Flash Tizzle

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 12:24 PM) What have you agreed with in the past that KW has done? Have you agreed or thought much of any of his deals or signings? What is your track record in agreeing or disagreeing with KW and his scouts? How did that turn out for you? I have a feeling you are more wrong than right when it comes to what moves the Sox should or shouldn't have made. I've agreed with numerous signings and acquistions. It's just typical of people to remember those comments which appear negative in nature. And my track record? 89.23% success rate. Good for 8th overall on Soxtalk.

QUOTE(FlaCWS @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 09:52 PM) Listen, I think Rosenthal makes a valid point about the low asking price and Freddy's motivation in a contract year. But you have to give Kenny the benefit of the doubt. In '05 no one thought we got enough for Carlos Lee. No one thought the signings of AJ or Dye meant much of anything. Guys like Jenks and Thornton were pretty much discarded by their old teams. Somehow Kenny saw something in these guys. His track record speaks for itself over the past two years. I don't mean to sound like a Ken Williams apologist, but he absolutely deserves the benefit of the doubt. And it'll be a few years before we can truly evaluate this deal, because it'll depend on what Gio does, if anything, in the majors. I'm never giving anyone benefit of doubt for anything. If Williams made a move one day after the World Series which I disliked, I would have criticized him if I felt it were necessary. Maybe it's my mindset, but I can't blindly sit back and tell myself that.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 09:17 PM) But after looking it over some more, would we really want BMac for another 5 years? He was discovered by our s***ty scouts. Right Flash? I see Rowand's name mentioned. Wasn't he drafted and signed by the Sox's scouts within the last 10 years? How much impact should we expect from a player if he was drafted 1 or 2 years ago? This isn't the NBA or NFL. Back to the Garcia trade, I said at the time the Sox should've gotten more, and I still feel that way. On the day Freddy was traded, Schmidt, Lilly and Meche all signed big contracts. IMO KW thought that was the best time to sell, but Jennings netted a nice package, and Marquis and Miguel Batista got overpaid as well. Yeah, he was. Unfortunately, a projected #3 starter doesn't make up for the problems across other divisions of this team. Williams didn't trade for the prospects he did because he was confident in our current collection. Or don't you remember the recent comments he made, which you obviously looked at before writing your post? Williams himself realizes the problems within our minor league system. Rowand's nothing more than a 4th OF. Chris Young, however, was a great signing and may develop into a superstar. Unfortunately, he's gone. We hardly have the type of talent necessary to sustain success within this devision. This ultimately is the key. I don't know how many times I've repeated such a statement. Even before Williams' offseason trades I suggested he take that path. Others criticized me. Now that he's doing percisely that, it's genius. How else will future pitching staffs be assembled, since apparently, contracts beyond 3 years for pitchers are avoided? Are we destined to search through scrap heaps year after year looking for the next "coop project?" t doesn't matter when I hear responses such as "how many teams would like a Liriano," or "what about player x within our organization" -- the job is winning. Set the expectations high and perhaps people will begin doing their job. It's obvious we've been relying too much on trades, too little on player development. Too bad it took an outrageous pitching market for Williams to realize changes may be neccessay, since -- you know -- Cleveland/Minnesota/Detroit all have blue-chip prospects in their systems. All three aren't going anywhere, either. Last point -- expecting production from drafted players one or two years ago may be unwarranted, but what about all the years previous to that? Latin America is still uncharted territory with our scouts.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 09:02 PM) That trade I seemed to mind the least out of any others too... You know, even though I criticize the move, I'm not losing sleep over the package. I only felt at the time, as I do now, that Williams should have asked for more considering the market for FA pitchers. The blurb from Rosenthal suggests to me Williams was his own worst enemy. McCarthy is a whole other discussion. Whether Masset transforms into Jenks Jr. or not, he's likely a bullpen arm for the remainder of his career. Considering McCarthy's value (even with the poor year out the bullpen), I would have asked for Hurley and Danks. If Texas denied that, fine -- we still would have had McCarthy for 5+ seasons.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 08:41 PM) Oh God no, Philly scouts mocking the Sox?!?!?!?! What ever will we do? I wonder if those were the same scouts who liked Adam Eaton enough to give him $24 million dollars. Or the same scouts that liked that 'awesome' package of players they received for Bobby Abreu. Obviously not.

but...but..but.. OUR SCOUTS LIKED WHAT THEY SAW IN FLOYD! They scout the player, not the stats, you know. Williams will do whatever possible to receive his players. That about covers the excuses I heard. Too bad they couldn't scout Fabio Castro and reacquire him.

QUOTE(fathom @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 11:00 AM) I can't believe the Sox are counting on Floyd, someone who struggled to get minor league hitters out last season. I would like to see him post a sub 4 ERA in AAA before pitching in the AL. Can I make the prediction now that either KW or Ozzie won't be with the Sox in 2008? I can't see Ozzie managing during a rebuilding period. I don't believe you'll be correct on either account. Williams may be gone by 2009 if this year, next year, and the team thereafter all perform poorly. I do agree, however, that counting on Floyd to contribute is foolish. His overall numbers may fit those of comparable 5th starters across the league, but in the AL Central, it may not be enough. My prediction is he'll be out of the rotation by midseason.

This should be an interesting distraction for the Cubs entering Spring Training. Atleast with Buehrle and the White Sox everyone knows we're not signing him. I hope Zambrano doesn't back off these comments. Stay strong, 'Big Z,' and continue riding ownership to sign a long term deal before the season begins.

boobies /8,0001

QUOTE(T R U @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 02:36 AM) I finally found it, it was fifth movement of Ludwig van Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 You must have found it on Answers.com as well. I was just about to edit my post.

QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 12:08 AM) 6 yrs 120 mil. I can see it now. That's a relative bargain considering Zambrano's capabilites and age. He should hold out for no less than 161mil/7yrs.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Feb 12, 2007 -> 06:00 PM) That's something that has come into my mind now regarding Anderson. It almost seems he's really going to have to produce from the get go in ST, because if he doesn't, with these guys that they've brought in, he could find himself down in Charlotte sooner rather than later (although I certainly hope that isn't the case). If Anderson embarrasses himself in Spring Training, carrying into the beginning of the season, it's his own fault. At which point I won't criticize whichever decision management makes concerning his playing time. Guillen certaintly hasn't given him a chance; I understand. But if you're unable to show immediate improvements in spring training against scrubs and prospects, with some major league pitching sprinkled in, the excuses end. Although I'm sure they'll be understanding. Spring Traning appearances for positional players cover, what, 50-60 AB's? What I'm suggesting is if he has under 8 hits and 20+ strikeouts, we can't blame anyone but Anderson for what happens afterwards. He has to be ready to perform right from the beginning.

QUOTE(needauribe @ Feb 12, 2007 -> 11:32 AM) Someone on here, toward the end of the 06 season, said Selig was rearranging tv schedules so we wouldnt have to deal with the WCIU BS in 07. Maybe he was too busy selling out to directv. 25 games now??? PISSED. Wait, so do you base the 25 games off of what someone said last season on Soxtalk, or is this information included in a recent article?

QUOTE(Craig Grebeck @ Feb 11, 2007 -> 06:52 PM) He sucks, that's the answer to just about every question. Question is, will he suck less than Anderson and Podsednik?

QUOTE(ptatc @ Feb 11, 2007 -> 06:13 PM) It's not the price or the payroll. We have a top 5-10 payroll and probably will for awhile if attendance is high. It's the length of the pitchers contract. Pitchers break down and miss time for inuries for more often than hitters. The Sox won't go for thelong term 5-8 year contracts that some pitchers are getting. I personally think this is good policy and agree with this practice. I'm not questioning the policy. Infact, many here would agree I've been fully supportive of trading veterans for prospects to avoid the market for pitchers. I'll clarify my position a little more. If Williams decides not to pay pitchers extended contracts, fine. We have stockpiled a large collection of prospects. However, Williams can't use this same policy (in my mind) when applied to positional players. We have limited options within our system, and will continue to unless future trades net quality players. If only one superstar-type player is acquired, it would make it easier to allow several (hopefully all three) of Fields/Sweeney/Anderson to develop.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Feb 11, 2007 -> 04:33 PM) Hopefully we can get lucky and have our three top position prospects work out (to a reasonable extent, at least) so that there will be a ton of money to spend on a superstar like Miggy. This is ultimately what I'm hoping for, as well. Too bad our relationship with Boras is sour. Trading Crede next offseason and attempting to sign Rodriguez would have been an interesting proposition. I'm not sure how he would react to trading one of his clients only to sign another, but I'm sure he'd forget quickly if 160mil over 8 years was thrown at Rodriguez.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Feb 11, 2007 -> 01:10 AM) Leaving Tucson it will be Floyd. By June it will be Haeger time. I believe this as well. Although it'll be interesting to see what occurs if Haeger pitchers well and Floyd doesn't during Spring Training. I'm talking about a wide disparity in success -- such as Floyd's ERA exceeding 10 and Haeger pitching below 3. Would management still select Floyd as the 5th starter candidate? We'll see if the choice is based on performance. I'd love to hear excuses provided by management for selecting Floyd. We'd hear how his performance in Spring Training was "encouraging," while Haeger "needs more seasoning."

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 11, 2007 -> 11:18 AM) noooooooooooooooooooooooooo It makes sense though. And I would assume JR would want some type of outclause, which would mean he has to give Cabrera some type of outclase, and sooooo it would probably work just as Belle's did. What if it does work? I'm not one to complain about Reinsdorf or our payroll, but that's utterly ridiculous if we're unwilling to sign extended contracts with pitchers AND positional players. Especially if mild success continues and the turnstyles produce at a reasonable pace. They may not have signed many significant, long term deals; but they've never had a payroll comparable to now. I'd really like to know who the hell are we bringing to our ballclub in future seasons? "Under the radar" can only go so far. Our minor league system is full of mid-lower tier talent , scouting doesn't exist south of Mexico, we're never in a position for good draft picks --so, how are we supposed to sustain success? I suppose the idea is trade current veterans for prospects. Fine, if the prospects you trade for are atleast equal to departing players. Personally, I like this theory, but it could work even further with certain FA signings. Not spending money to spend money, but bringing in signifcant talent such as Cabrera. Don't know about any of you, but I'm not going to accept this "OMG, teh market" if we're competitive with a 100+ million dollar payroll. Williams has assembled possible alternatives for our pitchers. Few are available for positional players -- especially infielders. I took this as a possibility that money would be spent if it were deemed necessary. From your comments, Steff, I guess not. We'll have to see.

QUOTE(Heartattack19 @ Feb 11, 2007 -> 11:13 AM) I made eagle in 1998, did a business attire closthing drive and donated it to Catholic Charities. O wasippe was the best, i hiked all the trails one week. I tried again the next year with the younger guys, but they could not keep up and gave up, so i had a week to just chill in michigan and go fishing! Hopefully the sale of the land to developoers does not go through, the Chicago Area Council seems to be as corrupt as they get..... I loved walking their trails when I was younger. Not that I've ever completed the entire trail around Big Blue Lake, but just following paths from the main dining hall to activities on the outskirts of Blackhawk (the reservation our troop attended) was an interesting experience. Actually, I was given the opportunity to walk around the lake one year; but this was recently removed from a troop hike around Lake Geneva -- a delicious 30 mile, 10 hour hike.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Feb 10, 2007 -> 11:20 PM) I can't even begin to believe that the White Sox will sign Cabrera or even make a serious run at him. Not at all. It's not impossible to believe they'd atleast make a serious run. If we're seriously competitive this year and next -- hopefully with atleast one playoff birth -- our payroll should remain above 100 million. With our bullpen cheap, potential rotation cheap, and several options in Fields/Sweeney/Anderson, there should be reason not to. Cabrera would be a fricken superstar in this town. Atleast he would be on the Southside of Chicago.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Feb 10, 2007 -> 11:24 PM) Maybe not so much, if I had it to do over again - would have focused less on my rank and more on having fun in camp. My best friend in scouts never got past Star but could teach every merit badge at camp. Because he learned the stuff, not went after getting the badge. It would have been the other way around for me -- less time having fun, more focused on rank. I was sitting on 'Life' for nearly two years before completing Eagle several months shy of my 18th birthday. I have to imagine you've traveled to Owasippe a few times, no?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 10, 2007 -> 11:18 PM) What was your project? Collected food items and clothing from people within Palos Heights and delivered it to a local homeless shelter in Robbins, Illinois.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Feb 10, 2007 -> 11:26 PM) This is how I've always seen it: We find alien life and it looks like us = More proof of a God. We find alien life and it looks nothing like us = Goodbye religion. If you believe alien abduction stories, they have similar anatomical parts. Makes you wonder if there is a sort of universal design for intelligent life. If maybe two arms, two legs (with bipedal movement), two eyes, relatively small stature is what necessitates all advanced life forms. When you reflect upon our evolution, humans become more intelligent in response to observing their environment and adapting. I remember thinking to myself in sixth grade science class, how is it humans develop so much in a relatively short time (2milYrs), yet prehistoric dinosaurs which existed for 50 times our length exhibited little increases in intelligence? If nothing changes, as it didn't, little was needed to survive other than brute strength. Alien creatures, as I see it, would have to have gone the same evolutionary process as humans. Thus, probably have similar features.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Feb 10, 2007 -> 06:50 PM) Thanks for sharing the stories gang! This is the type of stuff that has to make you believe somewhat. What does anybody achieve by telling these tales if they are all BS, especially here on a site like this? I've read comments in the past where skeptics respond, when that question is asked, that UFO's fulfill a collective need people have for a higher being. Something out there which is bigger than us. For example, Mexico -- why the HELL would any UFO want to visit that craphole? Yet, you'd think it's the center of the universe with all the alleged sightings. Could these people, many of who are devote to their religion, be more willing to attribute any strange object as an alien spaceship? Personally, I don't subscribe to this idea. It makes sense, but really, wouldn't the existence of UFO's only prove we're not unique? We're not the creation of a devine power? Anyways, none of that really applies when you're looking at the sky and notice something moving in ways no known aircraft moves.

Eagle Scout, class of 2003. /awaits recognition