SouthsideDon48

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 26, 2009 -> 09:25 PM) Read DAllen's post below. If KW really feels like so many players have quit, then why isn't the manager being held responsible? Players should be held accountable if they quit, not the manager. If players are quitting, they should be sent packing, screw them.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 25, 2009 -> 02:00 PM) I hope we try a new strategy with middle relief and go with a batch of young guys and see if one sticks. We should not pay big bucks for middle relievers. They are middle relievers for a reason. You act like the role of middle relievers is the same as mop-up duty. Middle relievers are just as important as set-up men and closers, but if you have a bunch of young inexperienced guys then you might as well brace yourself for another shakey bullpen like 2007. I rather pay for a reliever that can pitch scoreless innings instead of another "young arms" experiement like in 2007. We're gonna miss Dotel when he's gone.

I think any player that would be considered a "surprise" trade would be players currently in big contracts, such as Rios, Peavy, Konerko, Dye. I'd also find it surprising if the Sox traded away a player that was considered part of the future, such as Quentin, Beckham, Floyd, Danks, Hudson, Viciedo, and Mitchell. I would also be surprised if Pierzynski or Alexei were traded.

858 people got my first/last name combination, and my last name is the 142nd most common last name.

I got a 49mph fastball from the right side, anyone think I can make it to the major leagues?

*walks in* ...we lost another game??? Ugh. *walks out*

In terms of cost in players/prospects that it would take in order to acquire Crawford or BJ Upton, I think I would have to pass. Don't get me wrong, I'd love having either of those guys on the Sox, but I think we're at a crucial moment right now where we ought to be conservative with trading away our prospects. If it'd be cheaper, I'd rather have the Sox look into getting a guy like Lastings Milledge, Elijah Dukes, Jeremy Hermida, Josh Willingham, or even Rajai Davis like someone mentioned in another thread. I think all these guys can be had for a fraction of the price of what it would cost to get the likes of Upton/Crawford.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 08:34 AM) Im pretty sure they have a holding cell at wrigley. They had to hide Bartman down there And the guy who was falsely accused of dumping beer on Shane Victorino mentioned to the Sun-Times that he was taken down there and locked up in a holding cell.

Congrats!

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 21, 2009 -> 11:55 PM) I'm seriously going to snap the next time somebody suggests we add starting pitching. Especially extremely expensive starting pitching (and when I say expensive I mean in both money and players). We're absolutely set with the starting rotation for the next 3-5 years, at least. Agreed. And we shouldn't be expecting the Sox to fill the 5th starter spot with anyone besides players like: Freddy Garcia, Daniel Hudson, Carlos Torres, John Ely, erc etc etc. If the Sox goes outside the organization for a starting pitcher for the 5th starter role, then it'll be a lower-tier starting pitcher among the likes of Doug Davis, Paul Byrd, Carlos Silva, Russ Ortiz, Vincente Padilla, etc etc etc,... you know, scrubby guys like that.

Here's my predictions of who will get traded away: 1. Jon Link 2. Clevelan Santeliz 3. Stephan Gartrell 4. Jon Gilmore 5. Brent Morel I picked these guys because they're giving me the vibes that they'll be included in packages in trades to other teams. I'm still holding out hope to see Link/Santeliz/Gartrell on the major league team, tho.

Bradley is actually my favorite Cubs player... because of how much he pisses Cubs fans off. Also I think, if Bradley was on the Sox, that he would not have as many problems as he did with other teams. I mean, look at Pierzynski and Everett, they were both cancers as well. My only concern might be Ozzie throwing Bradley under the bus in a post-game interview. Bradley prolly won't react good to that.

hey, what time is the game tomorrow?

No. I can't stand "House of Payne", the comedy comes across as too forced. It's also embarrassing for me to watch because I can tell they're trying to be funny. I hate sitcoms like that, I like sitcoms where the humor comes across naturally, like "It's always Sunny in Philadelphia", "Testees", "the Bernie Mac Show", "Office", etc etc.

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Sep 18, 2009 -> 01:31 PM) People need to realize that the Bears add nothing to Solider Field and the Park District. If the Bears left Solider Field, the Park District would make more money on Soldier Field. The Park District could give two s***s about the Bears and Walter Payton and anything they want, neither organization will do anything to benefit the other. I personally think the Olympics could transform many of the Chicago sports venues, including the Cell, Wrigley and Soldier Field. The best stadium in Chicago is Toyota Park. Ewww. Toyota Park looks hideous, it looks like that oil compound in "Mad Max 2: the Road Warrior".

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 18, 2009 -> 12:35 PM) "Cool" is not the word I'd use to describe the earth getting a ring of trash. Actually, humans would probably gain the distinction in the universe of being the only species able to successfully inadvertently create a ring around planet Earth, which just happens to be trash. I find it to be a pretty freaky metaphor about humans and our inability to reduce waste.

It would actually be pretty cool if all this space junk someday forms a ring around Earth. As for cleaning that stuff up, I can't help but think they'll need to make a special spaceship with a fortified metal "scooper" that opens up, collects the junk, and closes when it fills up. As for disposing of the junk... no freaking clue.

I thought this was some kind of thread about resurfacing pavements and using compounds to reunite cracked pavement. lol

I never rent from Blockbuster, but that sucks, I hope the ones by me are not closing, because I usually like to buy dvd's with their 4-for-$20 deal, etc.

Great job, J4L. I know how hard it is to lose weight like that. I lost 60 pounds in 2005 and managed to keep all but 10 of it off, so great job to you for losing 80. It's a lot of hard work and you should be proud of yourself.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 10:22 AM) So Pods singles in the first. Are we really saying that he best solution is to have Beckham square around to move Pods up 90 feet. I would say the ability for Beckham to make solid contact, hit doubles and for power would outweigh any benefit of moving Pods up to second. Also the problem has not been, getting the guy into 2nd. Its been getting him in. How does bunting all of a sudden fix the pucker factor our team has when men move into scoring position. No, not in that situation, but I would call for the bunt in the 3rd inning if, say, the leadoff batter was the 9th batter (Getz) and he got on base. So if Getz was on base, and the next batter was Pods and the batter after that is Beckham, then I'm DEFINITELY calling for a bunt. With a well-played bunt by Pods, 1 of 2 things can happen: 1. Getz moves over to 2nd and Pods is out, and Beckham bats next. or... 2. Getz mvoes over to 2nd and Pods is safe on 1st after outrunning the bunt, flustering the opposing pitcher with 2 runners on base with 1 in scoring position and a strong bat in Backham standing in the batter's box. That's better than letting Pods try to swing and risk a double-play, which would not give Beckham the psychological edge he would've had if there was 1 baserunner on 2nd in scoring position, or 2 baserunners on base.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 10:16 AM) Yet you still have an extra out to work with to score that guy. You didnt just waste one trying to move that guy over. But the would-be batter struck out instead of moving the baserunner over with a bunt. Had the batter moved the baserunnner over with a bunt, it makes it easier for the next batter to score him with a double.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 10:03 AM) How about a good old fashioned line drive swing. Maybe a double into the gaps. You realize that there is an in-between from a all or nothing home run approach, and playing slap and tickle right. Also there are other ways of moving runners over. The hit and run, steals, and even base hits. You don't need to flup it 7 feet to move a guy 90 feet. Pods is pretty long in the tooth to all of a sudden become this master drag bunt artist. He is not a particularly good bunter. Bunts don't fluster pitchers. Home runs fluster pitchers, doubles into the gap fluster pitchers, the opposite field gork shot flusters pitchers. Some guy imitating a pitcher in the NL and giving up an out moving a guy to 2nd doesn't fluster a pitcher. If I was a pitcher, I'd be more pissed off if the other team was trying to bunt with a guy on base than I would've if I gave up a home run. Because when it comes to bunting, the other team is manipulating the game and forcing me to field my position, but if the other team hit a home run then it's my fault and they wouldn't have hit that home run if I had located my pitches better. Of course you can try and hit a line drive, or a double into the gaps, but when you do that there's always a CHANCE that the ball will go where you don't want it to go, such as into the 2nd baseman's mitt for a double-play.

QUOTE (maggliopipe @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 10:03 AM) If your only goal in bunting is to avoid a double play so the next guy can hit a dong, why not just intentionally strikeout? That is simply not a good argument in favor of bunting. I like the threat of the bunt in the early-middle innings to draw the infield in, but in practice it's something I'd like to see only used on an infrequent basis. One can argue that, by bunting and getting the baserunner on 2nd base and letting the next batter try to hit a home run, the runner on 2nd base can still run home from 2nd if the batter hits a double to the deep outfield. If the baserunner was still on 1st base, (after the previous batter intentionally struck out) then he would've more than likely only been able to get to 3rd base on that deep double.

Too many people are overvaluing outs, and what they're forgetting is that we have some players (Pods/Getz) who can outrun a bunt. Bunts, if performed right, can mess up another team's psyche and sometimes it leads to mistakes being made by the flustered opposing pitcher. I'm a big fan of bunts, and I see nothing wrong with using bunts at any point of the game, especially if someone is already on 1st base and there's less than 2 outs. Using a timely bunt can help in avoiding a double-play and allowing the next batter (who might be a power hitter) to hit a home run. It's called strategy, I'm just really surprised at how people don't get this and how people seem to prefer constant groundouts and popouts in home run attempts. At least with bunting, the team batting is controling the game, despite willingly giving up an out, which usually pays off in a run or 2 in the long run.