RockRaines

QUOTE(watchtower41 @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 04:26 PM) It's not just the people who care about the crowds, its the players, the team. The team dropped hints all over the place last year on how they were disappointed in not drawing attention and bigger crowds from the success they were having. I have never seen the Cell more energetic than what it was during the playoff run, its ignorance to not believe that helped the team gain momentum. I doubt there is one worhty player out there that would rather play in an empty house. Perhaps Delino Deshields in his hey dey?? How can a team gather motivation if there is nobody that cares... now obviously we all know this is not the case, but looking back on falling short the past few years during the stretch run with empty houses, I'll happily wait an extra 5 minutes at Beers of the World. Maybe that "extra motivation" is why the full house cubs do so well every year. I would bet it was our pitching that made us good, not the fairweather fans.

QUOTE(Pierzynski 12 @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 04:03 PM) It matters to me.I'd rather go to a game when there's 40,000 people not half of the Cell filled. :rolly Not me, I dont mind small crowds. Being a sox fan was never about popularity of the field or the team to me. There is a team on the northside for people who care about crowds.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 02:36 PM) It's close. Hand over the yard line? maybe it was based on his shadow???

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 02:35 PM) I don't dispute the fact that KW has a lot of confidence in BA. But I think that deal had a lot more to do with Thome than BA. Let's be frank (pun intended): The Sox needed more power with Thomas and Everett on their way out. Then why would he choose Aaron as the piece that was expendable. He wouldnt just trade a player then leave a gaping hole. He has confidence in BA, and rightfully so. The guy has excelled at every level of the minors, its his turn. Dont forget, A-row was pretty much a throw in 4th OF'er when he started in Cf, and look how that turned out, now we have a top prospect taking the spot.

QUOTE(South Side Fireworks Man @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 03:30 PM) I don't watch the Orioles except when they play the Sox, so I wonder how much fun it was watching Tejada after the AllStar break last year when he hit 7 home runs and had 38 RBI's. I bet it was close to watching Uribe.

I've said it many times, I love small crowds. Easy to get beer/food, easy to walk around. Usually more knowledgable fans.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 11:36 AM) I'm with you...anyone who wouldn't want Tejada on their team (unless you are the Yankees) doesn't know anything about baseball. He is arguably one of the top 5 players in baseball. would you still want him if his signing kept us from re-signing Mark B?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 12:58 PM) If the Astros are looking for more power in their lineup, Taveras certainly isn't the guy. Still, I dont think KW would bring in another light hitting young player, to replace a player that HE drafted. He traded our starting CF'er because he had that much confidence in BA. He has been his pet prospect throughout his career, why bring in another player who is young and unproven, and would knock out one of his favorite players. It doesnt make sense. Sounds like a message board rumor to me. Honestly, aside from Taveras's last year in AA, Anderson has out performed him in the minor leagues as well. It doesnt make business sense to double up on a commodity by trading a position of high value.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 01:22 PM) The game was full of thm. It was pathetic. That said Iowa put themselves in that position, but they certainly didn't get any calls. Plus did anyone see that one 1st down they got in the game. They got a yard and a half favorable spot. It should have been essentially a no gain. Of course Iowa stopped them on that drive. Iowa dug themselves into a deep hole and they had help from the refs, but they did a lot of it on there own. They don't fall behind so badly early (which was there own fault) and they probably win the game. I felt that during the entire weekend there were alot of horrible performances by the officials.

On another note, that offsides in the IOWA/FLA game on the onside kick was a horses*** call.

Honel did not hit 99 on a speed gun, come on man.

You can censor this then. There will be a huge party in chicago when Favre retires. he has ruined our seasons for years, and I will be glad when he is done.

I live about 4 blocks from greektown, all the gyros you can eat!!

mine

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 12:27 AM) This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you. I hope you are kidding. Saying Favre sucks is offensive? Thats pretty weak.

QUOTE(ilsox7 @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 08:38 AM) Here's my question, and I mean it sincerely. I completely agree that a team can be playing better at one point in the season and then totally go in the tank, thus making what was once a not a bad loss look awful 2 months later. But what no one has had an answer for is why they think MSU was one of those teams. When you look at the facts, they had not played anyone near respectable. They had dominated 2 pretty awful teams. If they had throttled at least 1 decent team, I could see the argument. But how is this any different than, say, a college basketball team beating the crap out of Chicago State and NIU and claiming they were a good team b/c they looked good against two horrid opponents? That's the argument I have made and I have yet to see an answer that satisfies it. The only thing I keep getting is, "Well, they looked good doing it." My response is, "I sure as hell hope they did b/c those teams sucked." Here are the scores from their games this year: Beat Kent State (1-10) 49-14 Beat Hawaii (5-7) 42-14 Beat ND (9-2) 44-41 Lost to Michigan (7-4) 34-31 Lost to tOSU (9-2) 35-24 Lost to NU (7-4) 49-14 Beat IU (4-7) 46-15 Lost to Purdue (5-6) 28-21 Lost to Minnesota (7-4) 41-18 Lost to PSU (10-1) 31-22 Like I said, if they had beaten a decent team or two before or after ND, I could see the argument that they were simply playing better and something happened to send them on a horrific streak the last part of the season. But I just don't see that argument. maybe YOUR "light" hasnt come on yet either Seriously Rex, MSU was NOT GOOD.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 12:37 AM) Bulls***.... you can and should say that MSU was a good team when they played ND. How MSU played six weeks later is immaterial to what happened on the field that day. This isn't rocket science. Yes, ND should have won that game, but to lump what MSU did against several teams weeks after playing ND and say that is the same team ND beat is just ignorance. Whether it is injuries or whatever, teams often change. I would say the opposite if MSU lost all of those games early and then won at the end of the season. It's not a cop out, its reality! The second half is 50 percent of who the team is, they may have been playing good at the time, but they are not a good team. And their games early count as much as the games late.

They can keep their fans, and stay out of my beer line, thanks

QUOTE(fathom @ Jan 2, 2006 -> 11:45 PM) I don't know about some people, but Uribe's not exactly fun to watch when he goes into his month long slumps at the plate. I like Uribe, but I can't believe some of the statements I've seen on this site about Uribe vs Tejada. hahaha, so true, but his defense is great to watch. Plus sometimes you watch him make a play and wonder where the hell he learned that technique. However watching our SS bat in 140 runs during the year would be more fun to watch.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 12:26 AM) We're just not going to agree on anything tonight. MSU was not a s***ty team when Notre Dame lost to them. MSU's season went downhill after they lost to Michigan, but if you know anything about football you would know MSU was playing damned good football early in the season. And calling Michigan mediocre doesn't fly either. While Michigan this year could not put teams away, they played everyone close including Ohio State. Hell they SHOULD have beaten OSU, but once again couldn't put them away. Notre Dame was not overrated (they weren't favored in this game). OSU was just better, period. They couldn't handle OSU's speed today and OSU played them very well defensively. Give OSU credit. Notre Dame had a nice season. It wasn't their fault that MSU tanked their season, that Michigan struggled to put teams away and that Tennessee sucked this year. Before everyone starts screaming that they didn't belong in this game, let's not forget that the two other teams most people felt could have deserved the bid instead both lost their bowl games (as favorites) too! Great post, can you please post the records of these "good" teams MSU and Michigan. Saying the team was good at the time is a cop out. Might as well just post their records on grass compared to turf to talk about how good they are. You cant just take out the second half of the season and say, they are a good team, just played bad at the end. So what, that means that overall, they were NOT GOOD. MSU and Michigan are mediocre, this is one of the worst UM teams in a long time. Seriously, even the commentators were saying that their schedule doesnt look that hard now.

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jan 2, 2006 -> 08:00 PM) If by hotter you mean with 8 lbs more eyeliner, and a very masculine jaw, then yes. Yeah, she has the longest faced this side of Liv Tyler. Her bl;ond friend was a much better piece of ass IMO.

QUOTE(Wedge @ Jan 2, 2006 -> 11:09 PM) Hey, ND guy here. I don't think we were overrated, but I think OSU played a lot better than I expected them too. Anyways, congrats on a big win. After seeing that game, if I was an OSU fan I'd be very disappointed that my team wasn't playing USC for the title. Unfortunately, I believe a lot of the OSU players are going to the draft this year so I don't know if they'll be in a good position again next season. We (OSU) knew that we were one of the top teams in the country, they really SHOULD have beaten Texas and Penn State, but sometimes the ball doesnt bounce your way, and thats how teams end up in our position. I really enjoyed beating up on the Irish though. They are easily my 2nd most hated team. Either way, I think tomorrows game shouldnt dissapoint. Texas, I think, is better than people think.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 2, 2006 -> 01:18 PM) Jeter's range isn't top-notch (especially now that he's in his 30's), I'll agree with that. I don't see much difference in arm strength and I've seen Jeter make a ton of tough plays at SS and has tons of intangibles. Haven't seen that from Uribe, although he doesn't have 10 years of SS experience under his belt and has been a utility player for a good chunk of his career. Agreed that Jeter's $19 mil/year salary is excessive. Havent seen that from Uribe huh??? Would you like one or two examples, or a whole season. Lets just go with the second to the last play in the world series. Or his stab in the whole against the tribe, or....... Yeah, think before you type, honestly.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 2, 2006 -> 12:23 PM) Despite what the Kool-Aid drinkers think, Jeter has always been a very good defensive SS. Certainly not on Ozzie Smith or Omar Vizquel's level, but still an excellent defensive player. The only thing that Uribe has over Jeter is youth. you will probably follow that with horrible stats to back that up as well. But he was not that good defensively, never has been.