Flash Tizzle

Only 6800 votes? And he came in third?! lol. /voted. 2 times.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 4, 2006 -> 11:50 AM) Japan, Taiwan, they're all the same color in the end, eh Flash? /green RUH ROH. Yeah, that's a mistake on my part. Forgive-a-ness, puhlease.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2006 -> 11:48 AM) Terrible move for the White Sox. Would they throw in Hamels? They can throw in Hamels, remove Rollins, remove Rowand, add Fabio Castro, and we'll remove Anderson. Garcia for Hamels + Fabio Castro = thumbs up.

After Williams' recent comment on stregthening the system, atleast he's immediately shown interest in signing Japanese talent. I can't complain. Honestly, how often has this happened -- us bringing in a Japanese prospect? That Yofu character was probably the last one.

After Grossman's performance today I'm resigned to our fate with him at the helm. What mertis Grossman's removal (even temporarily) if not for the last several weeks? Whether we're winning a Superbowl or exiting the first wrong, he'll likely remain the Bears' quarterback. I'm past the point where listening to people continually defend Grossman is funny. It has becoming downright annoying. If we're losing in the playoffs, and Grossman provides another turnover fest, there will be no more excuses. No one else to blame. At which point, Angelo can draft a quarterback early. In fact, he should do it every year until he gets it right. I don't even want to hear Turner's name mentioned anymore. Offensive coordinators work off their quarterback's abilities, not the other way around. Don't you people believe he would have enough sense -- considering he'll be let go before Grossman -- to structure new schemes if he believed the ones in place weren't working? Cmon, now. Grossman has limited mobility, trouble hitting receivers moving towards the sidelines, and this need to continually throw off his back foot. The latter is a mechanical issue which only he was fix. What I've noticed continually is people don't seem to hold Grossman's performance on it's on stature, but rather, compare it to the opposing quarterback. Such as, "Well, Grossman throw several INT's, but Brady didn't exact do well." Or, "you think Grossman did bad, look at Johnson." I don't see exactly what this argument accomplishes, other than pointing out how our top rated defense compares with another teams. Grossman, comparatively, struggles against defenses who are both strong and weak against the pass. Maybe the overriding connection among these performances is he's, well, not that good. Maybe NFL defenses have found out its easy to force him into making poor decision. I'm interested in having Griese start a game or two (depending on home field advantage), but only to rest Grossman's troubled little mind. When he plays in the playoffs, I don't want one f***ing excuse to justify his troubles. If one embarrassing game against Carolina influenced Angelo to address our cornerback concerns, it should hold true to Grossman as well.

Perhaps my mind is deceiving me, but I swear the results of this poll were FAR more in favor of "yes" soon as 10 hours ago.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 3, 2006 -> 07:00 PM) His contract does run through 10 I believe, but he also does have an out-clause at the end of next season, and it's entirely possible that with the way the Market has expanded, Boras may decide that he'll make more by opting out and trying to sign a Soriano-sized deal rather than playing out this contract. That about ends this rumor.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 3, 2006 -> 06:34 PM) I don't see how this makes sense financially, unless you raise the payroll another 20M-30M at least. And I'd rather get the young pitching in Santana, and let Josh Fields develop at 3rd base (even though I don't think he's ready yet), but that's just me. I wish I could come across a newspaper article which suggests a general manager is "enamored" with one of our starting pitchers..... Rodriguez's presence would surely compensate for Crede/Garcia's departure, but considering his pricetag -- and the fact this return package neglects our pitching -- I'm not a fan. I have a simple formula for success: you trade pitching, YOU RECEIVE PITCHING. Regardless of Rodriguez's name dangled. How exactly has our starting ptiching situation improved? Oh sure, in two seasons we'll have Rodriguez at 3B; too bad he'll be unable to pitch when our rotation is anchored by McCarthy/Broadway and several other scrubs. Only way I could consider myself a fan of such a scenario would be if an additional starter were traded, and one of the following pitchers were obtained: Santana, Pelfrey, Hurley/Danks. I don't care how unreasonable that is, if we're trading Garcia/Crede for Rodriguez, I need assurances that our rotation has a pitcher whom can reasonably help us in the future.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Dec 2, 2006 -> 02:38 PM) We should get something decent via trade for one of our pitchers for how overpriced the free agents are. That's the expectations I've already set. I'd like to believe Williams can't possibly screw this up.

Only reason I could possibly imagine (for refusing Riske arbitration) is teams are lukewarm to surrendering a highdraft pick for him. Considering the nature our minor league system, and how Williams yesterday mentioned his desire to rededicate this organization to scouting and player development, it sort of hurts your cause to miss an easy opporunities for a draft pick.

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 07:05 PM) This may have been discussed earlier, but Scott has gone good season, bad season, good season, bad season and now by this rate, 2007 should be a good one. He is the player the makes our offense go, regardless of what JD, Thome or Kong do. They can carry a team, but Pods can make our offense complete. Pods steals bases and can do the little things that makes this offense non-reliant on the homerun. Simply put, he is the single most important part of the offense. When he is on, the offense mashes. When he is off, the offense goes into a lull. Can we please retire this "good season/bad season" pattern to support Podsednik? Maggs, I know you're not the only one to reference it recently, but seriously -- set back and assess it logically. Does it make ANY sense to put faith in a player rebounding because there's a reoccurying theme based only on four seasons? I don't believe Williams thinks that way. Neither do I believe he seriously places our team's hopes entirely upon Podsednik. If Podsednik is so incredibly vital to our success, why was our offense ultimately better during his mediocre season, opposed to 2005? Anyone who gets on base at a decent clip and allows any of our HR hitters to drive them in is valuable. However, if Podsednik loses his one attribute --speed-- what use is our 'sparkclub?' I've said before, I'm grudgingly accepting Podsednik in LF because replacements (aside from the trade route) are limited. If maintaining Podsednik sets Williams priorities towards trading our SP and aquiring valuable prospects, I can certaintly accept it. I've never been a fan of proposed deals where we trade a starter, then horde off whichever package for Crawford. We need to build (esp. pitching) from within; our future depends it. And yes, I realize Crawford would help "build" a future club, but not at the expense of a three/four valuable prospects.

QUOTE(Goober @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 03:12 PM) WHERE I viewed the picture several days ago from searching on Google. It's nothing special. Put together two soggy hamburger buns and you'll have a match.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 03:44 PM) sure he stunk, but maybe he'll be motivated. And now it'll be easier to insert one of our prospects if Scott is failing to get on base and steal in April and May. I'd rather have him and insert a young replacement from our farm system than bring in some average player and feel obligated to let that player rot all year. You know damn well this won't happen. Guillen and his apologists will claim, "he's just starting slow; give him time!"

I have knowledge every team has the same ringtone: "Walk Away" - Kelly Clarkson.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 03:10 PM) With the news that Zito might be going to the Rangers, there goes the two teams most desperate for one of our starters, even though the Mets still might need another one. New York would undoubtedly need another starter. Texas might; depends on whether or not they're persuing other starters. I'd rather Texas lose out on signing Padilla, and another mystery club signs Zito. We need a bidding war between two clubs who have the trading chips Williams desires.

Way I feel is, a potential Podsednik return pains me, but the offense is hardly the issue right now. If you expect upgrades from Podsednik/Uribe/Anderson (which I understand many don't), it could certaintly offset regression among other players. However, if Williams neglects to trade any of his starters I'll be absolutely furious. Slightly less furious, although within a rationale level, if were dealing a starter for a pitiful package. Really, I don't know how anyone aside from David Littlefield or Brian Sabean could screw it up. He has an excess amount of starting pitchers; teams are looking for pitching; and the market is skewing the value of mediocre talent. If you can't take advantage of that, I don't know what to say. That is my concern entering winter meetings. Perhaps the right package allows him the flexibility to seek upgrades to LF, whereas trading Podsednik for a RH reserve OF/prospect.

Where the hell is the damn snow?! It better come down between now and eight, because I'm looking for an excuse not to go to school.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 01:57 AM) He's a White Sox prospect. /whipes tears away You make me so proud.

Wow, there's a name that I haven't heard in awhile -- Supersteve.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 03:33 PM) If it was as a closer, then yes. Wheter Gagne is setting up or closing, he reasonably duplicates his numbers from 2002 - 2004 it shouldn't matter. If he's putting up dominating stats and not closing, it must mean Jenks is pitching even better. Talk about a shutdown pen.

I can't imagine life without experiencing cold weather. I enjoy it, to an extent, under the right circumstances. Not while I'm trudging around downtown Chicago in fridgid conditions, but when I've removed from the elements. For me, there's nothing more relaxing than watching a snowstorm midafternoon over the Christmas holidays. Just the feeling of not having school work on my mind, and simply relaxing in my frontroom reading the newspaper while the entire neighborhood is covered in snow. It serves to temporarily disguise the otherwise brutal cold spells and driving conditions. I'm not the type of person to complain about the weather here. Similar to Greasy --except in a different state -- I don't see myself living anywhere else.

QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 02:45 PM) With his type on injury how could he realistically expect that much? Possibly signing him to an incentive laden contract makes sense, but I question whether the Sox have an interest. Sure, I'd be willing to pay Gagne $10 million....if he met numerous performance incentives within a contract. Such language would include: 12K/9IP, minimum of 70 innings, .baa under .200. Essentially, statistics experienced from 2002-2004 which may have warranted such a salary.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 10:16 AM) Many of you have mentioned before. The longer KW waits, the more desperate teams will get and the market value will increase tremendously! However, if there were 1 player KW should be aggressive in aqcuirering it should be Crawford. Both Scot Merkin and Bruce Levine says KW is very very interested in him. Take that for what its worth. Personally, I don't believe acquiring Crawford is feasible unless two quality players are delt. If the purported Crede/Garcia for Santana/Figgens swap were to occur, you may have to trade an additional player to reasaonably sastisfy the requirements of Tampa Bay. My belief is if Santana/McCarthy are within the same rotation, you do everything to preserve it. Thus, including either in a trade scenario is out of the question. To possibly offset our lack of trading chips, Williams would have to trade an additional bat (perhaps Dye) for a package centering around two top 25 prospects. Dodgers are looking for RH power, no? With possession of aforementioned prospects, Anderson (or Sweeney), and Broadway, you attempt and aquire Crawford. Similar to any proposal involving a cheap, talented player, it all depends upon several fictional trades unfolding in our favor. This is atleast how I see it. Of course, Williams may decide McCarthy is expendable if Santana is acquired. This would limit the need to unload an additional player such as Dye; even though he'll likely depart following 2007.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 10:47 PM) Shocking. It's bound to happen. This place could get pretty scary if Jesus Cre, uh, I mean Joe Crede got traded... From what I gather, a sizable percentage of members are open to trading Crede if the return package is appropriate. Doesn't mean everyone -- especially those holding sentimental value -- would approve of it, but I don't believe it'd reach the level of craziness if say McCarthy were delt.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 10:07 PM) let me translate "I was dumb to say we couldn't sign him, so now he's not going anywhere (unless I can get something good for him." inactivity=s***ty This is how I see it as well. Whitesox.com is about the last site I'd consider browsing for alleged rumors. More of a venue to spin this issue back in our favor. What Williams did was rather idiotic. Who exactly does it benefit answering questions which suggest a contract extention is unlikely? Even if it doesn't effect his immediate value, it could possible cause a rift between Crede and the organization. Why take a chance with such a public statement?