Flash Tizzle

Strengths: Great reads; is rarely taken offguard. Strong, accurate arm Weaknesses: Absolutely no makeup speed. Appears slower than hell running after fly balls to his left.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 11:30 AM) Well Santana only started starting full-time since the middle of 2003 and Liriano is a rookie. Buehrle has 5 + seasons of 200+ IP, sooo, unfortunately, this argument doesn't work. Randy Johnson was having a rough year before he went from Seattle to Houston. Roger Clemens had a rough year in 1999 and I think a bad one with the Red Sox. It happens...and unless he's injured and not telling anybody, or doesn't know, MB will bounce back. It just may not be this year. And you know what? That's ok. He's earned an off-year after being a workhorse for 5+ and helping us win a World Series. I would be more lenient with MB more than any other of our pitchers. And yes, MB is the heart of the rotation. As he goes...so goes the rotation. You can save yourself time right now, because I doubt a healthy Santana or Liriano give up five consecutive outtings of 5 or more earned runs. Perhaps a healthy Buehrle wouldn't either, and this "slump" he's been through can be explained with some sort of injury. Clemens and Johnson had their troubles -- but again -- did either have five consecutive piss-poor pitching performances? From a pitcher of his caliber, and what he'll be paid next season and beyond, we shouldn't be accepting this. As I said in the gameday chat last week, either Buehrle has mentally collapsed, is injured, or there's one hell of a scouting report available on him. I'm not giving Mark any grace period or leniencey because of last season. This is a pitcher who'll command a four year deal on the open market, and 8/9 million next season. Time to man up and pitch like the starter we expect him to be.

QUOTE(JimH @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 11:29 AM) Including Brandon McCarthy absolutely positively being a better starting option than Vazquez or Garcia because he had 2-3 good starts last August. More than Brandon's success last season is the failures of our current rotation. Myself, and others, aren't using it alone as proof everything would turn around -- just that what's out there right now isn't working. I believe it's different than suggesting how "Buehrle was pivotal to our success last year, so therefore he must be again."

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 10:50 AM) If you think we're going to muscle through the season if he continues in his slide, well: you're entitled to your opinion. I stand by my statement. We need to adopt a board memorandum to permanently remove all arguments which cite last season. Whether that be how "Cleveland had a big deficit and came back!!111" or Buehlre pitched well last season and we won the World Series. Therefore if he doesn't win, obviously, we won't either. And with you mentioning last years second half troubles of Hernandez and Garland, is it not possible Buehlre can experience the same without a dire affect? If our remaining starters are consistent -- which in itself would be a monumental feat -- it's possible to absorb Buehlre's troubles. I just don't believe he alone determines whether we succeed or fail. Since none of our remaining starters (perhaps aside from Contreras) are what you would consider "dominating," their success isn't guaranteed. Quality outtings are just as common as poor ones. Vazquez and Garcia are no different than Buehrle in this regard. Would it be any different if Vazquez and Garcia pitched well and Buehlre didn't opposed to Buehlre and Garcia pitching well and Vazquez faltering? Ultimately, of our five starters, we'll need 4/5 to consistently pitch quality games. Doesn't matter who fits the description. You could just as easily say "where Garcia/Vazquez goes, so goes this team."

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 10:34 AM) I also believe that as Buehrle goes, so the Sox will go for the rest of the season. He is, after all, our #1 starter. bullspiff. He has officially lost this title until his old form is regained. Anyways, the cliche of attaching our success to Buehrles isn't exactly truthful. If the remaining starters were to regain form and pitch to or exceed expectations for the remainder of the season, it's possible to overcome Buehrle's crap-slinging. That's to say if he doesn't significantly improve.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 10:15 AM) Or *stunned* that every player, including the best that ever lived had slumps that sometimes lasted an entire year? I wouldn't expect Santana or Liriano to experience a "Buehrle slump" (which completely redefines slump, because slumps typically END within several starts) anytime soon. I'd like to see either give up more than 5 ER in ANY game pitched, let alone five straight. The last month, his numbers have been atrocious. Certaintly not those you'd expect from a #1, #2 starter. It's enough to vomit. If he doesn't get back on track later this evening with atleast a quality outting, I'm officially removing "slump" from any discussions relating to Buehrle. At which point it's seriously time to examine his health. Luckily for Mark, he's pitched well against Kansas City this year. Both him and the team need a victory.

Chat room open.

QUOTE(iguchi=dank @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:48 PM) If this team loses it loses, o f'in well, we won last year and this team has some great guys to root for. And the negetive girly boys flame away cus i'm not gonna give a spiff about your b****ing anyway. I'll laugh. go white sox, and as a guy whom loves the red sox(whom most of you sound like) take his advice "5 year grace period" 5 year grace period!?

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:07 PM) Bombs Away Levine is saying Cesar Isturis Isturis? LOL, ok. I rather have avoided Isturis and attempted to extract several prospects from the Dodgers.

QUOTE(spiderman @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 02:56 PM) I think Kenny Williams is still watching a movie in his hotel room.... Well, Speed 2: Cruise Control IS on HBO right now. Can't miss that.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 01:59 PM) Coco Crisp offered for Mark Buehrle and Brad WIlkerson offered for one of our starters? What is up with that? Aren't starting pitchers at a premium? Shouldn't we be getting better offers than this? I just find this ridiculous. But according to some last offseason, if we wait until July's trading deadline a team will certaintly overpay for one of our VAUNTED starters! I knew something like this would occur. It's logical -- if all our starters were performing up to their expectations there would be no need to move them. How often do contending teams move performing starters? Only reason they'd be trade bait is if their numbers regressed. Which is exactly what has happened. Williams should have traded either Garland or Garcia while their value was at its peak. Vazquez likely would have been acquired regardless, but McCarthy would have been inserted the rotation and whichever pitchers were obtained from Garland/Garcia would undoubtedly be in the bullpen.

QUOTE(Frankensteiner @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 03:58 PM) If our 3-4-5 starting rotation combo by tomorrow night is still Buehrle-Garcia-Vazquez, then Ozzie and KW are a joke. At least get us another bat. I wouldn't want Williams overpaying for a bat. As this series has shown, our offense isn't the main problem. Personally, I would want one of three scenarios to occur: trade Garcia (which is the least likely), limit Vazquez to five innings (unless the lead is substantial), or insert McCarthy into the rotation and demote one of Garcia/Vazquez into the bullpen.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 28, 2006 -> 08:23 PM) You didn't answer the question about the relievers. You said they should be allowed to clean up their own mess, but not the starters. It's a little bit different leaving out a starter to work around trouble when they've faced a lineup three times around and have thrown nearly 100 pitches.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Jul 28, 2006 -> 07:38 PM) Shame on us for believing in this team Shame on KW for sitting on his flipping hands I'll blame Williams/company more for failing to move McCarthy into the rotation more than standing pat at the deadline.

QUOTE(G&T @ Jul 28, 2006 -> 07:39 PM) Maybe this bad stretch sent the message to KW that giving up prospects wasn't worth it this year. Too bad he couldn't realize this before unloading Lumsden. Terrible trade.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jul 28, 2006 -> 07:28 PM) Last year, McCarthy was a huge spark plug for the team. We were slumping when he made a big start at Texas, and his great performance got this team back on the right track. However, by the time he'd be ready to throw 100 pitches in a game, we might be 5 or 6 games back. I wish they would explain circumstances which may lend McCarthy's role in the rotation. Continued ineffectiveness from our starters cannot continue to occur if we're serious about a playoff run. Atleast give him a chance. How could it possibly hurt more than this current streak? It's better attempting change than doing nothing and thinking 'what if' after the seasons.

Chat Room open.

QUOTE(Benchwarmerjim @ Jul 28, 2006 -> 12:19 PM) if you want a scouting report on the next Twins stud pitcher, check out Aaron Gleemans blog post today Matt Garza As if none of us seen this coming. Here's some quotes I found from the 2004 Draft, and shortly thereafter: Official 2005 Draft Thread Over an hour later: QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 12:27 PM) Twins grab a RHP from Fresno QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 12:28 PM) Who will undoubtedly turn out to be a bullpen stud. :banghead It's funny how much Jim trusted the Twins draft pick even before the name was known. Hell, even expecatations of "bullpen stud" will likely be surpassed. Another thread, a comment I wrote: KW: I Suck At Amateur Scouting Again, slightly off on the projections, but it's as I (as well as others) knew their pick would be destined for domination. They simply know what their doing in Minnesota. In future seasons, we should hire our advanced scouts to scout Minnesota's scouts. Then, steal their picks right from beneath them. Only way we're developing a Matt Garza, short of blindly picking a "diamond in the rough" from the 30th round. With Garza/Santana/Liriano in your teams rotation for the next half a decade+, the White Sox are going to need their minors to immediately step up. I'll expect comparable pitchers to those three to be traded for or developed if we're going to have any chance of competiting with Detroit or Minnesota. I don't care how ridiculous that may sound. It needs to be done.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 27, 2006 -> 07:47 PM) The key is to keep drafting marketable talent, and launch it at peak value ... if there's no plans to have them in the organization long term. I don't like this philosophy because often we're assessing people in AA, when perhaps their abilities haven't fully been reached, and determing their long term future in our organization. It's too early. I'd rather wait. Even if that meant Lumsden lost trade value, atleast we'd know in AAA whether he has regressed or truly has a place in our future. Another note on long term plans, wasn't McCarthy offered to Boston for Garciappara several seasons ago? And to Oakland for Eric Chavez, to which Beane declined? That would have been devastating to our future if either of the proposals went through. I'd rather overpay on the free-agent market for every player than overy pay with prospects. Perhaps it's just my nature concerning minor league prospects. It's one which follows Stoneman or Ryan more than Williams. I understand for our club, in certain situations --as with Thome or Garcia-- it was necessary to unload our prospects. Thome's and Garcia's past record provided proof of their past success. However, with Vazquez and MacDougal, both trades shouldn't have cost us Young and Lumsden respectively. I know Williams has had a man-crush on Vazquez, and numbers suggest his peripherals remain good despite an unlucky season last year. I know MacDougal remains in our organization through 2009 and throws 98 mph. It's just, handing over legitimate talent for either was unwarranted. It's gotten to the point where if you're succeeding in our minor league system, I'm afraid to be attached. You'll be gone before anyone knows it.

I can admit that was much worse than I expected. For no other reason than the last several seconds. I was expecting silence, not someone screaming. Because we're so used to hearing harrowing accounts of individuals risking their lives and maintaining their composure in unbelievable circumstances, it's strange listening to raw emotion. Someone who sounded freightened. Cosgrove, more often than not, represents most people when they're uncertain of survival. Everyone isn't calm, or brave, as they were on Flight 93.

QUOTE(danman31 @ Jul 27, 2006 -> 02:56 PM) Kenny has been making these type of deadline deals for years and it didn't come back to bite them. They obviously had enough talent to win a World Series so they're fine. I don't know how you can honestly criticize. Think about how stupid you sound, they won a WORLD SERIES. Best team in baseball. Yet they're incompetent and should mimmick the Twins who haven't won a World Series in 15 years. Were the best team in baseball. Last year is gone. My concern is sustaining long term success. It's not about copying an organizational model because they have or haven't won a World Series. Yankees late 90's/early 2000 success was based upon a contributing farm system. Even with their World Series experiences since then, Brian Cashman has begun to understand the importance of developing players from within. A reluctance to depart with top prospects from a team with a 200 million dollar payroll should speak dividends. Why is it so much to expect more from our minor leagues? It's as if people just don't want to hear our deficiencies. Should I be impressed that none of the previous prospects Williams traded have performed well, when even those maintained haven't produced? And I wouldn't say we've escaped unscathed. Trading Fogg/Wells for Ritchie cost us one, perhaps two, division titles. In certain instances, such as unloading Gonzalez/Haigwood for Thome, it's understandable. Even with Thome's health concerns there was an indication of success. By trading Lumsden for MacDL or Young for Vazquez, when neither had major league numbers warranting such trades, we're risking our future in hopes of achieving immediate success. MacDougal is ours for several seasons, yes, but what from his injury riddled history (coupled with ineffectiveness) made our top pitching prospect expendable? For Shields, I can understand. Overpaying for someone such as MacDL within our OWN division? Don't like that one bit. There remains noteable flaws within our minor league system which JimH and I (among others) have discusssed in the past. It extends from willingness to pass on talent if there's signability concerns, fascination with drafting pitchers from winning programs with "safe, repeatable deliveries," to our terrible record in Latin America. Problems extend beyond my displeasure with a "win-now" mode. If you feel nothing should be improved because we won a World Series last year, fine. Whether or not Minnesota wins a championship this year, they've positioned themselves to contend for a LONG period of time. Williams thought similarily with our current rotation, but now that its becoming increasing clear we've overestimated their talent. It'd be beneficial to have contingency plans available. I simply feel Minnesota's future is brighter than ours.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jul 27, 2006 -> 09:49 AM) Hey if the Twins and Tigers continue to play .800 ball, THEY DESERVE THE DIVISION and I'll tip my hat to them and hold my head high. Not many teams will catch teams that are playing that well. Yeah, I definitely wouldn't do either. Basically, it would signal our insignificance for about the next 5-7 years if Minnesota and Detroit both win over a 100. Unlike Cleveland from last year to now, there's not going to be much turnover in either teams' rotations. It may actually improve in both instances with Sanchez and Garza ready to contribute.

I believe it's rather simple to explain-- pre/post All-Star break we've faced five legitimate playoff contenders. We've obviously overestimated our position among other American League clubs.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 27, 2006 -> 08:20 AM) GMAFB. The repetition gets old, and it's setting people off because we are losing. Maybe you need to be told 5,861 times the same thing to get it, but most here don't, and that's all CC was saying. If you see a positive thread, and you are not positive, STAY OUT OF IT as not to ruin it for those that do remain hopeful. Not so hard. For most... Honestly, what are we supposed to talk about during this post ASB slump? Messages of doubt are repetitive because this team is losing.........repeatively. We all can't hold Jphat's view of the baseball world. CC's post may have actually made sense if it were directed towards a post where the entire season were in doubt. Instead, a statement was made of an apparent collapse (which, considering how far we've fallen lately, can't be dismissed) and a question of why we should be optimistic of our playoff chances. And your last sentence doesn't apply to this thread. Original poster wrote his opinion and asked for ours. Honestly, it's not even practical. How would legitimate discussions arise? People can't avoid issues they oppose that easily. Even on an internet message board. If someone titles their thread, "THIS TEAM IS DONE," and it's obviously negative in tone, are those who disagree with their assessment not allowed in? That's the way it was seem from your little rule. If I would have to stay out of a positive thread as not to ruin for those hopeful, shouldn't you (among others) have to stay out of negative threads? Don't want to ruin the negativity for those who don't believe a comeback is possible, right? You should know it doesn't work like that. There's a reason you've told people 5,533,234,322,000 times.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jul 27, 2006 -> 07:59 AM) Why don't you stop posting, stop following the Sox and come back next year? I mean really....why the hell even come here if they suck so bad and the season is over. If it's just to tell everyone they suck and the season is over....save it. The people that agree with you don't need to hear it and the people that disagree don't want to hear it. This post is something I'd expect from one of the many lonely, middle-aged admins/moderators on WSI to suggest. All he was asking for were facts to support a belief, of some, the team will rebound. And even if he did believe this team "sucks so bad" or the "season is over," does that mean he should immediately leave the board so you can live in the land of fluffy clouds and sunshine? Is pessimism any worse than blind optimism? Any worse than someone cheerleading their club and insisting we all "not give up hope" because, well, THEY HAVE TALENT. Or, because last years team went through a similar slump and rebounded, so don't give up! I don't know how anyone can fault someone for doubting this team. Its supposed core, starting pitching, has been horrendous aside from two pitchers. Sort of a problem when 60% of our VAUNTED pitching staff have ERAs hovering around 5.00.