SpringfieldFan

What, no Sox games on AM1000 next year? Dang, I have always enjoyed my Sox games interspersed with static and spanish talk... SFF

Regarding Sosa's statements - Is there any possibility that he lied by denying using steroids because he doesn't think American jurisprudence would apply to him? SFF

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Mar 15, 2005 -> 05:39 PM) I think Dye will be productive but I wouldn't hold my breath for 305-31-99. I really wonder how many steals Pods will end up with. You would think he'd have an increase with such an awful obp last year but more than 70 is hard to imagine Tim Raines has said that, personally, he would like to see Pods steal a hundred this year. LT

ISU alum here -- graduated 1989 Go Birds! ISU ----> SFF

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 03:00 PM) Uggy Urbina's name has been mentioned on ESPN Insider with the White Sox being one of the teams mentioned. I would like to see this - if nothing else to hear the announcers trying to pronounce the double play tandem. LT

Yea, I don't believe the reference to his velocity came from one of these message board comments. Rather, I was a brief mention in a press story somewhere (perhaps linked to on one of the message boards). He is certainly is a strikeout type pitcher, so perhaps the source deduced that he relied on heat for his strikeouts. In any event, I had held some incorrect assumptions about him.

I don't have a whole lot of use for early minor league prospect reports. When I first heard about Bmac when he started in Great Falls, I remember hearing that what he was was a flamethrower in the mid 90's or better. Now from what I can tell, his fastball is just average. It is almost deja vu. back in 2000 when the farm was supposedly loaded, I asked one of these boards if the Sox had any real fireballers among the prospects, and the immediate reply from someone was "Yes, Jon Rauch". Boy was that wrong. Not that I am saying that velocity is the end all, but I don't much appreciate the deception.

I grant that Jose is the team leader. However, I don't see the problem with changing the "leadership" of a team that, regardless of talent, cannot ever crack the 85 win mark.

Once again, we hear the he is "only ___ years old" explanation. No offense, but what makes this valid reasoning now? Thing about it: we are rightly optimistic about the futures of typical 24 year olds. We know they don't physically develop after 24, so we conclude it must be mental. In other words, we are optimistic about typical 24 year olds (even if they suck) because they still have to mature and learn how to pitch at the MLB level. However, mental maturity and wisdom really come from experience rather then physical age. It just so happens typical 24 year olds haven't had the opportunity to get that experience. Now lets turn to Jon Garland specifically. He is only 24 but he is not typical - he has been around for 4 years. Therefore, unlike typical 24 year olds, he has had the opportunity to get the experience to mentally mature and learn. So if you are still optimistic, there must be something else about his age hindering him that you think he can still conquer in the future. What is it?

I have to go on record as supporting the trade. Contreras has only been in the bigs a couple of years but before that was the best pitcher on the Cuban team, a team that *all* American teams have always had trouble beating (including the Orioles three or four years back). That aside I recall looking at his brief MLB highlights and recall a blurb about him coming back from an injury in 2003 and throwing 7 innings of 2 hit shutout ball, striking out 15 (!) in the process. It is hard to believe a guy could put up a game like that and not be something special, at least potentially.

I have a couple of thoughts on this thread I would like to add. First: No, tomorrow is not a "must win" nor are any of the rest of the games this week. Just like the Twins could come back from 7 back, so can the Sox, at least mathematically. However, that said, the actual truth is that even though these are not a true "must wins", the problem is that we really don't want the Sox to get to September and wind up facing 10 or 15 true "must wins". Second: the Sox don't need more hitting as much as they need better pitching. With Ordonez and Thomas, the situation was no different then it is now - when the hitters were hot they could win and when they were slumping they simply couldn't. It is just that now when the hitters are hot, they win by 4 and 5 runs rather then 8 or 9. What the Sox need now, is to improve the pitching so they can win some of those games where the hitting is cold. LT

I think that if a Sox player took out the Twins' catcher in that manner, the Sox fans would admit that it was unnecessary and a cheap shot. I also think they would be admitting it with a snicker and a chuckle.

Here is a thought. How about if Ozzie doesn't start Garcia. How about if he starts Cotts or Jackson with the intention of them only being in the game for about an inning, if you know what I mean. Then just put in Garcia...

I have no problem with having traded Reed rather then Borchard, regardless of how well or poorly the two perform. In Reed you knew you would very likely get a good productive player. In Borchard, you will be much more likely to get a bust. However, you are also much more likely to get an MVP and hall of famer. It is a gamble: high risk-high reward. I for one am willing to accept such risks for the possible payoff.

Home run number 16 of the year tonight for Joe

Tonight Borchard with a double and 2nd dinger in as many nights. Look out, it might start looking like a popcorn machine again in Charlotte.

Very nice article. However, I have to disagree with the statement that the Wells deal backfired. I don't think it backfired simply for the reason that the Sox ended up losing nothing when they got Wells. Sirotka lost all value with the injury. The only argument that could possibly be made is that KW should have traded him for someone other then Wells, but nevertheless the Sox weren't in worse position because of the trade.

KW's thinking seems pretty clear to me. He doesn't want to play the quarter slots because he is feeling pretty good about his keno numbers.

Ahh, I think I see now. He throws sidearm but releases the ball "palm up" rather than "palm down" as most sidearmers do. As a kid I used to play around doing that and got great riseballs. Well ok, it was wiffleball that I was playing but I did see the effect

Obvious question here so pardon me if it has been discussed before: Exactly how does the frisbee pitch work? I know it is very slow and sidearm, but what about it inspires comparisons to a frisbee? Just wondering.

I am just hoping Rauch and KW have ironed out their disagreements/misunderstandings. We have all heard the saying about how the best sex is make-up sex. Now, I am not saying Rauch and KW - well, uh, you know - but perhaps after settling this Rauch will feel comfortable and pitch better then he ever has previously.

Don't get completely suicidal over the prospect of the Yankees acquiring Garcia. You can consider them to be an insurance policy that will prevent the Twins or Cubs from winning it all.

He may indeed be getting that heat back. Obviously the doubters would wonder what he could possibly be doing different mechanically. One would think that last year he had to be throwing it as hard as he could so there is no way he could be adding to it this year without it being something radical. I would disagree with that though. I think he could have regained his heat just using the same basic mechanics. He may have just had to loosen up a bit and not give in to the obvious pressure he felt last year. When you are tight and try to force muscle quickness, it just doesn't work. Your muscles and joints really have to be fluid and flexible, almost like rubber bands. I bet Billy might have been forcing the heat earlier and would end up squeezing the ball and putting mainly just his shoulder into the pitches, and not let his shoulder, elbow, wrist, and fingers snap through their release points as well.

The argument is why the sox are ranked so low given their record. Well, do most people honestly believe the Sox are one of the best 3 or 4 teams in baseball now? For example, can people honestly say they are better then the Yankees and A's and are more likely to win the WS then they are? Well, if not, then why use the rankings to indicate otherwise? I can hear it now - the only real important numbers are wins and losses, that alone is the goal, and getting wins is in itself what makes a good team or not. If that is true, then I have a question for you: why have power rankings at all? Why not just look at the standings?

This begs a question: Is it legal to pitch underhand in a baseball game?