I firmly believe that that is the worst thing for the organization moving forward. We've been over this.

Hopefully that won't happen Milk and if it does - then it'll make for more conversation at that time. Currently thou, it's all just speculation that we've been over again and again... so why not focus on present day?

 

 

Here's to sweeping Washington and getting within 3.5 or 2.5 games.

It starts today. ( Hopefully )

 

Hopefully that won't happen Milk and if it does - then it'll make for more conversation at that time. Currently thou, it's all just speculation that we've been over again and again... so why not focus on present day?

 

 

Here's to sweeping Washington and getting within 3.5 or 2.5 games.

It starts today. ( Hopefully )

 

 

I would love it if they just continued this season with a different manager starting tonight.

Hyperbole is speaking in absolutes with no basis in or proof of fact.

 

"Talking out of your ass."

 

He was stating his opinion and reason for a boycott.

 

 

Hyperbole is speaking in absolutes with no basis in or proof of fact.

 

"Talking out of your ass."

 

He was stating his opinion and reason for a boycott.

 

Thank you, sir.

I would love it if they just continued this season with a different manager starting tonight.

I sure wouldn't mind that either but we both know that isn't happening

Caulfield - you refuse the directly answer the question I asked, despite doubting that this white sox team was "climbing" on the previous page. To this point, what winning percentage would you have needed to see over the past 43 games to convince you this team was "climbing"?

 

You also claim that Minnesota has done a better job of "climbing"...

 

Does their recent 15-2 stretch mean more to you than the 8-25 they immediately did before that? If so, shouldn't the White Sox most recent stretch of 26-17 mean more to you than the 4-18 they put up previously? The Twins have now lost their last two - does that mean as much to you as the two games the White Sox lost up in Minnesota? There is a serious double standard at work here.

 

Even if the Twins go 19-0 against the White Sox, they have go .500 against everyone else just to win 84 games. Does anyone honestly think they can do either of those things?

 

How can there be an answer to a hypothetical situation that's absolute?

 

Before the season, would anyone have predicted 84-88 games would win the AL Central with how Minnesota and Chicago looked?

 

Beat the Twins, beat the Tigers, defend the home field advantage and play .500 on the road.

 

Anything above .575 would be good.

 

 

Caulfield - you refuse the directly answer the question I asked, despite doubting that this white sox team was "climbing" on the previous page. To this point, what winning percentage would you have needed to see over the past 43 games to convince you this team was "climbing"?

 

You also claim that Minnesota has done a better job of "climbing"...

 

Does their recent 15-2 stretch mean more to you than the 8-25 they immediately did before that? If so, shouldn't the White Sox most recent stretch of 26-17 mean more to you than the 4-18 they put up previously? The Twins have now lost their last two - does that mean as much to you as the two games the White Sox lost up in Minnesota? There is a serious double standard at work here.

 

Even if the Twins go 19-0 against the White Sox, they have go .500 against everyone else just to win 84 games. Does anyone honestly think they can do either of those things?

 

I know I'm not the only person here (people have already agreed with my posts about this in recent threads) who refuses to get excited or believe in this team, until they can start kicking the s*** out of the Tigers and Twins

It's be more fun to do it all at once though. How about starting next weekend?

 

I'm All In.

How can there be an answer to a hypothetical situation that's absolute?

 

Before the season, would anyone have predicted 84-88 games would win the AL Central with how Minnesota and Chicago looked?

 

Beat the Twins, beat the Tigers, defend the home field advantage and play .500 on the road.

 

Anything above .575 would be good.

I think a number of people predicted it would take less than 90 wins to win the central.

I think a number of people predicted it would take less than 90 wins to win the central.

 

 

As long as Ozzie keeps managing non-chalantly in close games like tonight, we'll be lucky to get back to .500.

 

And I still don't see the division winner finishing with less than 88. As bad as the Twins and White Sox played the final months in 2008, that was the mark.

 

With how much the division rivals will play each other in the 2nd half, one team will inevitably get hot and take off.

Edited June 25, 201114 yr by caulfield12

As long as Ozzie keeps managing non-chalantly in close games like tonight, we'll be lucky to get back to .500.

 

And I still don't see the division winner finishing with less than 88. As bad as the Twins and White Sox played the final months in 2008, that was the mark.

 

With how much the division rivals will play each other in the 2nd half, one team will inevitably get hot and take off.

 

Bruney was a bad choice, but when is somebody in this organization going to surprise and actually get the job done once in a while? Bruney could have come through, but no... meatball, home run.

I guess Humber is a guy who stepped up. Who else?

 

Bruney was a bad choice, but when is somebody in this organization going to surprise and actually get the job done once in a while? Bruney could have come through, but no... meatball, home run.

I guess Humber is a guy who stepped up. Who else?

Jeff Gray?

It can't possibly be hyperbole, as it's what I'm actually doing. And I'm doing it because, despite their climbing, I am very confident that they will do the same thing they've done many times before and choke down the stretch or, at the very worst, make the playoffs with a weak record and get booted. This would result in Ozzie and KW keeping their jobs for another few years. I firmly believe that that is the worst thing for the organization moving forward. We've been over this.

 

Ozzie and Kenny have been together since 2004.

 

In '04 they had season ending injuries to their two best hitters in late May and still ended up with a very competitive record. They never led.

In '05, we all know what happened.

In '06, I will concede that a 12-17 september was a choke job.

In '07, they tanked very early.

In '08, they won the division.

In '09, they were never close to first place late in the season.

In '10 they obviously choked down the stretch.

 

So to be clear, when you say "will do the same thing they've done many times before and choke down the stretch" - you're referring to the '06 and '10 seasons only?

 

We have two seasons where they "choked down the stretch", and two seasons in which they made the playoffs, one of which was winning the world series. Yet you favor one over the other so much you are boycotting the team. Seems like a really extreme position to have.

 

Ozzie and Kenny have been together since 2004.

 

In '04 they had season ending injuries to their two best hitters in late May and still ended up with a very competitive record. They never led.

In '05, we all know what happened.

In '06, I will concede that a 12-17 september was a choke job.

In '07, they tanked very early.

In '08, they won the division.

In '09, they were never close to first place late in the season.

In '10 they obviously choked down the stretch.

 

So to be clear, when you say "will do the same thing they've done many times before and choke down the stretch" - you're referring to the '06 and '10 seasons only?

 

We have two seasons where they "choked down the stretch", and two seasons in which they made the playoffs, one of which was winning the world series. Yet you favor one over the other so much you are boycotting the team. Seems like a really extreme position to have.

 

They play badly in August/September. That's how I should've phrased it. I'm pretty sure they even did it in 2008, but the division was so bad that they still managed to win.

 

2009, too...at one point, after Buehrle's no-no, they were tied for first that season.

They play badly in August/September. That's how I should've phrased it. I'm pretty sure they even did it in 2008, but the division was so bad that they still managed to win.

They really scared us all in '05, too, although none of us would take the end result back.

They play badly in August/September. That's how I should've phrased it. I'm pretty sure they even did it in 2008, but the division was so bad that they still managed to win.

 

Yeah, I recall both the Twins and Sox trying their hardest to lose the division, but we thankfully won the coin toss to have the final game played at home.