Jack Parkman

Danks was 22 years old for most of the season, spent only 2 and a half years in the minors out of HS, and never pitched in AAA. The fact that he pitched league average for the first half of the season(4.5 ERA) at that age, with that amount of minor league experience shows me what kind of pitcher he is. IMO he knows how to pitch. If he can throw that curve for strikes and learn to utilize the cutter he's supposedly learning, I don't see why he can't be a #2 starter. If all goes well, he could be Buehrle with a 7 or 8 K/9 because Mark's fastball is 86-89 and John's is 91-94. He could potentially blow hitters away with low 90s heat coming from the left side, because most leftys don't throw that hard. I think that Danks' ceiling is what Erik Bedard is now. For Floyd, I still hold hope that he could turn out to be Roy Halladay part deux. A top ten pick who flamed out in his early 20s, but then learns to harness his stuff, and becomes awesome. Granted this is highly unlikely, but he has the stuff to do it. What is good to know is that he still possesses the 93-96 mph fastball that he was drafted with, and that we have a pitching coach who was anointed a genius about 2 years ago when he helped turn a pitcher who had the classic million dollar arm, 10 cent head syndrome into the most dominant in the AL for a year. If Contreras wasn't 39-40 years old in 2006, but rather Floyd's age, I think he'd still be awesome. If Coop can get Floyd's head straight and teach him to trust his stuff, there's no reason that he can't at least be a serviceable #3, if not a #2. I don't think that either of them can be aces, but if everything goes right, there's no reason that either of them can't be a #2 or 3 starter. Unfortunately for the Sox, I may be just looking at these guys with rose colored glasses.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 09:20 PM) Not defending the Garland trade, but besides the Santana talks obviously and the Willis deal (Miggy's the main part, and would have cost Maybin and Miller minimum), how many trades have there been for SP's bringing back top prospects? It's only superior SP's such as Haren, Bedard etc. that are being talked about as bringing back some real top prospects. What's bothering me is that in order to even speak to Oakland or Baltimore about Haren and Bedard you have to be willing to part with FOUR top prospects. And we couldn't even get one for Gar??? Granted Garland isn't on the same level with Haren, Santana, et al, but if those guys get you 4, then Garland should at least get you one. Garland had a 3.15 ERA at the all star break. He got knocked around By minny, Boston and NYY for 11,7, and 9 ER in 4 IP or less during a 3 week stretch in July. The 11 ER start was in just 1 and 2/3 innings. That takes a huge hit on an ERA. The 9 ER start was 2 and 2/3 innings. He admitted he had was having some shoulder issues during that stretch. After that he was the same pitcher he was before the break. He had a few absolutely awful abberations and he Still finished with a 4.23 ERA, which any "league average" pitcher would have his ERA in the mid 5s or worse. Garland was very improved this year and he had almost as good of a first half as he did in 2005. Garland should have fetched something half as good as the packages that those guys are fetching, meaning 2 top guys. The only way that we should have gotten the return that we did is if there are huge concerns with Garland's shoulder and KW dumped him off on LAA because both teams knew he was going to miss some time this year.

The Garland trade really pisses me off right now given how the other SP on the market are fetching multiple top prospects. And we only got a 33 year old shortstop for a good but not great SP??? Seems to me that either KW got fleeced or there's something with Garland's shoulder that we don't know about and we only got Cabrera for him because the Angels knew they were taking a risk.

Any Golf gamers out there? My library has games you can check out(awesome) and I picked up TW 08 for 360 for a weekend, and it was pretty awesome for the most part. My only beef with the game is that Tiger can't drive 350 yards like he can in real life and the 3-click swing is impossible.( you can keep it on analog if you want) It is a visually impressive game, and the gameplay is very good too. What are the best golf games you've played for any system? I really wish I had time to play games more because my classes are very grueling this semester. 3 lab classes All of you other dudes in college, how do you have any time to play games? BTW, I played the MLB 2K series for 2 years(unfortunately the only MLB game on 360) and went back a couple months ago to play MVP 2005 for my PS2. I was terribly disappointed, in fact I thought that MLB 06 the show was better than it. What's all the fuss aboot regarding the MVP 2005. Its really not any different than any other baseball game.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 11:06 PM) AAAA pitchers, by definition are good in AAA. Wasn't he pretty good in AAA in the Rangers system? I'm sure he had issues with adjusting to being a starter again and confidence when he got sent down in July. I'm sure he had to pitch pretty well there if he got a shot with the Rangers.

I wonder whether KW will let him go. He has a really good arm but hasn't put it together yet and is out of options. He will be 26 in may, so is he an AAAA or does he have a chance to stay with the big club? He was one of the key pieces in the McCarthy trade and if he is gone then it looks like the trade is Danks for McCarthy straight up. I also wonder what he'll do with Aardsma. Any thoughts guys?

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 01:08 AM) My philosophy entering next season is either for this team to reach the playoffs or finish in last place. No in-between, indecisive bulls*** which delays management rebuilding another season. Either play in October or begin looking towards the future. Would finishing .500 honestly assure anyone of anything other than Williams (and perhaps a small contingent on Soxtalk) suggesting it's a 'small steps towards the playoffs?" We're not exactly a young team full of promising talent, in which small steps will be viewed as beneficial. This team is old, expensive; and I'm not willing to fool myself in believing 10-12 more wins is a promise of better things in 2009. And I'm not advocating any trade where several prospects are packaged for someone who could " win now," either. Our success or failure should rest upon the current collection of players. With perhaps several short term committments strewn about to fill the roster. When I read about Torii Hunter seeking an extended contract (> 3 years), I can't help but think it'll be useless since the first several years on this club he'll be looking up at Cleveland and Detroit. Possibly Minnesota. And then when his skills are really beginning to diminish, perhaps 2010, we'll finally be in a position to compete. That's atleast what I'm hoping, especially with the renewed interest in player development and (at worst) payroll around 85 million. On a different note, does anyone else believe any references to 2005 should forever be stricken from Soxtalk beginning in 2008? Anything which attempts to compare our success, troubles, how Williams assembled his team, or even Spring Training statistics to the 2005 team should never be spoken. If It were up to me, I'd place the numbers '2005' in a language filter. We really need to move on as fans and an organization. Not that we forget what happened, but for Christs sakes, to quit finding ways of building connections. It has to end at somepoint, right? I agree with this statement 100%. Especially on the 2005 team. Everything came together in a perfect storm of good Karma. However, The Sox fanbase needs to put that behind them. I don't want the 2005 Sox to have a 1985 Bears-like following 20 years after the fact. It is just wrong. We can't live off 2005 forever, just like Bears fans shouldn't(but regrettably do) live off 1985. There has to be more winning than just a one year flash in the pan type season where everything that could go right did, and anything that could go wrong didn't. I just wish that upper management on the Sox would just realize that unless they want to have a $150 million payroll then they are not going to compete in this division in 2008...or 2009 for that matter. Just blow it up Marlins style.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 09:49 AM) Wow. Alot of mish-mash in there. Danks' best pitch is his curve, its really his only plus pitch. It may be inconsistent right now because he is a 22 year old who is in the majors one year too soon. And his fastball-change up speed change is plenty adequate especially because he has movement on it. He is advanced for his age and should improve this year. Im sure a cutter will work its way into his quiver eventually. Secondly Gio didnt HAVE to repeat AA, but it was beneficial for him for his age and career dev. He was also called one of the top LHP in the minor leagues by BA. You dont get a title like that if you arent a quality talent. And being another Ryan Sweeney? Do you know what age Ryan is? We have no idea what kind of a player he is going to be yet. Thanks for clearing up the Gio repeating AA thing for me. What I mean about Gio possibly becoming another Ryan Sweeney is that Sweeney was once viewed as a top talent in the minor leagues, but now that they've had a look at him longer, he looks like a 4th or 5th OF at best and he has no power whatsoever, they may view Gio in a similar sense in a pitchers regard, Yeah, he has good stuff, but look at his numbers, they're very average if not downright terrible. Gio may be exposed at Charlotte as a #5 at best. He may put up an ERA near 5. Gio has a fastball, curve and what else? anything? Also, I know that Danks' curve is a very good pitch. I just think that he won't have any success whatsoever until he starts throwing it for strikes consistently. When he starts doing that and mixes in that new cutter with it he's going to be a damn good pitcher. I also want to see that fastball touching 94 like in the scouting reports.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 9, 2007 -> 07:18 PM) Qualls' ERA's over the past 3 seasons. 05 - 3.28 06 - 3.76 07 - 3.05 Now that would look pretty damn good in our pen. Should we just not target any relievers from the NL then if their ERA is going to rise in the AL. To me, that logic is overblown too much around here. But still his FIP was 3.79 last season and 4.37 the season before, so having a good defense probably helped Qualls quite a bit. I'd still make that trade. I don't think you can give 2 setup jobs to MacDougal and Thornton right now. Qualls put up those numbers in AAAA...er I mean the NL. He'd probably be a 4.50-5.00 ERA guy in the AL. I want no part of him. I'd rather stay away from setup guys in the NL unless they're putting up ERAs below 3, or they have outstanding stuff and put up numbers similar to Qualls. Translation: The NL is the Minor league of Major league baseball. Most of those guys wouldn't cut it in the AL.

I think that the Sox are the biggest mess in baseball right now. How many Top 5 teams in payroll lose 90 games? Nothing but HR or bust hitters, One very good starter 2 good starters, crap in the 4-5 spot and the worst bullpen in the majors.(Tampa gives us a run for our money though) JR is paying $100 million for s***.

What concerns me about Danks is that he doesn't have a consistent breaking ball. He rarely throws the curve for strikes, so he's mostly a two pitch pitcher, with those two pitches being fastball-changeup. Furthermore the difference in his fastball-change speed is about 7-9mph so it doesn't fool hitters very well. If you have a fastball at 90-92 and a change at 82-84 then you're not going to fool a lot of batters with it. combine that with a nonexistent curve and a launching pad for a ballpark and you have a bad pitcher my friends. OTOH, if you can teach Danks a cutter, and help him throw the curve for strikes, then he could be a Cole Hamels type. I like Danks more than Gio, because From what I saw at ST last year, Danks has a better FB and control. We don't need both of them with Mark in the rotation, so if you can trade one you do it. I'd trade Gio first because He and Danks are the same age and Danks has major league experience and Gio had to repeat AA. I also don't think Gio is really that good of a prospect. He's young and has had sucess at the minor league level, but again may I point out that he had to repeat AA. And his first goaround was in a hitters park, and he put up a 4.66 ERA. He also, IIRC, put up a 3.2 ERA in a highly pitcher friendly park in Birmingham this season in his second year in AA. I'm guessing in a hitters park he'd probably have put up and ERA slightly better than in 2006, say 4.10-4.25. He might be a great guy to meet, but I don't think he's really any good. I read the other day that his ceiling is a #3 and he probably projects to a #5 starter. IMO trade him while you can and his value is high, because he may end up being another Ryan Sweeney.

I realize my alias is really lame and would like it to be changed to Elgin Slim, also could you change my group to member-Buehrle fans. Also where the name of the minor league affiliate is I'd like it to say "Doing the things that a particle can" could I get help with making an avatar?

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 10:03 PM) The main issue with Crisp is health. He hasn't been healthy and that lack of health really effected his production the past season or so. Now there is obviously no guarantee he regains his health but this is a guy that can be had without giving up a top prospect for. He is easily better than what we had in CF or LF last year and would add much needed speed and youth to this club (no he's not incredibly young, but he's still on the right side of 30). s***, as far as I'm concerned unless Kenny brings in numerous guys under 30, I don't want the Sox to touch anyone over 30 unless they are a reliever or a bench player (If they just go out and add more 30+ year old vets this team will be the Oriole's and fast). Go out and get agressive, give up what you need to for Dejesus/Crisp/Bay/Furcal (although he's older than the other's mentioned)/Khalil. Than swing Contreras for something and stick it out with Garland (and just reap the draft picks and hope he pitches his ass off and you can actually come to terms with him). Unless of course you get an awesome deal for Jon. Bottom line is Kenny shoudl try to win but he should be trying to win without mortgaging the entire future and by acquiring guys like Dejesus/Crisp/Bay/Furcal you aren't mortaging the future as you can build around these guys in 09 and on too (even though you are giving up prospects and in Bay's case top notch prospects or major league talent such as Garland/Contreras in the case of Furcal). Bottom line, Kenny, please don't be a f***ing idiot and bring in more and more veterans. You can win next year by bringing in younger players that fit the Sox needs (even if it means being all over the trade lines). I'm not talking rooks, just solid young players (that may not fit in where they are anymore) that can help the SOx do what Kenny thinks they can (win next year) and if the Sox don't win next year, you now have a good core of young players to use along with Fields and some of the Sox young pitching to help the Sox contend in 09/10/11. If Kenny does what I think he'll do, this team will be cellar dwellers for years. I think that If I were KW i'd look at bringing in some promising young talent that is being platooned from another team that has a logjam at CF or SS because both players are of similar talent, are ML ready and the team can't just give them away. And if they are both of similar talent, take the one that the other team doesn't want, because you'd have to give up less. Who knows, you might just end up with the better player. You could also look for a Jim Thome-Ryan Howard type situation in the NL, but go for the young guy this time instead. As a matter of fact, I don't know why GMs don't use this strategy more often. On another topic, If Mark Buehrle isn't worth Clay Buchholz and Michael Bowden then in no way, shape or form is Coco Crisp worth Chris Carter. Epstein is on some good s*** if he came up with that one. If every other team's top prospects are untouchable then ours should be too.

I heard that Sweeney is hitting .212 right now with 10 K in 33 AB and no XBH. I think it's time for KW to consider trading him before his value goes down the s***ter like Anderson's did.

QUOTE(Chombi and the Fungi @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 12:27 PM) Makes sense from their surplus/blocking standpoint. Can't see him going to Seattle w/o pitching in return. Can't see him going anywhere for that matter. Relief pitching is what Kenny wants, I wish he'd get it elsewhere and not in the Garland deal but o well. I saw something on them being linked as one of the frontrunners in a Johan sweepstakes. http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/mariners/2...ana_a_trade_sta Clement is uselss here. We just re-signed AJ and have Hall under contract. Balentin is not a lock to me for success. He has improved in the minors and recovered from his 06' showing but there is just something that makes me think of Edwin Encarnacion with more power. Idk what it is, but I just see him being someone who we regret dealing for. I think if we deal Garland there. Morrow has to be our starting point. Morrow and Balentin, go for it but they probably won't bite. I'd ask for Tillman and Bulter from them with any deal. If we can't land Morrow, there are better OF prospects that we can get for Garland. IE Carlos Gonzalez, Fernando Martinez or Carlos Gomez, Jose tabata, I am drawing a blank but I know Toronto has 3 very good OF's. Even Drew Stubbs from the Reds I bet is someone we can steal. The list goes on. Don't make any deal with Seattle unless it involves Morrow or Jones. If it's Balentin and Clement (which I doubt), maybe but Clement is useless for us w/o dealing someone else. Perhaps Thome or Paulie and move him to first. I agree, but nix Jones unless he's included with Morrow. I wouldn't make a deal with Seattle without receiving Morrow in return, that's why I came up with the trade. Morrow has to be the starting point, unless teams are more content spending ridiculous amounts of money for the crap SP on the free agent market than giving up an arm like Morrow for a proven quality pitcher. If we make that trade(Garland for Morrow and Balentien) I wouldn't be surprised if Jon had and ERA around 3.00 in that ballpark. Safeco is the best pitchers park in the AL, while USCF is the best hitters park. You have to take that into account.

I've heard Garland being linked to Seattle for quite some time, and it looks like he will be traded this offseason. So would Garland for Morrow, Balentien, and another prospect make sense? Garland is quite possibly the best pitcher on the market right now and should bring a haul in return. Kenny won't trade pitching without getting pitching so I think this would work. I may be grossly overestimating Garland's trade value, but Seattle might be willing to do this. Thoughts?

Just an idea, but why not try Sweeney in CF? I've seen him play there and he doesn't seem like a defensive liability. It seems like he's not going to hit more than 15-20 HR in a season, but do we really need more than that from our CF? If he can fix the hole on the inside corner of the strike zone, is it fair to say he could possibly be a .280-.300 hitter? Could the Sox live with a .280-.300 average and 10-20 HRs from the CF position? I think that they shouldn't rule it out. Have Anderson and Sweeney duke it out in ST and may the best player win. Then we don't have to pay a ridiculous amount for a CF.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 28, 2007 -> 08:53 PM) First, it's impossible for us to select anywhere beyond 10. Second, don't just assume that we'll have no talent available to us. Remember, we haven't had a position this high in seventeen years. This is just the type of thinking that helps the organization if they fail. They'll say, "oh, this was the best player available." Too bad, is my thinking. The better find an excellent talent who turns into a legitimate major league ballplayer. Point taken. I was just thinking worst case on the draft issue. I'll guess that we'll probably be picking #9. You have a valid and good point, and I agree that there is no excuse for having this bad of a farm system. I'm just mad that we'll be missing out on a Justin Verlander type pitcher or one of the best 5 tool players unless they drop due to signability concerns. If a top talent drops to us for that reason, and we don't pick him, I will blast away at Sox management for not selecting that player and being cheapskates.

With a couple of wins we could be looking at drafting in the 11-12 spot. A s***ty season and we'll get no talent to show for it. This certainly doesn't help improve our barren farm system.

What was the FB like 91-94? 89-92? I really want to know.

Defitinton- newly elected politician-a person who replaces someone who f***ed up s*** who then f***s up s*** worse than the person before them, thus making everything even worse then it was in the past. Over the past 10 years things just keep getting worse. just my $0.02 on politics.

And the Sox win. Well, at least Mark got double digit wins.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 08:54 PM) Josh Fields is quietly putting together one of the best power seasons of any rookie in Sox history. And he's only played 2/3 of the season too. Imagine if he'd been here the whole season. He'd have to win the AL rookie of the year just on the fact that he hit 30+ HRs. To give it to Dice-K or anyone else for that matter would be a sham. Fields has 50 HR power in that bat. Once he learns to be a better hitter he'll be cranking out 40+ HRs consistently.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 08:51 PM) oh Fieldsy No, Fields is okay. He's a rookie, so I'll give him that. I'm talking about Konerko, Dye, etc.

QUOTE( @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 08:41 PM) Our players strike out too much. Hope next year we get new players. Fixed it for ya