Flash Tizzle

QUOTE(Purdue129 @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 11:16 PM) Here's Cowley on WFAN with Mike and Maddog earlier today. They pretty much destroy him. http://www.wfan.com/episode_download.php?c...ontentId=173121 14pts for 1st 9 for 2nd 8 for 3rd 7 for 4th 6 for 5th 5 for 6th 4 for 7th 3 for 8th 2 for 9th 1 for 10th Well, that destroys my conspiracy theory. Didn't think they difference among second place and below was one point. If Cowley or Detroit's John Lowe actually knew how votes were to be distributed among players, they could have atleast voted several spots higher and saved face. I'm sure Cowley will have the burden of this on shoulder for quite awhile. May jeopardize his career if he had any aspirations of moving up past the Sun Times.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 11:17 PM) Ballots.... Joe Cowley put AJ 10th, and failed to include Mauer. I think there is a bit of collusion going on here. How did so many writers, including the Twins writers, come up with Morneau as the top choice when his numbers are strikingly similar to Konkero's. /adjusts tinfoil hat I believe Cowley, without question, knew how other writers were voting. Detroit's John Lowe may have been collaborating with him as well. Isn't it rather suspicious Joe places Jeter in 6th place -- two places below John Lowe's vote -- and the total points seperating the two top candidates is fourteen? There appears to be far less variability among Jeter than Morneau. It's as if both writers knew beforehand what was necessary to hold Jeter from obtaining his award. Now, If someone could figure out exactly how many points correspond to each position, then we'll know whether one slot higher for both Lowe and Cowley would have made a difference.

Anyone know how MVP points are distributed among first place, second place, third place votes? Cowley's shunning of Jeter may have been the difference. Personally, I love it when people are upset. Anyone else just have a smile cross their face when a large group of people (not associated with the White Sox, of course) are aggrivated? It's hilarious to observe. Defying Jeter his MVP award may have caused ESPN to have a heart attack -- and they'll likely reference it forever -- but it's well worth the outrage. While I typically adopt a belief where the most deserving candidate should be awarded their achievements, I take exception with this particular MVP race.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 12:55 AM) Are you serious?? Richards is lucky he wasn't beaten to death on the stage, as the crowd cheered. And his apology on Letterman and the fake crying was pathetic, I'd respect him more if he admitted he was a racist ass b****, which he obviously is based on the venom in that video. I'm not very keen on identifying body language, but throughout the video he didn't come across as remorseful. Sad, droopy face doesn't mean much -- he's an actor. At the beginning he was shifting around in his chair like some antsy schoolgirl. As Flassox mentioned, his apology appeared more for preserving himself than apologizing for the remarks. Although I thought it was perfect how the audience continued to laugh through his emotional ramblings. Atleast in the beginning. As George Carlin once said, don't you ever watch something bad happen, such as a natural disaster, and hope it becomes worse? For entertainment purposes it would have been perfect if Richards snapped right then. His career is basically over, if it hasn't already been since Seinfeld ended. Might as well act sincere so those "afro-Americans" you insulted don't make your life a living hell. Instead of people yelling "Kramer!" at him down the street they'll be yelling God knows what.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 11:24 PM) All this outrage -- It's a testimony to how whiny or society is now. The CNN vid that he "offended all people" is f***ing hilarious. I believe anyone can recognize how outrageous his response was. Although I doubt many are genuinely upset. It's more an issue of people falsifying their anger because anything else could be considered an approval. I don't intend to call you out here -- because I'm pulling this from memory and may be wrong -- but didn't you heavily criticize Guillen when he labeled Mariotti a "f.ag?" The two issues are fairly alike. Atleast Guillen only mentioned his word once, and avoided examples to illustrate his point.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 11:14 PM) That's what happens when you treat comedy as an adult Chuck E Cheez instead of an art form. If you heckle, prepared to be heckled back to an insane degree. This is no worse than Hicks' Chicago "I have a c*** and I'm drunk, I can do anything I want!" incident. I fail to see the outrage about what he said. People came into the show, acted like ignorant jackasses to throw off his set and ruin the evening (Nobody paid to go see the asshats in the crowd starting s***) and he gave them whatfor. Nobody forced anybody to be there and nobody forced any of the people to listen to what he had to say...and most importantly, nobody forced the hecklers to be total jackasses. Have to admit, I didn't expect this reaction from you. If Richards uttered the word one or two times, on accident, perhaps it could have been passed as an isolated outburst. But he continued on WAY too long. Heckling does not excuse that type of tirade. I'm not offended by anything he said -- but it's obvious he went way beyond the limits of addressing a heckler.

You have to imagine Jerry is pissed about Richards taking time from his spot on Letterman. I watched him on the Daily Show last week promoting a movie of his, which I can only assume he's on tonight for the same reason. Too bad no one will be thinking about that. People in the audience are laughing as Richards apologizes! This is unbelievable. I don't believe many realize what he did. Seinfeld had to tell people laughing to be quiet, and Richards addressed them as well.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 09:04 PM) What I said was, "i would have been in favor of compulsory service back when I was eligible and I'd be in favor of it now." As for my kids, when they are of age and tell me they want to do an Americorps or Peace Corps tour (or some cumpulsory equivalent if adopted by then), I'll be elated, supportive, and extremely proud of them. I would have benefited extremely from participation in either between college and grad school and had a knock-down dgargout with the old man about it, and bottom line I declined the opportunity when it was available to me and will always regret it. I regret writing the post in a deragatory manner, but I just feel your opinion --among others supporting mandatory servicet -- would be entirely different if there was an immediate risk to you of your family. Really, I'd be interested in how a large contingent of Soxtalk feels about such an issue..... I won't lie -- I'd seriously be scared of fighting abroad if drafted. Hopefully, a college degree and placement in either graduate or law-school could assist in elevating my status to a position deep in basecamp. You know, in the rear with the gear. Alternative options (such as Peace Corps) wouldn't be available; unless the idea of mandatory service begins. Which I have to believe would be off the table until the 08' presidential elections conclude. I realize the immediate risk of a military draft is relatively low. However, there's no fortelling what happens with that festering bowl of hatred we call the Middle East. I'll be within draft age for several more years; and if I recall collectly, the draft selects those oldest than moves down. You grew during in the 80's, no? Talk about good living -- right between Vietnam, Gulf War, and the current conflicts. Atleast with the Soviets you were only under the threat of complete annihilation at the hands of thermonuclear weapons.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 07:48 PM) I'm surprised you of all people would consider Danks and Young equals. Young is one hell of a prospect, dont get me wrong, but getting an arm like Danks is much, much more valuable than an outfielder like Young. They're definitely not equals. What I meant -- and I should have clarified it within the first post -- was Young is rated at a similar position among OF's as Danks is among pitchers. If you believe BA's 2006 ratings it wouldn't suggest so, but you remove all those who were currently in baseball before 2006(Jenks/Liriano among them) , yet retained "prospect" status, and it's more comparable. I'm sure Danks is bound to climb up the upcoming list.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 06:32 PM) Overpaid? He traded a broken down pitcher who won't throw more than140 innings again in his life, a decent middle reliever and a good hittng prospect for an innings eater talented starting pitcher. By that theory, we cannot get a good starting pitching prospect for an established starting pitcher. I believe you're misunderstanding my theory. You're looking at such a deal now. Look at it from the beginning -- A dependable MLB reliever, swingman/starter capable of 100+ innings, AND a good OF prospect brought you Vazquez. This was following a mediocre season from Javier in the national league, and when the market didn't necessitate someone overpaying for a pitcher. We didn't exactly need one, BTW. McCArthy could have been in the rotation and Hernandez in the bullpen with Vizcaino. Following another medicore year in 2006, I figure he'll command a similar package -- if not for the current market of starting pitchers. This changes everything. Even if you're looking for something similar, you have to reasonably compare Young and Danks in their respective positions. Now, does Masset compare to Vizcaino? Hell no. There's not even a swingman starter in the current proposal from the Rangers. Danks/Masset isn't overpaying, as I would hope for -- but about equal value. Trading for 'equal value' shouldn't be our objective. That's all I'm suggesintg.

Well, the video exceeded all expectations. It was almost as if halfway through the tirade he realized his mistakes and attempted to spin his actions into social commentary. "Those words..........those words....." Hilarious. I love how one of the audience members leaving the theater mentioned his status since Seinfeld. Called him a "cracker-ass cracker" as well.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 05:22 PM) If the conversation doesn't begin with Danks and Masset, Kenny Williams could stop the talks all together. This can't possibly be the best package available to us........right? I recall several weeks ago when Sheffield was connected with Linebreck/prospects in trade discussions. Yankee fans were seriously considering it as their best option. Not many believed a malcontent OF recovering from an injury and commanding a contract extension could receive much return value. Shortly thereafter, Detroit stepped forward. What I'm hoping is, when several starting pitchers are signed, the trade proposals increase beyond Danks/Masset. My philosophy is if Sheffield, with all his issues, can give the Yankees three legitimate pitching prospects, one of our starters should bring in two. Not because they deserve it, but because the field of available pitchers is thin. It's funny to read the quote posted where the Rangers are considering walking about from the deal. That must be a Rangers officially leaking such information, because I don't know if ANYONE considers Masset a deal-breaker. What exactly do the Rangers have to walk back to, anyways? Another year of mediocre pitching? If Williams overpaid for Vazquez in a calm market, shouldn't we expect more in a one overvaluing every available starting pitcher? That's atleast how I look at it.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 12:45 PM) I agree completely, and as long as there are non-military service tracks like AmeriCorps, Red Cross, or Peace Corp equivalents then i would have been in favor of compulsory service back when I was eligible and I'd be in favor of it now. Particularly if college opportunities were bundled into those tracks in the way the GI Bill provides a path to higher education as a reward for military service. If a draft were reinstated and non-military options were available, you bet your ass I'm entering any division which doesn't require combat. As would any sensible person. Although it must be easy for anyone outside the draft age -- such as yourself -- and without children within the appropriate 18-24 age range -- such as yourself -- to support such a decision.

This book has instantly become a collectors item. Atleast now those intent on reading Simpson's account can follow Johnny Depp's character from "The Ninth Gate" and hunt it down themselves. I'm not sure how many copies have been printed, but you have to imagine a sizable amount; since it was supposed to be released Nov. 30.

I can't watch the video, but I read the transcript and it's definitely over the top. Much worse than Gibson. Hopefully Richards hasn't squandered away his savings from Seinfeld, because I can't imagine him finding too much work after this story hits the newswires.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 19, 2006 -> 04:37 PM) Will be dissapointed if we don't end up trading with the Rangers. Which is why this news of talks "cooling off" is upsetting. I've had this overwhelming feeling for awhile that we're going to be VERY disappointed with the return package of one of our starters. Even though it would have defied all logic, and everyone knows if Williams were to trade for a starter he'd pay through his ass. Because really, aside from New York (Mets and Yankees), Texas, and Anaheim, who realistically could provide us a reasonable package for Garland? The list is short; even shorter if you believe Anaheim won't depart with Santana unless Crede is involved.

I'd be shocked if the purported contract was correct. 90mil/6yrs is fairly generous within the current market. I can't believe another club was unwilling to match this, and the supposed 26milper option years. As ridiculous as it may sound, if those two years are indeed options, I believe atleast one may entirely vested. If not, what would stop any ballclub from including ridiculous figures approaching the end of the contract? Anyone can guarantee Soriano 15 million and add two club/player options worth 46 million. Allowing Soriano the option before his 37 birthday to seek an a more promising contract, or remain for 23 million, will be his. The 8th and final year, as I would imagine, requires both the validation of player and club. Hey, if I'm wrong then the Cubs sure negotiated a fine deal. My ass they'll pay Soriano 23 million in either option season unless his production exceeds even his best season.

Anyone else disgusted with how much Aikman and Buck slurped the Jets with time winding down in the 4th quarter? It was hilarious; as if neither could accept the Bears winning.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 19, 2006 -> 02:22 PM) ESPN Radio 1000 is reporting that the Cubs and Alfonso Soriano have agreed to an eight-year, $136 million contract. That's $17 million per year for eight years. So, it's Carlos Beltran's deal plus a year. Beltran, though, was three years younger and a clearly superior player when he received his contract. If the Cubs knew in advance they were going to spend all this money this winter, it would have made sense to bring in a better general manager first. That's COLD. I suppose one benefit is Soriano presents an identifiable image to build your franchise around (in addition to Lee), but aside from that, he's certaintly not worth $17 million a year. Although you have to admit, if he produces even on par with career averages its quite an upgrade over past 2B scrubs the Cubs have featured.

DAMN, Urlacher became a brick wall on that stop.

You can understand Grossman missing a wideopen receiver under pressure, but when he plants his feet and throws without a defending atop him, you expect a better throw. Especially when you consider the few opportunities he's had not throwing off his backfoot, or having 5 linemen running at him.

Go for it. Any 4th down beyond the Jets 50 and within 1 yard should be called every time.

I don't know why Grossman threw even one pass the last series. Our running game appears to be opening holes through the Jets offensive line. Second half, continue with this until New York shows an adjustment.

If Bears are to win this game, I guarantee the last challenge will be used as evidence of another "fluke" play benefiting the Bears.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 07:07 PM) Otsuka has had been mentioned, but that may have only been speculation. He's been consistently good, but will be 34 I believe to start the season. Others have thrown out the name of relief pitching "prospect" Masset, but his periphs do not impress me whatsoever and I think he should have next to zero value as a piece in any deal with us. Fact is pitching is at a serious premium these days and Garland averages over 200 IP/year with 36 wins the last two seasons. Playing for great teams aside, those are still important stats. Garland and Anderson for Danks and Hurley would leave me disappointed. I agree about Masset. As I said earlier in the thread, I don't know what anyone from our organization sees in him. An article I came across recently suggested White Sox scouts (who followed the Rangers system near the end of the season) were interested in him. May have been Foxsports.com I honestly can't remember, as I've been reading through so many articles and message boards these last few few days. Garland and Anderson for Danks/Hurley/Masset may be the best we can expect. New York is unwilling to trade Pelfrey and Santana appears out of reach. What I like about Danks and Hurley is if they continue maturing, we're not stuck in such an awkward position when our veterans begin leaving . You figure of Garcia and Buehrle, one of those two are gone after 2007. Whether it's from trade or FA. An in-house option allows Williams to avoid the market. Broadway, undoubtedly our best SP prospect, doesn't inspire confidence in me.