviously we could use positional players, but if he's talented enough to reach the majors in several seasons there will be millions left open to sign potential FA's. Positional players are better bets for long term deals, anyways. I would say, 10 months before the draft, that any projection board has to place Alvarez on top. Boras or not. After that I can't say this early, but if Matusz if everything his statistics and scouting reports say he is, it wouldn't be a poor consolation prize. Only way to make sure we have a choice of the whole field -- CONTINUE LOSING.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Aug 30, 2007 -> 11:33 AM) ANYBODY touches ANYTHING done by Soavi and I will have SERIOUS problems, especially Dellamorte. Have you seen The Church? I loved it. Effective atmosphere, terrible script; about everything you'd expect from European horror. Including a young Asia Argento.

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Aug 30, 2007 -> 10:45 AM) I have gently suggested to you several times about writing a letter or getting an interview with someone who can and does have an impact, you haven't responded. I take that to mean you have no interest in doing something constructive on this topic and maybe getting this board some answers to the issue you bring up almost daily. So let me ask you specifically, are you willing to step up and write a letter asking for an interview or two with the decision makers? Or otherwise contact them to set up an interview? If not, why not? I am willing to do it but you're the one constantly beating the drum, I would think you'd really want answers. Several times? I recall once, and that's several posts above. I'm interested in improving our minor league system, don't get me wrong, but not to the extent where I'd physically take time composing an email/letter and address it to Hahn, Williams, Reinsdorf, Wilder, whomever else. I'm not interested in simple answers. It just doesn't seem worth the time. The real questions I'd ask, such as what exactly are our scouts in Latin American doing, or pleaing for them to quit the ridiculous opposition to Boras, probably wouldn't get true responses. I'm interested in results. What we can see on the field. They can bulls*** me all they want about taking steps to improve international scouting and their philosophical approach to drafting, but until these changes are evident on the diamond, what does it matter? I also understand it may take time for changes to be seen. However, if we're looking to contend for any division titles, these changes need to occur sooner rather than later. We can't have every prospect promoted struggling; which seems to happen nearly every time.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Aug 30, 2007 -> 09:38 AM) The Suspiria remake pisses me off more than any other probably. That is one that just CAN'T be re-done. It's Argento, in his prime. His style, his direction, is what makes it work. You can't tell me it's a great story that can be told again and again. The story is simple, it's what he did with the look that makes it a classic. It would be like remaking The Beyond almost. There is very little story, it was just an excuse for a director to show off his skills with atmosphere, color, and intense shocks. The other aspect of a Suspiria remake, who would they get to do the soundtrack? Hire Goblin again and you are obviously "remaking" it and fully intending comparisons. Don't hire them and you lose one of the key ingredients to what made the movie work. Several good points you draw upon. Particulary the Goblin's score, which is probably one of the most haunting soundtracks I've ever heard. It should be noted that films such as Fulci's Beyond and Argento's Suspiria are foreign equivalents of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween. You and I know, but anyone who doesn't these are well known abroad. My reasoning here is really not to attempt a remake to improve both films -- because that's unlikely -- but somehow infuse newer ideas, newer direction, into these movies to update them for a newer generation. The original will always be there. Hell, if it's bad, more the reason to appreciate Argento. Whom, by the way, has finished production on "The Third Mother," the final movie in the series which features Suspiria and Inferno. The expectations will be high for those who appreciate Suspiria. The difference between remaking Suspiria and Halloween is the American public is far less familiar with Suspiria. It may not guarantee returns in the box office (which alone would be enough for must studios), but the artistic license is limitless. IMO, that's reason alone to try and venture down that path. We've already tapped the Asian market -- why not the European as well? Demons is just waiting to be remade. Here's my one condition, though: no one touches The Cemetary Man (Dellamorte Dellamore). Only because the film is fairly recent and has held up time better than other European films.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Aug 30, 2007 -> 08:28 AM) Variety ripped the new Halloween. Supposedly Zombie takes all the mystery out of Meyers and turns the film into a blood and guts fest. I understand that Variety just doesn't like Horror, but everything in the review tells me that Zombie just doesn't "get it" when it comes to Halloween. Let him do remakes of the films he was obviously most influenced by, stuff like Last House On The Left and I Spit On Your Grave. I'll see this one on a double bill with the Texas Chainsaw and Psycho remakes. That means "never". It's a tireless argument people such as myself have made -- why remake this classic films for new generations when there are, literally, thousands of older movies and books which could be adapted into tremendous movies under the right direction? As a fellow horror fanatic, I just can't stand remaking movies such as Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It's not so much that I care about the integrity of these movie more than the laziness it shows from studios. Are Hollywood executives really that empty on ideas that the only way of producing profitable horror movies is digging into the past for the genre's most notable names? Did you know Suspiria is being remade? Slated for release in 2008? These are exactly the type of films which should be pursued. Give the American public a taste of a movie they're unfamiliar with, while simultaneously shifting attention towards the original version.

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Aug 30, 2007 -> 07:34 AM) You're wasting your time. Do something productive, write him a letter, ask for a response, and post the response here. Typing the same thing over and over on a message board might make you feel better but it doesn't get anything to change. We're all wasting our time on this board, to be honest. Suggesting changes over and over is more than an attempt to speak out to Reinsdorf himself, who by now has heard calls for his resignation longer than he cares to remember. This issue for me, atleast, is presenting an opinion to which members/lurkers can say to themselves, "you know, that's a good question; why does it matter what happens with Boras?" I'm not acting like what I say is enough to change the world. I don't cary that much clout. However, I do believe these message boards (Soxtalk, WSI) are browsed through by people within the organization. Not for guidance, but a pulse of internet members who -- on average -- are more baseball savy than your typical fan. If more people are upset, and more people understand the issues relating to our draft defencies, perhaps more questions will be asked. When Williams was quoted several months ago as saying people expect more out of draft picks and our consistently low position is no excuse, I have to ask myself, who exactly were the people suggesting this? I sure as hell didn't read anything out of the local papers. You may say I'm overstating Soxtalk's impact on the White Sox, but I say, someone is reading. Sports Illustrated proved that several years ago.

1. It's probably too early to begin assembling names, but several high profile players thrown around are Pedro Alvarez, Brian Matuz(?), Justin Smoak. All are college players; all are projectable players. I'm certain you'll hear more of these three down the road. 2. Yes, we would pick second. Picks don't alternative between leagues. Look no further than this last draft; Tampa selected first and Kansas City second.

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Aug 30, 2007 -> 06:37 AM) What did you expect him to say throughout the season, especially after everyone tells him to keep his mouth shut. You can't have it both ways... I'll be having fun missing the playoffs as well I guess. This has nothing to do with earlier in the season. This issue here is, unless drastic changes occur in the roster -- which, aside from SS and CF is unlikey -- we're going to have the same group of people who are frustrating Guillen next year. I don't care that he bothered to voice his frustrations now. He could have said the same thing two months ago and it would have been just as true. It's just, he better get used to it.

It'd be easier for Guillen if he just came to grips with the fortunes of his team. Their bad, and it's not going to get any better within the next month. I love the numerous pot-shots at Williams. Especially those concerning the roster. Well, Guillen, you said yourself the same core of players will likely be here next season. Have fun missing the playoffs, lol.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Aug 29, 2007 -> 11:43 PM) Well winning doesn't accomplish anything at the moment. At least with a high pick we get a shot at a "special" player. As bad as it sounds, which of the two are better for our future -- a top three pick, or finishing up strong in a useless season and ending up around 7-10? If believing in this makes me a bad fan in someones eyes, then so be it. Judging from this thread many agree with me.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Aug 29, 2007 -> 11:42 PM) Well I would like to see us evaluate other teams options for the draft in the winter considering I don't believe we'll get the #1 pick (IMO, we'll fall #2 or 3 on the list) and see what other future studs can be had. Hopefully we can actually draft a player most on the board (esp. spect experts here) can agree on and see how good our farm system can become now with this draft class of high picks we will have. We're going to be in a similar situation next year as this one, where we'll have only two picks within the first 60 or so (depending on the number of sandwich picks). Resigning Dye and Buehrle has removed that possibility.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Aug 29, 2007 -> 11:32 PM) Yeah but Flash wants a change in top management if we go anti-Boras. Boras clients will go above slot, and Jerry isn't gonna fire himself I wouldn't suggest a change in management for that reason alone. It's more a crusade of mine to convince Reinsdorf, even from a message board he's never heard of, to put aside his differences for the sake of the ballclub. Even at an absurd price, such as 7.5 million, that's more than worth it if the player reaches the majors and produces at the minimum for 5+ years.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Aug 29, 2007 -> 11:26 PM) Another factor is Jerry's relationship with Bud, which I think will work against your wishes Seriously, is there anything that doesn't work against my wishes? I still would like to believe, even with evidence to the contrary, we'll select the best player available.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Aug 29, 2007 -> 11:01 PM) I still don't get your enthusiasm for a high pick. Take a peek at our minor league system and tell me that those making the pick are not clueless. Several reasons I, among others, are enthusiastic: - First time in more than fifteen years the White Sox will have a Top 10 pick. - Certain talent is only available early. Porcello nonwithstanding. Verlanders, Mauers, Uptons, Lincecums, Brauns just don't fall without injuiy/performance concerns. - We're allowing ourselves more players to scout. This widens the field and allows more options. - A shift in organizational philosophy concerning picks makes me believe, if given an opportunity, they'll select the person with the hightest celing. However, I'm still worried whether or not we'll be willing to sign a draft pick over slot recommendations. This depends heavily upon the expected value of fellow amateur players and their representation (ie, Boras). If we have an opportunity to select someone and miss out because of the aforementioned concepts, then something has to change in the top of management. We can't blow this chance. Lord knows we haven't succeeded selected 15 and above; may as well see what happens with an earlier selection.

QUOTE(Jeremy @ Aug 27, 2007 -> 03:10 PM) Hmm. I think that unless you believe you couldn't sign remotely as valuable as Javy for a similar amount of money then the $30 million and Young makes the team more than marginally better. You'd essentially be able to have Young and use that money to sign a pitcher who's not much worse than Javy. Your point about the farm system is well taken but I also feel that some teams who evaluate players differently wouldn't have parted with a Chris Young nearly as easily and that's interesting to me. I could be wrong, for e.g. Oakland shocked a lot of people when they moved Carlos Pena who people assumed they'd be really high on. Generally though, teams aren't trading their elite level prospects.. Kenny was either really desperate to land Vazquez, didn't regard Chris as highly as others, or both. Here's what angers me -- why aren't other general managers "desperate" to acquire our players? Where are the pseudo Kenny Williams willing to have a deal haunt to acquire a certain player? I'm sick of these weak trade deals from our end. If your answer is, "what players have value," whose fault is it for holding onto players long enough for defencies to mount? Garland, for example. Why is he still here? Any idiot could have forcasted an evitable drop in production. Or the contract negotiations which will be mentioned ALL offseason and over the 2008 season. And, to address the main point of your post, while teams may be more reluctant to trade their talented prospects, that's just too bad for Williams. It's this position he put himself in by dealing Young, watching Anderson struggle, and having few -- if any -- elite prospects of our own above A ball. He needs to acquire elite prospects this offseason. I don't care how. It needs to happen. What other avenues are there for us to build the ballclub? The free agent market? Perhaps, but we're not spending enough to improve every poor position. The draft? Until we develop talent, or I know more about upcoming players in the draft, I'm not going to rely on it as our savior.

Here's one of MInnesota's draft picks from June pitching in rookie ball: http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/st...&pid=518999 So, should I just assume -- even at this level -- he'll be the next Minnesota Twins pitching stud?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 26, 2007 -> 09:36 PM) I wonder if you're just being rhetorical, because you've spoken about how Garland needs to go and KW needs to do whatever or we need to draft whatnot and "KW better not fail," and he always does by your standards and mine, but you seem to cut him more slack. I just phrased it wrong. Probably should have proof read the post first. I meant "assembling a trade package" as in receiving a trade package from another team. One in which, several years from now, the journalists responsible for covering said team write how much the trade has haunted them. Meaning, quite simply, Williams had pulled ahead in the deal.

I believe entering 2008, it'd be best for no one within the organization to reference 2005 anymore. It'd be great if such a loose restriction were placed on this website as well. Yes, we're all happy the White Sox won a championship; but two seasons will have passed. Reminds me of Soxtalk in 2003, and how you'd frequently find someone mentioning the 2000 team. It just becomes a stale comparison after while. This team within this division has changed for the worse since then. Time to move on and begin concerning ourselves with this current team and its forseeable future. That should extend to the possible job security of management and the coaching staff. Don't tell us how the same core is remaining. Try to look forward, not backwards. I'm actually awaiting this offseason. It'll be vitally important for Williams first, to acquire talented prospects, and second -- assemble a ballclub capable of contending (such everyone seems convinced those are his intentions.) He's only making it more difficult on himself, to be truthful. If Williams were to begin a rebuilding phase, we'd atleast expect hardships. What's the excuse going to be when he has every intention of competing next season, as he did for 2007, and the team again finishes poorly? 2005 nonwithstanding, his future with this organization should be short. My number one goal leading into Spring of 2008 (because I honestly don't have any expectations for the season) is to improve the minor league system by any means. I don't even want to hear about "prospects being worth their weight in gold." I just don't care. Get it done, Williams. Find your ballclub talented prospects, and not just "diamonds in the roughs." You sure have quite the mess to overcome.