and he used to juice, so i have to hold that against him.

:headshake :headshake :headshake :headshake

why all this discussion about damn? he's a bum, bottom line. doesnt belong in a chisox world series winner jersey. and he used to juice, so i have to hold that against him.

 

damn = damon

Was it proven that he used it?

Absolutely NO Damon. What a disgrace that would be. Let him go to the Cubs

We got Pods, he gets the job done

Edited October 29, 200520 yr by rventura23

Damon would be a superb pickup by the Cubs who need everything he brings to the table. Good player, no way is he great, but he'd do a lot fo them

Damon is not a 3 hitter no place for Damon .........NO

With the contract that he's going to get, Damon is definitely not worth it. He's become overrated, some kind of Boston mystique. His defense is lousy, worse than any of our current OFs. He's lost speed and can't steal a base like he used to. He'd be a good #2 hitter but doesn't have any place on the White Sox whatsoever.

Damon is a good player, but the Sox have there top of the order and while I think Damon is better than a lot of you guys give him credit to be (since everyone seems dead set against him).  I think the Sox have bigger needs (ie, the middle of the lineup and #1 resigning Paulie and #2 finding a productive DH).

 

My thoughts exactly. And let's not throw that whole cancer crap around as I've seen for Damon and Manny. Wasn't AJ a supposed cancer? How about Everett? What the hell happened? That said, I'd pass for the reason Chisoxfn gave. We have bigger needs than another leadoff hitter.

My thoughts exactly. And let's not throw that whole cancer crap around as I've seen for Damon and Manny. Wasn't AJ a supposed cancer? How about Everett? What the hell happened? That said, I'd pass for the reason Chisoxfn gave. We have bigger needs than another leadoff hitter.

 

Well I think that Manny is a different case than AJ. There is a long public history of what he will do. 4 straight offseasons demanding a trade. Once a summer he takes a criticall series off (seems to be the Yankees one each time). He doesn't run out balls, etc. Much different case than AJ.. Aj was a flier at less than 2 million bucks that we could have released if he caused a problem. At 18-20 per, Manny is not the same case. Is Damon a cancer? No. But I do think the success in Boston changed him a bit.

Well I think that Manny is a different case than AJ. There is a long public history of what he will do. 4 straight offseasons demanding a trade. Once a summer he takes a criticall series off (seems to be the Yankees one each time). He doesn't run out balls, etc. Much different case than AJ.. Aj was a flier at less than 2 million bucks that we could have released if he caused a problem. At 18-20 per, Manny is not the same case. Is Damon a cancer? No. But I do think the success in Boston changed him a bit.

 

Everett was supposedly the same player Manny is minus being as good of a hitter. Manny and Ozzie would work tremendously.

I don't like Johnny Damon and I am a Red Sox fan. I would absolutely not give him a five year deal worth 50 million dollars.

i think damon would look good in the number 2 spot, move gooch down. that said, no room in the OF or in the payroll

I would shoot myself if I ever saw Damon playing for the White Sox in the outfield. His arm is worse than anyone's on this board.

Edited October 29, 200520 yr by Felix

I would shoot myself if I ever saw Damon playing for the White Sox in the outfield.  His arm is worse than anyone's on this board.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd take Damon's offense over Rowand's in a second though. Rowand's arm was far from great this year as well. He is the better defensive center fielder though.

As of 2004, I'd take Damon's offense over Rowand's too. 2003 Rowand vs Damon is a different matter however. I'd take 2003 Rowand over his current offense anyday.

 

However, for the drastic price different, leadership qualities, and defense, I'd go with Rowand.

Also, for those that say Damon would be a bad #3 hitter, I totally disagree. He may not hit for a lot of power, but he finds gaps and is a great hitter. I'd have no problem with him in the 3 spot.

 

If the Sox dealt Aaron in a package for someone else, I'd have zero problem going after Damon (problem is I think the Cubs or someone else will overpay). Stick him in the 3 spot and find a way to get Manny to DH in the 4 spot and you aren't too bad.

 

Basicall you have 3 small ballers at the top of the order (kind of like the late 90's indians who had Lofton, Vizquel and Robbie Alomar before turning over to the likes of Thome/Manny) and than you turn the order over to Manny and Jermaine Dye, AJ, etc.

 

I just don't see the Sox making major changes this off-season. Of course it could happen. Personally I think the biggest change you could see is Manny or a bat of his caliber in as a DH and Paulie being brought back.

 

At most you could see them bring in two bats (one to replace Paulie who left) and another to replace Thomas/Everett.

 

Brian Giles is definately the type of guy that would be a solid fit though.

My thoughts exactly. And let's not throw that whole cancer crap around as I've seen for Damon and Manny. Wasn't AJ a supposed cancer? How about Everett? What the hell happened? That said, I'd pass for the reason Chisoxfn gave. We have bigger needs than another leadoff hitter.

 

 

We especially dont need one that disappears in the playoffs.

As of 2004, I'd take Damon's offense over Rowand's too.  2003 Rowand vs Damon is a different matter however.  I'd take 2003 Rowand over his current offense anyday.

 

However, for the drastic price different, leadership qualities, and defense, I'd go with Rowand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rowand was good in 2004, not 2003. But it's not 2004 anymore. Damon has always been a consistently better hitter than Rowand.

Rowand was good in 2004, not 2003.  But it's not 2004 anymore.    Damon has always been a consistently better hitter than Rowand.

yea.. good point.. not sure why I wrote 2003.

If he put up numbers similar to 2004, I'd take his offense over Damon's anyday.

yea.. good point.. not sure why I wrote 2003.

If he put up numbers similar to 2004, I'd take his offense over Damon's anyday.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, but Rowand didn't put up numbers similar to 2004 this season. He hasn't shown the consistency that Damon has offensively. I would take Damon's offense over Rowand's any day of the week. But I would take Rowand's defense over Damon's any day of the week.

True, but Rowand didn't put up numbers similar to 2004 this season.  He hasn't shown the consistency that Damon has offensively.  I would take Damon's offense over Rowand's any day of the week.  But I would take Rowand's defense over Damon's any day of the week.

 

If they made the same money? Damon>Rowand overall and its an insanely easy choice. However, given the contracts-THIS team is better off with Rowand

If they made the same money? Damon>Rowand overall and its an insanely easy choice. However, given the contracts-THIS team is better off with Rowand

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course. I don't think we were factoring in contracts.

Edited October 29, 200520 yr by SSH2005

He didnt, but I think that if he can fix a few holes in his swing, he could definetly put up similar numbers to 2004.

 

We'll see what happens I guess.

He didnt, but I think that if he can fix a few holes in his swing, he could definetly put up similar numbers to 2004.

 

We'll see what happens I guess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that will be pretty hard to fix. His weakness has been exploited, sliders low and away. Pitchers just didn't know to pound him with those in 2004 and he was seeing a lot more inside fastballs. The scouting report is out on Rowand and he will have to learn to take those pitches. Otherwise, he is just going to strikeout 116 times and walk only 32 times again next season.

I used to be a Damon guy, no longer.

Pass please.

Yea, he definetly has to improve strike zone judgement, but he had a similar ratio in 2004, yet had good numbers.

 

That being said, his weaknesses were exploited, and he'll have to adjust.