Jack Parkman

Suck it Brady. That is all

I miss Alshon. Too bad he didn't want to stay. On another note, if last year taught us anything, it is to not count Brady out until the clock hits Q4 00:00.

I will feel bad for whoever is the Pre/Postgame host because callers won't know the difference between Bruce Rondon and Carlos Rodon, should Bruce make the team. I'm glad the Hawks never had the Dano/Danault problem (they were both traded) because Foley would have had his brains scrambled daily.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 1, 2018 -> 09:42 PM) Nope, if the 2007 White Sox taught us anything. The 2007 White Sox also taught us that one good April of flamethrowers, does not a reincarnation of the Nasty Boys make. They had some arms that year, they had a decent April and then couldn't find the plate the rest of the year and got torched.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Feb 1, 2018 -> 07:39 PM) Per Chris Cotillo Love it. I just put him on the Sox bullpen in MLB The show today hahahaha. Good move Hahn.

For me, my top 5 are 1. Gorman 2. McClanahan 3. Liberatore 4. De Sedas 5. Mize Note: I think Singer and Hankins will both go top 3. I wouldn't be crazy about De Sedas, as I have heard reports about the kid batting switch and not hitting well as a lefty, which is not good. I'm all aboard the LHP train as well, if Gorman isn't there. Obviously things will change between now and June. I'd be kind of bummed if they went with another RHP.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 07:34 PM) Why is 3b so high? Would be a pretty bad testament to their scouting of Burger last year. I don't think he's(Burger) going to stick there. I'd like a better defender at the hot corner. Also, I think a couple of the current top 5 are 3B/LHP and they really don't have the depth at those positions. Damn it sucks they traded Tatis Jr.

1. 3B 2. LHP 3. Middle Infield, because you can never have enough of those guys.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 02:55 PM) If the problem was truly what they said, it will have no effect on his stuff. His slider will definitely not be effected as that is mostly elbow issues. If any thing his slider will improve and the fastball will tail more with less velocity as he may drop his arm angle. What about scar tissue and range of motion just from going in there? I really don't think he would have any issues with velocity or anything other than what I mentioned. I don't know why they had to go in there to begin with. (disclaimer: not comparing myself to a world class athlete) but when I was pitching in HS I had bursitis in my throwing elbow, couldn't straighten it,(thought I might have a UCL injury but got lucky) got some IV antibiotics to help with the swelling and was good as new in a week. Bursitis just seems like a really weird thing to have surgery because of.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 02:46 PM) That's true but none of it means we should move him to the pen right now. Honestly, I don't know that sticking him in the pen for 2018 only is a crazy idea.

QUOTE (35thstreetswarm @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 02:07 PM) I'm not sure what to say to that, but if your baseline for success is going 4/4 on our top prospects becoming "superstars," you should probably prepare to be disappointed. There aren't too many teams with 4 "superstars" on their roster, let alone home-grown. Well, no I don't expect all four of them to be superstars, I have more hope for Moncada and Jimenez than I do for Kopech and Robert. I think that if Moncada and Jimenez are as advertised, and Kopech becomes a stud closer, while Robert has middling success, that is more than anyone could have hoped for. I know it isn't going to happen. I'm just saying, that they have less room for error than the other teams did/do. With Moncada, you just can't teach that eye. He's striking out looking on close pitches more than swinging at crap. If he starts fouling those off, the sky is the limit for him. I'm super high on him. Kopech, I'm not as high on because I don't think he can hold up as a starter going max effort constantly. I think his makeup is better for being a stud closer rather than a starter, based on what I've heard about him. He just seems like a guy who could throw 105 like Chapman for 1 inning.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 01:26 PM) Yeah I don't get it either. Even if Rodon never improves from what he is right now, I'd still much rather have a 3.95 ERA SP than a dominant lefty out of the pen. QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 01:29 PM) And he's flashed enough dominance to make one believe the ace ceiling is still there. Nobody knows what his stuff will be like after the shoulder surgery. Even though, per all reports, there was no structural damage, shoulders are weird and he could come out in July/August throwing 91 and his slider might not have the bite it used to, or it could have no effect on his stuff. Until he's on the mound with the Sox, we just won't know.

QUOTE (35thstreetswarm @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 10:40 AM) There are a LOT of assumptions built into that projection, which also requires that you ignore the rest of the Sox prospects, and imagine no free agent signings. What if the big four don't become "superstars" but do become productive players, and say Hansen and Giolito turn out to be dominant TOR starters, Rodon rounds back into form, and one of Collins, Rutherford, Burger becomes a surprise star, and we sign Machado and another TOR starter? Is that a 78-win team? What if we draft an All-star caliber player #4 in a few months? What if you insert Cease, or Dunning, or Lopez, for one of the breakout pitchers I just mentioned? I think you're vastly understating the number of paths to success the Sox have with their current makeup. Then you have the Sox from 2008-2012. Not good enough to make the playoffs, just good enough to come in 2nd or 3rd.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 30, 2018 -> 07:05 PM) They say the same thing about Lucas Giolito for example. This is coming from a huge Giolito fan, but if he doesn't find some of his lost velocity soon, dude is probably going to get torched at the MLB level.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Jan 30, 2018 -> 02:37 PM) Without Soler they don't make the playoffs last year. What? Soler was on the Royals last season. EDIT: Are you referring to him being traded for Wade Davis?

QUOTE (mac9001 @ Jan 29, 2018 -> 07:41 PM) If there was a bookie taking bets I'd feel more comfortable putting my money on Avi being non-tendered next off-season then getting a big extension. This QUOTE (oldsox @ Jan 29, 2018 -> 09:21 PM) Non-tendered? How bad do you think Avi will be in 2018? I personally expect him to put up a season similar to his 2015 and 2016 seasons, which would be worth a non-tender in 2019. Most were shocked he was tendered in 2017. Most people forget that.

Honestly, I think the Sox now probably rank 5th in Baseball in future talent. I'd take the Braves, Yankees, Padres and Phillies ahead of the Sox. With the Yankees and Phillies, they have young talent that has already proven itself to have at the very least one good season in the Majors, and I also think the Braves and Padres have a deeper farm system. The Sox prospects, overall, probably have the most high-end potential but it is fairly concentrated. What happens if two of Moncada, Kopech, Jimenez and Robert don't turn out to be the players we thought they'd be? Then what? I think the other teams have a bigger buffer to their players, while the Sox probably have a ceiling of a 78 win team if the "big boys" don't turn into superstars. Everyone points to the Cubs and Astros, but they have had at least 1-2 high profile busts-Appel and Singleton with the Astros, and Soler and Schwarber haven't been the studs that Cub fans thought they'd be. The Sox can't survive that kind of setback. Their potential stars actually have to be stars otherwise they're f***ed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2018 -> 04:52 PM) For once - it will NOT be a "False sense" of how close we are. With the reinforcements we are bringing up this year and the money we have to spend, and Cleveland losing Miller, this should be a 3-team dogfight in 2019, maybe with all 3 teams having a legit shot at wild cards. And in 2020, everyone else is outgunned. eh, I'm not talking about making a wild card, I'm talking about winning the whole damn thing. I'd have to see what the young players are doing in 2018 and how they performed all season before I could make that assessment, especially the pitching staff.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Jan 22, 2018 -> 04:59 PM) I don’t think a false hope would impact anything though. 2019 and beyond is a competitive window, whether they beat up on the Tigers & Royals or not. There’s really no chance of adding talent too early when you’re on the ground floor of your competitive window. This isn’t some fringy 80 win team of veterans. It would not shock me if the Sox won somewhere between 75-83 games this season just because of Detroit and KC. Those two will be pushing 110 losses this season, with 100 almost guaranteed. Think 02-03 Tigers level bad. Only way KC isn't that bad is if they somehow bring the band back together due to the slow market.

QUOTE (Real @ Jan 22, 2018 -> 03:42 PM) https://amp.mlb.com/265097722-five-teams-th...n-2018.amp.html White Sox, 67-95 in 2017 A bunch of it is no matter how bad the Sox are this season, the Royals and Tigers will probably be much worse. They could have an inflated record and a false sense of how close they really are going into 2019 due to the awfulness that will be the Tigers and Royals. Hahn has to look at performance vs the big boys in the AL in order to gauge that, rather than division placement or even how many wins they have. They're going to play the Tigers and Royals 36 times, and winning 20 of those is probably a conservative estimate.

Hopefully there is some parallel to the Niners, as when Steve Young retired they were never the perennial SB contender anymore, and began the descent into the nether regions of the NFL.

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if the only guys on his list were Jimenez and Kopech.

QUOTE (Tony @ Jan 22, 2018 -> 11:08 AM) When someone continues to get “lucky”, it stops being luck. Not when the margin is razor thin. Doesn't change the fact that Seattle and Atlanta's coaching staff mismanaged the ever loving hell out of their games, allowing NE to win. Those two are more on BB than Brady. I agree that you have to be lucky and good to win a championship in sports, however when the margin is so thin that one play could change the outcome in either direction, and it goes your way 5/7(so far) times, I'd say that is both lucky and good. If they were just that much better, the games wouldn't have been that close.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 22, 2018 -> 10:51 AM) Yes, but that didn't happen. They won those games and that's what makes them so great. Also, you could say the same thing about the two Super Bowls vs the Giants. The Giants literally needed miracle plays to win those games. Catching hail mary passes off your helmet by a career back up player kind of miracles. Patriots could easily be undefeated in Super Bowls. The idea that Tom Brady is average is one of the craziest things I've ever read about sports. Same with the idea that they just got "lucky". Oh of course, I made reference to that in my post, but just as easily as they could be undefeated in Super Bowls, they could be 1-6. It goes both ways. The margin was razor thin. I understand the nature of football necessitates 1 game playoffs, but it doesn't actually find the best team that year because there is no series of games. Too much variance in a one-game tournament. NCAA Tourney is the same. You run into an outlier at the right time and you're eliminated. I think that if they were either 4-3 or 3-4 I wouldn't talk as much about the luck factor, because the luck has evened out at the end. I personally think football should be run like Baseball was until 1969, where the two best records jump directly to the Super Bowl. You proved you were the best over 16 games, why take some stupid random event and throw it all out the window. Kinda agree on Baseball as well. To me, with playoffs, less=more.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 22, 2018 -> 10:08 AM) The "average QB" stuff is nonsense, but I totally agree that Brady and the Patriots have been extremely lucky. The tuck rule nonsense should have prevented them from getting to their first SB. If the Seahawks just run the ball they lose a few years ago. If the Falcons ran the ball one time (to burn the clock) they lose last year. They play in the weakest division in football. Their competition is Buffalo, Miami and New York. Barf. They get a golden ticket to the playoffs, first round byes and home field advantage on a yearly basis because of it. Now, that being said, Belichick is the greatest coach ever. His half time adjustments are insane. I just saw a stat that they are 3-4 in the last 10 years when trailing by more than 10 pts in the 4th in the playoffs. The rest of the league is 3-70. So, they're pretty freakin clutch and Brady makes plays constantly to bring them back and/or win games. He's far better than "average." I really don't see how anyone can argue that he's not the best given the accomplishments. Are there better athletes at the position? Sure. Are there better throwers? Sure. Are there guys with stronger and more accurate arms? Sure. But who cares? The dude wins and that's the goal of playing the game. Of course the average QB stuff is nonsense, I hate Tom Brady. 2001-02 was a traumatic experience for me as a die-hard Bears fan and casual Raiders fan. To see my two favorite teams get screwed(Jim Miller getting pile driven into the ground by that DE from Philly in the 1st 10 minutes of the game and knowing they had no chance, to the infamous Tuck Rule) Bears were not beating the Rams anyway, but that is beside the point. The Tuck Rule game was the descent into a decade and a half of hell for the Raiders and I take great pleasure in seeing Brady fail(however rare that is) I took all of my disappointment in that season and have channeled it into wanting to watch Brady suck and epically fail. The past 16 years have been incredibly frustrating to me as a football fan. My "Brady Sucks" idea is more of a schtick than an actual football thought. Deep down I know the truth, I just will never admit it. It doesn't change the fact that 6/7 of Brady's SB appearances were literally one play from changing the outcome in the other direction, whether he won or lost. SB 39 vs. Philly was the only one that was a tall tall task for them to lose the game, as Philly was down 10 points with roughly 5 mins left in the game, IIRC. It is hard to say that his success is anything more than an incredible stroke of luck when one play could have changed the outcome of 4/5 of his wins. He's 4 plays from being one of the biggest SB losers of all time. Imagine if he was 1-6 in those SBs? What would people think of him? I wish I lived in that universe.