ZoomSlowik

QUOTE(michelangelosmonkey @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 11:54 PM) Put down the hyperbole gun. Carlos Silva trade was BRILLIANT scouting? Carlos Silva has been 43-43 on a team with a better than .500 record. His ERA has been 4.30 on a team with a team ERA of under 4.00. He's a guy. I don't want to undervalue just-a-guy...I remember the White Sox dreaming of getting a fifth starter in 2001. But to say the Twins refused to pay Eric Milton a fortune (sane decision) and traded him for J-a-g is brilliant scouting? Again...how can we deify Terry Ryan and condemn Kenny Williams? Didn't KW get Freddie Garcia for a bunch of overvalued prospects? Didn't he find Contreas and El Duque in the Yankee's dumpster? Didn't he get Iguchi for next to nothing from Japan? Jermaine Dye if I remember properly was a blue light special at Kmart? I will HAPPILY say that the Twins are a worthy opponent in accumulating talent. But to look into the future and say the Sox are doomed and the Twins are great because of their superiority in evaluation of major and minor talent? There is no evidence in the past to confirm that and some evidence (world series ring) to prove Kenny is smarter than Terry. Since when is 4 division titles no evidence? Did I miss something here? 4>2, right? I love that we won a ring, but we're talking about putting up a better record than the Twins for THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS in this particular discussion, with a team that clearly needs a shot in the arm and some younger talent. They've finished with a better record than us 5 of the last 6 years and it looks like they're going to make it 6 out of 7 barring a reasonably big change in the standings. They've also done it with a fairly low payroll to this point, which may change with a new stadium in the near future. I'd say that's some reasonably strong evidence, or at least more worthwhile than what happened in that one year that was the exception. If you go back I said it was possible, but the Sox have some work to do. I don't dislike Kenny, and he's done some solid things, but the team has some problems. We're 29th in runs scored and 28th in ERA, His payroll is already pretty bloated, he has some holes that we can all see that need to be filled, and he doesn't have a whole lot of tradeable assets, several of which would just create another hole. Sure, this has been a pretty bad year for injuries/underacheiving, but that doesn't cover everything.

QUOTE(michelangelosmonkey @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 11:30 PM) Mine is an awful line of logic? Listen...in this thread someone put forward the premise that the Twins have this brilliant system of talent evaluators and therefore they will finish better than the Sox in the next three years. I'm saying...where's the proof? Seems like Kenny WIlliams has put together a world series champion and the Twins, with the best pitcher in baseball, haven't been particularly close. And it is not ME that is inconsistent on the luck/skill determination. I have not elevated the Twins nor the White Sox into a pantheon of brilliant organizations. I think we are wrong to deify the Twins while denegrating the Sox...but I would make the same argument if we were burying the Twins and praising the Sox. I happen to think the White Sox were extraordinarily lucky to have Buehrle develop into a very good pitcher. I think the Twins were even luckier having Santana become the best pitcher in baseball. To deny luck...to say the Twins have a special prediliction for determining future allstar pitchers from 20 year old pitchers beyond what others could see...where are their other Santana's? If the Sox could see something in 20 year old soft throwing lefties...where are their other Buehrle's? It's not all luck...you target a first basemen...and you use a high draft pick or you trade a key part to get a young kid and with a bit of hard work and good evaluation and player development...you get Konerko. But if you are lucky you get Albert Pujols. Let's see, the Sox had one very good year where they managed to get a title and another division crown 7 years ago, the Twins had 4 division titles in recent memory. I don't really see the great disparity in difference of success there, other than consistency on their side. The 7 games in the standings this year would also seem to tilt in their favor. Plus several key guys on the Sox are starting to show signs of age, which isn't really an issue for the Twins (outside of possibly Hunter if he stays). Again, consistency is a major factor in why I would say the Twins have been better at consistently producing talent than the Sox. How many major league contributors has their system produced since 2000? The answer is not a whole lot. In case you didn't notice, before he got hurt Liriano was already starting to produce like another Santana. Heck, he had a lower ERA at the time. He was quite simply one of the most dominant starters in the game and it was still only the first time he really had a full time starting spot. Given time, Garza could conceivably be another. He's already shown some flashes and he's still very young. Much as I like Gio and DLS, it's going to be A WHILE before the Sox could say the same thing. Um, didn't I say virtually the EXACT SAME THING in my last post? Sure, there was some luck in their timing and you can't always get all your targets, but in that case they did and they've panned out. I'd really like to see more of that from the Sox in the near future, though I'm not sure how many of their guys can bring back significant talent. Besides, I don't really see how you're considering "luck" on both sides. You're willing to dismiss the Twins' 4 division titles and consistent ability to finish ahead of us in recent history as luck, but yet you're touting the ONE time the Sox have a really good team in recent memory as an example of why this is a successful organization that performs as well/better than the Twins. I really don't get that.

QUOTE(michelangelosmonkey @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 03:49 PM) So either I'm F'ing naive or assinine to say the Twins were lucky? These brilliant Twins...these flawless visionaries who spotted Travis Lee and nabbed him with the #2 overall pick in the 96 draft. Then laughed as Ryan Mills fell to them at the #6 pick in the 98 draft. BJ Garbe at #5 in the 99 draft. Adam Johnson with the #2 overall pick in the 2000 draft. As i tried to point out earlier in this thread...getting a 20 year old power pitcher is a total crap shoot. If the system is...acquire a whole bunch of young power pitchers...again...what has that system gotten them? A couple of division titles when the Central was weak in the early 00's. And one playoff series victory in 15 years. So for nearly a decade the Twins drafted in the top 10 and were able to see things in 20 year old power pitchers that other organizations couldn't (a skill, not luck) and...at the start of the year the Twins staff consisted of Sidney Ponson, Carlos Silva and Ramon Ortiz? Shame on me for suggesting they hit lighting in a bottle...and remind me...how many divisions does Minnesota win without Santana? Care to go over the Sox draft record of first rounders for the last 15 years? That's just an awful line of logic, how many would the Sox have without Konerko? We got him for less than value too, guess we got lucky. Would we have won in 2005 without Garland? We got him for Matt Karchner, guess we got lucky. Oh, and some guy we took in the 38th round turned into our team ace. Guess our drafting is just that brilliant. You can't really have it both ways. There's a little luck involved with everything, but it's pretty clear that they have above average talent evaluators. And by the way, he didn't have that devastating changeup when they signed him, he picked it up when he was in their system. Oh, and Johan Santana wasn't even a full-time starter in 2003 and 2004 when they won division titles. He threw 108 1/3 innings in 2003 when they beat us by 4 games and 158 1/3 in 2004 when they beat us by 9 games. And if you want to minimize the Twins' division titles because "the division was weak", what does that say about the Sox over the same stretch?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 03:37 PM) liriano may be the next Mark Prior. It is a possibility, but far from certain yet. He still needs about 3 more surgeries. He was SOOO dominant though that even if he comes back at 90% that's pretty good. Plus it'd be hard for them to handle him as poorly as the Cubs did. One can hope though.

I think HD is another $5 per set per month or something like that, plus obviously the different dish and receivers. I don't remember the pricing on those, but I'm sure it's a pain.

QUOTE(michelangelosmonkey @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 02:10 PM) I'm not sure where all the Twins love comes from. ...like they are this genius organization. From 1994 to 2001...eight year period...they draftred in the top ten 7 times, including a number one overall and twice number two overall. They were a BAD team for most of a decade. Eight years ago they got lucky trading for a 20 year old single A pitcher Santana who had an 8-8 record and a 5 ERA. And lucky again getting Liriano and Nathan at a deadline deal. And all this high drafting and two real lucky trades has gotten them what? They've won one 5-game playoff series in the last 15 years. And how about them RELEASING David Ortiz so they wouldn't have to pay him arbitration money work out for them? Morneau and Mauer are good players...but when Santana leaves??? Convince me that Boof Bonser, Matt Garza, Scott Baker and Liriano are going to be better major league pitchers than Gio, Danks, De los Santos and Floyd? I wouldn't trade Danks for anyone of them. I don't LOVE the Twins or their management, but you gotta admit that they seem to keep pulling reasonably productive players from their system, or I should say at least more productive than our guys. Even if you ignore the guys like Santana, Hunter, Morneau, and Cuddyer, they still have guys that come up and are fairly productive in spots, like Lew Ford, Jason Bartlett, Nick Punto (not so much this year) and Jason Tyner. Are they great? No, but they're producing better than guys like Jerry Owens and Andy Gonzalez. If you can pull that off it certainly helps your cause. They've also manage to develop/find numerous quality bullpen arms like Nathan, Guardado, Hawkins (at the time), Rincon, Romero, Crain, and now Neshek. The early draft picks really didn't help them all that much. Yeah, they had 8 consecutive top-15 picks, but that got them only 2 guys that are currently on their major league roster with Mauer and Cuddyer. Adam Johnson, BJ Garbe, Travis Lee and Ryan Mills aren't really playing a factor. Plus the last 8 years they've been drafting 20th or later. Really? Let's see, if Liriano is healthy (granted that's an if), he already put up one MONSTER stretch over his rookie year, where he had a 2.16 ERA and 144 strikeouts in 121 innings. I'd say that's pretty good evidence that he can pitch, granted he might not come back THAT good. Matt Garza is 23 and already has 17 career starts in the majors, with solid stuff and a 3.30 ERA right now (yeah, pretty high WHIP, but good strikeout numbers, and still lower than John's). I'd think about those two. Bonser isn't a stud, but he's already got 43 league-average type starts to his name, that's at least something. Same with Scott Baker, he already has 43 career major league starts. Granted he sucked last year, but his stints in 05 and 07 are pretty decent. The bottom line is these guys are already at the major league level and you KNOW to some extent what they can contribute. On the Sox side you have one guy with potential that's putting up a 5.30 ERA right now, a talented prospect that's still in AA, a talented prospect that's still in high A, and a former top prospect that is starting to look an awful lot like a AAAA scrub. And then you have Jack Egbert, who's dominating at AA. Regardless if you would rather have any of them besides Danks, you just listed 4 guys for them without even touching Kevin Slowey or Glenn Perkins, two of their other better prospects, and all of them are at/close to the majors already. Then they still have Anthony Swarzak doing quite well in AA. That's really not the same thing. It's not that I hate any of our young arms, it's just looking at it objectively they're AT WORST comparable, and I'm sure most would say better/deeper.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 01:03 PM) Haze > Halo 3. Is Haze a PS3 exclusive though? I didn't think so, it sounded like it'd be out in November for the PS3 and sometime in 2008 for the 360. I have a hard time following some of the news...

That's actually not THAT inconceivable. They're likely to lose Santana and could lose Hunter and/or Nathan as well. Those are some pretty key pieces. There are A LOT of wildcards though. They'll still have Morneau and Mauer for a while, that's a good start, and they always seem to find enough scrappy guys to make the offense work around them. As for the pitching, Garza looks like a keeper, Slowey has some ability, and then of course there's Liriano. You can have a franchise core a lot worse than that, though there are some "ifs" on the pitching side. Then of course there are the Sox, who look like they need some additions to get back to where they were the last two years. I could see it, but I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it. 2008 would be the key, the Sox would have to close that gap while they still have Santana. Plus they have a MUCH better track record of finding replacements within their system than the Sox do.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 12:41 PM) Hmmm... which platform will Halo3 be on? Oh, you say XBox 360? winnar. They had Halo last generation too and still got grossly out-sold. Another thing I forgot to mention is backwards compatibility. If you have a ton of good PS2 games that you still play like I do, that can tide you over a bit during some of these gaps in quality releases. IIRC on the newer ones it's not 100% compatibility though, again, you'd have to do some research. I think Xbox360 has that feature too, not entirely sure because I didn't own an XBox so I honestly don't care...

God, turning down that contract offer was stupid. You'd think his agent would have slapped some sense into him...

QUOTE(WHITESOXRANDY @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 07:01 AM) Two years ago, in the White Sox championship season, the Sox called on Garland to pitch 2 games in the playoffs. He responded thusly: League Championship Series vs. L.A. Angels 9 IP, 4 H, 2 R, 1 BB, 7 K and THE WIN. World Series vs. Houston Astros 7 IP, 7 H, 2 ER, 2 BB, 4 K and THE WIN. He's the same pitcher NOW that he was THEN. If you want to replace that with Nick Masset - good luck. Does that mean we need to keep Pods too? Should we have held on to Freddy as well so we'd have a basically worthless starter instead of Gio and Floyd? Maybe we should keep Contreras around and give him a few more shots in the rotation. Seriously, if you want to pick out a few starts you can make just about anyone look like a superstar. Just look at Jeff Weaver last year. Come on now, I'm glad he has done some good things, but he's just not consistent enough to justify paying him what we'd have to in order keep him around past next year. This is his 6th full year as a starter and thus far he's had one that you could say merits being a $12 mil+ pitcher. As long as we're getting some solid pieces back that can help the franchise, I have absolutely zero problem with moving him.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 12:03 AM) Oh, I didn't understand. I thought you wanted Garland gone. I agree he's been bad at times but my argument of keeping him and not dealing him was the fact there are not a lot of consistent 3-4-5 starters in the game today. I mean look at Mike Mussina's horses*** outing tonight. My god. There are a lot of mediocre pitchers out there, folks. Yeah, Jon's outing against the Twins was SOOO much better. No, he's not totally awful, but he's not going to be winning any Cy Young's any time soon either. Given how much it'd cost to keep him around for the next few years, I can think of a fair number of guys I'd rather have. However, that doesn't mean I'd endorse GIVING him away...

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 11:55 PM) An average starting pitcher is considered a ~#4 starter these days. I never said Garland was bad or that I didn't want him on the team, just that he's closer to league average than anything else. Like I said before, a league average starter can be a very valuable commodity, just ask Ted Lilly's accountant. That's a good way to put it. It's not that he sucks, it's just if you can deal him to some team for 2 or 3 solid pieces and get his $12 mil 2008 salary off the books and not have to worry about paying him more than that in the future, that makes a lot of sense.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 11:44 PM) Kalapse ... my question to you is what pitchers nowadays are better No. 3 starters than Garland? Who can you get in baseball that is consistent besides the aces? I mean I know what you are saying, but what I am saying is Garland is as good a No. 3 or 4 as anybody you'll find. Garland is a damn fine pitcher in the "non-ace" category. How can you deny that? What pitchers would you prefer? The better question is that if he's only a No. 3 or 4, why would you pay him like he's a No. 1 or No. 2?

QUOTE(greg775 @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 11:27 PM) That's strange. Garland has had some dominant performances in his Sox career. Dominant. The problem I have with those who want to dump Garland is like many of you said ... who do you replace him with? I mean the Sox aren't going to find 5 Johans out there. Everybody has bad outings in modern day baseball. Garland has shown me plenty to say he's a good pitcher, not just a slightly above average pitcher. He's had some GREAT outings. How can you deny that?? Just about anyone can have a few GREAT outings, just look at all the no-name scrubs that have dominated the Sox. If he can't do it consistently, which he hasn't outside of 2005, then he really doesn't help you all that much outside of eating some innings. Sure, he'll have a month here or there where he dominates, then he'll have another somewhere where he gets absolutely rocked for a month to bring his numbers back down to earth. He's had ONE full season as a starter where his ERA was under 4.50. How good can he really be?

QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 07:54 PM) I am looking at buying the PS3...do you think its worth the $$$?? Realistically it's going to come down to the games. There are enough quality games coming out for each system that you'll get a quality gaming experience regardless, it just comes down to preference. I personally would go with a PS3, they've got a pretty good variety in their exclusive games. You have a few good shooters with the Resistence series and Killzone 2 (as well as some exclusive game with the UnReal 3 engine, not entirely sure what), a couple good action-style games with Heavenly Sword and the eventual God of War 3 as well as Lair, an adventure game that looks interesting with Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, a really cool platformer/action game with Rachet and Clank Future, and what's widely considered the best racing game on the market with Gran Turismo 5. Also, they obviously have Metal Gear Solid 4, though I've never really gotten into that series personally. For the Xbox360 most of the ones that impress me/I would purchase are shooters. Sure, Forza 2 looks good, but the other major ones are Gears of War, Bioshock, Halo 3, and Prey. The other exceptions down the road are Mass Effect and Fable 2, though the former still appears to have a lot of shooting involved. Not that I have anything against shooters, but I personally like some more variety. Also, online play is better on the 360, though that's not a HUGE factor for me. Another thing to consider is your PC. If you play games a lot on the computer and it has enough juice, you can already get Gears of War, Bioshock, and Prey for the computer, and though it'll be delayed Halo 3 will almost certainly end up there as well. Still, this is just my personal view, and I'm over-simplifying and leaving out a lot of games. Basically just do a little research on the gaming lineups and see where most of the games you'd be interested in will be.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 08:17 PM) I don't know how anyone thinks Satelite is cheaper than cable. DirectTv would have assloads of upfront costs, s***ty equipment, and there monthly service fees really aren't much different (the big thing is the equipment costs are exorbitant via DirectTV). I could see Satelitte being cheaper if you just want the basic basic (no HD, no dvr, no anything and pretty much one tv hookup) but anything other than that and DirectTv quickly gets exponentially more expensive than cable (and its HD service doesn't touch my Cox HD service...that could change whenever they expand and get that new dish up). It all adds up. Like you said, it's not too bad for a one line, regular subscription, no-HD setup, but everything gets added on. Still, even with our setup, which is 3 sets, 4 lines, 2 Tivo's and the Sportspack it's only like $5-$10 more than we were paying for our old basic cable with no DVR (don't remember the exact total), and the quality is better too. Plus they often run deals where you can get something free, whether it's installation, the dish, a Tivo, or whatever...

We've got DirecTV, doesn't bother me.

Like SF1 said, he's basically being hyped as the next big thing. He's a 17 year old forward/midfielder, and he's a lot bigger at 6'1". He tore it up at the Under-20 tournament and is producing in the MLS now (7 goals and 4 assists in 15 games). That's about as much as I know about him, but just from looking at it on paper he can actually produce when he plays.

QUOTE(MHizzle85 @ Aug 18, 2007 -> 05:35 PM) Jimmy Clausen Busted For Booze. Normally I like to take every opportunity to slam a Notre Dame player and/or the team, but that's just lame. An un-marked car sitting there to catch people for under-age drinking? How much more anal can you get? If they did that at every school you'd run out of guys to catch somewhat quickly. It's called being in college people... It's also interesting that with all that trouble that they went through that they didn't charge the other freshman.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Aug 17, 2007 -> 02:39 PM) I rue tomorrow when the vampires come in and clog all the roads so townies like me are unable to go to their jobs in a reasonable timeframe. Not to mention when their sense of entitlement means longer lines at all the local stores and terrible driving skills (i.e. the guy that nearly t-boned me last year when he decided he wanted to make a left turn from the far right hand lane going south on Lincoln at Lincoln and Springfield...and here I was as a sucker being in the left turn lane with a green arrow when he nearly hit me. Best part was the guy screaming at me like I did something wrong. (Edit, for those who are not UIUC'ers or Chambana residents -- Lincoln + Springfield is a two lane each way road and the left turn lane makes it have a fifth lane at the corner) UIUC campus move in is an absolute clusterf*** of a high degree and really annoys townies like me who enjoy the town and don't like people who just sap things out of the community and whose only contributions (by and far -- it isn't everybody but there are too damn many) include puking outside repeatedly, vocal obnoxiousness and payment of drunk in public or parking tickets. Move in day is pretty insane, traffic sucks in/around campus and there's nowhere to park. Even on a non-move in day it can be quite obnoxious trying to drive/park anywhere near Green Street between the one-way streets and high volume of car/foot traffic. The pedestrians aren't really any better, especially when intoxicated, they often cross the street whenever/wherever they want.

The Angels didn't have a first round pick this year, which affects things quite a bit. Considering what they gave Weaver recently, I would say they'd be closer to the top if they had one, and I wouldn't have put it past them to draft/sign Porcello.

Alright here's the info: ID- 478542 password- soxtalk Draft time and league settings are negotiable.

Here's the roster: THE WOOD- commish Sonik22 ChWRoCk2 SleepyWhiteSox MHizzle85 Chimpy2121 SayItAintSo Whitesoxin' juddling Arg, my bad, I can't count. Need one more. I'll let The WOOD give you the league info...

Here's the roster: ZoomSlowik- commish- Anti-Cruelty Society SoxFan1- That's Gross....Man! jackie hayes- DrewHensonAllStars Soxfest- 1st Down maggsmaggs- maggsmaggs Knightni- Superbad BigSqwert Controlled Chaos William Tell- William Tell TheOcho- Mclovin' I'll post league info in a sec...