Flash Tizzle

QUOTE(R.J. @ Dec 31, 2005 -> 04:54 AM) Man, I know we have no need for Lidge, but what the hell? Wasn't he a top tier closer as little as, I don't know, 3 months ago? Is his value just tanked now? Couldn't we spin him off to another team in need of a closer? I know I know, a starting pitcher has much more value than a closer, but if the Astros can give us some kind of package around Lidge it'd be hard to turn down. Honestly, I'd be a little cautious if Houston were willing to offer Lidge. A bonafied closer with electric stuff and only three years of major league service (ie, relatively inexpensive) would be on the block for Contreras--a pitcher one year from free agency? It doesn't fit. Wagner was expendable because of Dotell; Dotel was expendable for Lidge--is Qualls expected to fill in for Lidge? Unless there's an influx of Houston pitching talent I'm not aware of, Houston can't afford a Lidge-less bullpen. Even if Houston were willing to trade him, I would think one of the top closers in the game would likely be packaged for an offensive player.

QUOTE(kdhargo @ Dec 31, 2005 -> 04:53 AM) Borchard? You've mistaken Borchard for someone with trade value. Houston would be crazy to include him as an OF to offset their offensive troubles.

QUOTE(knightni @ Dec 31, 2005 -> 03:35 AM) The 'stros know first hand how good Jose can be. They NEED a pitcher. They will pay if necessary. Hell, I wouldn't mind if they were willing to include a package of Taverez/Qualls/Hirsh. If they're truly desperate for starting pitching, and willing to give the aforementioned players, then Williams should accept the offer immediately. Even though I'm not thrilled of an CF combo consisting of two outfielders with less than 2 years between them, Qualls is dirt-cheap and Hirsh could step up several years from now. They are the players I'd anticipate trading for. The goal, IMO, is to trade Contreras without including additional prospects or positional players from our end. No one on our roster should be traded. I wouldn't mind Tejada, but I doubt Uribe/Contreras is very realistic. In reality, they probably won't budge unless McCarthy is included. Which would be about the time I hang up the phone.

QUOTE(knightni @ Dec 31, 2005 -> 03:22 AM) Tavares, Qualls and a good prospect like Jason Hirsh and the Astros are close. I doubt the Astros would give up that much for Contreras. Qualls, Hirsh, fringe prospect may be enough.

--And browsing over the site's earlier entries, it alledges Williams has dangled McCarthy in a package for Tejada. This better be false. I'd prefer trading ANYONE from our baron minors except for McCarthy. I don't care about Tejada, honestly. We need Brandon--if not for his cheap salary, more for the spot starting and bullpen relief he may provide. I'd prefer Contreras be shipped, but I sure as hell wouldn't mind him leaving in 07' for naught if it meant McCarthy remained a White Sox.

I understand the White Sox' concern regarding Lidge's health. Don't believe I'd covet him either. He's really been overloaded these last seasons, extending into the playoffs. The NLCS/World Series implosions wouldn't factor into any decision; but it's interesting to ponder whether the Astros may sense something awry with him. Whether that's confidence or an impending injury. However, I don't want Tavarez. I realize his speed, youth, and salary may be enticing, but we don't need another Podsednik clone. One whose shown limited patience expected of a #2 hitter. Include Chad Qualls or Dan Wheeler and the Astros may have something.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 30, 2005 -> 05:49 PM) The newest comments by Tejada will put even more pressure on Hendry to get Tejada. When it comes down to it, I still think the Cubs will end up giving up Prior, Hill, a hitting prospect and Patterson for Tejada and Bedard. I don't care who the Cubs have to give up for Tejada, it will be worth it for them. Would you be confident in a starting rotation consisting of Kerry Wood, Carlos Zambrano, Erik Bedard, Greg Maddux, and Glendon Rusch? Sure, their lineup is greatly improved, but it doesn't improve their team. Bedard and Wood need to remain relatively healthy (atleast 50 innings between them), Maddux needs to consistently pitch more than 6 innings, and Glendon Rusch needs more than a straight fastball and weak curveball. Ultimately, I wouldn't trade Prior. For anyone. As I've mentioned before, there's too many question marks to mask in any projected rotation with Bedard.

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Dec 30, 2005 -> 03:28 AM) By making those comments, aren't you proving Byrnes right? ...Just an observation. Nope. I'm always right. That's been scientifically proven. Byrnes would realize his beating is justified and accept it like a man.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Dec 30, 2005 -> 01:05 AM) Does anyone else see the preview of Hostle and piss themself? For anyone interested it's actually Hostel. It looks interesting. Wouldn't surprise me if events such as those featured in the trailer actually happened in Slovakia--the movie's setting. Areas in Eastern Europe are practically lawless as it is.

Funny, I thought the Cubs and Pirates were the only teams willing to deal within the same division. Ramirez and Clement may have been intriuging, if not for Clement's abysmal season. What, can the Orioles believe a change of scenery will cure his troubles? He'll be facing the same exact teams, aside from interleague. It certaintly is a trade which favors Baltimore, but counting on Clement to rebound is foolish. Worst, when the following offseason arrives, they're left with less money to sign quality starting pitchers. Amassing nearly 20 million to the payroll certaintly would prohibit it. Ultimately, the goal of trading Tejada should be acquiring pitching, not hitting. And definitely not within your own divison.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 04:02 PM) Damn he'd look good in a Sox uni. I know he's not popular on this board, but I've always liked Byrnes. Worth the gamble IMO. He insulted our fanbase on ESPN News. Labeled us "the worse in baseball," among other comments which insinuated our rowdiness and criminal behavior. f*** him. If I ever saw him skateboarding down the street I'd kick his board. He runs like a pansy, so I doubt he would catch me.

Rented "High Tension" last night. Talk about your pieces of s***. If the movie itself wasn't riddled with gapping plot holes it may have been easier to appreciate the film's violent nature. I'm very critical of this film, in part, because of the praise it's received as an outstanding horror film. And because the filmmakers are French. **MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD** Several problems with the film 1. Blonde, short haired French girl completely displaces herself from the murders. The entire premise of her avoiding the imaginary murderer throughout the house, in the gas station, and through the woods is beyond comprehension as well. I realize it's simply a movie, but am I supposed to believe she imagined herself with her friend, in the house, while watching the ficticious murderer enter the cornfield? Too much to believe. It would be similiar to me committing an act of violence, not remembering it, but placing myself from the outside observing another person perpetrating the acts I'm responsible for. Understand? 2. The knife the blonde girl's friend was carrying in the truck. It's obvious it was put there by the blonde girl, since she believed it would be necessary to kill the ficticious murderer--but what about the back seat ride leading to the gas station? Or afterwards? Sounds like another moment where she invents an outlandish, unbelievable scenario. There are several more instances such as these. 3. Where the hell did she find the truck? Whose was it? This bit of information would have been helpful, seeing as the blond haired girl never visited the area before. 4. The dubbing on this film was terrible. It switches between subtitles and English dubbing consistently through the first half of the film. Second half, they don't even bother dubbing. What's annoying is the blonde haired woman, the main character, has a dubbed voiced of someone with an noticeable accent, whereas her friends is much clearer. That is all. O'Reilly should boycott this movie it's so disappointing.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 11:45 AM) Yes, he will be 26 by opening day. He spent a lot of time in A ball throughout his career, probably trying to work on his control. In fact, he still started this year at Peoria, albiet for one game. For some reason he dropped his walks this year. His walk rate used to be very high, but he had dropped it considerably until he reached the Cubs this year. He's always had a very high strikeout rate, but he allowed a lot of baserunners and had a fairly high ERA. Even when he was "on" in AA and AAA this year his ERA was over 3. He's got to start producing fairly quickly in the majors to have any kind of value, and prove that his improved control this past year wasn't a fluke. Without bothering to browse minor league statistics to validate my post, Hill had an outstanding K/IP ratio (~115K's/90IP, IIRC) in AAA. Obviously, this doesn't necessarily translate to the majors; but he apparently has the necessary tools which teams covet. Of the few games I recall him pitching, one noticeable fault of Hill was his endurace. He appeared to slow down dramatically as the game progessed. In addition, his fastball wasn't very quick(89-91) or lively. The dealbreaker, however, is a nice curveball. It's about as close to Zito's as anyone pitching in the majors. One strikeout that stands out in my mind is a curveball thrown to Delgado which made him look like a damn fool. If he doesn't develop another quality pitch, Hill won't be more than a reliever/back-end starter. Although I'm sure the Orioles wouldn't mind any role as long as he's pitching on their team, and not in the minors.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 05:49 PM) I think it goes without saying that 1 of 3 things will happen with Contreras: 1) He signs an extension 2) He has a subpar year & is traded 3) He has a good-great year & the White Sox offer Type A arbit. He declines & the White Sox get two high picks from the team that signs him. 4) He's traded before the season begins.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 05:40 PM) Ok...the reason I was thinking about that is this...if Contreras does start the season with us, it may not be a good idea to trade him, because once the season starts, you'll know which teams are contenders and which aren't fairly soon. Right now, you could send Jose to a team like the Dodgers with the Dodgers having no idea how many people might get hurt this year, whether they'll be in contention, whether Bonds will drive the Giants to 105 wins, etc. But 2 months into the season, you've got an idea who's in the race, and if we're also in the race, then the teams interested in paying a lot for pitching would be the teams we'd be directly competing with for the trophy...and helping their pitching staffs might not be the best idea in the world. I agree with your concerns. Also--If we're in contention midseason, and Contreras is pitching well enough to warrant another team overpaying, WHY do we trade him? Has Cleveland's resurgent second half or the White Flag trade taught us nothing? I just don't envision our club trading Count to another contender midseason--unless we're literally 10+ games out of first place. Or the package we'd receive for Contreras were too good to pass up. In order for such a scenario to present itself, first we'd need McCarthy to show Williams Contreras is expendable. He'd have to be utterly dominating from the bullpen. The bullpen itself would have to be strong enough to support McCarthy's departure. Conceivably, everyone would need to produce numbers comparable to last year. Unless a trade involves a relief pitcher. Or the package we'd receive for Contreras would have to be too good to pass up.

Including McCarthy in trade discussions is ridiculous. I'm honestly irritated to even hear it discussed within the contents of this website. It worries me more than not because of the potential he's shown. We'll regret including him for any player, in any trade. He's not close to untouchable, he IS untouchable. Whether Tejada or Crawford are projected returns for BMAC, Williams will regret the move in a few years when a rotation spot (or two) are open and our inflated payroll leaves him with few viable options. I'd rather trade Contreras, fill pitching holes (ideally relievers), and enter spring training with our roster as it currently stands. Even holding onto Contreras and leaving Bmac in the bullpen (a move I strongly oppose) is more logical than signing a 38 year old Cuban pitcher to an extension and trading cheap pitching talent. It's comical to suggest trading McCarthy because a minor league pitcher will undoutbedly be ready in 2008. Who are we, Minnesota?

Unless the article suggests otherwise, I assume the wife and husband will share their collection of the money.

Howling II: Your Sister Is A Werewolf is currently showing on Encore Mystery. I forgot how much I enjoyed it. Savage werewolf attacks, random orgies (sometimes between hairy werewolfs...), and a surreal atmosphere certaintly raise this sequel to the heights of its predecessor.

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 08:27 PM) Well, I wouldn't be the surprised if many scouts look at him as a 1 year wonder, and think that he'll return to his pre-2005 numbers. Hell, I certainly wouldn't be surprised at all if thats what happens (my guess is that he'll fall somewhere in between). Put that together with the fact that he's a free agent at the end of the year, and I'd understand why many would be afraid to give up top talent for Garland. So general managers listen to scouts concerning the possibility of a certain player returning to mediocrity, yet seemingly enlist no assistance when handing out ridiculous contracts to relief pitchers and mediocre starters? I don't buy it. Or if so, it's just the White Sox luck when a player of ours is being shopped suddenly baseball officials use their heads. I'd like to know Riccardi can sign an outlandish contract for Burnett, who's never had a fluke (good) season to draw comparisons from, yet not ONE general manager is willing to give up a decent return for Garland? It just boggles my mind. Suddenly prospects are more highly regarded than usual. You'd think the upcoming class of rookies are all Hall-of-Fame bound. If Garland is regarded as a fluke, at an age when most reach their full potential, then nearly every pitcher in the majors who hasn't had back-to-back seasons of good production must be flukes. You have to begin somewhere.

QUOTE(quickman @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 07:15 PM) I really believe many of you will be extremely dissapointed with what we get for garland. Quite frankly I truly believe many of you are over rating his trade value. We will see what comes out of it. If Garland's departure gives us a disappointing package, I'll be very frustrated. If that were to occur, I can't wait until the season before Sheets becomes a free agent. To compensate for the discrepancy between Sheets and Garland, a poor package--opposed to a disappointing package, should be enough. Since it's a high certainty he'll seek a ridiculous contract in free-agency, I figure a bullpen arm and several fringe, mid-level prospects will get it done. Who would give up a good package for a pitcher they know is leaving the following season, right? For comparison sake: Sheets has endured back/shoulder injuries, opposed to Garland, and will be late 20's-early 30's when the contract is done. Sheets respectable ERA and WHIP would surely drop in the American League. Sheets stuff is undeniably better than Garlands, but in the final year of both contracts, would his talent alone be enough to warrant a substantially higher package? I realize Sheets has ace potential, whereas Garland is typical #2, but it shouldn't be the difference between trading gold and crap. If there is justice in the baseball world, we will not be "extremely disappointed."

If she weren't related to Bin Laden, this would have been her death warrant.

Terrible move by the Indians. It's not as if our entire lineup, aside from Anderson and Thome, has had experience against Johnson--and teed off nearly every outing.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 01:43 AM) Dungy is very faithful. He'll get his family pass this. Prayers go out to the Dungy family. People lose their faith through tragedies such as these. I imagine it's difficult to maintain composure within your life by simply suggesting "the Lord works in mysterious ways," or "he does things for the better." For all his life he's probably heard the fate of those who commit suicide, and now his son has done just that. How do you accept that belief and simultaneously convince yourself he's in a better place? I'm not trying to turn this discussion into a religious thread, but events such as these are difficult tests for those of true religious conviction. We can only assume the Dungy family have the right people around them.

QUOTE(quickman @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 04:26 PM) Your value and the value of the market are different. He is entering his last year before free agency. His value goes down. Therefore the sox will get "what they can" for him and most likely it will be one or two players that will be more ready to play in 2006 or 2007 than draft picks that maybe ready or NOT by 2010. I won't accept a "what they can gets" package. That suggests we're desperate to trade Garland. Williams isn't in this position. Why is it we never seem to possess good leverage concerning the value of our players? Either we're giving up too much to secure a player, or receiving too little (ie; in Marte's case--no prospects). Few have ever overpaid for a White Sox player. Let the world right itself this offseaon and have ONE general manager overpay for Garland. I'd be willing to bet Garland's next season can only help inflate his contract for 2007--and beyond. If he pitches poorly, or even were to become injured, he'd still receive a healthy contract. If we're given up a 27 year old pitcher with good peripherals and success within a notorious hitters park, I expect top prospects. Or immediate help from the bullpen. One year rental or not. I want to know how Garland could potentially receive 66mil/6 years on the market, but he can't even net the Whtie Sox an impact player? Teams are willing to drastically overpay for a pitcher, yet not even offer quality talent in return for a 2-3 million cheaper Garland? Bull. I'd rather keep Garland for next season than receive s*** for him. I'll continue to repeat this: If Williams were attempting to acquire Garland, does anyone here doubt he'd give up one or two of our top prospects? Or relief pitchers? Hell no.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 03:48 PM) Tampa, Kansas City would not solve their attendance issues just by jacking up there payroll. So they would incur large losses and eventually would need to be contracted or move. The issue here isn't attendance. It's competiting in a league dominated by large market clubs with moderate to high payrolls. You'll never see a talented player travel through Tampa or Kansas City unless the person is at the beginning, or end, of their career. These clubs are already receiving large amounts from the Yankees alone. Where are these funds going? If neither team can't afford to field a 50 million dollar payroll, they don't deserve to exist.