ZoomSlowik

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jun 20, 2005 -> 03:51 PM) It is WAY too early for this lead to be considered safe. So many people here are dismissing Cleveland as if they were the Royals. They have pitching -- Sabathia, Westbrook, and Millwood are all good pitchers, imo. Lee -- I don't know anymore. But they're not hitting him yet. Okay, Elarton's weak. But overall, that's a quality rotation. They have Wickman, Rhodes, and Riske on cruise control in the pen. And the lineup is very, very solid. Hafner, Broussard, Sizemore, Gerut, and of course Coco are all solid hitters, at least. Peralta's hitting fairly well. Martinez WILL wake up one of these days, too. Jose Hernandez will always suck, but overall, that's a potent lineup. They're on a hot streak, but that's a strong group of players nonetheless. Meanwhile, don't think that the Sox are invincible. The pitchers we've got, how many have we seen melt down before? The hitting has only picked up in, what, the last few weeks or so? Even that? Everyone except for KC is a threat, a real threat. Even Detroit. (And believe me, I was as dismissive of Detroit as anyone before the season started, so I say that through clenched teeth.) All I'm saying is, have some perspective -- there is still a LOT of baseball left this year. That "solid lineup" is hitting .250, and their team leader has only 9 homers. The only guy performing under his level is Martinez (and I'm making that conclusion based on that one great season last year). As for the rotation, Westbrook's ERA is over 4.50, which is pre-2005 Garland, Elarton is worse, and Millwood is not going to be this good all year. Honestly, I've never seen a group get so worried about a team that's going to finish with about 85 wins, tops. Don't even get me started on Detroit. We can play .500 the rest of the way and finish with over 90 wins. Chill out. Start worrying about who's creeping up in August or September when it matters. Trust me, the Indians won't be there by then. If I'm drastically wrong, I'll worry about it then. Given the Sox schedule from here to the break compared to Cleveland's, I'd be surprised if they are still within ten games. Plenty of teams go on streaks at some point or another, and the Tribe hit theirs against some teams they should beat. But after playing Baltimore, New York, Boston, and Texas, they should be back to a non-factor.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 20, 2005 -> 03:04 PM) I didn't know where else to post this, but I just wanted to point out;this is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen at ESPN.com. The Ex-Yankee roster versus the current Yankee roster...and somehow they have the current yankees sweep the series? Man, that's nonsense. Not sure I agree with that. The former Yankee's lineup isn't exactly loaded. In fact, I'd say it's far from it. Soriano is obviously good, and Johnson and Pena have shown flashes, and Delluci and Clark are doing fairly well this year, but that's not exactly a world beater, especially when you take those guys out of their current lineups and put them in this weaker one. Not much of a bullpen either. You could put together a pretty good rotation, but that's about it.

I'm not saying we have the thing won, but worry about the Indians when the actually get close or start playing us. The team has a lower batting average than us for Christ's sake, and it's not even close. It's been the Twins for the last 3 years and it's still the Twins this year. If we can just avoid a major slump the rest of the division outside of the Twins shouldn't be an issue.

I'm really not buying Cleveland as a real contender. If they're still at this point around the break after going through a tougher schedule I'll reconsider, but not as of now. The only thing that impresses me about their team right now is their pen. Wickman pitching more effectively and Rhodes returning to his old form has created a formidable pen. We've discussed how inconsistent their lineup has been, but I'd like to make some comments about their starting staff, which I believe is pretty weak for a potential contender. Kevin Millwood is the staff ace right now. Yeah, that's the same guy who's ERA was almost 5 last year, and was over 4 in the NL the year before. There's no way in hell this guy's ERA is under 3 much longer. Cliff Lee has some talent, but we all saw what he did last year in the second half. We'll see what happens. Either way, he's a passable #2 at best. I am a firm believer that CC Sabathia is the most overrated pitcher not named Wood. I know he has a pretty good history against us, but that doesn't mean much in my book. He's gonna face us 3 times tops. He's just not consistently solid, meaning his ERA is going to stay around 4, much like his career numbers. We have 4 starters with an ERA lower than his right now. Not exactly what you want from your supposed ace. Their other starters have been getting hammered. Their rotation doesn't scare me at all. These guys are still 8.5 games behind us after going on a monster win streak against some weak teams. They could win 8 more in a row while we concurrently lose 8 in a row and we'd still be in first place. Lets wait to see a bit more from them before we start worrying about them. You can say all you want about some of the great charges by teams, but remember, the 69 Cubs were 8-18 in their last 26 games. I highly doubt the Sox go through a stretch that bad. Unless the Sox absolutely fall apart, the Twins are the only team I see as a threat, who have a better lineup, comparable pen, and stronger rotation (I want some of what you're smoking if you really think Millwood is going to finish with a better ERA than Santana).

Another thing to consider is that Phil did it with two almost (pretty sure Harper and Grant were on the Lakers, not that they matter that much) completely different groups of players on two different teams, and one could argue that the Bulls make up two different groups considering Michael and Scottie were the only ones that were there for all 6. That means he had to come up with at least two different major approaches given the personel on the teams. Red had a certain amount of continuity throughout the entire run. Notice how long several of the Celtics were there, and if you look at the playoff history they played many of the same teams every year. Just think of how many different teams that the Bulls had to play during their run, and then add all of the opponents for the Lakers. That's a lot of different teams to game plan for, as opposed to about 5 or 6 real challenges for the whole Celtic stretch.

I'm taking New York. I really don't think Baltimore's starting pitching is going to be good enough to keep them in the lead. As for Boston, their pen has struggled and their starting staff is pretty iffy unless Schilling comes back 100%. Even then I don't love it. The Yankees still have a pretty good offense, Rivera and Gordon give them a solid 1-2 punch in the back end of the pen, and between Randy, Mussina, and Pavano, I think they'll get enough pitching to win the division, especially if they make a trade (I know, no prospects, but they can eat more money than most).

There are fewer teams that you have to beat to win the title when there are only a couple of teams. Realistically the Celtics only had to beat the Fighting Chamberlains (Philly was basically Wilt and a bunch of scrubs until late in his career) and the Lakers. There wasn't much in their way. The Celtic teams in that era were LOADED. Russell (11 rings) was at worst the second best center in the league, Cousy (6) was probably the best PG, Tommy Heinsohn (8), Sam Jones (10), Bill Sharman (4) and John Havlicek (8) were multiple time all-stars, plus K.C. Jones (8) would have possibly been one had he played on a team without such stellar talent in the backcourt. Phil definitely had a tougher time winning them. The league had several teams that were a solid threat to knock them off, the Celtics didn't have to face that.

C- I-Rod (9th) 1B- Pujols (4th) 2B- Reyes (2nd) SS- A-Rod (3rd) 3B- Rolen (8th) RF- Ichiro (1st) CF- Beltran (7th) LF- Cabrera (5th) DH- Ortiz (6th) Rotation- Santana Martinez Buehrle Peavy Halladay Bench- Teixiera Soriano Tejada Guerrero Pen- Gagne (when healthy, closer) K-Rod B.J. Ryan Billy Wagner Brad Lidge Mark Prior (thought he might be interesting in long relief/spot start) C.C. Sabathia (same) (actually, switch Soriano and Reyes. Not sure what I was thinking).

Wagner isn't really that much of a closer option, but if you are desperate, do what you gotta do. Bay in FA? That's ridiculous. My vote is try to deal for an option with one of you middle infielders and move Figgins, or maybe deal a pitcher.

It'd work fairly well to get those guys, but I don't see how you'd get them. You don't seem to have pitchers that you can spare. I'd definitely get Chavez if I could, it looks like he's starting to hit. It'd be nice if you had some other OF options, in my book you could afford to deal one of those guys if you had a backup. I'd get Utley, he's definitely a better all-around player than Womack, although you'll have to deal with the occasional off day until they deal Polanco. Vidro would also be a good option once he gets back.

$100,000 is two year's salary for the vast majority of the world, probably more. My parents don't make that much more than that combined in a given year, and we live a pretty good life. That's quite a bit of money. To put that in perspective, I can put half of the money in the bank, buy two sets of season tickets for the Sox, buy a decent car, and still have about 20 grand left to spend on other random expenses. Also, on the Black Sox thing, you gotta realize that most ballplayers weren't making that much money back then, especially most of the guys on the White Sox. That 10 or 20 grand (can't remember the exact numbers right now) that those guys took was quite a bit more than they made with the Sox and could do a lot of things at that time. The proposed $100,000 in this question would be more like a couple of million in 1919.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 11:57 AM) I'll go out on a limb and say that we won't see 50-50 happen in our lifetime. I definitely agree because both numbers are becoming more difficult to reach. I don't think we'll see more than 2 or 3 guys get the homers, and the same for the steals. It's seems extremely unlikely that someone will hit both of those milestones.

I feel like I've said this several times already, but the Cubs have been catching teams when they are struggling recently and their schedule gets much tougher. Let me outline this more fully this time. Look back at the start of May, they lost 2 of 3 in Houston, got swept in Miluakee and took 2 out of three from the Mets, followed by another lost series to the Nationals. Then things got a little easier. With the 3 game series with the Sox sandwiched in between, they two from the Pirates, two of three from Houston at home, three of four from the Rockies, swept the Dodgers, and took three of four from San Diego. The Pirates have been mediocre at best, the Astros and Rockies suck, LA has fallen off the face of the earth since their hot start, and they caught a bad stretch from the Padres with some bad pitchers taking the hill. From now until the All-star break, they're going to have to play some much tougher games. They start with 3 against Toronto (29-28), then host Boston (31-25) and Florida (28-26). Then they have a 10 game road trip at New York (28-28), Miluakee (26-30), and The Sox (37-19). Then they come home for 3 more with Miluakee and 3 with Washington (31-26) before a road trip to Atlanta (30-26) and Florida. There isn't a single easy series in the stretch (maybe Brewers at home, but they usually play the Cubs tough). Because of that, I'd be shocked if they are more than a couple of games over .500 (I expect them to be a couple under after this) by the time the All-star break comes, especially considering these "reinforcements" you keep mentioning are all about a month away from returning given the best case scenario.

QUOTE(Benchwarmerjim @ Jun 4, 2005 -> 06:15 PM) here is a rumour I found today from the Minneapolis StarTribune -- No on Polanco The Twins recently had preliminary discussions with Philadelphia concerning second baseman Placido Polanco, who is batting .295 and is scheduled to make $4.6 million this season. Those discussions never developed because the Phillies requested players such as reliever Jesse Crain and top pitching prospects Scott Baker and Francisco Liriano in return. Punto's injury should not force the Twins to revisit the situation because they loved what they saw recently in the field from Punto and shortstop Juan Castro. And Punto was proving to be a functional offensive player. --- http://www.startribune.com/stories/509/5439164.html Ouch. That's pretty damn steep for a guy that isn't a full-time starter.

I still fail to see how an overrated pitcher with no consistency that throws too many pitches and an overrated defensive butcher who's a walking injury are going to provide significant help. Prior is one thing, but he can only do so much, and he wasn't exactly racking up the wins despite his performance.

$5, Sue Bird, $100,000. I love the Sox but I'm sorry, $100,000 is a lot for a job-less recent college grad like me. If it makes you guys feel any better, I'd almost certainly buy Sox season tickets.

You're counting on a pitcher who has never won 15 games in his career and possibly the worst defensive middle of the infield as a major reason for the Cubs to improve. Of the guys that are hurt, I would only expect Prior to make a major impact, and they've had him most of the year. Plus as others have said, Perez and Rusch have been solid as replacements.

That's an absolute crime that Bobby Abreu and Miguel Cabrera aren't in the starting outfield.

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 01:32 PM) I didn't realize the season was only 53 games long. I don't think record is indicative of the best and worst teams yet. Simply put, the last 20 games the Sox have been playing like crap. How is 11-9 against 3 first place teams and our cross town rival crappy? Jesus. Talk to me about the Cubs after this month is over after they play some real teams. Remember, they haven't played the Cardinals once yet. We've got a much better record against stronger teams. Even if they are healthy, our staff has been performing better, their offense is not that good outside of Lee, and their pen is crap.

I'm getting kind of sick of these threads because most of the same stuff comes up, but what the hell. I wouldn't really be that upset whether we get him or not. On the get side, it's highly unlikely that he keeps hitting this poorly. He's notoriously a second half hitter and is stuck in a horrendous lineup. Yes, that horrendous needs to be in bold. They only have 4 hitters hitting over .250 (two of them are platoon players), and Eric Chavez is tied for the team lead in HR at 4. Washington is an offensive juggernaut compared to them. Even excluding Vinny's monster start, Johnson, Guillen, and Wilkerson are all hitting considerably better than anyone on Oakland, and Jose Vidro was doing well before he got hurt. On the pass side, his contract is a bit obscene (although roughly the same as Konerko) and it will cost us in terms of prospects. If we can get Oakland to eat a decent sum of money (I'd say at least 30%), that would help considerably. Also, I could live with the prospects as long as we don't touch B-Mac, Anderson, or Gio. He could be a massive upgrade for our team. That type of deal isn't going to happen anytime soon, so we'll see how he hits leading up to the deadline. Judging by his career numbers he should pick it up a bit.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 02:41 PM) He hit .422. Anyway, does anyone know who the last professional baseball player is to hit over .400 in a season? Pretty sure it was Ted Williams hitting .406 in 1941, right?

Hammer, how could I agree with you so much in one thread and start an argument in another? I love you list of top pitchers (my only gripe is Paige not being in the top 10, but he's hard to place since he was in the Negro Leagues), and yes, Walsh definitely merits consideration for top Sox player. And as much as I love Frank, Cobb and Nap are a couple of the best ever. He's good, but he's not THAT good. I'd love to see what Cobb or Shoeless Joe could do nowadays.

I've been to a couple of parks, some of which have closed, and I might be missing one or two (don't remember which, think Anaheim and one or two others). Here are the current ones: The Cell- Obvious. I love it. I always liked the lower deck and the place has a little more personality after the changes Wrigley- Absolutely hate it, and I was never in the bleachers either. I had seats right on the Cubs dugout and seats in the skybox and had a tough time enjoying the game. Mediocre food, can't park, crowded and cramped, and everyone gets up every 3 seconds because no one cares about the game. Miller Park- Very nice park. We bought some $5 bleacher seats and had a blast (helped that Ben Sheets shut out Clement and the Cubs 1-0). I only had two gripes: one it was hard to get out of the park because there is only one walkway over the expressway, and the traffic was brutal around the park; two, our beers were more than the seats. Pac Bell (not sure what they hell they call it now)- Another really nice park. There were a lot of neat features, and we had a good view from our seats even though they were mediocre. Pretty good food too. Coors Field- This park was pretty cool. The view was only okay, food was pretty good (solid hot dogs). One major complaint was the sea of concrete that surrounded the park. Our car was so far away we had to take a tram.

Last post on this topic- I swear... I just said Brand wouldn't be my first choice, but I'd rather have him than Chandler. I wouldn't exactly call Chandler "consistent" on either end of the floor anyways. I'd rather have someone that gives me consistent production on one end or the other without being a huge liability on the other end. Guys like Chandler are the guys you add to the team later when you already have something built because guys that contribute in only one or two areas of the game are easier and cheaper to find than guys that can fill in across the board. I don't care how good your defense is, you're going to have to score around 90 a game to win consistently, and you're starting in a nice little hole in that department starting with Chandler/Ratliff and Hassell/Bell. After you get someone like Brand, you can add guys like Bowen and Dalembert and get closer to competing as opposed to struggling to score 80 with your defensive stoppers and looking for someone who can produce that won't compromise the D. It's a little harder to try it the other way around. I'd much rather start with my scorers because it's difficult to find someone that fills that role without killing you on the other end. If I really had my choice of players in the entire league, I'd take a guy that can do both rather well, like Duncan or Garnett. Then I have a lot more flexibility in the type of player I can add at the other positions. If I add someone like Dalembert, I can afford to take a more suspect defender that will help my offense like Nash, or if I add someone like Ray Allen I can take someone that struggles to score like Chandler. Or I can make things much easier and get someone like Artest who gives me both, making a solid foundation for the team (as long as I can find a way to keep him in check. In the end, who cares, I'm just using examples). There are numerous important facets to making a successful team, defense is only one of them, just like scoring. Just like you need to be able to protect the paint and pressure the ballhandler, a good team will have someone that can score consistently inside and someone that can hit the open shot, and having guys that can create their own shot help greatly in that area. You also need to handle the ball, find the open man, rebound on offense and defense, and be able to get a stop or a score in the clutch. I'd much rather take a guy that can help me in 4 or 5 of these areas than 2 or 3. I know you have a bit of a hard on for the defensive specialists, but there are many other facets to the game. Ben Wallace and Taysaun Prince are nice players, but Detroit wouldn't be there without guys that can create their shots like Hamilton and Billups, and vice versa. The really good teams can do it all. You take you stoppers and see what happens if you can't find a scorer, I'll take the scorer and try some role players to provide the D. It's a little easier to start over if it doesn't work my way than the other way around.

There's one major difference in basketball though: the guys that prevent the other team from scoring have a minimal impact on the offensive end in other sports (some pitchers hit, field position/special teams). The vast majority of pitchers don't have to hit more than a couple of times a year, and the others only have to hit 4-5 times a week. And outside of Deion and a few others, defensive players don't have to step on the field to play offense. If your pitchers or defenders had to play on the other side of the field, things would be a little different. Say for instance a rule were enforced that all of your players have to both pitch and play the field in a given week. Who do you think would have a bigger impact, someone like Walter Johnson, who'd give you one or two dominant starts a week and little at the plate, or someone like Babe Ruth, who'd be an okay pitcher that hits the crap out of the ball every day of the week? I'd take the Babe, thank you. Even then, I'd take a dominant QB or RB over virtually any defensive players because they can have a much greater impact on the offensive side of the ball than any one particular defensive player on the other side. I might not take Stallworth over Greene, but Bradshaw or Harris might be another story. This is similar in basketball. Outside of the truly outstanding defensive players like the guys I mentioned, you need more than one standout to make a great defense. One dominant offensive player can have a huge impact on a team's offense, like Jordan, Shaq, and at least this year, Nash. I'm not saying I'd build a team like the Mavs, because clearly that doesn't work. But stacking up on defensive specialists that can't score has the same effect. I'm just saying that you need balance. Someone like Chandler can be an important piece, but unless he develops at least some scoring prowess he's not the centerpiece of the team (I'd also like to stop seeing bench post players hit double figures against him). Brand wouldn't be my first choice, but he's the kind of guy you need to build around because great all-around players are hard to find. He can be a monster offensive player that hits the glass and at least holds his own on defense (our opinions differ slightly on his ability, but I digress). He's just never had a good supporting cast around him. The Spurs are a good example. I don't see anyone beating them this year because they have three very good all-around players in Duncan, Manu, and Parker and found guys that can provide what they need in a given game. Chandler strikes me as more of a Bruce Bowen right now than a Tim Duncan.