Steve9347

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 04:36 PM) I haven't posted on here in almost a week and a whole lot less of late than I'd like to because I'm not seeing any good discussions that really interest me, I'm hard up for some good Sox talk right now, I don't find you talking down to me to be all that funny especially when I'm trying to actually discuss the topic with another poster and it's not like you're a stranger to the condescending remark. I'm also wound pretty tight right now, this has been a pretty long week. Alright. I've always known you to be good at taking it. We're all ready for this week to be over... I find it funny that we were all arguing the same thing, Slav and myself that Garland most certainly would be a great signing at the right price. Your arguments made it seem like you wanted him nowhere near the Sox, but after reading the post you quoted of yourself, we obviously all agree.

innocent until proven guilty?

So what we're all saying here is that we all basically agreed the whole time. I love it.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 04:28 PM) Had a hard week or something? No just really itching for my Christmas time off. Also a signing for the Sox would do well to curb my Soxiety, especially with how terriBULL the bulls are. Thank God for the Hawks.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 04:28 PM) I can see him getting between 8 and 9 million. My best guess is 8x8x9 for a 3 year deal. I'd almost rather see a front-loaded deal. But 3x8.33 or 3x9 works for me.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 04:26 PM) How many people is that in this thread that took that line seriously? I = winner. I should be on Punk'd. Seriously though. Garland > Vazquez, and we should sign him for a reasonable salary if possible.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 04:25 PM) He's obviously being extremely facetious. I'm pretty sure we all agree that wins don't guage a pitcher's worth at all. It's time to let that go. Of course I was. Anyone who couldn't tell needs to pull their skirt back up!

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 04:19 PM) This is exactly what I'm talking about, instead of discussing the topic at hand you have to get all personal and correct grammatical errors. Indicators of a person who doesn't know how to conduct himself in an argument. Dude, I was totally kidding. As I said to Slav as I posted it... "i did three things i hate in that post... i completely ignored stats, i corrected grammar, and i said the coop will fix him line" I'm just giving you a hard time. Anyway, I'd rather have Garland than Vazquez anyday, and if we get him for a reasonable price, which is what I'm asking for, he's MUCH better than what we'd be trotting out there at #4.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 04:16 PM) You're telling me that you can make this comparison and "control" for the overall performances for the teams those guys pitched for over their entire careers...I'm not going to argue Vazquez is great, but by your theory, we should sign Andy Pettitte for $15 million per season, or Mike Mussina...because their overall W-L records with the Yankees will hold up against any pitcher. Or maybe the Mariners would trade us Felix Hernandez straight up for Garland because of Jon's overall winning record vis a vis King Felix. If you were the GM, would you really make that move? No, there's a difference there. Mussina and Pettitte have aged considerably since their glory year. In the time that they were, oh, I don't know, maybe around 30 years old, yes sign them. We can't trade Garland to the Mariners, silly! We don't have him yet! However, I am being a realist and comparing two players of comparable age. You're bringing up ancient vets or hot shot youngsters. They have no basis on the Vazquez/Garland comparison.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 04:08 PM) Then why even discuss the topic if everyone can just pull up the numbers themselves? Why do we even bother posting stats? QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 04:08 PM) Did you know Garland was probably overthrowing last year? His velocity was up, his control was down and he payed dearly for it. Was he overcompensating? Was he all amped up pitching in a contract year? It's "paid". Oh, and Coop'll fix 'im. QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 04:08 PM) Oh and I don't give a s*** what his record was, it's f***ing meaningless. Record is all that matters. Good pitchers find ways to win games.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 04:07 PM) The thing is, we had a more talented version of Jon Garland, and his name was Javy Vazquez. Vazquez: 127-129 Garland: 106-89 Wins are all that f***ing matters!

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 04:04 PM) Ryan Garko, Guillermo Quiroz, Ben Francisco, Kelly Shoppach, Miguel Olivo, Rich Aurilia, Marco Scutaro...just some of the names John Danks gave up HR to in 2008. Jeez, he's awful, we should trade him.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 03:58 PM) Congrats to you, I'm sure your hunches serve you well in life. I'll just continue discussing the topic at hand rather than stifling the conversation with condescending remarks. You'll just stifle the convo with stats we can all pull up with our computers. We get it. It's cool, man. Garland wasn't phenomenal last year, but 14-8 out of your 4th starter isn't exactly going to kill a team, and I'm sure it's better than having 2 of Poreda, Marquez, or Richard in the rotation.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 03:47 PM) So it's ok if he allows homeruns to Ben Broussard and Gerald Laird at home because they play for the Rangers. Garland was incredibly wild last season with only 48% of his total pitches finding the strike zone leading to a joke of a WHIP that will lead to a s*** load of runs crossing the plate with a bad White Sox defense behind him. Kalapse. I know, I know you have your calculator out and you looove stats. Stats are neat. Sometimes, you have to just look at the player. If you tell me we have Jon Garland, I tell you that's one rotation spot that we needn't worry about almost ever. I'd bet anything if he wound up on the Sox he'd pitch at least 200 innings and win at least 15 games.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 03:22 PM) He gave up 23 homeruns last season in a pitcher's park and failed to throw 200 innings. There's also that knot in his shoulder. Thank you Mr. Scout. I'd trust Garland could get back near his career averages.

I love my Wii and the games I have for it. I don't play nearly as much as I did 2 years ago when Halo3 came out and I was up all night (part of growing up ha). So the XBOX was no fun. When I play the Wii it is a good time. But a system for graphics its not. I picked up Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition based on reviews, and first of all, the game play sucks, but it looked like a Sega Saturn port. It was bad. However, the good games are fun and keep me coming back, and I love jacking homeruns with the Wiimote.

I was shocked when I saw Ledger was the pick, but my exact statements were "it could be interesting". Ledger at least has chops as a decent actor. Murphy is just a comic who would bring no believability to the role. Thank God its not happening.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Dec 17, 2008 -> 10:54 PM) Honestly, unless we get lucky again I don't see a whole lot of difference between say #7 and #15 in this draft, at least at this point it seems to be personal preference after Griffin.

Excellent article. Hopefully it helps his trade value!

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 02:57 PM) that's pretty pessimistic kalapse. I would welcome Jon back with open arms. No question about it, he'd be an EXCELLENT 4th starter. Buehrle Floyd Danks Garland winner of the job That makes our entire rotation's outlook much better.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 10:45 AM) Nolan has stated that he would not introduce Robin until many films in, if at all, since this about a younger Batman. Also, do you really think they would introduce three major characters into the next film? I think its a bit much. Plus, with the way the Joker was portrayed in a darker fashion, wouldnt it lead you to believe that the Riddler would be written similarly? I just dont buy that Eddie Murphy would be able to pull that off and doubt that Nolan would either. I wouldnt mind Rachel Weisz as Catwoman though. Not my first choice, but she's on the short list. I agree.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 17, 2008 -> 03:59 PM) I believe it's a reference to Shakespeare's 7 pounds of flesh. Probably 7 organ donations. QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Dec 17, 2008 -> 07:27 PM) I believe it's a reference to Shakespeare's 7 pounds of flesh. Probably 7 organ donations. CONTROVERSY. Couldn't have said it better myself.

It's bulls***.

I also nominate said woman to be in the running for "Dumbest Human Alive". Also on this list are both parents who named their child "Adolf Hitler", and Zoomslowik.

ugh, given the fact that they are even considering bringing robin into the storyline, this franchise might have already seen its climax in terms of great films