ZoomSlowik

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 06:21 PM) Wow, I think I broke the system. Suddenly, for no apparent reason, it started giving me the exact same confirmation code like 20 times in a row. Then like 10 votes later, it decided my name was Colin Tremblay and I was born in 1992 (I even got Colin Tremblay's email address and zip code filled in.) That happened to me too, but my "name" was Charles Kuntz. Sounds like a Moe Syzlack prank-call-name to me.

Awesome articles. Interesting and informative, and a very good point about the sports-writers.

It's pretty weird, if I click on "vote again," the info on the on the first page is for some guy named Charles Kuntz, not me. It also seemed to let me vote a lot more than 25 times...

62% evil. Some of them are kind of geared toward a younger crowd though, like killing bugs, setting things on fire, making fun of fat people, making school for someone else a living hell, and making prank phone calls.

Happy Birthday guys! Knightni, you the man!

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 12:47 PM) Does anybody remember rumors of him getting offers for Frye but frye being basically untouchable? Trying to remember but maybe my mind is failing me... But yeah, it would be awesome if he trotted out an all-SG lineup...Maybe he doesn't like anybody being too much taller than him?? Anything to keep me fantasizing about Oden... Yeah, I've seen things like that, but who knows what will happen when Isaiah gets a hard-on for a player, even if he doesn't fit the team whatsoever.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 12:29 PM) Weren't they not looking to trade Frye last year? I know I'll get an "Isiah is dumb" response, and they're supposedly interested in Ben, but what are the chances really? I would think they'd try to unload The Greatest PG in the World or francis before they try to aquire another guard. That makes a lot of sense, but as you said, Isaiah has proven that he is not the sharpest GM. It would be amazingly dumb to trade Frye for another SG-in-a-PG's-body, but who would have thought that he'd already have 5 highly paid shoot-first guards players on the roster?

In a keeper league, Young has a lot more value. The two players you are getting are good, but old. Unless you think you can win a title with those two this year, don't do it.

It depends on a couple of things: 1) How many keepers you get. It may not be worth hanging on to some of those guys if it's only 5 or so. 2) How Verlander and Liriano do the rest of the year. They're not keeper worthy unless they keep dominating. This somewhat depends on the first one. I'd personally try to trade one of those elite closers for a stud hitter or starting pitcher toward the end of the year (or toward the trading deadline). Keeping closers is an iffy proposition because they are basically one-category specialists. In your case, you have three very good ones (potentially 4 with Gagne), but keeping all of them is probably going to kill your depth elsewhere. Teams are always desperate for closers, so you can probably get someone to overpay and fill a need in another area.

That's probably true. I doubt the Sox could even come close unless they dealt McCarthy, which would be pretty dumb. Someone like the Dodgers, Diamondbacks, or Angels could come up with a solid collection of prospects.

Judging by what happened last year, I think we might be able to get Josh Fields on the All-star team if we really tried.

It doesn't really mean anything if you still go the game geniuses...

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 10:41 AM) I dont know if the Bulls have any more patience for a project, they need players now. Virtually everyone in this draft is a project to some extent. Ray and Williams are about the only ones that don't need significant improvement in some area, and their ceilings are a bit more limited. Aldridge is about the only other guy that can probably play early, but even he's still going to need to add some weight.

QUOTE(Felix @ May 31, 2006 -> 06:37 PM) If I remember correctly, the same chapter also said something about how its not about whether or not the high school players would actually develop, but instead it was about the risk that is involved when picking high school players. They are too young and undeveloped to really know what they will end up being for sure, and as much talent as they seem to have, things can still go wrong, and it is safer to go with a player that has already played in college, and is further along in their development. I always found that to be a short-sighted view. You draft where the talent is. You're really cutting your potential pool of players if you follow that approach. Just looking at the draft in that article, most of the real talent in that draft was taken straight out of high school. Yeah, there are going to be busts, but the same is true for college players. There are an awful lot of very good players that were taken right out of high school in past years. I would agree somewhat on high school pitchers, but it's not because of the rate of development. High school pitchers seem to have a high injury rate, and a decent percentage of the flame throwers seem to lose their velocity down the road. If you can get a stud hitter right out of high school, I don't see it is being that big an issue.

That would really hurt our defense in the outfield, and there's no guarantee that Fields will be any better at the plate.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ May 30, 2006 -> 02:25 PM) I really enjoy the World Cup, however besides that I can't watch soccer. However interest is on the upswing, but if you want soccer to really blow up here, we have to win the World Cup. If we ever win that thing, that's what will send interest through the roof. The quality of play is considerably lower in the MLS, which I think is a major part of the problem. Outside of a handful of guys, there just aren't that many players that can make some of the spectacular plays that you see more frequently on the top European teams. However, my opinion is somewhat skewed. I've gone to several Chicago Fire games the last couple of years (not so hot a team recently), and all I ever see of most of the Euro teams is whatever ESPN decides to show us from the Champions' League. However, I did see a few exhibition games that involved teams like Real Madrid, AC Milan, and Chivas Guadalajara, and even out of season without a few of their better players and other stars only playing about half the game, they looked considerably better.

I'm pretty sure Ronaldo is making twice that much per year right now, although not that far into the future.

QUOTE(Drew @ May 28, 2006 -> 11:09 PM) Fernando Valenzuela does not belong in this comparison. I think he does. Granted he is by far the best of that group, but he still didn't have the type of career you would have expected given how it started. He played 17 seasons (12 full ones), and only 5 were really that good (although it was 5 of his first 6 full years). He started to fall apart roughly around the age of 27, which is still pretty early in one's career.

So you're firing Toronto? Sweet. He hasn't exactly been my favorite GM. First he trades off his only two good prospects and his first round pick for crap, then he only makes token appearances for a few weeks in order to check in. He's got little talent and a low payroll despite well over $200 mil in cash. I'm going to set the over/under on when he even finds out he's lost his position at 15 days. Anyways, end rant. On a serious note, this league kicks ass. If you have even an average knowledge of baseball, you'll have a ton of fun with this league. I joined a couple of months ago with absolutely no idea what I was doing, and I'm loving it (plus my team is fairly competitive now). It's full of active GM's, and just about everyone in the league is easy to communicate and trade with. The free agent market is a little messed up, but that's another story. If you're worried about making mistakes early, you can get some help. Badger and Kalapse gave me some advice early, and I'd be willing to lend a hand in any way I can. You can also get a head start by taking the Giants. They're a fairly good team with some solid players, and they won their division last year. It'll be a little harder this time with me starting to build a real team in Arizona, but it's still a decent situation. Toronto is in a bit of disarray, but you've also basically got a clean slate. There are some decent under-30 pitchers on the roster, there is the potential to add a ton of money to the payroll, and you get the #3 pick in the amateur draft this year. So join already people.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ May 24, 2006 -> 11:17 PM) Hmm I didn't think of it that way, good point. Although if we made a trade and took on Garnett's deal without dumping much, that kills our chances to get a FA like Harrington or Pryzbilla or Mohammed. All true, good post. As for Rondo, that guy couldn't hit a b**** from 6 inches away if he were Rick James. If taken in the first round, he'd be the worst guard in terms of shooting ability I've ever seen taken in the 1st round. However he does run the point well, is a great athlete, gets a lot of rebounds, and can defend, which are all pluses. But I still don't like 6'2 guards that have NO shot. I don't really see not being able to sign those FA as that big of a loss. Pryzbilla and Mohammed are going to get seriously overpaid, and while Harrington is decent, he probably will too. Actually, Rondo has some competition for worst shooter to go in the first round this year. Rondo, Brewer, and Collins all are brutal jumpshooters. I think they should have a 3-point shootout to determine that title. I bet 8 would be a winning score.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ May 24, 2006 -> 04:40 PM) MVP in 1990,1992,1993 all pre-steriod. That's more MVPs than Frank. He had 7 or 8 gold gloves. Prior to 1998 which is near or around when he started juicing, the guy was top 5 in MVP voting 7 times. He only struck out as many as 100 times his rookie year. Over 500 career steals, the majority coming before he was juiced. Easily one of the top 15 pre-steroid, ignore the steroids and he may be the greatest player ever. Frank had a 7 year stretch when he was very dominant offensively. There is no comparision between the players overall, however. I don't like using awards as a measuring stick because they are highly subjective. The first MVP was a little iffy. He didn't finish in the top 5 in batting average, homers, or RBI. I suppose he arguably could have gotten one in 96, but you could also argue that Frank got screwed in 2000, or that he could have won in 1995 or 19996. However, I digress. I wouldn't put him anywhere near the greatest player ever regardless. I would put all of the following ahead of him: Willie Mays Hank Aaron Mickey Mantle Joe DiMaggio Ken Griffey Jr. Ty Cobb Babe Ruth Ted Williams Stan Musial Roberto Clemente You'll notice that those are just the outfielders. You could argue that he might belong in front of one or two of those guys (or I could find a few more with more digging), but you'd be hard-pressed to find more than that. Bonds was a very good player pre-juice and a first ballot HOF'er, but I wouldn't put him among the all-time greats. If he were able to string together another healthy year or two, Thomas would have had numbers comparable to a lot of those guys. End of thread hijacking on my part.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ May 24, 2006 -> 04:15 PM) The bottom line is even if drafting Barry Bonds would have meant Frank Thomas wasn't to be a White Sox, and by the way, when Philadelphia drafted Simeon High School's Jeff Jackson, it meant the Sox had to go to plan B and draft Frank, so what. Even without steriods, Bonds is easily one of the top 10-15 players who has ever played. Frank Thomas is not. Pre-steroid Bonds is not one of the 15 best players of all time. In his prime before injuries started getting to him, Thomas was one of the 15 best hitters of all time. Not a whole lot of guys combined power, average, and on base percentage as well as Frank did.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ May 24, 2006 -> 04:05 PM) The old park was only open during Frank's rookie year. He was called up in August. So he basically had a month and a half to 2 months of home games at old Comiskey in his career, and he was pretty impressive. Bonds played several years in Candlestick which has the reputation of being a hitter's graveyard. In fact, ask any player who has played there who the real homerun king is, and they will all tell you its Willie Mays. If Frank played as many games in Candlestick as Bonds did, Frank's numbers would not be as impressive as they are. Okay, let me re-phrase that: Thomas' best years came before the renovations to the new park that turned it into a total hitter's haven. It didn't become a launching pad until much later. Also, concerning Candlestick, when Mays played there, it was a cavernous park. However, the walls were moved in considerably starting in 1961. Mays' homerun total coincidentally spiked considerably that year. It started out at 397 to the gaps, 420 to dead center, 330 in left and 335 in right. By the time Bonds got there in 1993, it was 335 in left, 328 in right, 365 to the gaps, and 400 to dead center. They also lowered the fences from 10 feet when Mays was there to 8 feet when Bonds got there. That's actually shorter than the Cell is right now.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ May 24, 2006 -> 02:15 PM) You may want to look at that again. Bonds stats in Frank's 2 MVP seasons were very similar to Frank's, except he stole a few bases, and was a gold glove outfielder, and put up his numbers playing home games at Candlestick Park, not the hitter haven USCF is. Bonds performance the couple of years before Frank was drafted probably wasn't good enough to push the Sox down the draft very much, if at all. Its extremely possible they could have had both, and as great as Frank was, Bonds was a superior player to him his entire career. First off, the park argument is irrelevant because Frank's best years came in the old park. Second, Thomas's batting average was consistently well over .300 while Bonds only had one year over .315 until 2001. Thomas had 6 such years, including 3 years over .340. Even now Frank still has a higher career batting average. Third, Frank got on base more than Bonds. Bonds' OBP only cracked .440 4 times in the 90's, Frank was over .450 6 times. Fourth, Frank was a more consistent hitter and run producer. Besides the batting average and OBP, He averaging 7 more RBI per season before he started getting hurt. Bonds also had a 4 and a half year start in the majors, so it might have been more lopsided if Frank had joined the league at the same time. Lastly, in 1988, the year where we sucked enough to be able to draft Frank, Bonds hit .283 with 24 homers and 97 runs. That's enough to bump us down at least one spot in the draft, probably more. The defense is a legitimate argument and Bonds got better starting around 2000, but they had very similar power numbers during that stretch and Thomas was better in the other aspects of hitting. I'd rather have had Frank during that stretch, because Bonds simply wasn't as big a force in the lineup as Frank before 2000 outside of 1993 and 1996.

QUOTE(watchtower41 @ May 24, 2006 -> 10:52 AM) The future. Thinking Thomas is Swift II is pure ignorance. More like Jermaine O'Neal. This guy accomplished more in one season than Swift did in his entire career at LSU. Not to mention he absolutely dominated Jokim Noah and Shelden Williams. He has the intensity and quickness the Bulls need down low. Alderidge is a fine player, but I see Thomas being a much better NBA player especially with his speed. I disagree. They're very similar players, Thomas just happened to play on a better team. I'd like a little more than 12 points from a guy that's supposed to be a future star. He doesn't do anything on offense but dunk, and two jumpers against Texas doesn't suddenly mean he can shoot. I don't see Jermaine O'Neal at all. One of them has actual basketball skills, the other doesn't. Amare Stoudemire I might have bought, but for every one of him there are two or more Marcus Haislips. He's got a lot more in common with Tyson Chandler right now though. 215 pound post players don't cut it in the NBA. Also, I wouldn't say that he dominated Noah and Williams. In the only game he played against Florida he finished with 2 points, 4 boards, 0 blocks, and 4 fouls, and the 13 boards and 5 blocks against Duke look nice, but not the 9 points, and Williams still got 23 points in that game. You didn't even mention his game against Texas, which was by far his best game against good competition. However, Aldridge was matched up with the much stronger Davis in that game, and it was pretty obvious that Tucker and Buckman weren't really guarding Thomas.