ZoomSlowik

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 03:21 AM) You do know that 1997 Arizona is the only team to ever beat three #1 seeds, beat 2 all time good teams in Kansas and Kentucky of 1997, and had 2 NBA long time guards and the tournament MOP in Miles Simon, right? I wasn't arguing accomplishments, clearly they earned it. However, IIRC they entered the tournament as a #7 seed, and they didn't really have any inside presence to speak of. Plus Terry wasn't really that big a factor, he was coming off the bench at the time.

FWIW, according to ESPN Arizona supposedly offered a 3-player package including one major leaguer, and San Diego also made an offer with Scott Linebrink as the centerpiece.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 11:56 AM) I would think it would all depend on what the Yankees were asking for. Its amazing people think Johnson and his 5.00 ERA are done, but Buerhle and his 4.99 ERA is an automatic turnaround in 2007. I don't know how you could trade for Johnson before he shows if his back surgery did him any good or not. I think there are two reasons for that: 1) Age, and that's a big one. Johnson is about 15 years older than Buehrle. It's a lot more likely that Randy is simply done at 43 than Buehrle at 28. Plus given Randy's performance decline from 2004 (he went from dominant to decent to terrible awfully fast) that seems even more plausible. 2) Pitching style/velocity drop. Randy was always a guy that depended on bringing serious heat and throwing a hard slider to get you out. He simply doesn't have that anymore, his fastball is in the low to mid 90's now while his slider is still in the high 80's but without as much bite. Buehrle is also a little down (more like 85 IIRC), but he never really threw harder than 88 to start with. A year of rest and some refinement can get him back on track, while it's a lot less likely that does the trick for Randy.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 11:38 AM) Throwing money out of the equation as the Sox had money before the Garcia trade and have it now. 5 spot in the rotation; Garcia or McCarthy v. Johnson, Floyd, Gonzalez, Masserat, Danks, Haegar He is a gamble but the reward is greater. Remember it is for one year only and he can be anywhere from a 1 to 5 in our rotation. The same could have been said for Garcia, he only had one year left on his deal as well, and with all the s*** we gave him he still out-pitched Johnson last year. Johnson is just not the same pitcher he used to be, that's probably not going to help us, and it'll cost us a lot of money and at least one real prospect to take that risk.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Dec 25, 2006 -> 04:36 AM) If you're talking about Broadway or Gio, I agree, they could be moved in the right deal [such as for Baldelli]. But KW said the 4 vets aren't going anywhere. That doesn't seem too likely. I'll put it this way: according to the Sporting News, Tampa turned down Brett Myers and demanded either Cole Hamels or Chase Utley for Baldelli. Tampa is still being insane about their demands, they'd probably want at least Danks and another starting pitching prospect from us, if we're even a fit.

I fail to see why we'd want a 43-year old starter that posted an ERA of 5 last year for somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 mil. If we were going to do that we might as well have kept Freddy, it just makes no sense...

Brennan could be a finalist, but i highly doubt that he wins it. Even though he might be worthy, guys from non-BCS schools just don't win it any more, otherwise Marshall Faulk and LaDanian Tomlinson would almost certainly have one in their trophy case. No non-BCS conference player has won it since Ty Detmer in 1990, and the only non-football powerhouse player to win one since then is Rashaan Salaam in 1994 (or possibly for argument's sake Ron Dayne, but Wisconsin did win back-to-back Rose Bowls with him). To even have a chance he would have to keep putting up insane numbers, and Hawaii would have to go undefeated or have one loss. Even then he really has to hope that no one on the top 6 teams or so has a dominant year...

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 24, 2006 -> 05:11 PM) They were one of the least deserving comparatively speaking. All teams have to win 6 games in order to win, but they were one of the worst to ever do it(Since '86 atleast). It's not hard to understand and there is no denying this. You act like I'm the first to come up with such a comment. And everytime you watched them they were dominant last season? You must not have watched many regular season games then. They were far from terrific. That said, they do have a shot again at the NT this year. I would just be very surprised if they do it. There are better teams out there. It was certainly a down year with no dominant teams, but there have still been worse teams that won it, especially if you're just talking talent-wise. I don't think 83 NC State, 85 Villanova, 88 Kansas (outside of Manning of course), 97 Arizona, 98 Kentucky off the top of my head were better than Florida, and you could probably argue that teams like 93 UNC and 95 UCLA weren't all that great either. Most of those teams were lower seeds that went on a roll, and the other two (Kansas and Kentucky) just weren't that loaded talent-wise. The only real difference is they had to beat some good teams in the tournament, which you can't blame Florida for.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 06:55 PM) Texas is, to my eyes, now officially a major threat to win the American League the next 2 years. I essentially disagree with every single reason given for accepting the McCarthy deal in this post. I can live with the Garcia deal. It makes sense. The McCarthy deal does not. Who will be our Left handed starter? We have 2 candidates in Gio and Philipps hanging out at AAA already. I'm sorry, I don't see how you can call Texas a real threat to do anything. You're talking about a team that won 80 games last year and probably has a net loss of talent so far this off-season. They lost Gary Matthews Jr., who was a major factor for them last year, Carlos Lee, which is absolutely huge even though they only had him hald the year, and two other regular contributors to the lineup in Mark De Rosa and Rod Barajas. Plus the only real additions they made are B-Mac, Kenny Lofton, and Eric Gagne. How can you really call them a threat when their rotation doesn't have a #1 or #2 starter? How can you say that a rotation of Kevin Millwood, Vincente Padilla, Brandon McCarthy, Robinson Tejada, and Edison Volquez (or whomever else they use) is a playoff-caliber rotation, especially when they no longer have a dominant offense? Their pen will definitely be stronger with Gagne, but that rotation is a huge liability, and their lineup is really only decent and lacks punch after Blalock. I'd really love to hear how they are going to beat the Angels and/or win the wild card with that rotation...

OSU has a ton of talent, but obviously they still need some time to gel. Their offensive flow hasn't been good since Oden came back, and their defense left something to be desired too. They overplayed a lot on the perimeter which lead to some easy baskets, and they didn't close well on shooters in the second half. That said, if they work that out they're as good or better than anyone. They have all the pieces that you need for an elite team. They ran into a talented team with more experience on the road today. I'd still say they're one of the 5 best teams out there, along with UCLA, UNC, Florida, and Wisconsin (at least as of right now, subject to change). Kansas seems to be the only other team that can reach that level so far, and they've struggled a bit. No one else has really impressed me that much yet, though obviously it's who's playing well in March that matters...

Definitely football. You never hear anything else about any other team when they are good. People still talk about the '85 team like it happened yesterday, and Ditka is still revered. Part of that could be because the NFL is by far the most popular sports league in the country, but the Bears definitely have one of the best fan bases in the NFL. QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 22, 2006 -> 02:39 AM) 1985 parade: 500 k (well actually, it was in 1986, but whatever) 2005 parade (for the "inferior" team in town): 2 million Baseball wins, and it's not as close as many think. The Bears draw the "common" (idiot) fan pretty well, but baseball is king here. The Sox also had a much longer route. The Bears just went through the loop, the Sox went through half the south side before heading downtown.

I would say video games because I'm typically a dumbass and pay $50 for them when they first come out instead of getting the same game 2 months later for $20. DVD's are probably 2nd, I don't buy man but they're usually of the box set variety. If we are counting school-related books that would probably be 2nd for me, but I personally don't since I was basically forced into those purchases...

NU needs to stop scheduling tournaments during the season, they always end up losing to some mediocre to poor mid-major. They just finished up this year's result, a loss to Tennessee Tech.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 11:16 PM) They win by 2, as a game winning 3 by Wheaton rims off at the horn. This comes after NW beat North Florida by only 1 on a late basket, and LOST to Cornell. Yet, they beat DePaul by 10 and also beat Miami of Florida. Bizarre. If we only hit 4 3's a lot of teams are going to hang around (or beat us in most cases). Also, it's probably a bad sign when WHEATON COLLEGE beats you on the glass by 14.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 12:02 AM) Also, I went to Evanston tonight since I had never seen a NW game at Welsh-Ryan, and I got my money's worth for sure. NW won I believe it ended 75-73 in OT, as Western Michigan missed a 3 to win it very late. Craig Moore hit about 7 three's, and NW's very impressive freshman Kevin Coble looked very good, both had to have had about 25 points. WMU is the favorite to win the MAC West this year (especially with my beloved NIU struggling ), and had already beaten Virginia Tech in a neutral game (actually, that was in the tourney SIU played in as well around Thanksgiving), so that's a decent win for a rebuilding NW team. If Moore can keep doing that, they're a lot more dangerous. I like Coble, but he seems to disappear for long stretches. Doyle looks so amazingly bad for long streches but he somehow still produces. The rest of that team is quite bad though, Williams and Scott should not be playing on a Big Ten team, and Okreszik looks the same way now after a good start. They're not quite as terrible as I originally thought, but I'm still very worried about Big Ten play.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Dec 4, 2006 -> 06:51 PM) Zoom, did you just say that Pods is not that much better than Crawford? I just have to be sure. I have been drinking a lot. Look at the numbers, you're basically getting 20 points of average (though roughly the same OBP) and about 20 more extra base hits (which results in more RBI). Yeah, he's clearly better, but the way people are talking you'd think we're comparing Babe Ruth and Brian Anderson...

I'd just like to make one point here... Career: Pods- .275 average, .342 OBP, 212/277 SB Crawford- .292, .326, 227/275 SB 2006 Pods- .261 average, .330 OBP, 86 runs, 3 homers, 45 RBI, 40/59 SB Crawford- .305, .348 OBP, 89 runs, 17 homers, 77 RBI, 59/68 SB For someone that is a supposed future hall of famer, he's not THAT much better than Podsednik as a leadoff man. Yes, he has more power and his career is on the upswing. But he's not exactly a world-beater, and he's not going to solve all of our problems. Plus he'd essentially costing us $10 mil more than his salary because we'd be losing B-Mac instead of one of our other starters.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Dec 4, 2006 -> 04:31 PM) Not a chance in hell of that happening. If we're going to go that route, than talking about a playoff is rather pointless as well. I just don't want to see a mediocre team getting a spot in the playoffs instead of a team like LSU or Wisconsin in that scenario. A top 12 spot shouldn't be that hard to manage most years.

QUOTE(illinilaw08 @ Dec 4, 2006 -> 02:34 PM) Weighing in on the playoff issue, Krush knows that I have rallied against a playoff for a very long time. I love the bowls and I love seeing the interplay between confrences. That being said, here is my idea for a playoff that I consider to be the only fair way to set it up (bear with me, this is long, but I think worthwhile): 1) Operating much like the BCS, there would be 6 major BCS conferences. Each conference champion gets a spot in the 8 team BCS playoff. In the case of the SEC and Big 12 (and I think the ACC now), the winner of each division plays in their conference championship game as a play-in. 2) Mid Majors- Every year the mid majors clamor for respect. As such, there would be 1 spot guaranteed for a mid major team every year. This spot would be voted on by.. well, someone... but for instance, this year, Boise St. would be the 8 seed. This would be a little arbitrary, but could mid majors complain about guaranteed representation? 3) This leaves one spot open. Every year, in every conference, one team has one heartbreaking loss. Thus, there would be a vote for a "second chance team" if you will, voted on by a secret panel of college football "experts"... secret ensuring they not get bribed one way or the other. The one lucky team completes the 8, and really, can these teams complain? Not really because if you don't get in, win your conference next year. The other bowls stay in tact and you only add two games to the slate. The only problem here is ND since this is a very conference heavy scheme. The last point here is that unlike the current system, it doesn't hurt teams scheduling tough early season games against out of conference opponents so there should be more games like Texas-OSU this year. The problem with that is that some conferences are stronger than others, so you'd be letting in a lot of less-worthy teams. For instance, this year LSU, ND and Wisconsin would all be left out because there is really only one at-large berth under that system (which would obviously go to Michigan). There's no way the non-BCS school should be automatic, since there's not always a valid candidate, and a team really has to go undefeated to make a valid case. This year it works, but most years the bigger teams aren't quite as weak. Plus I think it needs to include the option to drop an auto-berth if a conference champ has a sub-12 ranking (ie Wake Forest).

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 07:01 PM) So how does this schedule look? 09/04 - Purdue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09/18 - Michigan State -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10/09 - Pittsburgh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H - Michigan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H - Stanford -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H - Brigham Young -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H - Rutgers -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A - Boston College -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A - Navy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/27 - Southern Cal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ? - Washington State Question is, do we have a clue how it will look like in 2010 when they actually play it? Scheduling Rutgers now looks like a smart move. I'd be willing to bet when they scheduled Rutgers, that was a gimme win. Probably still will be, but I think this year shows you never know. Teams in conferences have to schedule three or four games. Notre Dame has to schedule 12. I'm willing to bet it's not as easy as one might think. While things can change, I would say that is moderately better than last year's schedule. At least they drop two of the service acadamies. It looks like there should only be two dogs, although on the other end you probably also only have two good teams unless one or more of the other programs takes a step forward. It could fluctuate a bit depending on the last team though. Army would make it weaker, while bringing back an FSU series would make it pretty good. They still have an awful lot of poor to mediocre programs in there though, which is my entire point. You certainly can't say that looks like a killer schedule considering most of the team on it are rarely strong. Unless the stars align and Purdue, MSU, and Rutgers are all good in the same year it's got a lot of the type of teams that were a problem this year (not sure how you can give Rutgers credit as a tough game considering this is their first good team in my lifetime). If you schedule someone like Nebraska, Georgia or Tennessee instead of Pitt or WSU you get a slightly better idea of what you are getting. You don't have to worry about that randomness (is that even a word?) as much in a major conference, because even in a down year you're almost certainly going to play at least 2 good teams (barring years where you skip a big guy) and as many as 4 or 5. Schedule one good out of conference team and you'll generally have a tough schedule, or at least one that gets you more respect if you go 9-2.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 09:17 AM) Four tough ones, versus four tough ones. It seems your major complaint it when those games were played. I would say playing those right out of the gate is tougher on the better teams than the lesser teams. There's really no comparison in toughness between playing at Tennessee and Auburn and playing at Georgia Tech and against Penn State, so it's more like 4 very tough games to 2 very tough games and 2 other fairly difficult games. Penn State and Georgia Tech shouldn't really be a threat to a top-5 team unless they have an off game(at least this year). People keep saying that Notre Dame should have a tough schedule every year, but when was the last time it actually turned out that way? Scheduling up-and-down programs like Stanford or MSU doesn't bolster a schedule all that often, and teams like that make up a good chunk of their schedule. Even Georgia Tech didn't look like THAT tough a game before the season got going. They have two traditional powerhouses on there that are usually going to be tough, but they don't typically have teams from the next tier down like Wisconsin or Georgia that are usually solid and occasionally great. Because of that it typically ends up lacking punch, especially if it turns out that Michigan or USC isn't that strong like last year. I'm not saying that every game has to be against someone like FSU or Tennessee, but it'd be nice to see a little more balance to the schedule. People are always going to b**** that your schedule is feast or famine with that type of setup. If they scheduled 4 or 5 teams that look like they might be tough as opposed to 2 or 3 then it'll generally end up stronger, since that way one team under-performing doesn't kill you. I know they're scheduled years in advance, but I have a hard time buying that they really thought teams like MSU, UNC, or Stanford were really going to be tough.

QUOTE(Fotop @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 08:38 PM) 2006 Strength of Schedule for teams in question (courtesy of Jeff Sagarin, contributor to the BCS formula): OSU: 36th USC: 3rd Michigan: 13th LSU: 25th Louisville: 31st Florida: 27th Cal: 2nd Arkansas: 49th Tennessee: 10th Boise State: 99th ND: 19th Auburn: 29th Rutgers: 63rd West Virginia: 48th Wisconsin: 85th But, but ND plays an awful schedule!!!111 Yeah, because it's easy to create an accurate mathematical ranking of schedule strength. Penn State and UCLA are clearly top 25 teams like they are in Sagarin's rankings, and Navy is clearly your typical 8-3 team even though their best wins are against Duke and Air Force. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out that any system that has Notre Dame ahead of LSU in strength of schedule is totally bogus. LSU had to play at Auburn, at Florida, at Tennessee, and at Arkansas. That's 4 very tough games, and it's a major reason that LSU has 2 losses despite significant talent. They also played 3 other teams .500 or better from major conferences. ND's first 3 games were pretty tough, but after that they were able to coast until playing USC. They played 5 very bad teams and another pretty bad one in MSU. Most teams don't get that kind of break in the middle of their season. At best it was a passable schedule, but it certainly wasn't particularly strong.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 04:34 PM) And now he cant ever win the important Playoff games, correlation? I think the bigger thing is that he's never had a GREAT team around him. The offenses have been awesome, but their defense has always been only decent at best, and frankly I've never been overly impressed by their offensive line either. That's enough to win a big game here and there, but it makes it hard to win 3 in a row against good teams. So far it looks like Manning is going to be this generation's Dan Marino, great stats, no rings.

QUOTE(Felix @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) Fun link to read: http://sportsyenta.blogspot.com/2006/11/br...rady-quinn.html Though I do agree with a lot of that, it sounds an awful lot like what people said about Peyton Manning at Tennessee. He never beat Florida, IIRC his only bowl win came over Northwestern in the Citrus Bowl (and I know they got torched by Nebraska his senior year), and played in a conference that at the time didn't play any defense.

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 01:34 PM) Is it wrong to want to see what this kid can do before putting up on a pedestal as the greatest player in the world? I don't thing it's too big a stretch to know/believe that he will be one of the top college players in the country once he can play, if not the best. There aren't exactly a whole lot of athletic 7-footers running the floor in college basketball. Players a lot less talented than him have come in and made an immediate impact in the past. Think about it, he's the unanimous #1 rated player from a high school class that already has several instant-impact freshmen like Kevin Durant, Darrell Arthur, Chase Buddinger, Daquan Cook and Brandan Wright along with several other solid players. Either he's going to be very good or he's the biggest scouting miss in the history of the game.