Disco72

Maybe this is worthy of its own thread, but with the Sox clearly limiting Buehrle's innings this year and Danks also limited (if the Sox are smart) to 160-170 innings maximum, and Floyd probably shouldn't go much more than 200, how do the Sox handle this? Vaz and Count, if healthy, shouldn't be a concern but will be the only true workhorses this season. If the Sox continue to stay in the playoff race, they will need to find a way to limit innings so that the best pitchers are available for the playoffs. Knightni just suggested his "conspiracy theory," but for a long season, don't the Sox need to think about how this might work? Do you give Danks a "rest" in the middle of the season so he could pitch into September and October? Do they start pitching Masset every other week or so? Or do they call up a guy like Broadway to pitch every now and then? Some kind of de facto 6-man rotation perhaps? I know it doesn't make a ton of sense to think about October in April, but with the Sox are already taking steps to limit Buehrle, perhaps it is something to think about sooner rather than later.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 24, 2008 -> 11:19 AM) Gavin...destroy them. We have no choice. It is time to unleash the GAVIN BOMB!

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 09:51 PM) Someone who's at the game surrounding by scouts (he said there were more scouts than usual at the game tonight). Any thoughts on why there were more scouts at last nights game? (not just for fathom, but anyone who follows these teams more closely than I do)

ESPN BBT thinks Count is the Sox #2 and Vaz is the Sox #3. They even showed it on a graphic comparing the Sox 3-4-5 and the Yankees 3-4-5. Great research there...not a single analyst or Gammons corrected this. I know, it's ESPN, and I know that Count pitched "ahead" of Vaz this time around, but it is still annoying.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 11:30 AM) Reading the Konerko and Thomas threads was pretty humorous I must admit? The Jays were wrong for releasing a 39 year old Thomas, a notorious slow starter, yet we should bench/trade a younger/more productive (for the last few years) Konerko, who is a notorious slow starter. LOL. They are both highly paid and highy talented guys, who will both hit. Have some patience guys, and look at the histories of both of these players. With the question mark there at the end of the first sentence, I was getting a total Ron Burgundy moment. I'm Ron Burgundy?

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 07:52 AM) LOL Yeah, I need to read more carefully!....but if the preface to the post is that "nothing is new here," then why start a thread on it!

QUOTE (SEALgep @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 06:52 AM) Nothing really new here, but for those who were holding on hope that the early Sox success would change Crede's heart towards the Sox, it ain't happening: According to the Sox, Boras told them late last season that they need not bother with an offer because he plans to explore the free-agent market for Crede. But lost in all the rhetoric seems to be what Crede is open to. ''I have never said I didn't want to negotiate a deal,'' Crede said. ''There have never been any concrete talks with us on doing something. If that's what they want to do, that's fine. Our door is always open. You can never turn down something that will change not only your life, but your kids' lives and their kids' lives. You can't shut the door on that, no matter when it happens. ''It doesn't bother me that it's the stance they want to take. They have their negotiating tactics, and obviously we have ours.'' It's a little unfortunate that there appears either miscommunication from Crede's camp, or this includes the negotiating tactic he mentions. But it seems likely Boras' told the Sox to forget discussing a deal last year, and now Crede doesn't want to be the bad guy when he inevitably leaves town. Ride it out, and give Fields his chance next year... Is there any new information here? Seems to be the same story...Boras said he won't negotiate (he always brings his players to FA), but Crede says he loves Chicago and would stay (implied: for the right price). EDIT: Also, the thread title is a bit misleading - it seems as if he was traded today, not that he won't sign here after the season is over.

30 is the new 20.

QUOTE (SEALgep @ Apr 11, 2008 -> 04:57 PM) Fick was on tv showing him being escorted out, yelling at the crowd, when all of a sudden a full beer hit him in the face. It was awesome, and the best $4.50 or whatever that guy probably ever spent a beer on in his life. We were at that game, and on the replays you can see our beers heading towards Fick. None of ours was the one that hit him, but it was a crazy, crazy game. Fick just stopped and was literally asking for the beers to be thrown at him. The interviews afterwards were hilarious...I remember them interviewing Parque and him grinning and saying "it just slipped" while trying not to laugh.

Pauile sac fly...1-0 SOX!

For those coming late, 2 walks by Willis who left with an injury. Thome K's, Paulie up.

QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Apr 9, 2008 -> 05:07 PM) ...as contagious as polio...syphilis... and the bubonic plague....attacking one but affecting all. Someone had to follow up with that...thanks Pants!

Familiar lineup: Swish, CF; OC, SS; Thome, DH; PK, 1B; Dye, RF; AJ, C; Quentin, LF; Crede, 3B; Uribe, 2B. Danks pitching. From Reifert's blog. Looks like Paulie and Crede should be popular picks to click based on the daa84's post.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 9, 2008 -> 02:07 PM) The 2005 White Sox had a 7 game losing skid in August. QUOTE (WilliamTell @ Apr 9, 2008 -> 02:12 PM) Yeah and nearly everyone on this board thought the season was going to be over, and even in September the playoffs started to be questioned with Cleveland's surge. Point is we're roughly 5% into the season with 95% left, so it's far from over. In terms of football it's basically like Detroit as lost the first game of the year and the season's over. It's far from other I won't count them out. In another thread, someone stated that several of the last few WS winners have had as long as 7 game losing streaks...so I stand corrected!

QUOTE (joesaiditstrue @ Apr 9, 2008 -> 04:20 PM) i have mlb.tv but i bought the 1yr package so i could watch all the AL central games, also so i could download all this years sox games (have all the games saved except the first one, because mlb.com doesn't have it archived for some reason), but living in IL every sox game is blacked out on mlb.tv so, even though I don't have WCIU down here in the Peoria area, I can't watch WCIU sox games on mlb.tv, it's ridiculous. I used to live in Peoria... hated that mlb.tv blocked out so many games, the cable company (it was Insight when I lived there) didn't carry all Sox games, and Fox games in Peoria were inevitably Cardinals games. Got any friends or family in Chicago? Slingbox is the way to go - video quality isn't as good (maybe the HD version is better, but I don't have that), but it is good enough!

QUOTE (sox-r-us @ Apr 9, 2008 -> 11:57 AM) Winning begets more winning; and losing begets more losing..... Losing is a disease... QUOTE (rangercal @ Apr 9, 2008 -> 01:35 PM) I am pretty far from declaring the White Sox will finish ahead of Detroit this year. But, I am starting to wonder if they can pass either Cleveland or Boston and New York for a playoff spot. It's really an equal combination of their bullpen woes and horrible start that has me second guessing their chances. To win 95 games (my projected magic # for a playoff lock*) , Detroit would have to go 95-60 the rest of the way with a .612 winning percentage. Which is equivalent to having a record of 99-63 if they started at that pace at 0-0. The 0-7 start is now about two things - how many very good teams lose 7 games in a row at any point in the season? Two, what does it say about the team, such as the lack of a "stopper"? Again, the familiar refrain - it doesn't guarantee the Tigers won't make the playoffs, but it is leveling the "on paper" advantage the Tigers supposedly had. As rangercal points out, it becomes more and more uphill for the Tigers, which may lead to more and more pressing (or the losing begats more losing argument of sox-r-us).

I think the bigger argument is that the economics of the game are pushing it out of the price range of the average fan. In order to pay multi-million dollar athletes, prices all over the stadium have to go up from tickets to beer. Of course, the interesting rebuttal to my argument above is that 'non-profit' entertainment like zoos and aquariums are also following similar price structures. Is it a follow the leader strategy or perhaps the standard pricing structure of the companies operating the concessions?

The Sox will need Joe Crede and Josh Fields at some point this season. Hopefully it won't happen, but someone is going to end up on a 15 day DL (at least). It could be Joe, it could be someone else. I'm quite pleased to know we have a guy who should be able to hit ML pitching and not be overmatched if and when he is needed. Teams that want to compete all season need to have guys that can step in and play. This whole debate over who is "right" and who is "wrong" just does not make sense on so many levels.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 7, 2008 -> 09:05 PM) Guys there are certain posts in this thread that make it almost unreadable. Not directing that at anybody. I don't know why this has to be so polarized, it's ridiculous. If Joe Crede is doing great we should all be happy in theory right? Josh Fields or no Josh Fields. Exactly! The team is winning, and many players are playing well. I don't understand why some people take more pleasure in being right than enjoying the game. Isn't the Sox why we are here? It seems there is never any middle ground to realize that having talented players is a good thing. It gives the Sox options, which I like. It also protects in case of injury, which is also good for a team that wants to compete.

QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ Apr 7, 2008 -> 07:59 PM) I think I heard somewhere last year longest winning streak was 4 games...which would make this current win streak all the sweeter Yep, the longest win streak for the Sox last year was 4 games...they actually did it five times: April 18 - 21, May 9 - 12, June 25 - 28, August 2 - 5, and September 26 - 29. Unfortunately, the Sox also had losing streaks of 8 games (1x), 5 games (6x), and 4 games (2x). A five game winning streak is definitely a sign that its a new year...and a whole new ballgame!

I love winning the first game of a series! YES!

Do we really need the Josh Fields posts here? Can't we just enjoy a great moment?

WHITE SOX WINNER! Another DP!

Masset up, come on Mac!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 6, 2008 -> 12:41 PM) Excellent analysis. That stat would be much more meaningful in football where 4 games is a bigger percentage of all the games played. Even in basketball and hockey, it would have slightly more meaning. I'd be interested if any team has avoided a 4 games losing streak and not won a WS. Clearly, it doesn't mean anything statistically, but I'm sure glad the Sox are 3-2 and not 0-5. For a good team like the Tigers, it shouldn't be a confidence breaker, but the problems with pitching and injuries contributing to the 0-5 start certainly aren't a surprise. DET isn't done, but they aren't making it any easier on themselves either.