ZoomSlowik

QUOTE(whitesoxmanager @ Aug 30, 2007 -> 10:29 PM) something needs to be said about how Aaron Rowand's attitude, character, team leadership, will to win & charisma has energized the Phillies clubhouse, fanbase, talk radio, and level of play. something else tells me that this subject topic is exactly the message that Aaron Rowand would really like to convey to you HATERS. lets just say that i said it for him. HA HA HA! Let us trade Konerko, Richar, Pods, and Uribe for Howard, Utley, Burrell, and Rollins and you could just about play me in center and accomplish the same thing. All those guys have done so far is combine for 102 homers and 347 RBI, with Utley missing a month nonetheless...

Keith Law has a top-20 preview on ESPN Insider. I won't post the whole thing, but here were his top 5: 1) OF Isaac Galloway (Los Osos HS, CA) 2) OF Aaron Hicks (Wilson HS, CA) (think he's also a pitcher) 3) Justin Smoak, 1B, University of South Carolina 4) Brian Matusz, SP, University of San Diego 5) Pedro Alvarez, 3B, Vanderbilt He seems to like the high schoolers, even though from what I've read/heard Alvarez is the current favorite for #1. Also, he mentions Jordan Danks at #20. I'm somewhat worried that we're going to take him, as we have drafted him before and seem to like him. If he has a big year there's nothing wrong with that necessarily, but thus far he's projected as more of a mid-1st pick that we might take because we're confident he'd sign. Also, he's another article (blatantly stolen from an old thread in FutureSox): Old thread with MLB.com artile Keep in mind that this is going to change DRASTICALLY between now and then, some guys are going to move up/down based on performance, and probably at least one guy that wasn't mentioned will shoot up the draft boards or come out of nowhere to be a high pick (especially for the high schoolers). Edit- My bad, link no good, changed it to the Soxtalk one (about 3 posts down).

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 29, 2007 -> 12:26 PM) That's understandable. What would the next best case be then, assuming it will take that kind of a deal to sign Hunter or Jones? Well, as we kind of said a few pages ago, they don't look stellar. If it's really going to take 6/90 for Torii (I'm not entirely sure it will be, of course you can never underestimate the stupidity of some teams), I guess I'd overpay Rowand. You'd save at least a few mil a year and could likely get away with 4 years. While I don't like paying him that much either since you just might get that sub-.750 OPS he had the two years before this, the contract isn't quite as brutal, and you can bring back a fan favorite. I'd have to scour the lower-tier options to see if there's anything better... Edit- On second thought, I could definitely deal with Mike Cameron in CF, depending on the price of course.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 29, 2007 -> 08:06 AM) The question posed wasn't so much whether Jones would come for a discount (I originally suggested a 6/100 deal may be his asking price), but rather, would such a deal for Jones be more beneficial for the club than a 6/90 for Torii Hunter? Or would neither be the best case? Personally, I wouldn't want to be locked up to either of them for 6 years, especially at that price (as I think I've said a few times). That's a LOOOONG time to be locked up to two guys that most think will be declining rather shortly (or you could argue in the case of Jones that he has already).

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 03:01 PM) Sure he can. He can save the money until the deadline instead of bringing in the Sidney Ponson's of the world at the beginning of the season and then releasing them. And I don't think it is so much a case of Pohlad as it is Ryan refusing to take a gamble by relinquishing a prospect or two. Ponson's salary was $1 mil for the entire year, and juding by the language in his contract he only gets that while he was on the major league roster (which didn't last long). Lee and Soriano still would have been due about $2.5 mil for the rest of the year when they got them besides the talent, which is 3 or 4 players for the Twins. Considering this is the highest I've seen their payroll in a long time and all of the people getting real money now were home-grown/acquired cheap, I'd lean more towards Pohland. If they actually manage to keep Hunter and/or Satana I'll change my mind, but he's notoriously one of the cheapest owners in the league. I'm sure Ryan contributes, but that still wouldn't explain the total lack of decent free agent signings.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 02:39 PM) Well, I agree and I disagree. I agree that they often would not be able to resign the players available at the deadline most years. But they certainly could afford to rent a guy. They certainly have the farm system to make such acquisitions. Take Carlos Lee last season. Or Jermaine Dye this season. Or Alfonso Soriano last season. Sure, it might hurt the depth of their system a bit short term, but if it is so strong in the first place, they should be able to take that risk every now and again. Perhaps Lee or Soriano would have put them over the top last season. Or Dye this season (they are still in this thing). They could certainly afford to pay for two months of those players' salaries and then take the picks when those players walk and sustain their system a bit that way (especially if they draft as well as many around here think). Lee might have worked, I don't remember the exact price, but I don't think it was too steep. However, for Soriano it probably would have cost them Garza and another piece or two, that's an awfully steep price to pay for 2 months. Plus with Dye this year there are still two teams ahead of them and he'd had a pretty rough season before the last couple of weeks before the deadline. I have no doubt they could afford it on paper, but if Pohland doesn't want to add the few extra mil to the payroll there's not a whole lot Ryan can do about it.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 02:31 PM) As you said, the difference will be nowhere near that huge. In baseball free agency, the "what have you done for me lately" has a very significant effect. Hunter is on pace to set career highs in basically everything but stolen bases. I'm always very skeptical when a guy does that in his free agent year. Jones, on the other hand, is coming off a down year, but has shown the potential to be a superstar in the recent past (what do you mean he isn't capable of being a "difference maker?". He hit 92 home runs in 05-06'). If he can be had at a slight discount because of his down 07', I think the two will be surprising close in what they get both in years and money. And if that turns out to be the case, I take the younger Jones every time. As you said, I am not sure I necessarily love either deal. But do we have a choice? The key part of my phrase was "consistent". 2 of his last 5 years fall a bit short of being an elite hitter, and even then you'd like him to get on base a bit more. His OBP the last 5 years have been .338, .345, .347, .363, and .315 this year, which is fine if he's still playing GG defense and/or making less than $15 mil a year. Neither of those is likely to be the case in the future. Hunter does that even less, though he does have a bit more speed.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 01:56 PM) Well, I give them absolutely ZERO credit for Mauer. They had the first pick, he's a Minnesota native, and they didn't have the money to sign Prior. Basically, they had no other choice but him. As for their payroll and it's affect on their playoff chances, they have never really fortified their team going down the stretch. I understand that their payroll affects that possibility, but I think they have had opportunities to go for it a few times and Terry Ryan has never had the sack. That was evidenced by Santana's frustration at the deadline this season. Eventually, when you don't win playoff series, winning division titles becomes a little hollow. It's never a bad thing, obviously. But when the goal continues to be championships, at least from a competitive standpoint (as opposed to a purely business standpoint), things begin to get a little bit stale. Well, the payroll SEVERELY limits your options at the deadline. Teams don't exactly deal cheap options that can help your major league team at that time. Basically everyone available that can help you is going to be a high-priced veteran that is going to be a free agent in the near future. Since the chances of re-signing those guys are slim and most of the time their salary is already pretty high, they simply can't afford to go after those guys. Pohland has NEVER shown the willingness to pay to add someone that could potentially put them over the top like a Freddy Garcia or Carlos Lee.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 01:39 PM) Well, Jones is two years younger than Hunter, first of all. Secondly, he has been a better hitter over his career. Thirdly, he has actually been pretty solid again defensively this season after regressing the past few years. However, Hunter has also regressed. There is some speculation that Jones' hitting woes may have something to do with his offseason conditioning program. Boras had him whip himself into amazing shape, and it may have affected his mechanics. I don't particularly want either of them at that price; but I would take Jones confidently over Hunter, despite the disparity of their 07' seasons. The question is, put a different way, are we in such a spot that we are forced to acquire one of these center fielders? Jones has generally been a better hitter, but I've never been a huge fan. I guess it depends on the price difference. If you can get Hunter for something like 4-56 while Jones is up around 6-100 I'd definitely take the former because of the extra 2 years and 54 mil. If it's closer than that, which it probably will be, I guess I'd grudingly take Jones. As I said though, I'd really hate to make a huge financial commitment to either one, since neither is a consistent difference maker and both appear to be at or near a downward slide. Unfortunately if our plan is to compete in the near future I'm not sure how much of a choice we have, unless we're going to throw a s***load of money at A-Rod when he opts out, and I doubt we could really afford that.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 12:08 PM) True, its alot of coin to fork over for a declining star. BUT........it would make a nice addition to the lineup. 1.? 2. Richar 3. Thome 4. konerko 5. Dye 6. Jones 7 Fields 8 AJP 9 Crede probably one of the slowest lineups ever put together It would definitely be up there... I won't argue that he wouldn't be an upgrade, but that's a lot for another declining all-or-nothing type slugger, especially after the kind of year he's currently having. If the price is that high, I'd rather take it and sign a few serviceable guys rather than splurging on one guy that probably isn't worth the contract. It's not like we're a centerfielder away from being a title contender, we have more than one hole to fill.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Aug 27, 2007 -> 12:15 AM) You shouldn't. Young has 5 more really cheap years left before he becomes a FA. He's a CF with plus defense, premier power and speed. The only element lacking is OBP, and his minor league numbers suggest that won't be a problem for long. Vazquez is a having a decent year, but he's only under contract 3 more seasons, is older, expensive, and honestly is #3 or #4 starter on a playoff quality team. It's easier to acquire someone like Vazquez than someone like Young. Except every team in the league needs pitching. I guess they're paying guys with rather questionable resumes like Ted Lilly and Gil Meche $10 mil or more a year just for fun. While Young is a valuable asset because of his service time, so is Javy in that he's an above average starter that's locked up to a reasonable deal for a few years.

QUOTE(ChiSox_Sonix @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 07:56 AM) what happened where a guy almost died? Actually... Spanish midfielder collapses and dies (ESPN)

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 12:11 AM) Great post. I cannot stand this nonsense about the Bartolo Colon deal and the Aj Pierzynski deal. Go to other team's message boards, and on EVERY one of them you will find their fans demanding their GM make a deal similar to those two. If the fans know it, you don't think the GM's recognize that? If anything, those two deals and the attention they have continually received has made it far less likely that another will occur. No GM wants to make a deal like that and get fleeced. And if we haven't seen the evidence of that in the last two years, I don't know what we've seen. As for Liriano, the key to his return is that the very pitch that made him so dominant is the same that caused his injury. That slider creates enormous stress on his elbow and obviously caused him to miss this entire season. When he returns, will he attempt to throw it? Will he throw a variation of it? Will he reinjure his arm again and again and again like Kerry Wood? To say he can return to duplicate or even at all closely replicate his 06' success is extraordinarily speculative at the very least. In terms of MichaelAngelosMonkey, he was not trying to claim that the White Sox have not been as lucky as any other team. What he was claiming is that you cannot praise the Twin's success as a skill, and at the same time chalk up all the White Sox' success as luck. Both have received plenty of luck within the last several years. What the Twins have done well over the past several years is put together amazing bullpens and tailor their ballclub to the Humphreydome. They have not produced an amazing number of solid homegrown position players, their success developing starting pitchers has been overstated, and they have continually been exposed in the postseason. Certainly their sustained success in this decade has been admirable, but basically, if things hold true this season, they will have won 1 postseason series while having the best starting pitcher in baseball and one of the best bullpens in baseball for the last 4-5 years. It's great and all that they have won division titles with a lower payroll, but let's not confuse their run with the Oakland A's of the early seventies. I think it's fairly clear that there are several issues within the White Sox organization which need to be addressed. One is certainly international scouting. Another is their refusal to wholeheartedly consider players represented by Scott Boras. Another is their philosophy of drafting low-risk pitchers. However, anyone who has watched baseball for any sustained period of time realizes how quickly things can change, especially when there is a little money that can be spent. Certainly this organization does some things better than they do others; however, I must say I have faith in their overall ability to position this team in a favorable spot for the next several years, despite how putrid the major league team has looked throughout this season. I agree with the first part, those kind of deals are extremely rare. A lot of things have to go right to get that kind of fleecing. Even if your timing is right and you successfully find the desperate GM that'll overpay, you never know if the guys will develop like you hope. The Twins have produced enough homegrown players to stay competitive despite a mid-range payroll at best. There are 4 All-stars on their roster that came up through their system and several other productive players. That's pretty impressive. While you'd like to see more playoff success if you're a Twins fan, don't you think the payroll had an effect on that? They can't amass the kind of depth that a lot of other teams can because of it. Just look at some of their off-season signings. They're basically forced to add guys like Tony Batista and Sidney Ponson because of their restraints. If things work out on signings like that you get a reasonably productive major leaguer like Shannon Stewart or Luis Castillo. Even someone like a Jermaine Dye is often more than they can afford because Carl Pohland is so cheap. Right now they have 11 players making over $1 mil on their roster and 3 making over $5 mil. The Sox by comparison have 14 and 8 respectively. That makes it kind of hard to hang with some of the other top teams, especially when you often run into a team like the Red Sox or Yankees in the playoffs that can spend twice as much as you can.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 12:16 AM) Good point. I'll say this: I'll take Patterson at 3/15 over Hunter at 6/90 every day. And I'd probably take Owens at $450k than Patterson at 3/15. The real question for me personally is.....Would I take Andruw Jones at 6/100 over any of the other options? I wouldn't go anywhere near that. Jones has rarely been the hitter that his name recognition suggests he is and his defense has regressed a fair amount. While we could use a .260-type hitter with some power, at that price he doesn't make much sense, especially at the end of the contract. Plus he'll be coming off a Dye-like year at the plate. If it's going to take 5 years and $15 mil+ to get either of them, I'd rather not see us touch them.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 27, 2007 -> 08:26 PM) Well if you prefer his computer-generated statistics to what he's done through his career, feel free. I was just pointing out that he wasn't so hot in the NL and I still contend that this year is more an aberration and a worse pitcher is underneath his 2007. He's not a bad pitcher, but he's not a genuine one or two. He'll never be one. Good season this year? Sure. Has he been good since last August? Absolutely. But still, I don't believe he'll be what he is again next year, and it's up to him to go out there and succeed. He won't have Bill James' computers on the mound with him. You're conveniently ignoring a few solid years in Montreal where he was one of the few bright spots on a bad team. Heck, he posted a 3.24 ERA in 230 innings in 2003 and only won 13 games. It's not like he's your typical one-year fluke starter that's getting lucky with mediocre stuff and stranding a lot of runners. There's a very good chance he continues to do well for the near future, as it's clear that his control has been better the last year or so after tweaking his delivery a bit. While it'd be really nice to have Young back, Vazquez is their 2nd best starter right now and is locked up for a while.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 27, 2007 -> 01:09 PM) Oh, and someone needs to bring up 1994 as well. Good point, I was pretty pissed about that one. That team was playing REALLY well, they might have won the title with the way that rotation was doing and Frank Thomas just being an absolute BEAST. That strike really hurt, especially since Reinsdorf was one of the owners that played a major part in it.

I haven't seen one yet, so here you guys go. Go nuts. ID- 26853 password- soxtalk

I was honestly more annoyed in 2003 when we had what looked to be a division-championship caliber team that just didn't quite seem to hit their stride and ended up getting smacked by the Twins late in the year to finally end it. It was also obviously made a lot worse by the Cubs. 1995 was pretty bad too, coming off the playoff berth in 93 and what would have been a playoff berth in 94 they posted a .472 WPT and finished 32 games behind the division winner. I don't know, yeah, this year is depressing, but all but the most optomistic realized that this was likely a 3rd place team at best unless an awful lot of things went our way. I'm frustrated, but I'm not totally pissed off.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Aug 26, 2007 -> 11:42 AM) So, Ive been asking around to a lot of people to recommend some PS3 games for me and have been getting lots of results so I decided to do something new. I walk into the Game Crazy by my house and say to the guy, I just bought a PS3, what are the two first games I should get? He grabs Resistance first and puts it down, then he grabs Madden. I tell him I already have Madden, so he puts it back and grabs Motor Storm. So now, not knowing anything about these two games I own them. I remember hearing things about both these games in this thread so hopefully they are good and I just didnt waste 130 bux. If theres one thing it looks like the guy who worked at this place knew it was video games. Those two are pretty solid. Resistance is clearly the best game out for it, and Motorstorm is somewhat in the running. I'd look at Ninja Gaiden Sigma, that a good slasher-style game. Unfortunately that's about all that's out right now outside of sports games and Elder Scrolls:Oblivion if you don't have that on another console/PC. There are some other fairly interesting ones coming out soon though. If you play online Warhawk (comes out this week) looks like it'll be a pretty good aerial combat game with some ground sections, though there's no offline mode. Lair will be out the week after, which looks kind of like Warhawk with dragons and an offline mode. Heavenly Sword is also out about that time, though it's getting somewhat mixed reviews (consensus seems to be looks awesome and has a good story, but the combat and gameplay in general is only decent, if you trust the reviews of course). After that all the games I'd REALLY be interested in are out in November, though some of the sports games, Folklore, and Stranglehold (another shooter though, if you're not big on them could easily wait until Haze) could be decent.

I didn't go for business (IIRC it's pretty tough to get in to), but I had a pretty good experience at Illinois. I was used to small schools before going there (high school graduating class was about 200) and I didn't really see it as a drawback. The student services that I actually used were pretty solid, and there are a ton of organzations if you want to go that route. You'll probably get some massive lecture hall classes early on (especially for gen-ed stuff), but they got considerably smaller once I got to my major courses. The one thing that took some getting used to was large amounts of social drinking. Unless you never plan on leaving your room you'll probably have to deal with that since that seems to be just about all people do out in those cornfields. Get used to the idea of going out to the bars on a Tuesday night.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 04:04 PM) I agree with you, but its a needless fight against certain people who want nothing more than to have a team just like the Twins. Frankly, ask a die hard twins fan and they would trade our WS title in 2005 for all of these first round exits and seasons where they have Ponson as a piece of their rotation. With the loss of Tori Hunter, Santana, and the question marks surrounding Mark Prior 2, they may have some dark days ahead of them. Ponson made 7 starts for them and was quickly replaced by some of their young arms... I wouldn't go THAT far. Even assuming those guys are gone, they still have Morneau, Mauer, and Cuddyer for a while, which is 3 legit hitters, and enough young arms with some talent to cobble together a decent rotation. We've been touting the Twins' demise for quite some time and it still hasn't come yet. I don't really care if we follow the Twins' blueprint or not, I'd just like to see some of our young guys come up and contribute to a team that looks like it needs an infusion of talent, especially since it's starting to look like there won't be a ton of money to be spent in free agency. It gets a little harder to go outside the organization and find pieces that you need if you're giving $70 mil to 7 players (granted they can ease that a bit by dealing one). Those cheap, productive pieces then let you go out and do some damage with your $100 mil payroll, something the Twins can't do. Unfortunately once you get past the guys currently on the roster I don't have a whole lot of faith in the guys on the horizon, at least until we get to Gio and DLS. Hopefully Fields, Richar, and Danks can make some strides and that'll keep them competitive until then. I led off this whole thing by saying I thing we can finish ahead of them and be competitive in the near future, it just won't be easy. There are clearly some things that still need to be fixed, and I don't know how much of the help can come from within the organization right now.

QUOTE(michelangelosmonkey @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 03:42 PM) I don't know why we are fighting. You would be an excellent agent for Garza. You are clearly a knowledgeable baseball fan. I'm just saying, as the moneyball guys out there say, there's no such thing as a pitching prospect. Guys can get major leaguers out or they can't. There have been a million flairouts like Brien Tayler...because of injury, because of a lack of confidence, or control, or whatever...guys with fantasitc potential. There are a million guys like Ruffcorn and Jason Bere who tease you and then fail. I'm not totally dismissing Garza...but you are totally dismissing Floyd based on a few innings pitched at the majors. You totally dismiss a knuckleballer like Haeger who is WAY ahead of TIm Wakefields development with the pitch. I claim no universal knowledge...it is everyone else here...that is certain Garza will be an above average ML pitcher. All I'm saying is, yeah, maybe. Maybe FLoyd Floyd has had numerous opportunities and he hasn't just been bad, he's been AWFUL. There's quite a difference between being 5-ish ERA bad and being 7-ish ERA bad. Unless he finds a new pitch that can help him or something, things look pretty bad. As for Wakefield/Haeger, not all knuckleballers are equal, and even Wakefield isn't exactly a Cy Young candidate. Just because he can throw one that gets minor leaguers out doesn't mean he's going to be any good. There's a reason that Wakefield is the only one in recent memory that has had any success, and it's been made reasonably clear that the organization doesn't have a ton of faith in him. Pitching prospects aren't a sure thing, but I'd MUCH rather have them than not. Cheap, productive young starters are the most valuable assets you can get, and teams don't exactly trade them once they hit the majors too often.

QUOTE(michelangelosmonkey @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 03:26 PM) Obviously the guy with the 3.05 ERA. My point is that W-L is not completely irrelevant. Randy Johnson had about 16 quality starts last year...and about 16 where he was horrid. Ozzie has left pitchers in, like Garland, to give up 10 runs in 3 innings when he didn't have it...and it destroys his ERA but only goes for 1 loss. To support ERA, and K/Ip or K/BB or 15 other measures over wins is fine. But to throw out wins as completely irrelevant I think is wrong too. Over the years when they list "top young pitchers" no publication EVER includes Buehrle...though Buehrle has more victories than almost any of them. Winning is a skill too. Not exactly. Winning is a RESULT of having skill and/or being on a good team. Guys like Steve Carlton that rack up tons of wins for awful teams are pretty rare. Buehrle has been a pretty solid player that doesn't get hurt on a team that has been competitive for a while, of course he's going to have a pretty high win total. That doesn't mean that I'm going to take him over someone like Jake Peavy that has more talent but a much more modest record though. There are countless examples of guys that are either pretty talented and have low win totals and of guys that aren't all that good but come up with a good win total. It's far from a sure-fire statistic. The mental giants at ESPN got all excited about Aaron Small after he started 10-0 a few years ago for no good reason, look at him now.

QUOTE(michelangelosmonkey @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 02:28 PM) Look I didn't slightly skim over it...I pointed it out and it was against my argument. BUT...I've always been slightly irritated at the Baseball Prospectus crowd for completly ignoring W-L as if it is irrelevant. Buehrle has never gotten the credit I think he deserves because his K rate is so low...the strongest indicator for him that he's going to win is...he keeps winning. At some point knowing how to win a game has some relevance. But I'm NOT saying Floyd is going to be good. I'm saying it CAN'T be said that Garza will not only be good but as good as Santana. In Garza's first 15 innings this year he gave up 0 ER. The next 31 innings he gave up 17 runs. Both pitchers are 24. Both have good stuff. Both have shown glimpses of being able to be dominating. Both have been hit hard as well. Floyd's K to W rate this year is 3 to 1. Garza about 2.5 to 1. I know this will open me up to more name calling because people love Garza and hate Floyd...but until the guy starts winning more consistently...he's just another young pitcher that might or might not be good. And yes...that goes for Bailey and Hughes and Haeger. Tim Wakefield has 166 career wins and Brien Taylor has 0. Still I will say that you make a helluva point with the Twins bullpen. Man they keep turning these guys up. So lucky with Santana and skillful with the bullpen. Yeah, I'd say you "slightly skimmed over it". 2 runs is a hell of a difference, a hell of a lot more than a few ticks on the win/loss record. Even in Garza's BAD stretches he's proven to be better than Floyd. There's also a slight difference between having one good start surrounded by several starts where he got lit up like a Christmas tree and stringing together seven starts with allowing fewer than 3 runs. Also, they're not both 24, Garza is essentially a year younger, and has far less experience in pro baseball, yet has put up far better numbers thus far. He also has MUCH better stuff than Floyd, there's a slight difference between throwing in the mid-to-high 90's with a solid breaking ball and throwing in the low 90's with an inconsistent one. My bad, I didn't realize that by "another Santana" you meant another freakishly good pitcher and not just another capable starter that'll win a lot of ball games. I didn't realize that a team had to produce 3 Cy Young winners to be good at scouting. When evaluating two pitchers, wins basically are irrelevant. What team you play on can have a tremedous effect on your record. The other guys on your team have to score runs and the bullpen has to hold the lead once you leave. That's entirely out of your control and can vary greatly from year to year. Buehrle is likely to have a similar record this year as last year despite having an ERA that's about a run and a half lower. THAT's why comparing records doesn't have a whole lot of value, at least certainly not as a determining factor. Why does Brian Taylor even matter? He's a guy that got hurt before he had a chance to do anything. Matt Garza is already at the major league level and is AT WORST a league average starter right now. I really don't see how that's relevant. Just because they MIGHT get hurt doesn't mean you can totally dismiss their talent and lump them in with the other masses of guys that haven't done anything in the majors and probably won't like Floyd and Haegar.

QUOTE(michelangelosmonkey @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 11:36 AM) First of all perhaps we have a definitional problem. The goal of baseball is to win the WS. It's not to win more games than the TWins or win more games than the Cubs. It's to win more games than EVERYONE. So in my world the score is Sox 1 Twins 0 (I'm counting last 15 years...current administrations). There IS a value in being a fan of a team that wins consistently. You totally missed the point. We're not arguing which one is going to win the WS next, we're arguing who's going to have the better record over the next 3 years, where that info is ENTIRELY RELEVANT. I'm choosing to not even dignify the rest with a response, since it is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand, ESPECIALLY since Santana is still around for AT LEAST the first of those three years.