JERMAINEDYE4MVP Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 http://espn.2.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=30 White Sox are 4th in the AL and 6th overall in MLB... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpmahr Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 and who's saying that we are going to suck this year?...seems like weve been doing pretty good even with the years before 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 QUOTE(JERMAINEDYE4MVP @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 06:26 PM) http://espn.2.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=30 White Sox are 4th in the AL and 6th overall in MLB... Sure seems like they are 7th in baseball going by that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 QUOTE(qwerty @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 02:36 AM) Sure seems like they are 7th in baseball going by that... Good catch, maybe there should be an asterisk next to the Giants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hideaway Lights Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 QUOTE(rpmahr @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 10:15 PM) and who's saying that we are going to suck this year?...seems like weve been doing pretty good even with the years before 2005 If you consider 80-85 wins "good", then yes, we will almost certainly be at least "good" this year. No one's saying they are going to suck. People are saying they might be headed for a third place finish with about a .500 record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 08:46 AM) If you consider 80-85 wins "good", then yes, we will almost certainly be at least "good" this year. No one's saying they are going to suck. People are saying they might be headed for a third place finish with about a .500 record. 80-85? The average is 88.14, which puts us in the 85-90 range, which gives you a great shot at a playoff birth in any division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpmahr Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 09:46 AM) If you consider 80-85 wins "good", then yes, we will almost certainly be at least "good" this year. No one's saying they are going to suck. People are saying they might be headed for a third place finish with about a .500 record. especially when the AL central will be weaker than last season...90 games might win the division depending on if detroit has a soph slump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 QUOTE(rpmahr @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 11:38 AM) especially when the AL central will be weaker than last season...90 games might win the division depending on if detroit has a soph slump Welcome aboard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 QUOTE(rpmahr @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 01:38 PM) especially when the AL central will be weaker than last season...90 games might win the division depending on if detroit has a soph slump Cleveland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpmahr Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 07:23 PM) Cleveland and who do they have for pitching other than CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Liefer Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 QUOTE(rpmahr @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 09:35 PM) and who do they have for pitching other than CC Let's see, Cliff Lee, Jake Westbrook, Paul Byrd (always good for a few wins), Foulke. Don't be surprised if the team runs away with it. It's impossible to predict anything right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 QUOTE(rpmahr @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 09:35 PM) and who do they have for pitching other than CC Lee, Westbrook, Sowers, and Byrd in their rotation - which is better than the White Sox. This isn't mentioning a solid bullpen and one of the best offenses in the MLB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 02:00 PM) Lee, Westbrook, Sowers, and Byrd in their rotation - which is better than the White Sox. This isn't mentioning a solid bullpen and one of the best offenses in the MLB. Sowers could turn out to be better then a few Sox starters next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 02:00 PM) Lee, Westbrook, Sowers, and Byrd in their rotation - which is better than the White Sox. This isn't mentioning a solid bullpen and one of the best offenses in the MLB. They were terrible last year and only marginally increased their arms by signing old has-beens. They COULD be solid, but statistics say they'll be average at best. Just remember folks, Cleveland was supposed to run away with the division last year and they finished near .500, even while outscoring opponents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 The question becomes do you want to be the Florida Marlins with a couple World Series trophies sandwiching years as the worst team around, or a string of better than .500 seasons and no more World Series trophies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 01:02 PM) The question becomes do you want to be the Florida Marlins with a couple World Series trophies sandwiching years as the worst team around, or a string of better than .500 seasons and no more World Series trophies? Bottom line to win the world series you have to be in the playoffs and the best way to do that is to consistently field a winning ball club. If a winning ballclub gels they have all the ability to win a world series (because all it takes is the team playing as a unit and getting hot at the right time). I'll take a team that is continuosly in contention for the playoffs because if you are in contention for the playoffs it also means your in contention for the series because once you make the playoffs you are in a spot with 8 other teams and anything can happen. The Marlins were a complete fluke. The first squad they had was absolutely dominant and a very very good team, also a team that was purchased with lots and lots and lots of money (ie high payroll) the 2nd squad was one of very very few small budget teams that have done anything in terms of winning it all in the era of small spending. Yes, small market teams are competing better now than they were 10 years ago, but lets also remind you that the past world series winners only the Marlins are what I'd consider a small market team. The White Sox, Angels, Dbacks, Yankees, Red Sox, & Cards are all teams with a better than average payroll and are not what I'd call small market teams. Heck, if you want to throw in world series losers like the Giants, Astros, Yankees, Cardinals, Tigers are again teams that I'd consider large market or upper payroll teams. So yes, I'd rather be in the position of the Sox continously contending because that to me gives you a far greater chance at winning it all than simply going out every 5 years and trying to find pure magic and have every young player develop and turn into a world series winner (I think the odds of that aren't much greater than winning the lotto). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 10:16 AM) They were terrible last year and only marginally increased their arms by signing old has-beens. They COULD be solid, but statistics say they'll be average at best. Just remember folks, Cleveland was supposed to run away with the division last year and they finished near .500, even while outscoring opponents. Old has beens who put up ERAs of 4.00 and WHIPs of 1.30 is still better than what they had last year, and I think they'll be better than that. And Cleveland was ***NOT*** supposed to run away with the division last year. Of 19 writers, 11 picked the White Sox last year, 7 picked the Indians, and 1 picked the Twins (thanks Kalapse). Beyond that, their rotation got much worse from 2005 to 2006 (Paul Byrd replaced Kevin Millwood, and Jason Johnson replaced Scott Elarton), they got worse in LF moving from Coco to Michaels, and Travis Hafner was out for a month. They've improved all of those this year - Sowers is replacing Johnson as the 5th starter, the bullpen has been upgraded (whether people like that their 4 oldest pitchers combined age is 200+), and the entire lineup has improved with the additions of Dellucci and Nixon, while Barfield is a nice young player who will make a great 8-9 hitter. The Indians are a threat and their entire roster, up and down, is easily more talented than the White Sox roster is. To be quite honest...if they can put it all together, I expect them to run away with the division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Cleveland's pitching staff in 2006 gave up fewer runs than the White Sox staff in 2006. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan3530 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 don't overhype the indians. I dont know why everyone thinks they have the better rotation. Didnt most of there rotation have bad years? If everyone is sure they are going to rebound there is no think buerhle, contreras, vazquez, etc wont as well. Yes they have a good offense but didnt the sox score more runs, hit more homers, etc. They could be a good team but i would still take the sox roster over the indians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 06:53 PM) Actually, the Indians had a better team ERA than the Sox, as well as more runs scored than the Sox. Please don't let the facts get in the way. Despite having possibly the worst bullpen in baseball last season they still managed to post a better team ERA than the Sox, that should say something right there. They also have a defined #1 and #5 unlike the Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I'm not even going to argue this anymore because some people just have trouble looking at the Indians and Sox objectively. I have no problem with people firmly believing the Sox are better than the Indians, but provide some research and analysis other than "weren't they bad...?" followed by why the Sox are good and other opinions. My opinion, right now, is that the Indians have a much more talented overall roster and should be the favorites in the AL Central going into the season next year. I have my reasons, and will explain if someone really wants me to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.