ZoomSlowik

Looks like they fixed it. I don't see anything about Thome.

I hope that Jon doesn't think he's going to make an absolute killing like Burnett in FA. I don't blame him for not signing now because his future salary is still up in the air, but he's still not exactly an elite pitcher. The pitching class after next season is much deeper, with numerous established starters available. The only way I see him making more than about $8 mil is if he wins close to 20 and makes a serious CY Young charge. Schmidt, Mulder, Zito, Pettitte, and possibly Contreras will all be in serious demand, and Jon will probably have to wait until those guys sign to really get a ton of interest since they all have a better resume than he does (other than Jose). On top of that, there are more guys with major league experience that have been viable pitchers in the past, like Wolf, Padilla, and Escobar. Also, there are more above average position players on the market, like Derek Lee, Aubrey Huff, Alfonso Soriano, Mark Loretta, Jeff Kent (he's old, but still decent), Melvin Mora, Carlos Lee, Barry Bonds (that should be interesting), Juan Pierre, Shannon Stewart, and Jose Guillen. The available money will be a lot more spread out than this season, meaning there should be fewer ridiculous contracts.

Considering the going rate for closers, I don't know if $8 mil a year is going to get Hoffman, even if he is ancient. One could argue that he is the best closer of all time (some have, even though I can't see him being better than Rivera), and probably isn't that much worse than Wagner, and he certainly has a better resume than Ryan, albiet he was less dominant. Supposedly Giles isn't an option anymore, so they'd have to find a bat elsewhere. I'm not sure why they'd be spending on their offense anyways, their pitching obviously needs more help. Unless they somehow magically add Pujols, Cabrera, or someone of that nature, I doubt it would make more than a small impact on the offense anyways, since it is already pretty good. They have some serious work to do in order to be anywhere near as good as they were last year, and I'd still say that the monster tear they went on was a combination of a weak schedule and a once in a decade combination of hot streaks in that lineup. Their lineup will probably still be productive regardless of what happens because of that Sizemore-Crisp-Perralta-Hafner-Martinez grouping. I wouldn't expect their production to go the same path as last year though, by that I mean either the weak start or the torrid finish. Somewhere in between those two streaks seems more likely, which still probably makes them a top 5 offense. The pitching is another story however. Their bullpen lost several dependable arms, and their rotation only has two legit starters in Lee and Sabathia, the latter of which didn't pitch well most of the year and is rather inconsistent and overrated. They absolutely need two quality starters and at least one elite bullpen arm, possibly two. I don't see them paying to get that. Byrd would work, although he can't possibly produce like Millwood did last year. Unless things change, I'm going with the same prediction I made last year: they finish with 88 wins tops. It took a hot streak of historic proportions to prove me wrong last time, I doubt it happens again.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Nov 30, 2005 -> 11:41 PM) Being NL only there are SS are like Platinum to Rap stars.. Right now I have Lopez from Cinny but trying to make deal for Howard, the person that has him has no SS. You're going to have to come up with some monster talent to get Howard, even if his 1B is Pujols. Hardy isn't going to be the centerpiece of that deal, so I'd move on. As for the trade, I'd stick with Berkman and Atkins because there is just too much uncertainty with the latter group of players.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Nov 30, 2005 -> 04:22 PM) Oh man Zoom, I didn't know there was a newer Twisted Metal game out. Now I have to go to Best Buy to get it this afternoon. I was addicted to the earlier versions. It's been out for a while, so it should cost you $20 tops, probably less. It's definitely more satisfying than the somewhat sub-par 3rd and 4th versions and a little bit more like the first two. Just to warn you, it plays faster than the older ones and gets a bit tough. It took me a while to master. Very good game though. Enjoy, and thank me later.

I have played an awful lot of games from an awful lot of genres, so here goes my list of my favorite PS2 games. In my experience there are a lot more quality titles for the PS2 than for other systems. Sports- Amazingly I don't have as many of these as I used to. I've lost my affection for the baseball and basketball games. I just haven't really liked them all that much. Madden is an obvious one, and the newest NCAA is pretty good, although the team discipline thing gets annoying. NBA Street Vol 3 is pretty good if you can deal with the arcade style. NFL Street and NBA Ballers were fun for a while but got old somewhat quickly. Action/adventure- There are several good ones in this category. God of War is a must own. The graphics are solid, with a good story line and solid game play. Devil May Cry 3 also fits into this category, although some don't like it as much because it is fairly difficult. DMC I is also worth the small investment, but avoid the second one like the plague. Prince of Persia is also excellent. It involves more thought in the puzzles and trap avoidance (good thing, because the combat was pretty iffy). The first version was definitely better than the second, although the upcoming third version looks good. One of my old favorites is Mark of Kri, which is well worth the current price. It's rather short, but there is some solid combat and some quality stealth elements. The second version is not as good. Shadow of the Colossus is also supposed to be very good, although I haven't played it (not my style ). Just for fun, I'm going to throw GTA: San Andreas in this category. I enjoyed this game immensely. The game is simply huge, and the controls are better than they were in the past. Any of the Metal Gear Solids are also very good. Racing- One of my all-time favorite games is Twisted Metal Black. There's nothing quite like fast paced mayhem where your goal is to blow everthing up (guess it isn't racing, but hey, it has cars). Gran Turismo 4 is a fantastic racing game, although it's more simulation than arcade style. There are numerous quality arcade style racing games, like Burnout Revenge, Midnight Club 2 or 3, and most of the Need for Speed games. Fighting- I'm usually not a big fan of these, but for some reason I own several. Soul Calibur two is a fantastic game with great graphics and large move sets. It's not your typical button masher, so it takes some skill. The two Mortal Kombat fighting games are also fairly good, although it's a real pain in the ass to unlock characters in Deception. Tekken is also a personal favorite, and although I didn't personally like it as much Virtua Fighter 4 is highly acclaimed. Shooters- This category is fairly weak in my opinion. SoCom is a blast, especially if you can play online. Resident Evil 4 is also solid. The best of the 1st person shooters that I've seen is the Time Splitters series, although it has nothing on Halo.

Gotta love it when we can win the World Series, bring back virtually every key player, and add a left handed 40-homerun guy in the three hole. Does Kenny even have to leave his room at the winter meetings now?

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 29, 2005 -> 12:07 AM) You are comparing pretty different eras in baseball, even if 2002 is only 4 years ago. Jim Thome was also 31ish in 2002, and anywhere from 26-34 is the prime of a player's career. Jim Thome is on the wrong side of that time period. If given the choice between Jim Thome and Andruw Jones this year, I would say to give me Jones any day of the week. He strikes out like hell, he has a hole in his swing, but he hits the ball with a ton of power, and has very good defense in CF. The fact that he's younger doesn't hurt either. Not saying I don't like Thome... I'd rather have Thome. Jones would cost us about another $6 mil a year; we'd have had control of him for about a half a season less, after which he'd probably be considerably more expensive; he's a career .267 hitter compared to Thome's .281; and his OBP is considerably lower. Plus this past season surpased his career high in homers by 15. That's a total I don't expect him to get anywhere close to again unless he goes to an extreme hitter's park. Frankly, before this year Carlos Lee was probably a better hitter. A healthy Thome (all signs seem to say he will be long before opening day) has a much bigger impact on the lineup, which is more valuable to us right now than Jones' defense, especially since Thome is a lefty.

I seriously doubt that the Sox could have worked out something for Abreu if that's the going rate. It's pretty obvious that Pavano is the most important part of the deal, and he represents something the Sox aren't going to give up: a major league starting pitcher. Besides that, regardless of Eric Duncan's talent level, he's considerably more hyped than any of our prospects, and Posada, while overpaid, has done more than Rowand in his career. Another issue is that Abreu just isn't as good a fit for the Sox as Thome was. He's been a RF for virtually his entire career, meaning we'd have to move Dye around to put him in the lineup. That'd be harder to do right now, and even before the Thome trade it creates a log jam. The more important issue is the money. We'd probably have to eat the bulk of his salary to get him, and he costs more than Thome would in a similar situation. It just doesn't make as much sense to acquire an expensive, somewhat aging outfielder when that happens to be the deepest position in our organization right now. As for the Yankees, they'd still be lacking a true CF, and they'd have to find a new starting catcher. Plus, they'll lose some rotation depth, something they need since everyone seems to be injury prone and underachieving. When are they going to learn that you just can't put together a Murderer's Row lineup and win in the playoffs?

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Nov 29, 2005 -> 05:05 PM) This team is >>>>>>>> the IU teams of the last couple years. Last year, we'd be just squeaking by crappy teams, if we won at all. I just find it ironic that you find IU, without their preseason 1st team conference player, the favorite over the #1 Duke. I definitely believe we can beat them also. I'd all but call it a guarantee, if we had White in the lineup tomorrow too. I definitely can't wait though, tomorrow night's going to be fun. I plan on losing my voice for a month. Indiana definitely looks better than what I would have expected so far, albiet the competition is pretty weak. Killingsworth is playing better thn I expected. I expected him to be about a 15-8 player with little contribution in other areas, since he was basically a 13.5-6.5 player in that mold at Auburn. So far he is playing much better than that, we'll see if it holds up. The biggest difference in my mind so far is that Strickland has been playing great. He was nowhere near these kind of numbers last year. Even if he drops off to average like 12-15 points the rest of the year they'd be in good shape once White gets back.

Even if we were interested in Manny, it would cost us more than just prospects to get him. We are talking about a guy who is almost certainly one of the top 5 hitters in baseball, regardless of his contract situation or attitude. Consider that in the past he was the centerpiece of an A-Rod deal. Even when it was rumored that he was going to the Mets in that 3-way deal, they were getting Huff and most if not all of the salary was being eaten. They'd almost certainly want one of our starting pitchers in return. However, if he continues to be a massive pain in the ass and they get desperate, you might have a T.O. like situation where almost anyone willing to take a risk could get him cheap. His antics would have to escalate quite a bit though.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 29, 2005 -> 01:33 PM) It was really interesting to watch (I was in the front row of the NIU Student Section). DePaul has a lot of talent, but it appeared to be a very poorly coached team. DePaul played very good defense I thought, but NIU is a high powered offensive team and just made some plays to get their points. However, DePaul's offense was HORRIBLY executed.....no ball movement, ZERO post prescence....the offense was basically let's hope Meijia can penetrate and get himself or somebody else an easy shot, otherwise fire up a tough 3 pointer. I'm still trying to figure out how they were so efficient against NU. I know that offensive rebounds played a large role, but they still had some nice drives and hit some open 3's. I guess the biggest difference was that Northwestern doesn't have anyone that can score other than Vukusic, especially since DePaul didn't exactly light up the scoreboard in any of their games.

I have a hard time trusting anything we hear about contract numbers. It's all conjecture and bulls*** until something actually happens. How often do we hear that something is about to happen during the offseason that never actually does happen? I'm not going to worry about the offers right now. How ever, if these offers are accurate, I like our chances of retaining Paulie.

QUOTE(Fotop @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 05:10 PM) Discussing the relative strength of schedules based upon records is pure conjecture too, if we want to discuss something that adds nothing to the argument. I really don't understand how people can be so stuck in their ways about scheduling being the root of the problem here. Luck plays an extremely large role in whether or not future opponents are any good...seeing as though scheduling takes place years in advance. And I don't buy that ND is dodging "tough" opponents 5 years from now, nor did they five years ago...they schedule major conference teams with consistent programs and keep their rivalries alive. Period. I mean how many of you actually WATCH ND games? Do you realize that every team on their schedule circles them as the game of the year every year? Hell, Purdue engraved the score of the ND/Purdue game inside their Sun Bowl rings last year, they gave two s***s about the sun bowl. Teams play their absolute best against ND and it's pretty impossible to name another team in the country that consistently experiences this outside of their rivalry matchups. I mean you can bring in all the records and numbers you want, but to me all of these teams consistently scheduled by ND are a threat to beat ND year in and year out (barring navy)...maybe not a few years from now when ND is back on top, but in the past 10 years this is certainly true. Also, if you watched this team at all this year, as well as the other top 10 teams, there's no way in hell you can say ND doesn't belong. In the end, for me, watching this team (mostly in person) is reason enough to believe they are more than worthy for a BCS bowl. That is why I don't really think anyone can whine about all this right now. This is not the Bob Davie team that got torched by Transfer-State University (aka Oregon State). This is not smoke and mirrors Ty Willingham ball. If they get blown out, then start talking but I firmly believe a lot of people are setting themsevles up for a situation where they will be eating their words. Not saying ND will win, I'm not that crazy, but it's going to be one hell of a game, whatever game that may be. ND is GOOD and watch them compete on a national stage before saying they can't hang...hmmm I think the Fiesta Bowl presents a good opportunity for this. Again, what type of schedule they tried to put together doesn't matter. So Tennessee was supposed to be a top 10 team. They aren't. That means that ND doesn't get credit for beating a top 10 team, because Tennessee isn't one. How does that rip them for scheduling? Also as I said, even if you ignore the teams that were supposed to be good that weren't, they still had several cupcakes on the schedule that rarely have good teams, like BYU, Stanford, Syracuse, Navy, and Washington. In the past they've played the big guys when they were good, but this year simply wasn't one of them. That's more the way it is than anything. My main argument is that ND hasn't really been tested this year outside of their loses to MSU and USC, the Michigan game that they just barely won that involved a lot of luck (how often is Michigan going to go 0-4 in the red zone? I can give ND credit for two, but not all four. Plus one of ND's touchdowns was tipped up, turning a possible pick into a touchdown, and the refs chose to review the play where Henne fumbled instead of the one before it when it looked like he was clearly in the end zone), and a Stanford team that they should have smoked. In their BCS bowl, they're going to play a team that is far better than anyone they've faced but USC. We don't really know exactly how they'll perform because they haven't played anyone like OSU, PSU or LSU that can actually stop people. If they play someone with a top level defense, which they probably will, they could be in trouble. Their defense isn't exactly the greatest and they rely on their offense a lot. Even the most of their weaker opponents were able to score 20. So far the only game I've really been impressed with how they played was that USC game, which also happened to be USC's worst game of the year in my opinion. Could that be attributed to ND? Partially. However, parts of that game were self inflicted. ND played about as well as they could and still lost. They almost certainly won't get blown out because they have a solid offense and a good coach, but I wouldn't be too confident about getting a win just yet. Don't give me that everyone targets ND crap either. Maybe some of the teams do, but several of them have bigger rivals. USC actually has the target on their back. Michigan would like it a lot more if they beat OSU than ND. Tennessee's biggest rival is clearly Florida. Most of the other ones have no real rivalry with ND. Plus, it's an out of conference game for everyone else, dropping its significance. The only team I can see that clearly targets ND is the Purdue team you already mentioned. Maybe next year this will be the case after ND's season, but they snuck up on a lot of people this year.

QUOTE(Wedge @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 01:01 PM) I think you're right on about the comparisons to a poor man's USC. They're USC without Reggie Bush, so their bowl game fate will probably be indicative of what USC will do next season without Bush. I think you're wrong when you call them a "decent, but not spectacular team". I can't think of a team outside of the top 10 that would beat them 9 times out of 10 on a neutral field. I think that's a bit better than decent. I think they're also even with all the teams in the top 10 except for USC and Texas. Unless you're playing a directional school, most teams aren't going to beat anyone 9 out of 10 times on a nuetral field. That's irrelevant, because few teams are going to dominate other major schools that significantly, with the possible exception of Texas and USC this year. However, there are a lot of other teams that I think might go 5-5 if you played 10 times. That's probably what would happen if you're going up against quality opponents. Also, since you only play a team once and there is no way to prove whether or not a team could do it, the whole idea is pure conjecture and adds nothing to an argument.

QUOTE(knightni @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 12:57 PM) ND plays - USC, Navy, Stanford, Purdue and Michigan State EVERY YEAR. They have YEARS of tradition against these opponents. They play Michigan and Pittsburgh nearly every year when scheduling allows. They play 3 Big 10 teams, 2 Pac-10 teams, 2 Big East teams, an SEC team, an ACC team, a Mountain West team and Navy every year. Look it up. Notre Dame has a tradition with most of these schools dating back 25+ years. How is that relevent to anything? That doesn't change the fact that they are on the schedule, and doesn't change the quality of their oponents at all. Notre Dame used to play Northwestern at least fairly regularly (don't feel like researching it right now), and they haven't played since NU upset ND in 1995. They also typically play BC and Army, and used to play FSU regularly, but none of them are on this year's schedule. Nobody says they have to keep all of those schools on the schedule, but they can because they aren't in a conference. You're also contradicting your own point, because unless someone changed conferences recently there is no ACC team on this year's schedule.

QUOTE(illinilaw08 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 02:09 PM) Weber just got a legit top 10 player from out of state, something that hasnt been done by Illinois in my lifetime (I dont count the committment of Vilanueva since he never actually played here). Last thing to say here is that high school rankings do not mean much. Look at the freshman class at Illinois this year, Smith, Frazier and Jackson were not highly recruited, but as freshman Smith and Frazier look like they are going to be good players and I have high hopes for Jackson after he red-shirts this year. Actually, as long as I've been following Illinois (mid to early 90's), they haven't gotten a top 10 player, period. Cook, Brown, and Frank Williams were by far the best they've gotten, but none of them were top 10 type talent, although they were generally considered top 25. If you want to consider the out of state thing, Williams was a top 50 player out of Texas. The rankings do matter to some extent. There is an obvious difference between getting a top-25 type guy and getting an outside the top 100 guy. There is usually a great amount of consensus between the top 20 or so before they start to vary from ranking to ranking, but once you get around the 50's it gets more subjective. Generally the more talented the guy coming in the more likely that he will be an impact player, although obviously there are exceptions. Someone like Eric Gordon is a much more sure thing than Chester Frazier. Another issue is that usually your freshmen impact players were rated among the best players in the country (at least at your bigger programs), something Illinois is going to need in the near future with Dee and James moving on. You're projecting a lot more with lower rated guys like Frazier, Smith, and Jackson, or even with formerly fairly highly rated guys like McBride and Randle. With those types of guys you hope that they can be a dependable starter by their junior year (maybe as a sophmore if you get lucky), with guys like Gordon and Rose you can count on them much earlier in their development.

It's pretty asanine to try to predict what a minor-league player's numbers will look like in their first full season. I try to stay away from these things, but I will be extremely surprised if he hits .273.

QUOTE(knightni @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 12:26 PM) As many as the schedule that was made in 1998 allowed them to. Why blame ND for the other teams' declines? How is it ND's fault that nearly half of their 2006 opponents went from bowl eligible in 2005 to the proverbial cellar in '06? There's a difference between blaming them for scheduling crappy teams and playing a less than stellar schedule. Even assuming all of the teams played at the level that people expected, they still have Washington, Navy, Syracuse, BYU, and Stanford on the schedule, all of which are schools that are good maybe once every 10 years. Pittsburgh probably falls into this category too, especially if the games were scheduled in 1998 (I don't think it's quite that far in advance. Maybe 4 years, but I don't think it's 7). By that logic, USC was still a patsy back then. They didn't get good again until Palmer emerged. Regardless of what people thought at the beginning of the year, the teams that ND played were in general not very good this year. Those are the problems with trying to rank teams before they've even played a down: no one knows what is going to happen. That's not necessarily ND's fault, but praising them for being one of the top teams in the country when they have rarely been tested has its own problems.

Gordon is a major committment, and if he gets Rose too that would go a long way toward ending his recruiting issues. However, he still needs to show that he can consistently get some of these guys. So far I see 2 top 50 guys for a team that has ambitions of hanging with the big boys.

QUOTE(Wedge @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 09:51 AM) You're right, playing teams over .500 is the only indicator of a difficult schedule. EDIT: Counter-point: Pittsburgh, Purdue, Tennessee and Stanford all finished at one game below 500. Had ND lost to them, they would have played 8 teams above .500. Removing the ND game, ND played 8 games against teams at 500 or better (Michigan, Navy, USC, and BYU are the others). In the end, ND played five 5-6 teams (Michigan State included), but not all 5-6 teams are equal. There's got to be a difference between a 5-6 Purdue or Tennesse and 5-6 Louisiana-Monroe or San Diego State. When you account for opponents' opponents (i.e. opponents' SOS), the Sagarin rankings find ND to have the 20th hardest schedule this season. While you are correct that the Big 10 was typically a tougher schedule this year, I don't think that's a historic norm and ND had a pretty comparable schedule. As a comparison, USC had the 21st ranked schedule, Texas had 34, VTech was 32, LSU was 62, WVU was 68, and Oregon was 31. Going from 5-6 to 6-6 doesn't make you a winning team. It doesn't make you an above .500 team either. It makes you a slightly better mediocre team. What does make a difficult schedule then, playing a bunch of usually good teams that are off this year? That makes no sense. Unless 3 or 4 of the winning teams you play are 9-2 or better, I don't see how you can argue that playing 4 winning teams out of 11 makes a tough schedule. If you're going to bring in the computer rankings, how many spots does playing USC increase that difficulty? My guess would be quite a bit. You argue that all 5-6 teams aren't equal, but how about those "winning" teams that ND played? BYU and Navy are supposed to impress me? I'll give them Michigan and their two loses because MSU was playing much better at the time (probably had a lot to do with their early schedule, but I digress). However, as others have said, playing these super-crappy schools in between helps them out. They don't have a stretch where they have to play Michigan, Iowa, and OSU all in a row like Northwestern did. Getting those service academies and schools like Syracuse and Stanford in there sure makes life easier. Schools that are in a conference (with a couple of exceptions) get all of their cupcakes at the beginning of the year so they don't get any breaks once the tougher games start coming. Notre Dame has played some good teams in the past, but with the exception of USC this year wasn't one of them. Even when they do play several top 10 teams, they get the other end of the spectrum too, making it easier to get a bowl bid regardless of the tougher games. Notre Dame is a decent but not spectacular team this year, with a defense that is a bit overrated. In terms of their talent and team setup, they're a poor man's USC. I'd be very intrigued to see what happens when they play a team full of quality athletes on both sides of the ball like OSU.

I don't think the Marlins would take Marte back in a Pierre deal. Their major goal seems to be to save as much money as possible and absorb basically no money. Why else would they give up a gifted young starter and a starting 3B for Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez? If they really had any desire to compete next year, they would have gone after another deal that would have gotten them a decent hitter and bullpen pitcher back. It would seem that they'd try to steal a good prospect or two instead.

I'm somewhat surprised that UConn beat Gonzaga in their current state. I thought that they were going to lose this one and then cruise until January 3rd when Williams is back (think the best team they play in that stretch is UMass). They played some good defense and have some good players. Brown and Anderson are both pretty solid, and Gay and Boone are very talented. Imagine what they will do when the first three guys don't have to worry about ball-handling, and the benefit for Boone when they can run their offense more smoothly and he gets better post feeds.

I like this quite a bit. I can live with Anderson when you are adding a major stick like Thome. I've heard that his elbow isn't that big a concern if he doesn't have to play first, which is good for us. I just don't know how you can pass on this opportunity at less than $8 mil a year. There's a good chance he out-produces Konerko, who'll obviously make a lot more than that, and when you consider Anderson replaces Rowand, our payroll only goes up like $4 mil this year.

I absolutely love this deal. I was hoping we would get Thome because the financial committment isn't absurd, the talent level given up is fairly high but not ridiculous, and the potential reward is absolutely huge. I'm glad we got him instead of Delgado because it seems like the price was just too high, both in terms of talent and money. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't even think we have a pitcher that is a good comparison to Petit. Obviously it's a problem if Thome is hurt, but I've heard that the main worry with his elbow was when he throws, something we're probably not going to have to worry about. Even assuming we have to play him at first, I've heard that he's almost a lock to be ready for opening day. The back is still an issue, but I'm not overly concerned about that right now. The only downer is that Gio was in the deal. Besides looking like a potential star, he was my favorite prospect. However, I can live with it, and I know that we needed to give up something. With the acquisition of Thome, I can live with Anderson in center, who looks to be pretty good defensively but might struggle at the plate. The point is that we weren't going to find another left handed hitter with 40 homer-120 RBI potential. Even if he drops off a little, we've probably got about a .250 average with 30-35 homers, 100 RBI, and a very high OBP. I'm pretty happy right now. Now let's re-sign Paulie and secure our offense.