Jump to content

White Sox vs. Indians, 4/5/07 (W)


maggsmaggs
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Apr 5, 2007 -> 03:30 PM)
I never understood this. I hope it works out, but I never understood this move.

ya. Probably better to just go to your best guy here and really put it out there to steal a win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Reddy @ Apr 5, 2007 -> 03:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
lol.

 

sorry i didnt type anything but A) yes i was a little leary after yesterday and B ) i was in the middle of saying that Thornton was having control issues lately and C) i posted RIGHT at the top of the inning that he hasnt looked dominating all spring.

 

owned.

 

Owned? RETARDED!

 

Saying he hasn't looked dominating all spring does not = he should have left MacDougal in. The rest of your nonsense is garbage that deserves no response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Apr 5, 2007 -> 03:31 PM)
:huh

 

Meaning, you can say whatever you want, making claims of what you have and haven't said, and I really have no way of proving you right or wrong, so it's a useless statement. In either case, back to the game...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Reddy @ Apr 5, 2007 -> 03:30 PM)
lol.

 

sorry i didnt type anything but A) yes i was a little leary after yesterday and B ) i was in the middle of saying that Thornton was having control issues lately and C) i posted RIGHT at the top of the inning that he hasnt looked dominating all spring.

 

owned.

 

None of our pitchers looked dominating in spring...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Maverick0984 @ Apr 5, 2007 -> 03:32 PM)
Meaning, you can say whatever you want, making claims of what you have and haven't said, and I really have no way of proving you right or wrong, so it's a useless statement. In either case, back to the game...

Well, you could search my post history, it is a message board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(fathom @ Apr 5, 2007 -> 03:33 PM)
Just like in game 3 last year (good memory Nach), Jenks should have been in to face Michaels (or Nixon).

 

Yes sir I remember cuz we threw a fit on the board cuz we knew the numbers and knew Michaels dominated LHP and Ozzie said he didn't know that until after we lost the game and it was brought to his attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...