Flash Tizzle

QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Mar 21, 2007 -> 04:56 PM) Renck does not think the Phils truly want to use Jon Lieber as a reliever, and mentions two scenarios floating around. Lieber could be paired with Aaron Rowand and sent to the White Sox, which I would think would require at least Mike MacDougal. Would be interesting to see Liebs back in Chicago if old pals KW and "Stand Pat" Gillick can work it out That'd be terrible. I'm tired of hearing about deals involving Leiber and/or Rowand. Both are hardly better options than anything we currently have in the organization.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...tesox-headlines I have to imagine this is Crazy Ol' Ozzie Guillen spouting off, again. None of our coaches would possibly hinder Danks development with a stinct as a reliever, right? I really don't care if Buehrle and Garland have done it. Or others in the past. It'll be impossible for any future starter to find consistent work out of the bullpen with Guillen managing this ballclub. As if the situation with McCarthy would have taught him anything.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 21, 2007 -> 12:54 AM) If we were to see something Clark in LF and Ryan Sweeney in RF (or vise versa) next year, with Anderson in CF, I wouldn't be too hurt, (although the fact we're going to lose Dye stings). That's one weak OF in regards to power potential. And considering neither Sweeney or Anderson would be guaranteed to post decent offensive statistics, that would be quite the risk. Although, such an inexpensive OF would allow more money to be allocated to signing Alex Rodriguez. Perhaps the Sox would trade Crede and shift Fields to the OF, where Clark would be the 4th OF. All I know is few things ever are predictable with Williams. If everything were to occur as either of us have suggested I'd be amazed.

BDavisFutureHOF = Brooks Boyer?

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 10:36 PM) Mackowiak for Brady Clark rumor in tomorrow's Tribune. It makes a ton of sense. Hell yes, it does. Clark would present the White Sox with a natural centerfielder capable of fielding his position, occasionally walking, and providing adequate production (albeit with no power). If we're not intent of giving Anderson the position, as all indications appear to suggest, this is about the next best thing. It's certainly more preferable than any internal options or Luis Terrero.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 11:02 PM) I still remember the debates with a few posters on here that were worried about chemistry. I wanted AJ because he typifies the type of hitter that I think complements our thumpers well. A line drive guy who can hit gap to gap. To me you need 4 types of hitters to balance a line up. One high OBP guy who can get on base. A guy who has absolute control of the bat, cant hit and run, hit to the right side, make contact. Your protypical thumpers who lift and pull. Then your gap to gap guys who keep the line moving after the thumpers get through. Between that move, and I remember being at Soxfest when they were asking Kenny about Iguchi before he was signed and he acted like he never heard of him. It scared the crap out of me to think that Willie Harris was going to be our starting 2nd baseman. Sox sign AJ DAMN NEGATIVITY!

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 10:42 PM) Where does it say that I didn't see it? A lot of posters just saw his age and injury history and couldn't care less about how it was better than our 5th spot of a year before. The loss of Lee and Ordonez for an injury plagued Dye and some one year wonder Pods was not well received either. We were just going on the cheap. You don't recall this? Oh yeah, there was a ton of negativity prior to the 2005 season. A TON! Here's what I could find: -Sox sign Dye -Trading Lee for Podsednik/Vizcaino wasn't well received initially, but it wasn't until several deals later that it became clear the money extracted from Carlos Lee was distributed to Iguchi, Hernandez, Pierzynski. Since I can't find a thread specifically mentioning it, you can believe it or not. -Someone needs to open the search engine on Soxtalk to locate the thread discussing Orlando Hernandez' signing. I remember creating the thread, but I'm unable to find it using Google. - 2005 predictions. I'd hardly call this a "ton of negativity."

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 09:54 PM) What's the fun in saying 'let's just wait and see' about every facet of the ballclub? That and unwavering optimism over every question mark the team has is just boring, I know I wouldn't want to read that day in and day out. Talk about a boring message board. It's almost the lazy persons why of tackling an issue. To say, "yeah, well, let's just wait and see." Sure, it's safe (as to avoid looking dumb later on) -- but boring and almost counterproductive to the purpose of a message board. Just state your opinion now, jackass!!~!!! Optimistic or not, I'd rather someone atleast contribute to the message board than spout some useless cliche. I guarantee for EVERY Williams deal someone within a thread brings it up. Although it's more commonly associated with controversial trades (such as Garcia and McCarthy) where, rather than admit perhaps it didn't meet their expectations, someone will present the "wait and see" card. No. That phrase should be banned.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 09:38 PM) what proof did we have in 05 that we would have won the world series and 99 games? none. First off, considering how you joined seven months ago you probably have no idea of Soxtalk's expectations prior to 2005. I know many here (I honestly can't remember my exact sentiments) realized our rotation was finally entact 1-5, and the lineup was significantly stronger with Pierzysnki catching and Podsednik leading off. No one really knew what to expect from Iguchi. Even without Ordonez and Lee, a general feeling of "well, hitting HR's got us nowhere" was echoed and their absence wasn't droned upon. 2007 is completely different. The division is tougher top to bottom. Our pitching staff has more recently regressed than won a World Series. I don't believe we'll finish 72-90, as Baseball Prospectus suggested, but I wouldn't be surprised with a 85 win ballclub. In my opinion, until the bullpen establishes itself and the rotation significantly improves (which I wrote in a separate post is really asking alot), I won't expect too much. See, here's the two way straight -- you can't just go around telling everyone to be optimistic based upon your gut feeling than dismiss those who believe otherwise. I know people say, "it's easy to be negative," but I look at it as having legitimate reasons for establishing doubt in this ball club. In the last six years, we've made the playoffs twice. Nothing is guaranteed. Why should I assume that what happened in 2005 is bound to happen again?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 04:47 PM) Masset gives up a 4 pitch walk to leadoff. I guess Williams wasn't lying when he suggested Masset was a tick below Jenks. Both can't find the strikezone in spring training.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 04:24 PM) Konerko strikes out swinging. 3rd strikeout of Konerko by Harden. Final line on Charlie: IP H R ER BB SO HR ERA 3.1 5 4 4 2 1 1 7.36 Man, I don't care if he's an injury risk I'd still take Harden over any of our starters. Legitimate ace right here.

Jenks Thornton MacDougal Sisco Aardsma Floyd Just to aggravate the hell out of Soxtalk.

QUOTE(Capn12 @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 11:46 PM) I can't wait for us to be Ross Gload's b**** all year, and you KNOW its going to happen, he will have the big hits against us at some point. Yeah, kind of how I feel about Tyler Lumsden once he arrives in the Royal's rotation. Neither will be tremendous players overall, but everyone knows damn well they'll kill us at every opportunity.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 10:57 PM) I think the Sox are 'overthinking' the bullpen situation. Obviously the top three are set in stone. The next two spots I'd give to Logan and Haeger -- Logan has the stuff to succeed, just has to make sure he's 'A-okay' between the ears, and Haeger succeeded in the role last year (sample size issues are understood), will be nice to have on the days where whoever our fifth starter is doesn't have it (and those days will be there, much moreso than last year), and I assume that a knuckler should be able to bounce between a reliever to a starter relatively easily. I believe Haeger will be an unsung hero come the end of the 2007 season, for the reasons you mentioned and more. It just worries me how little he's connected through the media to a potential bullpen position. If he's on the major league team and producing reasonably well (which is subjective, but I would say less than a 5.00ERA), 100IP should be reached with ease. I could foresee a situation one afternoon where the 5th starter bombs, Haeger comes out, Sox battle back, game goes into extra innings, and Haeger -- in total -- pitches 12 innings. It may not occur (I'm sure Guillen would take him out at some point), but it would show case his greatest asset -- durability. He'd probably only require several days to rest before pitching again.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 10:54 PM) And Tizz yes, I know that you love that he throws hard. It wasn't only the velocity which impressed me but the movement as well. His two seam fastball to left handers yesterday resembled Bartolo Colons. Nice offspeed pitches as well. This is really what I like to see -- pitchers developing within our system with upside. He may be a bust, or develop arm troubles, but at least the talent is evident.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 10:33 PM) I said it in the bullpen thread, and I still have a hunch he makes it out of the bullpen. He'd probably have a better shot of winning a bullpen role, but I know I'd rather have him starting -- whether in Chicago or Birmingham. Hopefully our coaches feel the same way. QUOTE(dasox24 @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 10:44 PM) Adam Russell Interview from Futuresox.com 'Tree' is a perfect nickname.

1. John Danks 2. Josh Fields 3. Giovanni Gonzalez 4. Ryan Sweeney 5. Charlie Haeger 6. Lance Broadway 7. Adam Russell 8. Boone Logan 9. Jack Egbert 10. Aaron Cunningham

I love it. While I'm not ready to anoint him as anything, I'd love for Russell to remain in this organization. It'd just be ridiculous to consider trading him. No one, especially the White Sox, can afford to deal prospects with arms such as his.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 06:04 PM) Wild Hogs is absolutely horrendous. Yeah, Tim Allen should have been the first clue of that.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 06:26 PM) Eric Byrnes was a 35 last year Yeah, it has obvious flaws. In no grinder system should Byrnes have the same rating as Carlos Beltran. It'd be interesting though if Soxtalk actually put together something for this.

Riding home on the train today I was browsing through the Tribune and thought of a discussion on Soxtalk pertaining to our favorite term, "grinders." An interesting question was raised last week on how to quantify such a term, since its interpretation shifts depending upon the person using it. I believe I have found something relatively easy for quantifying a "grinder." It's just OPS / (AB/SB). The entire goal of such a statistic is providing a players number in relation to "0." Further they are from "0," closer they are to being labeled the quintessential grinder. How I figure is players deemed grinders should possess the following: absence of power, avg. heavy OBP, and -- most importantly -- a sizable amount of SBs. Here are several interesting numbers: -Albert Pujols (2006) - 14 -Miguel Cabrera (2006) - 16 -Darren Erstad (2000) - 40 -Juan Pierre (2004) - 52 -Scott Podsednik (2005) - 81

It's funny how every hit and run I've seen this spring has been in situations where the ball has been low/around the dirt, and if the hitter had not of swing the runner would have had second base easily.

CHOKE CREDE! with a single to lead off the inning. Here comes some Ozzie ball.......

I have to say, listening to Singleton today and several occasions on the radio, he's really improved his broadcasting skills.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 05:02 PM) 3 hits in 7 innings. LOL Yeah, it's not very pretty. We don't have the excuse of having a B lineup, either. Only Thome is missing.