Flash Tizzle

QUOTE(beck72 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 07:20 PM) With KW and Jerry around, a guy like Young would have been dealt away, no matter how much pure talent the guy has. Kw wants guys who have the desire and intangibles to win if not the natural talent and ability. There might be something to the Bmac attitude. But if Bmac was serious about 'changing his ways', KW would probably have stuck w/ him. But more than likely, the combined talents of Danks and Masset bettering what BMac alone could do over the course of their careers was the most important factor. LOL, are you serious? Can you speak for Williams? I'm willing to believe McCarthy's attitude played a part, but not enough to alone pull the trigger on a trade. I'm sure there wouldn't be ONE general manager willing to pass on Delmon Young if he were released. That's because most people within baseball care about winning games, not fostering intangibles and clubhouse chemistry. Give me the talented prospect with the poor attitude over a hard nosed, major leage average 'grinder.'

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 06:48 PM) Anyone else hear the caller on the Score earlier today who said he's a friend of McCarthy's family, and he said the real reason he was traded was.....and he got cut off by Bernstein. I wonder if he was going to repeat the rumor being discussed the other day. I heard it too and wouldn't doubt it. The Score can't be the testing ground for rumors suggested by random callers, especially being the flagship station and all.

QUOTE(whitesox07champs @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 06:18 PM) I do not care if a player batted .025 last season. You never say this player cost us "X" amount of games! This is so dumb. I remember him losing at least 6 games last season with his bullpen decisions. He never mentions that. I guess we could have been in the playoffs without Ozzie then! I am quickly turning on this guy with his stupid remarks. Oh and I am shooing myself if someone says its Ozzie being Ozzie. Thats unacceptable. http://podcast.670thescore.com/wscr/253024.mp3

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 05:47 PM) Flash, can you post that podcast link? I'm not sure my PM to you was sent. http://podcast.670thescore.com/wscr/252893.mp3

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 05:30 PM) It's interesting how everyone enjoys busting on Ozzie but refuse to lay any blame on the players. What about Podsednik? Or Anderson's poor offensive performance in the first half? Or Buehrle? Many have given players who underperformed their fair share of criticism. Well, whoever generalized to that degree was wrong. Only one player really did poorly because Guillen put them in a bad position. I'd suggest Mackowia because it was obvious he wasn't capable of defending CF, yet Guillen continued to ignore this. Anderson and McCarthy may not have been given full playing time, but often their performances on the field dictated this.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 05:19 PM) Ozzie apparently (I didn't hear the interview) said that if McCarthy wasn't with the club last year we would've made the playoffs. On www.670thescore.com, the interview is available under the headline "podcasts." I'm listening to it right now.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 05:08 PM) whatd sweeney do? Pinch hit, RBI single in the 8th.

Next reliever Day gave up a run as well. 10-3, Arizona. Top of the 9th. Another mediocre performance from the pitching top to bottom. 6 pitchers went today for the Whtie Sox -- 5 gave up runs, and Reynoso was responsible for adding several runs onto Oneli's line. Really, aside from Sweeney and Fields, there's practically nothing you could take positively from the game.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 04:28 PM) If you listen to his comments I don't think he is referring to attitude as a whole. It's pretty much an indictment of McCarthy and Anderson partying too much. The Sox, Guillen included think that these two weren't serious enough about the game. This must be the reason that BA was being becnched last year even when it seemed he was improving on the field. That would be ridiculous, if true. Teaching a young player a lesson rather than attempting to win? When Anderson wasn't producing, I could understand benching him if it appeared his social life was becoming a distraction. But when someone begins to turn themselves around, as Brian did in the second half, the level of seriousness shouldn't matter.

9-2 Arizona now. Reynoso relieved Perez and proceeded to give up three more runs (all charged to Perez). I suppose the good news, if you could call it that, is that he didn't give up any runs which were charged to his line.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 04:31 PM) I know its early but has any Sox pitcher looked good? Have any of them not given up at least a run? I know offhand Gonzalez and Logan haven't given up anything. Can't speak to whether anyone in particular has looked good or bad. It's safe to say this early in spring training, Colorado and Arizona have had their way with us. Now it looks like the immortal Oneli Perez has given up three hits, a walk, and one run in his inning pitched. 6-2 Arizona, Top of the 8th.

Masset's second inning didn't go too well. 2 more hits and an additional run (earned) charged to him. 5-2 Arizona, Top of the 7th. Is anyone here actually listening to the game? These last two innings for the White Sox have been posted incredibly quick on MLB.com.

If information comes out concerning McCarthy's attitude, and our management's displeasure with it, it makes me wonder about future young talent on this ballclub. Will we be patient with a potential superstar if he doesn't get along with our manager, or other teammates? How would we have handled Delmon Yountg throwing a bat at an umpire? I'm not willing to believe Williams traded Brandon because of his attitude alone, but you have to imagine it factored in.

I'm interested in how McCarthy responds to this. I'll bet he says the right things, but it'd be great if he lets something loose about Guillen. Or his feud with women and Williams.

Masset has an unearned run charged to him because of Pedro Lopez committing an error. 4-2 Arizona, Top of the 6th. If they win, we'll have lost eight straight to Arizona dating back to last spring training.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) http://mlb.mlb.com/news/boxscore.jsp?gid=2...chamlb_arimlb_1 Kenny Perez in for Fields at 3B I hope for no reason other than giving Perez PT. Sox losing 3-1 in the 4th.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2007 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 01:13 PM) Then why do you keep whining about it? I continue whining about our lack of legitimate pitching prospects because until we change our philosophy, we're not going to match the rotations within our division. Step 1: no more "safe, projectable" picks for the forseeable future. If risking a selection, especially in this deep draft, gives us the possibility of a Phillip Hughes, Scott Kazmir, or Matt Garza -- rather than a Lance Broadway of Kyle McCulloch -- I'd take that risk. If it's a bust, so what? It seems the only good pitching prospects we've had the last 10 years have been lucky, late round picks.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2007 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 02:32 PM) I doubt it. It's been clear for a while now that Ozzie has had a bias against B-Mac and Anderson. If not, he should've been more clear in what he meant by that particular comment. Guillen may spin it as suggesting the party link, but I'm certain he disliked both players. Even pushing aside the Anderson comments, which could be interpreted more than one way, he TRASHED McCarthy. Said he "pitched like s***." You can't spin that. I guess Williams doesn't need to fire away at BMAC because Guillen just did that. Just goes to prove few players seem to leave this organization without a problem. If Garcia weren't Guillen's chum you'd almost expect something out of that as well.

QUOTE(winninguglyin83 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 02:25 PM) By the way, are these FRESH comments by McCarthy -- or stuff he said after the trade? Guillen appeared to be quoting comments made within the DeLuca article: http://www.suntimes.com/sports/deluca/2657...eluca21.article

I don't want to completely take these quotes of context, so if anyone heard more then add onto mine. It's possible, as Dan Berstein is mentioning right now, that suggesting 'he picked the wrong clubhouse friend' was referring to Brandon and Anderson constantly partying. Although I have feeling there's no miscommunication. The interview was pure Ozzie Montana. Him ripping McCarthy for the losses can't be taken any other way, though.

This is nuclear. On McCarthy: "We might be in the playoffs without him." On having no other friends in the clubhouse aside from Anderson: "He picked the wrong person in the clubhouse to be friends with." FLAME ON!

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 11:43 AM) Nope, according to his pitching coach from last year, he throws between 88 and 90 mph. I'm with you Flash, I'm with you. I know this will inevitably lead into a debate of 'velocity doesn't mean success.' Perhaps a few Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Mark Buehrle references thrown about. Hopefully, his 90 mph fastball has actual movement; and his secondary pitches are outstanding. I admit I've never seen him throw. Perhaps the newbie is right -- this is spring training, and he might not have full velocity. It's just a little shocking to me to hear his fastball is ~90mph considering the archived news stories and message board posts from Ranger fans seemed to suggest otherwise.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 11:27 AM) No, but to poo poo on those 3 is making a significant mistake, they could be awfully good. Not as polished as the Detroit 3 though. They'll never be as polished as those three. I'll guarantee that. I don't know sometimes. It just seems like we're assembling a collection of #3 (at best #2) starters while teams within our division have #1 and #2's. Within the next several years, with one/two veteran starters probably on the block, I expect more in return than the Cliff Floyd's of the world. We have to aim higher. And yes, I realize (especially with Cleveland an Detroit) they've assembled arms through draft positions. It's just something we'll have to overcome.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 09:46 AM) BA is traditionally very toolsy and Danks doesn't have great stuff. Someone with a fastball that sits around 90 MPH isn't going to get rated that highly by them, I think. Also, they may be using the fact that the Sox traded for him as a strike against him (i.e. if the Sox scouts think he's good, he probably isn't ) Scouts still like Sweeney, and BA seems to veer more towards scouting rather than stats. Please, someone tell me Danks throws at a higher velocity than ~90mph.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 05:48 AM) So a player in Sweeney who hasn't put up staggering numbers and hasn't really hit well outside of the hitter's paradise known as Charlotte is being rated ahead of a pitcher who has adjusted to each level at an astonishing rate? I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but as I recall, Danks put up a 2.50-3.00 ERA after a few starts in AA. He may never be more than Cliff Lee, but Cliff Lee is pretty damn good. At a certain point, there's probably a fair amount of similarities among players and they're merely plugging names into slots. Perhaps reputation and/or scouting reports, as well as statistics, factor in. Remember, how often have we heard articles which suggest scouts love his swing? I don't know exactly how much time Baseball America puts into these rankings. Or how they judge the difference between #30 and #55. Even though I suggested 55 people might have shown more progress than Danks, it was more a theory than something I personally believe.