Flash Tizzle

QUOTE(soxfan3530 @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 04:52 PM) for how inflated the market is this could be a great signing. we all know that javy is at least a average pitcher and average pitchers were making this much. the difference b/t someone like lilly and vazquez is that javy has a much higher ceiling and better stuff IMO. I look at it this way -- if he performs at his 2006 level, he's atleast worth 10-12 million per/yr according to this market. If he exceeds this, it's an absolute bargan.

I absolutely love this deal. Even considering Vazquez's struggles, he would have earned a substantially higher amount of money/years based on last year's statistics alone. Have we not seen what teams offer for power capable arms? Now imagine a powerful arm capable of avoiding injury and providing innings.... Honestly, how can anyone oppose this contract extension? I'll just have to assume -- without physically viewing the previous messages -- that EVERYONE realizes this is a good signing. Yes, there exists risk. Most extended contracts for pitchers do. However, even with a collection of possible SP prospects, we need stability within the rotation. More importantly, someone capable of sustaining the "ace" moniker. I'm not foolish enough to believe he'll mysteriously revert to Montreal days for several seasons. However, considering how he hasn't been in one place for two consecutive seasons since 2004, I'm looking forward to this season. Oh, and LOLLERZ at Rotoworld. So? No mention of how it's a fair deal in comparison to other pitchers?

Man, I appeared to miss a full out assault yesterday. QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 10:10 PM) Where's flash and gosox41 to put the spin on this one? I didn't really such a s***ty farm system could be ranked third in the number of quality prospects. No spin is necessary. Prior to acquiring Gonzalez, Sisco, Danks, Rasner, Masset the farm system was atrocious. Which the additions over the offseason we have restocked the system. Suggesting our organization is ranked third in the number of quality prospects is doing exactly what you accuse me of -- spinning. Sure, we're tied with several other teams for third in the number of prospects on the Top 150. But does that automatically assume all are quality players? Two players are rated above 100! Reasonably, after 100, anyone compiling these lists are throwing out names and placing them in random positions. Close enough; except for the items in bold. You've guys have me pegged fairly well. I honestly don't care about these posts, but atleast be accurate. I dont' believe something as crucial as how Minnesota acquired Santana and Liriano has even been misintepreted by me. The draft position argument has also been clarified on numerous occasions. Quality starting pitchers can be found in the low first round. Consider Broadway's position of 15th in the 2005 Amateur draft. Here are the following pitchers I found in a comparable draft position: Scott Kazmir - 15th in 2002 C.C. Sabathia - 20th in 1998 Jake Westbrook - 21st in 1996 Jeremey Bonderman - 26th in 2001 Philip Hughes - 23rd in 2004 Chris Carpenter - 15th in 1993 These are only a hand-ful of within the criteria. I'm not even counting positional players. What the data suggests is it's not impossible to succeed in our draft slot. For Broadway's position, we could have -- and should have -- taken a more projectable arm. If they're willing to draft safetly and avoid arms capable of injury; fine. Atleast have some interest in scouting outside America. It's there where you can find a Carlos Zambrano, Johan Santana, Felix Hernandez, Francisco Liriano without having draft position effect you. It all depends on your devotion. And -- if anyone were to judge that devotion based on the results we've seen from that region -- you'd realize it's pathetic. Nothing positive can be said. Not even a Neifi Perez clone has been produced within the last 10 years. That's just an embarrassment.

I'm not one to complain, but it's rather slimely of a Sun-Times journalist to anonymously question players on why they dislike Pierzysnki. Considering how Pierzynki's regarded as the most irritating player in baseball, those excuses are lame. This lists sounds like people disliking A.J. due to his reputation more than anything else. It's only fair now if Cowley responds back with "Reason to dislike Zambrano." I'm sure our players will be far more creative.

QUOTE(bigruss22 @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 03:43 PM) broadway needs more innings, no doubt about that, and with an addition of a good changeup he could be another garland with the sinker, but i see him more of a stretch at a 3, but more likely a #4 pitcher who will get wins and keep the era around 4-4.5, so good but nothing special, but nowadays that projection leads to 10 mill a year He needs more innings, more velocity, less walks. I hope the days of drafting pitchers comparable to him have ended with McCulloch. We have enough projectable #4/#5 starters in the system.

QUOTE(ScottyDo @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 03:20 PM) dude, lay off him! he's only got an ERA of 20.25 Oneli Perez is jealous.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 03:17 PM) ok, who feels like a laugh? Does it have to do with Prior? Because I've already had a good time thinking of ways the media will spin his start.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 02:27 PM) Bill Hall hit a monster shot off of Burls. 1-1 There's our Buehrle.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 10:50 AM) i think he was referring to Rasner as the throw in... which he was I was. I don't know how much our scouts have phsycially watched Rasner throw, but what we're probably banking on is Jacob filling out his frame and developing velocity. It's not based on statistics, that's for sure. Atleast with Liriano as a 'throw in' with the Pierzynski deal the kid had numbers and an arm.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 10:42 AM) Even if the Sox get major league talent for Vazquez, it's doubtful that it would improve the team overall considering the hit the rotation would take. Considering what the Sox gave up for Vazquez, I'd rather gamble on him putting together a decent season than cut bait now. I can only assume if we trade Vazquez we'll receive a player of Chris Young's caliber, right? .....right?

How many episodes could you possibly pull out of these characters? Episode 1: OMG, we don't have to rub sticks to make fire?! Episode 2: OMG, the technology!!! Wheels are perfectly round! Episode 3: WTF is a house? I'd rather live in a cave! (cue fake studio laughter) That should about do it.

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 10:21 AM) Next year Cunningham will be on that list. Book it. He is a stud and it would not surprise me to see him put up a .300, 20 HR, 20 SB line this year with a fair amount of walks. He will be our next outfield stud. Well, sounds good; but not Chris Young good.

QUOTE(whitesox1976 @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 12:43 AM) Haeger had his knuckler going pretty good against the Cubs. Although I think that Gavin will have to have a really bad spring for him not to get the 5th starter job. I know people continually say this, but why? Because Williams traded for him? Because he doesn't throw a knuckleball? If the spring statistics obviously favor Haeger, there should be no reason to take Floyd. What has he proven? Atleast Haeger has respectable minor league statistics to fall back on. Floyd has nothing but a high draft and Cooper's magic pixy dust.

QUOTE(Friend of Nordhagen @ Mar 4, 2007 -> 11:12 PM) I must say that I'm a little confused by John Danks, both by what I'm now reading and what I saw today. He was effective today. And I don't doubt his talent. But I do doubt what Kenny Williams said right after the McCarthy trade. The clear assertion was that Danks had the kind of stuff to fare better in the Cell than McCarthy. I thought that meant that he had power stuff. Sure, he's supposed to have a great curve, but his velocity is pretty much what McCarthy's was (high 80's, low 90's). So, what am I missing here? Was that just a smokescreen for how much the Sox wanted to get rid of McCarthy? Was it that Danks is left-handed? Was it that they got Masset, too? Whatever the reason, that stuff about "stuff" seems totally false. I feel slightly misguided as well. Honestly, up until a few days ago I assumed Danks consistently pitched 92-94 judging from various sources (forums, articles) which had deemed him a 'power pitcher.' He's obviously not. It appears more likely substituting Danks for McCarthy was a lateral move intended to give us a lefthanded pitcher with more years of service. And that's assuming Danks immediately succeeds upon promotion and matches Brandon. It's strange that Williams gives these interviews saying "McCarthy will be a ....very serviceable pitcher;" which implies he won't reach the potential THIS organization anointed him with. With such brashness, he damn well better hope Danks isn't a bust. For what Williams has put on the line here, you'd have to believe his scouting department -- aided by his own judgment -- have us emerging as obvious favorites in this deal. I'd like to have faith in our organization, but I can't help but wonder what Texas thought prior to finalizing the trade. We know our rationale with McCarthy. What's their side of the story? Did they believe all three were expendable, and unlikely to reach their potential? Maybe Daniels and his subordinates thought Danks would only be a "serviceable" pitcher, whereas Masset was merely sold high due to his arm and Mexican League stats. I really don't dislike Danks. After watching him today it's obvious that talent is present. What disappoints me is how, potentially, McCarthy and Danks may cancel each other out and all this trade may give us is a power reliever and Rasner. It'd be tremendous if Masset is our future closer, but it's just difficult to envision such a possibility when you consider the inconsistent nature of relievers. Few are reliable year to year. If it were me, I'd rather have struck a deal including two starters and a throw in rather than one starter, one reliever, and a throw in.

QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Mar 4, 2007 -> 09:28 PM) Gio is going to be amazing I'm not that confident about Gonzalez. He still needs to develop control. Pitchers were all over the zone. I don't believe he threw one curveball for a strike. Danks looked much more polished. Although it still worries me his fastball didn't appear to fool major league hitters facing him for the first time.

I can already tell Cooper has worked on Sisco's stride. It's noticeably longer -- similar to what Thornton had once on the White Sox. That last 92 mph slider was filthy. Too bad he's around the zone.

That would have been a 3run HR at the Cell.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 4, 2007 -> 04:38 PM) From watching him last year, this is basically what you get. He's not very good, and I'm shocked by the optimism some people have in regards to him because he put together a strong stretch against September call-ups in worthless Cubs games. I've honestly never seen him pitch more than a few occasions. I watched fewer and fewer Cub games down the stretch once we were out of contention. Although, only benefit of Aardsma is he throws hard; and it's easier to teach pitches than velocity. Whoever the Cubs CF is definitely slacked off on that ducksnort.

Aarsdma needs to be more than a one pitch pitcher. I hope this stead display of fastballs is purposeful.

I don't think the radar gun is off after watching Aardsma. 93, 96, 95 is what'd you expect from him. And that breaking ball needs work. It practically rolled up to the plate.

I don't care if it's spring training, killing the Cubs is always a happy occasion.

Mr. Fields is a LONG way from the majors judging from some of his swings today.

QUOTE(spiderman @ Mar 4, 2007 -> 04:12 PM) The only thing missing is a Jay Mariotti column ripping Ozzie.... http://www.suntimes.com/sports/mariotti/28...T-jay04.article I thought he was taking a hiatus until May?

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 4, 2007 -> 04:17 PM) At least we have the lead in LHP with 90 mph fastballs. That's always true.

Gonzalez definitely needs to refine his control before reaching the majors.