Molto

they'll probably just wait till 2006, as I believe the seats will need to be replaced anyway.

I love this weather... I really do.

while you make a good point about having a sense of humor ... I do need one sometimes when I'm on these boards, the whole, sarcastic "WOW, WORLD SERIES HERE WE COME" jokes are overdone and rather old. the Sox signed a minor-league left-handed pitcher ... nothing worth getting excited, upset, or sarcastic about.

if it's a one-year deal, why not. being in a hitters park, the Sox need to get guys like Garciappara, who are looking for the big contract but need to prove it with health and numbers.

every offseason when the Sox make a move like this, as do most teams, it's treated by a few idiots as the one and only move they will make and a bad at one at that. some of you guys act like the Sox signed Walker and held a press conference and everything deaming it the best signing they've had and the only one they will do... unf***ing real. some of you need to use common sense.

1. 25 is young 2. you know that for a fact? 3. Comparing Garland to a guy who is out of shape, lazy and greedy... makes no sense. 4. his numbers have been the same over the past few seasons. I believe he also was a league-leader in quality starts a year ago. 5. once again, where do you get that from? the guy hasn't had any arm problems and is in good enough shape to play his position very well. just because someone doesn't go jumping up and down on the mound and is low key doesn't mean he lacks work ethic. meet the guy on the streets or see him in the locker room and you'll see a very quiet, mellow guy.

you are right, and I could handle that if he would be a big part to our offense. While Walker is a pretty good player, I don't think his offense makes up for his defense. in the end, I probably would be accepting of it, but I really want to see a good all-round defense.

never been a huge overall fan of Walker. pretty good bat, decent glove. I think the Sox, with every acquisition they make, having defense should be the first thing they look at. the only way I would accept Walker is if the Sox shored up their D in right, then I could live with one liability.

considering how many good players the Expos have had, you would think so ... the main thing is that Washington actually has to support and keep this team, unlike the previous two times.

so basically, your analysis of every trade is that either A) it was lucky or B. the player didn't become great, just good... the only legit point you made is for Uribe, but even that was a logical trade considering the Sox needed a bench player and got one who, in my opinion, is more talented than Miles anyway. the Sox didn't win that deal ... it was a trade that each team benefited from.

that isn't fair, you're using your brain...

name those three prospects...

what the f*** are you talking about? if you honestly think the 2000 team was a playoff team for years to come you're idiot. I could see thinking the team was great at the time, I did as did many, but look back and the team wasn't a playoff team. It wasn't a team Schueler did a great job in building. Everything went right for them that year. KW has been taking more chances and putting the Sox in great positions to win each and every single year. Clearly, it hasn't worked out, but unlike most GMs in Chicago sports history, he's taken chances and isn't afraid to make mistakes. I won't be responding to whatever response you have, so feel free to say whatever ignorant thought comes to mind.

I have no problem trading prospects, but I think you should always make sure you have some in the minors for future trades or for your own use. With Borchard on the brink of extinction and Reed being dealt last season, I'd prefer, like Jason said, for them to keep Anderson and deal someone like Diaz. However, I'd still like the Diamondbacks to add another player in the deal, even if it's a mid-level prospect or bench player.

me neither ... compared to last season, I think they are much better, actually. the problem is that they don't have that one go to guy ... their offense is based way too much on them hitting their shots and not really setting things up. I like that they are deep, play hard and even though they give up 115 points a game, they really make the other team work for it. it's just that they foul so damn much.

the only way the Sox don't become the favorite to get Johnson is if he says he doesn't want to come here. If Johnson includes the White Sox on the list of teams he would waive his no trade clause for, the White Sox are the favorites to land him in my mind.

I've always been a fan of Garland, but trading him and Konerko for Johnson, while a bit scary when you consider the bad that could come of it, it's a trade you have to make. now, if another player is involved in the deal, the D-Backs better be giving money or another player in return.

so because Harris struggled in limited playing time last season, causing the Sox to acquire Alomar for the stretch run, he's automatically a terrible player? that is basically what you are saying. If a guy is replaced one time in his career, he obviously can't be a good player. that doesn't make any sense. Can Harris be a solid enough player for a contending team like the Sox? Yes. Are there better players than Harris out there? Yes. Do the Sox NEED a better player at second in 2005 for them to compete? No. I'm starting to believe both of us are arguing different points.

umm, baseball isn't PS2 ... you aren't making trades with a computer... I never said Harris is good. Last year, the Sox were in a playoff run and wanted a veteran like Alomar, so they got him. That doesn't mean Harris isn't good, it just means that they were in a playoff run and wanted experience ... I think it's clear Harris didn't have experience and still has question marks in his game. as JimH said, Harris is servicable. If he starts at second, fine, but if you have the chance to get a better player or land a player who will bring more to the table DOWN THE STRETCH RUN, you do it. BUT, that doesn't mean Harris is useless and you need to do whatever it takes to replace him. finding a 2B and SS isn't very important. would it be nice? of course, but it shouldn't be a top priority ... adding a starter and reliever should. and they handed him the job twice? when you give a player a starting job, you should actually give it to him and see what he can do with it over a long period of time ... the Sox didn't. the point is, just because a player has talent, doesn't mean he's an automatic producer and just because a guy struggles in limited playing time doesn't mean he's terrible. Sometimes, as a GM, you have to put together a team, see where the team goes and then make moves midway through the season to help put you over the top. that is what happened with Alomar.

it's actually quite simple. If there are two players, and one is better than the other, it doesn't mean the other sucks, he just isn't as good as the other. Last season Roberto Alomar was a better and more proven player over Harris. That doesn't mean Harris sucks, that means Alomar is better. If you have a chance to get a second baseman who is more proven and better than Harris, do so, but don't do so in a desperate manner, with the belief that Harris is no capable of producing. I don't know what's hard to understand.

because of the Sox financial ways and their park, I think it's important for them to take advantage of Garciaparra, Dye type players. Guys who are talented, but because of injuries, won't get a long-term deal so will likely sign a one-year deal and cash in the next year. Why do the Sox do this? #1 - One-year deal means no committment #2 - An offensive player would love to come here and pad their stats in the Cell. #3 - Looking for a big contract you know these guys are going to stay healthy and bust their ass ... so you get the production out them and let them walk the next season. this only works on offense. for pitchers, look for the best and sign them long-term.

I don't recall saying Harris was the answer....... I do recall the White Sox acquiring Alomar because they were in the playoff race and wanted a veteran like Alomar. That doesn't mean we got Alomar because Harris is bad, but because Alomar is better. Harris isn't great, and probably will never be great. And if you have a chance to have someone at second who is more proven, even if it is someone like Uribe, then you do it, BUT that doesn't mean Harris sucks. BTW, Harris didn't play everyday in 2003. And when he did, he spent much of it in CF, a new position to him. I think it's unfair to tell someone to play not just a new position, but a tough position, and expect that player to just reach his potential on offense as well.

At the same time, he hasn't done anything to prove he shouldn't be given a chance. That doesn't make much sense, I know, but the guy hasn't been given the chance to be a starter. The Sox entered last season with him as the starting second baseman, but as soon as he gets into a rythm he was jerked in and out of the lineup. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather, for the right price, see Vizquel at short and Uribe at second ... but that isn't because Harris is bad, but because there is a big question mark in terms of what he can do. He should be given a legit chance to answer.

had Guillen not screwed up with Harris, we would know, for sure with no argument, if Harris can play at the major league level. Unfortunately, the question is still in the air and will require yet another year. having an infield of Harris, Uribe and Crede, while not ideal from an offensive standpoint, is acceptable in my book IF, IF they go and add a starter and reliever.

the Sox's payroll last year was $7 million more than it was supposed to be. they said $58, it was $65. expect it to be around $70. And once again, Reinsdorf isn't the sole owner of the Sox. If you are going to refer to someone being cheap, just say the Sox. I know its harder to blame a group of people rather than just one.