jackie hayes

QUOTE(RDriesen @ Aug 28, 2005 -> 04:37 AM) LOL, you need to get a grip buddy. it said as the sox keep losing. implying, as they continue to struggle(WHICH THEY ARE) they need to find something to help them out. which is true. i see the sox doing exactly what the m's did that one year. be unbelievable in the reg season, do nothing as far as trades, then come playoffs, DUD. i hate to say it, cause i would like to see the sox do well, but thats just the way it looks. right now, i would take the red sox and a's over the white sox, and i think they would have to play one of those 2 teams in the playoffs. if they get someone else, they got a good shot The Sox offense could use a shot in the arm, but it's comical to get that pity quote from the Reds. Talk about making moves -- Eric Milton, the 2-word walking punchline.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Aug 28, 2005 -> 04:27 AM) I love how everything is always Ozzies fault...always. WORLD HUNGER? Ozzie you asshole... IRAQ? Ozzie :headshake With pitchers it's always that way. I'm as critical of Ozzie as almost anyone, and I think he handled Contreras well today, I think he was right to send him back out. Though Ozzieball probably wouldn't help find wmd.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 28, 2005 -> 03:32 AM) Well, Chicago does keep losing. They're almost tied with Chicago in terms of their record. Lol, the second one should be Cincinnati, I'm guessing.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 28, 2005 -> 03:27 AM) If it got to the point where Griffey was asked to accept a trade, his agent certainly would know about it. He also said Griffey told the Sox he was flattered, that would require communication, someone other than Bruce Levine certainly would know and would have reported this development. No one has. I'm sorry, but Levine himself staked his reputation to the Sox signing Omar Vizquel. You can think its plausible and it may be, but I'm not buying it. I think he jumped the gun and realized it, so he tried to squirm his way back. His agent would know, doesn't mean he'd tell. And Griffey telling the Sox anything could just mean the Reds comes to him with a trade, he responds, 'I'm flattered, but no thank you', and it's his 'response to the Sox.' Doesn't mean he literally talked to the Sox. I'm not sticking up for Levine in general, the whole Vizquel thing he plain screwed up. And whatever the details, Griffey ain't coming here. But I don't think we can yet say much about his comments on this.

QUOTE(Soxfest @ Aug 28, 2005 -> 03:21 AM) Off Reds Official website. ...As the White Sox keep losing... Well, f*** the Reds. Maybe they should take a look at the standings before putting up an article about another team losing.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 28, 2005 -> 03:07 AM) How is it the White Sox were allowed to talk to Griffey? Wouldn't that be tampering? Levine is full of s***, Griffey's agent was on Fox and said he knew of nothing going on. Where was it said that the Sox and Griffey talked? Just b/c he 'said thanks, but no thanks', that can just mean that he said it to Reds ownership. And Griffey's agent is an agent, why does he have any reason to disclose info? I have no idea if it's true, but the story seems plausible.

Who knows? But as of right now, Santana would get a few votes too. He's got the innings of Buehrle and Colon, plus better whip and more ks. Just doesn't have the wins. But he's not too far off, and he's ending this season like the last one. It'll be -- funny? sad? -- if the only thing the winner has over the also rans is 20 wins.

Nah, it was always 'maybe next week', 'I'll give you guys 2 days' notice', etc. I shoulda known. Only consistent pitcher on my fantasy team=doomed.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Aug 26, 2005 -> 09:11 PM) Actually having pods on base helps the guys behind him a lot, so I completely disagree with that statement. Also we were scoring a ton more runs at the beginning of the season, so your point is off base imo. Merely average, or somewhat below average, would be "a ton more runs" than now. This is abysmal, a joke. That doesn't mean our offense was good early in the season -- do you think it was? I don't know how much Pods being on base helps other hitters, I'd guess the effect isn't so large as you think. Plus, even if it's as important as you say -- Pods has to get on base first, and he wasn't doing that before the injury, and if that effect depends on his speed, it will be muted b/c he won't be 100%. So I still say we have a problem with our offense. I'm not trying to downplay a swing of 80 points or so in the leadoff obp, though, that will definitely help.

Spark, catalyst, chemistry... Next I'm going to be given a lecture on osmosis. I agree w/ the op. Pods will help b/c his obp is higher than anyone's, save Konerko, and b/c it takes Timo out of the lineup and out of the leadoff spot (lowest obp of anyone with nearly the same amount of pt). That's no small thing, but it won't make anyone else hit. Pods hit well at the beginning of the year and our offense still had problems. Why would it be any different now? It'll help, but we still have problems.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 26, 2005 -> 05:35 PM) hey dickhead, why don't you go in and get him out? If the police can protect the public without the risk of a gun battle inside the house, then I'd wait also. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. -David Hume

QUOTE(YASNY @ Aug 26, 2005 -> 04:28 PM) Ok. Point taken. Timo is not an all-star, by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just saying that over this recent 6 game span, that Timo has done a very good job. Nothing more, nothing less. Yeah, no doubt. I'm just amazed when someone like Rogers claims that this "proves" anything. It's baseball, bad players do have good games. But sure, thanks for that, Timo, now please stay on the bench. More generally, even though we've won a couple games and the anxiety isn't so high, our offense still looks terrible. I hope the Sox don't think these 2 games mean our basic lack of offense isn't really a problem. Any claim that Timo is a good fill-in makes me worry that the Sox are going to use these games as an excuse to be complacent.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Aug 26, 2005 -> 04:12 PM) I think a leadoff hitter reaching 2nd base to open the game isn't 'truly, horribly awful'. I was there and saw it twice in two games. In fact, in those two games Timo scored the ONLY run I saw the Sox score. That was in the 1st inning of the 1st game of the series. He's had a very respectable series against the Twins. Sometimes the hatred is so prevelant, that you can't see the forest for the trees. So, beginning with the Yankee series ... the next 6 games ... Timo has been adequate, at the very least, and in some cases been the difference. See last night's game as an example of him being the difference. Timo scored one run. The fact that noone else scored doesn't make that run any more of an accomplishment. The whole lineup has been awful. So Timo wasn't any more awful over this span, that makes him useful? When he's been far worse the whole year? I don't hate Timo at all, I just think he's a very bad player. And I think it's funny that I'm being accused of not seeing "the forest for the trees" by someone who's cherry-picking games and abs out of an all-around miserable season. The season is the forest, the big picture.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Aug 26, 2005 -> 03:36 PM) That .270 has proven to be an adequate replacement for Pods. That is the bottom line. Would that have been expected from Timo in these circumstances? I'd venture to guess not. Therefore, the man has stepped up when we needed him to. Timo wasn't the problem during the losing streak. I saw him begin two losses vs. New York by reaching 2nd base leading off the game. He's had a good series against the Twins. I can't complain about Timo's performance while Pods was disabled. Not at all. He wasn't any good during the losing streak, he's only been good the last 2 days. Excluding that, he was hitting below .200 since Pods left. I'm not saying it's meaningful, it's too small a sample size for that. But even going off a handful of games, I still don't see how Timo looked good, or even acceptable, at the plate. He's been truly, horribly awful over the course of the season. Even worse than his critics thought he would be. An ops under .600, an obp of .280 (after his 2-game tear) -- for our leadoff hitter. I don't want a #9 hitter who hits like that, and he's leading off??? I'm happy he succeeded last night, but I hope his abs are few and very, very far between from this point on. I don't see a couple games disproving what he's done so much (or so little) to prove this entire year.

Timo's batting about .270 since mid-August, when Pods went down. He's been so bad that .270 over a very short stretch looks like a tear. Win 2 games, and all our problems go away, our worst player becomes indispensable.

Tex, for the record, was the google "Brigitte Bardot", or "killing puppies"? For your record, actually.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Aug 24, 2005 -> 06:51 PM) That was just a temporary toss-up time. If 1 PM is ok with everyone I'll gladly change it. I can't do 1. Actually, I can't do it anytime before mid-afternoon. If that's the only time that works for everyone, I can just prerank, although I'd rather be there. Lemme know.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 25, 2005 -> 05:28 AM) Well, back to the original topic, I don't see much of a reason to make this move unless there was a reason to free up a roster spot. Could it be for a transaction in the near future, or is it just a move to free up a spot to call someone up with September call-ups? Do we have anyone not on the 40 man who might get promoted? Isn't it too early for that, though? I can't think of any reason to do this now w/o a move coming.

Confirmed! In the Trib! (Of course you need to register, but if you're a Sox fan, c'mon.)

QUOTE(GoSoxGo @ Aug 25, 2005 -> 04:14 AM) Because WhiteSox.com is wrong or hasn't been updated yet. That could be, it just seems like a strange oversight. As for updating, I thought Anderson was added when his contract was purchased, on the 15th of this month. Walker was outrighted, by some accounts, on the 13th of July. So it can't be that, unless Anderson has been on the 40 all year. Yeah, so, I'm totally befuddled and I'll just shut up and wait for resolution, thank you all for entertaining my neuroses.

QUOTE(GoSoxGo @ Aug 25, 2005 -> 04:08 AM) But the whole point is -- how could the 40-man roster ever be at 41 players? Wouldn't that be against the rules? Oh, I know. I'm not arguing with you, I'm just confused. Fact is, the Sox 40 man as listed on the website does have 41 players on it. I'm just trying to figure that out.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 25, 2005 -> 03:56 AM) BA has been on the 40 for a while now. Okay. I thought he wouldn't be, since he wasn't subject to the Rule 5 draft yet. Plus, the Sox "purchased the contract of OF Brian Anderson" on Aug 15 -- I thought you only purchased someone's contract once, when you added him to the 40 man for the first time. If not, what does that mean?

QUOTE(GoSoxGo @ Aug 25, 2005 -> 03:47 AM) Yeah, I could be wrong about that. I'm not positive. But anyways, how could our 40-man roster have ever even been at 41? Isn't that against MLB rules? Exactly. Maybe you're right on him being outrighted. CNN/SI's list of Sox transactions. But how can the Sox not have updated his status on their website when it happened on July 13? Especially considering they have Brian Anderson listed on the 40 man. Edit: Btw, a standard line on CNN/SI that made me lol -- " Get the latest Kevin Walker news e-mailed to you." Bet the administrator for that list gets pretty excited by new signups!

QUOTE(GoSoxGo @ Aug 25, 2005 -> 03:44 AM) Post #19. Pretty sure you're wrong on that. He was out of options, so he had to pass through waivers, but I can't find anything that says he was outrighted. This came up a couple days ago, too.

QUOTE(ceffa2000 @ Aug 25, 2005 -> 03:38 AM) On WhiteSox.com I'm still counting 41 players. Explanation? Yeah, that is curious. Good catch, 3E8. Anyone know why we had 41 men listed on the 40 man? (Waiting for the Willie/Timo/PK/Uribe don't count as "men" response...)