ZoomSlowik

Comparing who teams lost to is a bad line of logic when trying to compare teams. Arguing what would happen if the two teams played is even more asanine because none of us know what would happen. Notre Dame is a better team because they played and lost to USC? There are no moral victories in big time college football. Comparing their victories makes much more sense because it gives you a better idea of what they've accomplished. At this point Notre Dame's signiture game is a loss. The plain and simple truth is that Notre Dame's schedule is not as difficult as we had originally thought. Only two teams that they have defeated have winning records: the 5-4 BYU Cougars and the 6-3 Michigan Wolverines, who are less than stellar without Mike Hart. On top of that, ND needed some horrible plays by Michigan in the red zone to prevail. They simply haven't been tested very much. Their accomplishments are fairly similar to Georgia (albiet their 1 loss to Florida came without their starting QB) and FSU (better win, but possibly even weaker schedule, and less than stellar defeats). However, compare their accomplishments to Alabama (undefeated with a win over Florida), LSU (1 loss to Tennessee where they blew the game with wins over 7-2 Auburn and Florida), Penn State (loss to Michigan, but wins over OSU, Wisconsin, and 6-3 Minnesota), Ohio State (2 losses to Texas and Penn State, beat Minnesota and MSU), Miami (1 loss to FSU where they dominated the game with wins over 7-2 Colorado and Va Tech), and Va Tech (1 loss to Miami with wins over 6-2 Ga Tech, 7-1 West Virginia, and 6-3 BC), the Irish's wins don't stack up very well. Hell, Oregon has more impressive wins (Cal, ASU, Fresno State) and only 1 loss to USC. What have the Irish really accomplished? Basically they looked good in their 2 losses and beat up on some weak teams. To me, that's not what makes a top 10 team. They may be able to compete with some of these teams, but we won't know until the bowls. They have a good offense, but their defense isn't spectacular, as shown by the fact that they allow about 25 points per game. Another thing to consider with these teams is that all of them have chances to improve their resume, while Notre Dame has nothing but creampuffs left.

I just throw mine in with the normal wash (sleeveless jersey with vest, actual jersey goes in the permanent press, shirt goes in with the dark cottons).

QUOTE(Frank the Tank 35 @ Nov 4, 2005 -> 05:34 PM) When did Ozzie say he wanted more speed? I know that's one of his baseball dogmas, but did he specifically say that recently? If the Sox want MORE speed I think they look to TB. They have a new managerial staff, one that might not be as shrewd when it comes to trades. They're loaded with speedy position players. They have Crawford, Baldelli, Gathright, and Gomes (and Huff) to share the OF/DH duties, but they also have the minor league player of the year in Delmon Young, another OFer. They have 4 players (assuming they don't resign Gonzalez) for 2b/ss/3b in Lugo, Cantu, Green, and Upton. I don't know what their intentions are regarding Travis Lee, as he produced decent numbers down the stretch, but if resigned could also battle Huff for 1B duties. They are in obvious need of pitching, and most of those players I wouldn't mind having. I seriously doubt they trade most of those guys, especially since Huff is the only one making real money. Plus they're probably the cheapest organization in the league, meaning we'd have to probably either give them B-Mac or a couple of our prospects since our other starters make decent money.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Nov 4, 2005 -> 01:09 PM) I don't even think Crede was in top 15 for runs created by 3B men. Not your best fantasy choice at the hot corner. As a keeper, no, Crede has like no value. However, I'd take him in the later rounds. Frankly I'm not so sure the much more highly regarded Eric Chavez outperforms him by that much. Eric only had 5 more homeruns, and considering that he played almost 30 more games and had almost 200 more at bats, the run and RBI difference could shrink significantly, especially if Crede doesn't hit 8th next year. I don't see why a .270-90-27-100 guy has that much value to be honest, especially when I might be able to get a .260-75-25-80 guy 10 rounds later (probably even later). Chavez probably has more raw power potential, but he always slumps so badly in the first half that his numbers suffer significantly. On a side note, anyone that wants Chavez in Soxtalk Keeper #2 let me know.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 4, 2005 -> 01:53 PM) Bucks are better than us and the Cavs, imo. That said I think the Bulls have the ability to be better than both Mil and Cleveland. Its gonna be a tough as nails division and it is a darn talented one too. It's definitely a tough division, but I'm not sold on the Bucks. It'll take a lot more than two decent games to convince me. Bogut will get abused by the better centers and will probably hit a wall at some point, and Magloire is just not that good. He can rebound, but is a decent defender at best and offers little offensively. Their backcourt is solid but not stellar. Their starting 5 is a little better, but their depth is a serious issue, while ours is not.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Nov 4, 2005 -> 01:43 PM) FWIW, ESPN Radio 1000 is starting the "Cubs Are Players in Everybody" storyline for the offseason... they said they're after Furcal, Burnett, and Juan Pierre in a trade with Florida People following the Cubs always think they're after everybody. If they got everyone they thought they were going to get, their starting IF would be Thome, Tejada, Rolen, Renteria at 2B just for fun, and I-Rod behind the plate. Plus Beltran would be starting in CF for good measure.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 4, 2005 -> 01:16 PM) who also is a great lead off guy with a cannon for an arm. I wouldn't call him a "great" leadoff guy. Outside of his rookie year when he somehow walked 73 times, his career high OBP is .352. Plus this has been by far his best year defensively. He nearly cut his errors in half from last year to this year.

I think our lack of size is a bit overrated. Not everybody has these huge, talented players. How much size does Detroit have? Granted they are more talented, but Ben Wallace and McDyess aren't exactly huge. Very few teams have more than one legit big guy in the East. If Chandler can stay out of foul trouble, we should be okay. He's a solid rebounder and defender, and we can get by with Sweetney, Songalia, and Harrington. I especially think this is true because Deng and Nocioni are both decent rebounders (although I'd like to see a lot more of Deng than Nocioni). Call me crazy, but I think we can hang with the Bucks and stay somewhat close to the Cavs. The Cavs are a better team than us, but I'm not so sure it's significantly better. I'm not a big fan of Hughes or Gooden at all (both are decent but not stellar), and Ilgauskas is pretty bad on defense. I do like that they can bring Jones and Marshall off the bench though. I think we're all overrating the Bucks a little bit. They don't win either game if Redd doesn't go absolutely nuts. He's not going to score 30 plus every night. They've got several decent to good players, but don't exactly have any stars, and their bench is fairly suspect. They can be beat inside. MaGloire is only passable, and Bogut is a little slow. We definitely need another scorer to step up though. We can't get by on just Hinrich and Gordon. I think there are possibilities for that to happen. One big thing is I think Deng and Sweetney need to play more than they did in the first game. Both seem to be able to put the ball in the hoop, which is even more valuable since Sweetney works in the post. Duhon looks like a much more capable scorer than last year also. However, we can't depend on Nocioni, Harrington, and to a lesser extent Songaila to score consistently. That just won't work.

QUOTE(BMac41 @ Nov 4, 2005 -> 12:57 PM) Who cares if the Cubs wind up with Furcal.They'll still suck. Bingo. I never said they won't get a major FA. Furcal and Giles would both be great fits if they could get them. What I have said is that they need more serious upgrades than what one major guy can give them. Giles/Damon seem to be what they need most, as those are the only two OF's I see that can make a big impact. Since Giles looks like a near lock to stay put, that's going to make things tough on them. Even if they get Furcal, that only gives them 5 legit position plays if they're healthy (I'm counting 2 of Walker, Barrett, and Murton. The previous two can hit a little, but does it overshadow below average defense?).

QUOTE(Z38 @ Nov 3, 2005 -> 05:00 PM) Patterson is not my Ideal CF, but if the Cubs sign Furcal & Giles (or get another high guality RF), upgrade at 2B (Walker is more than likely going to be traded). Patterson batting 8th would not be the end of the world. I imagine if he played the whole year he would be from .250-.275 with 15-20HR. My choices for CF would be 1. Lofton 2. Hairson 3. Pierre (there's chatter about trading for him) 4. Patterson 5. Damon (to many years, just not worth it) All of those things simply won't happen. Furcal and Giles is already a stretch, then you expect them to find one of few quality 2B? I'd get used to a Murton, Patterson, Jacque Jones outfield, because that's what I'm seeing as the 2006 Cub outfield.

He's a late rounder, probably good for a backup 3B. He did hit 20 homers, which you could use off the bench. He might be a decent sleeper, but I've been thinking that for 2 or 3 years. Still waiting for him to wake up.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Nov 3, 2005 -> 05:28 PM) They gave up Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano. Dont overestimate the stupidty of the new york mets. They will be freeing up their money from a certain catcher who wants to become a DH and extend his playing time. They have the money. How much can they spend though? Most of the money being freed up by Piazza is going to be directed towards those 6 guys. There's $8 mil in raises this year just to Belran, Pedro, Benson, and Cameron. They're not taking in anywhere near as much money as the Yankees, so I don't expect them to spend quite like them. If they trade Cameron that'd be one thing, but they need a lot more help than just Paulie. I can't see them doing more than signing Paulie if they managed to sign him, meaning they'd still have a gapping hole in the bullpen, at catcher, and at 2B.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2005 -> 04:54 PM) Don't underestimate how good Contreras was. And his contract for a pitcher is still very very cheap. Toss in Marte with it and they're also upgrading their bullpen. Toss in a prospect or two and you just might be able to pull it off. On the other hand, I still don't think Texas would pull the trigger...simply because Texas has needed to trade offense for ptiching for 2 years and they haven't pulled the trigger. Soriano should have been out of there and at least headed to somewhere like Minnesota as of the trading deadline this past year. The fact that he hasn't yet been moved really suggests to me that Texas is just too reluctant to piss off any of its fans to try to make a deal that would really help the team (i.e. the Carlos Lee deal). It's not so much that Contreras isn't good, it's that Contreras is older than the other two guys and only has 1 year left on his deal. For a bat like Teixeira, I think they'd want more than 1 year of Contreras, a lefty that's been seriously erratic, and a prospect.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 3, 2005 -> 05:23 PM) I don't think there is a chance that he goes to the Mets. They have like $80 million committed to Beltran, Pedro, Glavine, Benson, Floyd, and Cameron. No way in hell they can afford Paulie unless they move one of them or their GM/owner is an absolute moron that has nothing better to do with money.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2005 -> 05:19 PM) When I look at that contract, it really strikes me as the kind of contract you'd sign a guy to if you were hoping to make a run at a title for 1 more season (say, before your starting pitching started hitting the FA Market), and if you didn't make it, you would consider yourself set up to trade him. Why else would they have pushed for such a low first year cost? That does seem odd, but two things: A: They still have a fairly good team, so why wouldn't they try that for the first two years? Maybe they though it would be pushing their luck, maybe they knew AJ was gone, leaving them a little more spending room before Beckett/Willis hit FA. B: Setting the deal up like that doesn't exactly increase his trade value. I keep forgetting I can't use paretheses if I do that A), B) thing, because then it turns into a smiley, like this.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 3, 2005 -> 05:09 PM) Delgado makes a lot more than $37 mil over the next 3. It's closer to $45 mil, plus a $4 mil (or something like that) buyout for the 4th year. I think it can get guaranteed at $16 mil -- can't recall how, maybe plate appearances. Carlos Delgado: signed 4-year deal worth 52M thru the 2008 season on 1/25/05- he will make 4M in 2005, 13.5M in 2006, 14.4M in 2007 and 16M in 2008- + the deal includes a Team Option for 2009 worth 12M or a 4M buyout- + the option can become guaranteed at 16M based on MVP voting finishes and post-season MVP award wins if he accumulates 30 points in the next 4 years based on the following system: 10pts. for winning the NL MVP award and 9 for finishing second and so on under a formula that gives him 1 point for finishing 10th and he would get 20 pts. if he's the WS MVP and 10 if he's the LCS MVP- + his salaries will be paid half during the course of the season and the other half on each November 30th- + he can earn bonuses: 50K for All-Star selection; 500K for WS MVP; 100K for LCS MVP; 25K for Silver Slugger and 25K for Gold Glove; 100K for NL MVP and 50K for finishing 2nd in NL MVP voting (would receive the 50K only if he finishes second to Barry Bonds)- + no money is deferred and the deal does not includes a No-Trade clause- + if he is traded to a state with income taxes and/or a city with local taxes, the team must make up the difference in state/local taxes Agent: David Sloane Service Time: 10.002 I looove MLB4U! So basically, it's 3 years at about $44, with a 12 option/4 buyout in 2009 unless he kicks some serious ass. If the Marlins eat any of that ($8 mil would be nice), it works fairly well I think.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2005 -> 02:27 PM) But on the other hand, Teixeira has at least 3 years left before he becomes a Free Agent. He is relatively cheap for those 3 years. If both Jose and Teixeira would be considered people nearly guaranteed to depart through free agency, then why not trade Jose and a few parts for Tex now, then dump Tex right before he hits Free Agency to someone looking for a big bat at 1b then? Good point, and you're right. He isn't a FA until after the 2008 season, meaning if need be we could just go arbitration until then. That sounds good to me, but I'm sure they'd want Garland or Buehrle, which obviously doesn't make as much sense.

QUOTE(Frankensteiner @ Nov 3, 2005 -> 02:50 PM) Ok, assuming we don't sign Konerko, what are we actually going to do with all that money? Lyle Overbay is brought up as a replacement but he makes barely anything. We could always overpay and offer PK money to Giles and he would probably sign on the spot, not that it would be a very good idea. Rowand for Sheff? Would the Yanks go for that? Or a trade for Manny? I'm almost positive the money will be spent as it would be hard to stomach Ross Gload and Brian Anderson as the replacements for Konerko & Thomas/Everett. It doesn't seem obvious who it will be, but I'm sure we'll find a way to add another bat if we happen to lose Paulie. Some of the hotter names are Delgado, Thome, Dunn, Teixeira, Overbay, and Huff. All of those would have to come in trades, because this FA class is brutal outside of about 5 guys.

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 3, 2005 -> 01:55 PM) Just step back and realize that no matter what happens this offseason in regards to transactions, we're still the 2005 World Champions! I'm trying (still buying WS Champs stuff), but you know there's going to be at least 3 threads a day on this topic.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2005 -> 01:13 PM) This is exactly why some of us have been considering whether now would be a good time to trade Contreras for some high quality players/bats/prospects/something like that. He's the one they'll probably let walk, and we can get a ton for him right now after his performance in the 2nd half. The problem with this is that the injury prone and usually ineffective El Duqe becomes our 5th starter. Either that or we have to overpay for a mediocre option in a pitching thin market. Unless we get an absolute elite bat like Teixeira (which I find unlikely), that would seriously hurt. I don't think the likes of Dunn, Overbay, Tracy, or Huff would make a big enough impact on the lineup to warrant killing our pitching depth (maybe Dunn, but I'd prefer someone that hits closer to .300 than .250).

QUOTE(joeynach @ Nov 3, 2005 -> 01:02 PM) Yeah at 9.5 mil. Im saying KW and the sox would rather have him locked up for 3 years or so to pay him that than give it to him in an option year where he will be FA after it ends. I hope MB signs a Freddy like deal sometime in the next year like 3 years 27 mil, go 8, 9 and then 10 mil. I think it'll probably take more than that to keep him for a couple of reasons... 1) Mark has been more consistent in the past than Freddy 2) Freddy signed before the Kris Benson deal that sent pitching costs skyrocketing 3) Guys like Carl Pavano, Matt Clement, and Russ Ortiz are getting $9 or $10 mil contracts Granted guys resigning with their teams in the last couple of years have been signing for under market value (Johan's 4/40 deal comes to mind), I would still think something like that 4/40 (counting the option year) would be what it takes to keep him.

I seriously doubt Paulie is getting more than 5 years guaranteed. His agent can ask for whatever he wants, that doesn't mean he'll get it. The only way I see us not keeping Paulie is if some owner absolutely goes out of his mind and gives him like 6 years at $14 or $15 mil per year. I don't think that'll happen. Most likely we'll be competing with the Angels and one other team with all of the offers being around 4/50, with possibly one team adding a little extra money or an extra year. I still think that the Sox have a very good shot at keeping him as long as he gets a sizeable offer from us, and I haven't heard anything to the contrary. This is probably the last time I post on this particular topic, since I don't think I can keep posting stuff about contract length/dollars through December. This s*** is probably going to drive me nuts at some point.

I think you guys are all seriously overreacting to this news. It's simply agent talk. Of course they're going to say that he wants as long a deal as possible. Remember Boras talking about a 10-year deal for Beltran? An agent can ask for whatever he wants, that doesn't mean he's going to get it. Take a look at the league. Every long term (more than 4 years is what I'm referring too) I can think of is looking bad for the team that signed them. They're stuck with guys that are overpaid and/or no longer healthy/productive. If Beltran, a younger guy with more skills, only got a 7 year deal, do you really think that anyone is going to give Paulie the same thing? I seriously doubt he gets 7, and the only way he gets 6 is if someone is desperate. I suspect that 5 years is most likely going to be his contract length. It just looks like teams are starting to catch on that long term deals that extend well into a guy's mid-30's don't seem to be a good idea. Edit- I could see 5 years with an option or two on the end, but more than 5 years guaranteed looks like a stretch, unless it's someone like the Blue Jays or Orioles trying to kill their payroll in order to look like they're trying to compete.

People still overrate the Indians. They played incredibly well for about 2 (maybe 2 1/2 months), playing mostly against below .500 teams while we were playing largely good teams (relative to the rest of the league at least) like the Red Sox, Yankees, Angels, and to a lesser extent the Twins. Their offense is good but not stellar. A slump from Martinez or Hafner seriously slows them down, as you can see from this year. They need another fairly good bat, because the bottom of their order is not very threatening. If they can replace Boone, Blake, or Broussard with a more serious bat, that's another story, but those guys can't hit, except for the occasional homer. If Paulie comes back and we get a decent DH, their offensive advantage won't be THAT severe, although I'd still probably give them a slight edge. Pitching is another story though. Their rotation needs an ace. In my opinion Sabathia is the most overrated pitcher in the league not named Kerry Wood. Yes, he has great stuff, so he can be dominant at times. But he's never been able to put it together for long stretches. Lee is only Decent. He has the potential to dominate at times but he's never on his game for more than a couple of months. He's a passable #2 when on, a #3 when he's average or worse. I don't think I have to go into much detail on Westbrook or Elarton, they just aren't very good. They need at least 1 starter to contend (maybe two), and I'm not sure Millwood can reproduce this fantastic year. The other issue is their pen, which is losing a lot of key guys. They have some young guys with good arms, but they need at least one established veteran in there, maybe two. That was one of their strengths last year, and right now it's a question mark. I really think that if the Sox can get a slight upgrade on offense they'll be in very good shape. Their pitching looks like it will be among the strongest in the league, both starting and in the bullpen. That goes a long way towards setting us up for next year, especially since that seems to be the one thing most of the contenders in the AL are lacking in some degree.

They look absolutely brutal tonight. What was Skiles thinking with that starting lineup? Like a few other people said, there is no way they are going to score with that lineup. I'm not a big Nocioni fan at all, he just always looks like he's lost on the floor. I'm sure he'll do this for about 3 games and then go for 20-12 some night to make his stats look acceptable. Especially with Deng on this team, I don't see why you start him. I also don't see why Songaila starts. Sweetney is a decent post scorer that can get some rebounds, but isn't that fleet of foot and is iffy on the defensive end. I'd think you'd pair him with Chandler to try to balance their strengths and weaknesses, but apparently Skiles doesn't feel the same way. Songaila can be decent off the bench, but he is not a starter. I have no problem with Duhon starting (in fact he's looked pretty good), but if you're going to start Nocioni and Songaila, you need Gordon in there to provide more offense. I know it's one game, but we're also getting crushed by the Bobcats. The Bobcats! I hope to god we see a starting lineup of Duhon, Hinrich (Gordon if Hinrich has to miss a few games with the ankle injury), Deng, Sweetney, and Chandler. Then we can bring in Nocioni, Songaila, Harrington, Piatkowski and Gordon off the bench. Scott seems to like having some punch of his bench, but what's the point if your starting lineup doesn't have any?