quade36 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 So I checked out the CBS SportsLine rankings. I am not going to argue with them, except for the reason they put the Sox where they are. http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/10091830 "We saw what a difference a year makes with their veteran rotation in 2006. With the age of their staff, you have to expect them to be closer to their form of a year ago than 2005." Now the age of their staff? I know Contreras is old, but Vasquez will be 30. Garland is 27. Buerhle is 28. And Danks is 23. That doesn't seem like an old pitching staff to me. At least they could have mentioned trades or something. This is a weak arguement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 That is some pretty faulty reasoning, it seems disinterested and rushed to me. And for the record Danks will be 22 this season, he's currently 21. And I will take offense to their rankings, the Twins, Cubs, Cardinals and Angels are not better than the Sox. I like the top of the Angles' staff (Lackey and Santana) a lot more than the Sox but with that offense, Weaver hurting and Colon being a disgusting glob of crisco and suck I don't really like them over the Sox at this point, bullpens be damned. And people call me a hater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 He must have mentioned three of four times that the Red Sox have several potential Cy-Young candidates. Several of these rankings are way off. First, even with all my criticism, I wouldn't even venture to place the White Sox 15th. 8th or 9th would be more appropriate. The disrespect shown towards the Rangers surprises me the most. 24th overall seems a bit harsh. A rotation of Milwood/Loe/Padilla/Tejada/McCarthy can, at the least, keep their team within games. You know the offense won't disappoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanne Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 What a friggin joke! That's ok though...I don't mind the no love. Gives the Sox a reason to put that chip on their shoulder. I hope they take it to heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnCangelosi Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I love CBS Sportlines' projected lineup- what obvious f*&k up did they make here??? Projected Lineup No. Player Position 1. Scott Podsednik LF 2. Darin Erstad CF 3. Jim Thome DH 4. Paul Konerko 1B 5. Jermaine Dye RF 6. A.J. Pierzynski C 7. Tadahito Iguchi 2B 8. Joe Crede 3B 9. Juan Uribe SS Crede batting 8th? WTF??? Unless I missed something these guys are a bunch of morons. And BTW, everyone is saying the Tigers are going to be awesome this year. I don't see it happening. No way do they beat KC a million times this year or pretty much start the season 40 games over. Not to mention Kenny Rogers and Verlander will not win more than 15 games combined- I see injuries in their futures ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I think some people would be happy if MLB was just the Red Sox and Yankees. They could play each other every day. So national sports writers could sit at home with giant boners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sircaffey Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Did you guys really expect better? I think we're right where we should be. Sorry, but no ones jumping out of their chair at the rotation anymore after what they did last season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wsgdf_2 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Even if it is the same as last year's team - THEY WON 90 GAMES!!!! To rank them 14th is like they finished around .500 last year... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 QUOTE(sircaffey @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 09:07 AM) Did you guys really expect better? I think we're right where we should be. Sorry, but no ones jumping out of their chair at the rotation anymore after what they did last season. Pretty much. Then again, these rankings mean as much as...well, they mean absolutly nothing. Need to play some games, first...before anyone can be ranked anywhere. One injury here, one break out star there...and the entire landscape can change. Over the years I've come to the conclusion that most of these experts are nothing more than other people with opinions...often wrong, dumb or otherwise, and it doesn't matter...because they're treated like weathermen -- wrong or right doesn't matter, they still get paid...and we still read what they have to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Nicely said Y2HH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 11:57 PM) ...and Colon being a disgusting glob of crisco and suck... I love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 08:38 AM) I love it. Have to show Ozzie the quote about "one year wonders" in the Tigers' capsule. The White Sox were pretty consistently in the Top 10 or Top 5 for most of season last year. Now we have to earn our way back again. Basically, the Cubs' $300 million gets them the same credibility as the White Sox winning 90 games last year, but, oh well. The Twins' love is interesting, although their pitchers have done well in ST from what I've read and heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 The difference between 9 and 19 is razor thin. It's an inexact guess. If it was easy to predict, we wouldn't play the games. I would have had them slightly higher, the Rangers much higher. But I know those teams better. Of course maybe they read the threads here and it soured them so much on this team that it influenced them to placing us that low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitlesswonder Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 10:09 AM) Have to show Ozzie the quote about "one year wonders" in the Tigers' capsule. That was the most obnoxious thing in the rankings I thought. Winning 90 games the season after a world championship and they're one-hit wonders. Are the Red Sox one-hit wonders then? Championship in 2004 and then swept in the wild-card round by the lowly White Sox the year after, and then 86 wins in 2006. But no, the Red Sox are a franchise for the ages. Blech. That being said, I think ranking is pretty fair. The 2007 White Sox look like a .500 team to me. There's no doubt that they are worse on paper than they were last season. The pitching may not be old chronologically, outside of Contreras, but it looks like all the innings are catching up with Buehrle and Garland (shoulder problems). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I was thinking it was more a reference to our "small ball" and our propensity to get a lot out of one hit. But if the comment was Detroit might not be so high ebcause they might not even make the playoffs this year, I agree. I don't think they will make the playoffs, and if that happens they will be exactly like us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infohawk Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(quade36 @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 11:47 PM) So I checked out the CBS SportsLine rankings. I am not going to argue with them, except for the reason they put the Sox where they are. http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/10091830 "We saw what a difference a year makes with their veteran rotation in 2006. With the age of their staff, you have to expect them to be closer to their form of a year ago than 2005." Now the age of their staff? I know Contreras is old, but Vasquez will be 30. Garland is 27. Buerhle is 28. And Danks is 23. That doesn't seem like an old pitching staff to me. At least they could have mentioned trades or something. This is a weak arguement. What's really funny is the schizophrenic nature of what passes as baseball analysis. Some segments of the national media are decrying the "advanced ages" of the staff, while the local media is raking KW over the coals for not throwing out long-term extensions to these same pitchers. Weird! Edited March 28, 2007 by infohawk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I've never put much to these power rankings from any site but putting them at 14 is rediculous imo because it's only spring training right now. Let's get real CBS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I think I understand every ranking in the top 15 except # 13. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ginger Kid Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 the cubs ahead of the Sox is just so laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanne Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 10:33 AM) I was thinking it was more a reference to our "small ball" and our propensity to get a lot out of one hit. But if the comment was Detroit might not be so high ebcause they might not even make the playoffs this year, I agree. I don't think they will make the playoffs, and if that happens they will be exactly like us. I think that would be giving these morons the benefit of the doubt that they actually knew something about the Sox...or any of these teams besides the Red Sox and Yankees. I do agree about Detroit. It seems like a ton of those guys all had career years last year and everything fell into place. They could repeat...but I'd almost think they're gonna be more like the team down the stretch last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sircaffey Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I bet every teams' fans except the Red Sox are arguing about how they should be ahead of the teams ain front of them. Put the Sox ahead of the Cubs and the top 13 are pretty accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I think the Brewers are #1 I'm just as right as that guy, whatever the hell his rankings are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamPabloOzuna Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 QUOTE(wsgdf_2 @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 09:09 AM) Even if it is the same as last year's team - THEY WON 90 GAMES!!!! To rank them 14th is like they finished around .500 last year... EXACTLY 90 games...they may have finished 3rd but "one hit wonder" is a stretch. 14 is way too low, especially having the cubs at 13. National writers tend to forget that we play in the toughest division in baseball. finishing third with 90 wins is a feat in itself...this is a pittance.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 10:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have to show Ozzie the quote about "one year wonders" in the Tigers' capsule. But one year wonders in what sense? The White Sox were the World Champs and followed up a 99 win season with a 90 win season. The Tigers - only AL Champs. There is a huge difference there. Detroit didn't even win their division last season. Stupid comparison. QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 12:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He must have mentioned three of four times that the Red Sox have several potential Cy-Young candidates. And who are these 3? The rotation is Schilling ( Cy-Young candidate?), Josh Beckett ( Cy-Young candidate?), Daisuke Matsuzaka( Cy-Young candidate?), Tim Wakefield and Julian Tavarez. Schilling I guess is one, but he is like 41 years old. The train has to eventually stop a rollin'. Josh Beckett, really? He was below average in the American league last year and definitely not someone that should be touted as a Cy-Young candidate. Daisuke Matsuzaka? He is unproven. I don't know what they have in this guy, but to call him a Cy-Young candidate is stating a lot. Then Wakefield and Tavarez - they better hope the other three guys remain injury free and get the job done, because this part of the rotations sucks some major A-S-S. QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 12:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> the cubs ahead of the Sox is just so laughable. They see the names and the amount of money spent and go WAH WAH WEE WAH without even looking at how they will do as a team. That is going to look like the worst money spent in the entire league. 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.