black jack

No, thank YOU douglas!

Not only do I want this kid in the White Sox organization, I'm practically expecting him. Get it done Hahn, Jerry's money be damned!

I can bench 315!

Hahn hasn't done squat in almost a week! Heads must roll!

I haven't been to the Cell in years. The last Sox game I saw live was in Milwaukee when Buehrle hit the homer. I've had three kids since then and my oldest is now five. Asked him last year if he wanted to go and he always said no. I guess I was just waiting for him to want to. Needless to say, I'll be dragging him to the south side a few times this summer!

QUOTE (hi8is @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 09:49 PM) What's the weather like out there? Might be in Chicago saturday / Sunday / Monday on business. 40's Fri-Mon Possible low 50's Sun

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 10:09 AM) A few years ago, I wrote a paper, in which I advocated a different use of Professional baseball, pitching staffs. This year’s final game of the World Series reminded me of the hypothesis, which I put forth then. The Giants used their Ace starter, Madison Bumgarner, in long relief, on his normal bullpen, side session day. We all know the results, and they were quite impressive. The impetus for my hypothesis is that today’s starting pitchers are used so little, and yet make so much, that there should be a better way to utilize them. When a pitcher is only asked to pitch in one out of every 5 games, and then only expected to go 6 innings, or around 110 pitches, which ever comes first, it should be obvious that teams are not getting much for their money. This present day modus operendi requires 5 very expense starters, which is problematic, in itself. However, when you then consider all of the vitally important relievers, which are required to provide effective late inning pitching, the whole system is just about as cost inefficient as one could possibly imagine. Explaining that to an analyst, not steeped in baseball, would surely elicit a response of “head scratching” incredulity. It all begs the question; isn’t there a better way? Well, that takes us back to the 7TH game of this year’s World Series. The Giants had a plan to use Bumgarner, in relief to close out the final game. They executed that plan to perfection. He threw 68 pitches just two days after throwing 117, pitches in his previous start. This is precisely the way I assert that teams should manage their pitching staffs. Pitchers routinely throw around 45 or 50 pitches, during their side session day, which comes a couple of days after their regular starts. My contention is that instead of throwing those pitches in the bullpen, let them throw them in the game. Now, I know that someone is going to object on the basis that those pitches, thrown in a game situation, might put to much stress on the pitcher’s arm. To that, I can only reply, “oh poor pitcher”. Tell that to the old timer hurlers, who routinely threw close to double the amount of pitches, thrown by today's pitchers, every start, and did it every 3 days. Over protecting a pitcher’s arm, can be just as detrimental as over taxing it. There is a point where too little work results in insufficient conditioning. It’s the very reason that a reliever, has to work up to being able to start. He must develop the stamina, necessary to enable him to throw the additional pitches required. If a starter were only asked to throw 50 pitches in a game, that would probably be about all you could extract from him, without risking injury. This principle is best expressed by the strength and fitness creed; “Use it, or lose it”. So, how would this system of employing the current bullpen, “side session” pitches in game situations work? Teams would use two pitchers per game. That day’s “starter” would be expected to throw around his usual 100 - 110 pitches. He would exit the game, and another pitcher would take his place, and throw what would be the equivilent of a “side session” 45, or 50 pitches. The following day, you would repeat the same process, with two more starters. At that point, you would have used all 4 of the starters, required for this system, and you may or may not have needed to use any bullpen pitchers. The third game begins to utilize the pen. They would divide the workload, and pitch the entire game. The 4TH game, returns to the first two pitchers, who shared the first game’s work load, only this time the roles are reversed. Pitcher A, who threw 100 pitches the first game will now be asked to “relieve” pitcher B, who will start this game, and be expected to throw 100 pitches. Pitcher B is able to throw 100 pitches, as his previous appearance was the equivilant of a “side session,” of merely 45 pitches. The 5Th game repeats the same system, this time with pitchers C and D, who worked in tandem, in game 2. They would reverse their respective roles, just as pitchers A and B did. This system enables a team to use 4 starters, instead of 5, and requires fewer relievers. Moreover, the relievers do not have to be of the same quality, as they are not asked to pitch in virtually every close game, unlike today’s method of depending upon the bullpen to pitch the final 3 innings. Therefore, they would not be key to every game’s outcome. How many great starts from Sale and Quintana, did the Sox waste, because the bullpen couldn't preserve the lead? The amount of money that could be saved by this method of managing a pitching staff, is tremendous, and could afford teams the payroll flexibility to upgrade other roster spots. Applying this principle to the current situation, the front office could forget about looking for another starter, and more bullpen help. They could then use the money to acquire another outfielder, and be ready to compete in 2015. Although, ideally the Sox would have 4 top starters, and it appears that they only have 3, at best. A staff of Sale, Quintana, Rodon and one solid RH starter, might work. Of course, agents and the Players Union might object and attempt to thwart any such revolutionary idea, which might threaten the existing system, but that does not diminish the validity of the idea. What do you gentlemen think of the concept and its feasibility? WITCH! BURN HIM!

Never wear another man's name on your back.

I was once close to a three way deal. September 12, 1994 was almost the greatest night of my life.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 2, 2014 -> 01:42 AM) Other than Trout, who would you rather have? Miguel Cabrera's older and not hitting for as much power, more injury-prone. Giancarlo Stanton? Tulo? Puig? McCutchen? That's probably your Top 7, including Abreu... If you listen to the radio, those clowns think Rizzo is the more favorable player right now. Abreu isn't even the top 1st baseman in Chicago. Then again, they thought Lee was better than Kong and Sosa was better than Thomas...

Gillaspie reminds me of Mark Grace at the plate. Although admittedly, I have no memory of a single Grace at bat.

I too, would like to be on the pm list. thanks

Well, that series sucked.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Apr 30, 2014 -> 07:01 AM) And just how well did that rotating DH work out for us? Might have cost us the division. Nearly every player that you hear talk about DHing says it's not as nearly as easy as people think. You can't just plug somebody in and expect them to adapt and succeed. The idea is sound, it was the lack of talent in the DH rotation that was the problem. You can "rest" a player while keeping him in the lineup. Tank could play first one day, left another, right once, and still DH three times a week while keeping Abreu, Garcia, and whoever is in left fresh. It also keeps Tank "trained" in case he has to cover an injury.

QUOTE (Pale Sox @ Apr 29, 2014 -> 11:34 PM) I'm thinking the Sox deal Dunn at the deadline for whatever they can get (which could actually wind up being something of moderate value) and Viciedo winds up taking of the DH role. Not sure who will fill in RF until next season, but I think this is the most likely scenario for 2014. For what it's worth, I felt that way prior to tonight's game. Tank has looked a lot better at the plate, and for the time they've invested in him already, they may as well use half a season to see if he adapts well to a DH role, and go from there. He obviously doesn't have a future home at 1B anymore, isn't a viable long-term (or even short-term) corner OF on a contender, and might benefit from keeping his focus 100% on his plate approach. I like this idea. They can even have the DH role rotating between a number of players. Getting extra rest for guys while keeping them still sharp in the box. Not unlike what Ozzie wanted when he dropped Thome.

I'm expecting a .320 batting average with 30+ homers and 100+ rbi.

Frank, Paul, Abreu But wait until there's a cool shot of Abreu in a Sox uniform.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 9, 2014 -> 08:36 PM) My buddies and I have been calling him that since his playing days. They used to have commercials back in the early 90's with Thomas being Batman and Robin being, well, Robin.

QUOTE (Rooftop Shots @ Dec 23, 2013 -> 10:47 AM) GRRR lets try this again He'll fit right in with the Boston staff. Felt like an hour before he threw the first pitch.

QUOTE (Andy the Clown @ Dec 25, 2013 -> 08:52 AM) There are much better ways to spend that kind of money. Agreed. I was on the sign him bandwagon, but have since changed my mind. Get another ace in the draft and spend that money on position players.

In fact, the thought of any number (other than 42) being "retired" is stupid. Honor the player's name don't take away the numbers.

It really irks me that 3 is retired.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 02:00 PM) Does "if everything goes right" mean Beckham leads the league in batting. Flowers and Viciedo each hit 50 homers, DeAza steals 60 bases and Sale wins 20 games and doubles as the closer. Lets realistically hope that they go from 99 to 80 losses next year. That may reguire a lot of things to go right.

"You don't get off the island taking pitches"