PDA

View Full Version : Did the Sox overpay for Colon?


gosox41
02-11-2003, 03:42 PM
My buddies and I were discussing this issue. We're all thrilled the Sox got Bartolo Colon, but is it possible the Sox still overpaid for him?

We were drawing comparisons to the stock market. In 1999 you could have bought Yahoo and Amazon for like $300-350 a share because that was what the going rate at the time, howver over/under priced people thought they were. If you waited until 2001 you could have paid a fraction of that for both those stocks because that is what the market was dictating.

Now look at Bartolo Colon. Kevin Millwood, an equivalent pitcher gets traded for a AAA catcher within his own division. Why? because that's what the market allowed. Someone could have offered more, but no one did. In the same environment the Sox gave up cash, Osuna, Liefer, and Biddle in order to land Colon. Now maybe if this trade was made back a year or two ago it would have been a good deal, but was it still giving up too much in an environment where an equivalent starter went for basically nothing?

This leads me to my next question: Why didn't the Sox go for Millwood? Was it because of Boras (which is why I don't see the Sox signing Rogers)? The difference in money was only $1.7 mill, but the Sox would have kep extra arms in their bullpen which would add value on the field. I am going to believe anything John Schuerholz does or says over anything Kenny Williams says or does because he has a ton more credibility.


Does anyone else think about the trade this way?

Bob

hold2dibber
02-11-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
My buddies and I were discussing this issue. We're all thrilled the Sox got Bartolo Colon, but is it possible the Sox still overpaid for him?

We were drawing comparisons to the stock market. In 1999 you could have bought Yahoo and Amazon for like $300-350 a share because that was what the going rate at the time, howver over/under priced people thought they were. If you waited until 2001 you could have paid a fraction of that for both those stocks because that is what the market was dictating.

Now look at Bartolo Colon. Kevin Millwood, an equivalent pitcher gets traded for a AAA catcher within his own division. Why? because that's what the market allowed. Someone could have offered more, but no one did. In the same environment the Sox gave up cash, Osuna, Liefer, and Biddle in order to land Colon. Now maybe if this trade was made back a year or two ago it would have been a good deal, but was it still giving up too much in an environment where an equivalent starter went for basically nothing?

This leads me to my next question: Why didn't the Sox go for Millwood? Was it because of Boras (which is why I don't see the Sox signing Rogers)? The difference in money was only $1.7 mill, but the Sox would have kep extra arms in their bullpen which would add value on the field. I am going to believe anything John Schuerholz does or says over anything Kenny Williams says or does because he has a ton more credibility.


Does anyone else think about the trade this way?

Bob

The Millwood deal was an aberration. For the life of me, I still can't understand how/why that deal worked out as it worked out. Despite Schuerholz's explanation, I find it unfathomable that no one would have given him more than Johnny Estrada. I think it extremely unfair to KW to simpy assume he had the opportunity to get Millwood for that little. Believe me, every fan of every team in the majors is looking at that deal and screaming "why didn't we get in on that action!" If you use the Millwood deal as a barometer, EVERY deal this offseason involved someone vastly overpaying. I mean, if Millwood is only worth Johnny Estrada, the Braves got absolutely ripped off by giving away Moss for Ortiz. If the Millwood trade is the measuring stick, the D-Backs should have been able to get Elmer Dessens for a bag of potato chips instead of having to deal Durazo. You could go on and on. The Millwood trade is simply not a fair comparison for any trade made this offseason.

And by any objective standard, the Sox did not overpay for Colon. They didn't give up anyone who was not easily replaceable (and, in fact, they promptly went about replacing the people they gave up with players that are at least as good, if not better -- i.e., Daubach/Rios instead of Liefer, White and Gordon instead of Osuna, White/Loaizia/Heredia instead of Biddle). It was a great trade. Period.

baggio202
02-11-2003, 04:07 PM
the way i look at it we almost got colon for free...

we gave up biddle...replaced him with rick white..white is a better pitcher imo

we gave up osuna..replaced him with gordon...its a wash only because of gordon's propensity for injury..should gordon stay healthy he is an upgrade over osuna..though osuna isnt exactly injury free either..

we gave up liefer..replaced him with daubach..thats a upgrade in my book...

the cash we gave up actually came from the yankees if i understand the deal correctly...

we came out way ahead in this deal...im no fan of KW but this deal really worked out well for him...it looked like the first time in 3 seasons he actually planned ahead and deal "A" followed by deals "B" and "C" actually had a plan to them to make us a better team....even if colon was to fall on his face (knock on wood) the other guys we got to replaced the guys we traded will still make us a better team...even if this deal fails i wont fault KW because the logic was right...he finally had a real plan and followed it through

kermittheefrog
02-11-2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
My buddies and I were discussing this issue. We're all thrilled the Sox got Bartolo Colon, but is it possible the Sox still overpaid for him?

We were drawing comparisons to the stock market. In 1999 you could have bought Yahoo and Amazon for like $300-350 a share because that was what the going rate at the time, howver over/under priced people thought they were. If you waited until 2001 you could have paid a fraction of that for both those stocks because that is what the market was dictating.

Now look at Bartolo Colon. Kevin Millwood, an equivalent pitcher gets traded for a AAA catcher within his own division. Why? because that's what the market allowed. Someone could have offered more, but no one did. In the same environment the Sox gave up cash, Osuna, Liefer, and Biddle in order to land Colon. Now maybe if this trade was made back a year or two ago it would have been a good deal, but was it still giving up too much in an environment where an equivalent starter went for basically nothing?

This leads me to my next question: Why didn't the Sox go for Millwood? Was it because of Boras (which is why I don't see the Sox signing Rogers)? The difference in money was only $1.7 mill, but the Sox would have kep extra arms in their bullpen which would add value on the field. I am going to believe anything John Schuerholz does or says over anything Kenny Williams says or does because he has a ton more credibility.


Does anyone else think about the trade this way?

Bob

Are you even paying attention to what we gave up? Trickets! We got another ace. Jeez.

gosox3072
02-11-2003, 04:14 PM
I agree with what you said baggio besides its better to trade for 1 awsome player than it is to trade for a couple of decent players. But of course this great deal is not complete until we sign colon long term.

GOSOX-and NIU

PaleHoseGeorge
02-11-2003, 04:18 PM
Trading away Liefer, Osuna, Biddle, and cash for Bartolo Colon was the greatest steal in MLB this winter--save of course for the Millwood trade that might go down as the greatest steal of the decade. Quantity does not equal quality. Guys like Liefer are easily replaced.

I think it speaks to the growth KW has demonstrated this winter as Sox GM that ALL the principal players in the deal, including NY's Cashman, said it was Williams who got the parties together and got the deal done. That is very high praise.

:KW
"I may look stupid, but..."

kevingrt
02-11-2003, 04:25 PM
Dude, who cares if we go past the 1st round and Colon plays well, do you think many will care.

voodoochile
02-11-2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by baggio202
the way i look at it we almost got colon for free...

we gave up biddle...replaced him with rick white..white is a better pitcher imo

we gave up osuna..replaced him with gordon...its a wash only because of gordon's propensity for injury..should gordon stay healthy he is an upgrade over osuna..though osuna isnt exactly injury free either..

we gave up liefer..replaced him with daubach..thats a upgrade in my book...

the cash we gave up actually came from the yankees if i understand the deal correctly...

we came out way ahead in this deal...im no fan of KW but this deal really worked out well for him...it looked like the first time in 3 seasons he actually planned ahead and deal "A" followed by deals "B" and "C" actually had a plan to them to make us a better team....even if colon was to fall on his face (knock on wood) the other guys we got to replaced the guys we traded will still make us a better team...even if this deal fails i wont fault KW because the logic was right...he finally had a real plan and followed it through

Beyond whether the people we got to replace the players we lost is the value the players we traded had for the Sox. Biddle was at best fighting for a 5th starter slot and probably would have ended up in long relief, IMO. Osuna was a short reliever/setup man which tend to be a dime a dozen in the majors and Leifer probably was gone off the team anyway - especially knowing KW's love for trading whiners. This was a no-brainer...

We were drawing comparisons to the stock market. In 1999 you could have bought Yahoo and Amazon for like $300-350 a share because that was what the going rate at the time, howver over/under priced people thought they were. If you waited until 2001 you could have paid a fraction of that for both those stocks because that is what the market was dictating.

Every analyst who understood the history of the market said that those stocks were WAY WAY overpriced based on their PE ratio. In fact the market as it currently sits is in line with historical PE ratios (maybe slightly low actually). The fact is that people over paid for those stocks which is what made them so expensive, now their prices more accurately reflect their value. People bid those stocks up because they had no idea of how stock prices are set and thought that it is purely based on market forces (like the price of beef or corn or Pepsi). That isn't the case. Stock prices are supposed to be based on the future value of earnings. Current earnings = $1/share this year means a value of $25 for the stock (or whatever) because the value of $1 next year is less than it is today. After 30 years or so, the value of $1 drops to almost $0.00 in today's money. So to calculate the value of a share of stock, you just add up all those yearly figures until the value of that years $1 = $0.00 in todays money and presto that is the price the stock should be selling at. That was never the case when the Internet bubble was driving the Nasdaq through the roof.

To use a MLB comparison - it would be like giving Royce Clayton ARod money. And, speacking of ARod - look at how player contracts have dropped in the last few years. No one is going to see that type of contract again for a long long time. In fact, I would be surprised if anyone signs for more than $15M a year anytime in the near future.

pearso66
02-11-2003, 04:51 PM
You guys all say we replaced Biddle with White, the way I look at it is we replaced Biddle with Colon. He's basically takign his spot in the rotation, granted not the 5 spot, but its a rotation spot filled that was given up. To me, this is a great trade, even if he leaves, I'm glad that they are sayign ok this year we are going to try. Sure I'd like them to sign colon for a couple years, but we all know how Jerry works, so I'm just gonna sit back and hopefully enjoy the ride

gogosoxgogo
02-11-2003, 04:55 PM
No, what a stupid topic. We ripped them off, and I know no one, besides stupid Cub fans at my school, who say otherwise. Let's see, a 20-game winner with a sub 3 ERA for a wining bench player who couldn't hit .220 (And boy am I going to miss his power!), a marginal 5th starter on a .500 team, and a relief pitcher who happens to be the best player we gave up in the trade.

Yes, the Phillies got a better deal in Milwood, but I certainly wouldn't say they overpaid. Christ, that's the biggest steal of all time. Yeah, it would have been great to get him for Josh Paul, but for what we gave up to get Colon, I'll be allright.

maurice
02-11-2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
is it possible the Sox still overpaid for him?

No. The only potential impact player the Sox gave up was Biddle. IMHO, he will be a good-but-not-great major league pitcher. As others have pointed out, Osuna and Liefer were so easily replaceable through free agency that they had virtually no trade value.

Ventura23Fan
02-11-2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by baggio202
the cash we gave up actually came from the yankees if i understand the deal correctly...


The way I understood the deal, the Yankees gave $2 million to the Sox and the Sox gave that plus an additional $2 million to the Expos. So the Expos are basically getting El Duque for free this season. Regardless, this was one deal Kenny got right.

Bmr31
02-11-2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
No, what a stupid topic. We ripped them off, and I know no one, besides stupid Cub fans at my school, who say otherwise. Let's see, a 20-game winner with a sub 3 ERA for a wining bench player who couldn't hit .220 (And boy am I going to miss his power!), a marginal 5th starter on a .500 team, and a relief pitcher who happens to be the best player we gave up in the trade.

Yes, the Phillies got a better deal in Milwood, but I certainly wouldn't say they overpaid. Christ, that's the biggest steal of all time. Yeah, it would have been great to get him for Josh Paul, but for what we gave up to get Colon, I'll be allright.

I agree. This may have been one of the dumbest threads in the history of WSI. In fact, it has my vote.

gogosoxgogo
02-11-2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I agree. This may have been one of the dumbest threads in the history of WSI. In fact, it has my vote.

Can we start a poll for that. This would be my top choice as well.

Bmr31
02-11-2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
Can we start a poll for that. This would be my top choice as well.

There have been some dumb or silly threads, but those were intended that way. This one has my vote due to a combination of its seriousness and stupidity.

WhiteSoxWinner
02-11-2003, 09:36 PM
I know this is speculation that I read, but I think the reason the Braves traded Millwood so cheaply was because of Maddux. If I recall the timing correctly, Maddux either accepted or was saying he would accept arbitration. This probably took the Braves by surprise. They panicked and told Schuerholz you have to dump payroll. And do it quick!!! No matter the offer. This will not happen again any time soon.

I think the trade was great and anyone who even suggests that we overpaid is jealous they missed out on this deal.

Dadawg_77
02-11-2003, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Every analyst who understood the history of the market said that those stocks were WAY WAY overpriced based on their PE ratio. In fact the market as it currently sits is in line with historical PE ratios (maybe slightly low actually). The fact is that people over paid for those stocks which is what made them so expensive, now their prices more accurately reflect their value. People bid those stocks up because they had no idea of how stock prices are set and thought that it is purely based on market forces (like the price of beef or corn or Pepsi). That isn't the case. Stock prices are supposed to be based on the future value of earnings. Current earnings = $1/share this year means a value of $25 for the stock (or whatever) because the value of $1 next year is less than it is today. After 30 years or so, the value of $1 drops to almost $0.00 in today's money. So to calculate the value of a share of stock, you just add up all those yearly figures until the value of that years $1 = $0.00 in todays money and presto that is the price the stock should be selling at. That was never the case when the Internet bubble was driving the Nasdaq through the roof.

huh? The market sets the price for what a stock will sell for. Yes you are correct that future earning are a major factor. The market is what decides how much those future earnings will be worth. What happen during the great bubble was people believed the hype and either were willing to pay to much for future earnings or (more likely the case) great overestimated what those future earnings will be. Good young companies have great growth % because $1 to $2 is a 100% increase but $101 to $102 is the not even 1%. Some people didn't realize this fact and were thinking high revenue growth rates every year. Plus I am realy stuck on your NPV calculation.

Oh the true value of a stock is Assets - liabilities / number of common stock but you'll never see a good company trade for that low nor should it but if the company ceased to exist that is what you would have. The majority of a stock price is a gamble on the companies future earnings.

Oh the topic is interesting but I will need a few in me to fully debate. It sounds like that is where is came from.

gosox41
02-13-2003, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Are you even paying attention to what we gave up? Trickets! We got another ace. Jeez.

I'm not saying we overpaid for Colon based on other deals. I was just comparing it to an equivalent deal. Why couldn't the Sox have traded for Millwood and given up an equivalent minor leaguer as the Phillies did then go package Osuna or whoever in another deal to fill other holes.

That's my point. It's big picture. If the Sox could have gotten two effective starters for Osuna, Liefer, Biddle, and an Estrada equivalent instead of one it would make more sense to me.

Bob

gosox41
02-13-2003, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Beyond whether the people we got to replace the players we lost is the value the players we traded had for the Sox. Biddle was at best fighting for a 5th starter slot and probably would have ended up in long relief, IMO. Osuna was a short reliever/setup man which tend to be a dime a dozen in the majors and Leifer probably was gone off the team anyway - especially knowing KW's love for trading whiners. This was a no-brainer...



Every analyst who understood the history of the market said that those stocks were WAY WAY overpriced based on their PE ratio. In fact the market as it currently sits is in line with historical PE ratios (maybe slightly low actually). The fact is that people over paid for those stocks which is what made them so expensive, now their prices more accurately reflect their value. People bid those stocks up because they had no idea of how stock prices are set and thought that it is purely based on market forces (like the price of beef or corn or Pepsi). That isn't the case. Stock prices are supposed to be based on the future value of earnings. Current earnings = $1/share this year means a value of $25 for the stock (or whatever) because the value of $1 next year is less than it is today. After 30 years or so, the value of $1 drops to almost $0.00 in today's money. So to calculate the value of a share of stock, you just add up all those yearly figures until the value of that years $1 = $0.00 in todays money and presto that is the price the stock should be selling at. That was never the case when the Internet bubble was driving the Nasdaq through the roof.

To use a MLB comparison - it would be like giving Royce Clayton ARod money. And, speacking of ARod - look at how player contracts have dropped in the last few years. No one is going to see that type of contract again for a long long time. In fact, I would be surprised if anyone signs for more than $15M a year anytime in the near future.


I wasn't trying to make things that compilicated about what how stocks are valued. Prices of stocks are determined simply on supply/demand, whether they're overvalued or not. The same is true for the free agent market and trade market in baseball. The market has certain levels it values things at. Is Kevin Millwood really worth Estrada? No. but that's what the market beared at the time. Is A-Rod overpaid? Based on what the market was bearing in 2000 it's hard to argue that. But on today's standards, just like the stock market, he wouldn't have the same value in the marketplace.

Bob

gosox41
02-13-2003, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I agree. This may have been one of the dumbest threads in the history of WSI. In fact, it has my vote.


Maybe you missed the point. Or maybe you're bitter because you've been getting hurt in the stock market. Bottom line is I would much rather have gotten been involved in the Millwood trade over the Colon trade. I'm not saying the Colon trade was bad but just comparing the value of two equivalent pitchers in the trade market. I didn't realize that was such a stupid discussion. Maybe there should be some more posts talking smack about the Twins and how the Sox are going to run away with the division this year. While we're at it we can have a KW lovefest thread because he finally made one good major deal in the 2 1/2 years he's been here.

Bob

T Dog
02-13-2003, 11:08 AM
Obviously, Estrada and Millwood are not of comparable worth. The Phillies have to win the NL East this year just to show the Braves there is a price to pay for being stupid.

I think this is a legitimate thread for other reasons. I think most posters here underestimate the talent of Rocky Biddle. My understanding is that the Expos wanted Biddle as opposed to Rauch and other Sox pitchers who would many would rate at a comparable level of experience or potential. I am very happy to have Colon, although sorry to lose Biddle.

If Biddle has a breakout season, which wouldn't surprise me, and Colon goes to free agency, which seems to be the assumption on the board, this thread might not seem so silly.

doublem23
02-13-2003, 12:04 PM
Actually I'd personally rather have the Colon deal done, as we not only get a better starter (IMO), we also flushed some of the crap out of our system (*cough*Jeff Liefer*cough*). If we got Millwood for someone, we'd still have that moron floating around whining about how a guy who hits .250 but with 30 home runs doesn't get enough playing time over guys like Maggs, CLee, Konerko, and the Big Hurt.

Bmr31
02-13-2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Maybe you missed the point. Or maybe you're bitter because you've been getting hurt in the stock market. Bottom line is I would much rather have gotten been involved in the Millwood trade over the Colon trade. I'm not saying the Colon trade was bad but just comparing the value of two equivalent pitchers in the trade market. I didn't realize that was such a stupid discussion. Maybe there should be some more posts talking smack about the Twins and how the Sox are going to run away with the division this year. While we're at it we can have a KW lovefest thread because he finally made one good major deal in the 2 1/2 years he's been here.

Bob


Nice post. Still the dumbest thread ever......

hold2dibber
02-13-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I'm not saying we overpaid for Colon based on other deals. I was just comparing it to an equivalent deal. Why couldn't the Sox have traded for Millwood and given up an equivalent minor leaguer as the Phillies did then go package Osuna or whoever in another deal to fill other holes.

That's my point. It's big picture. If the Sox could have gotten two effective starters for Osuna, Liefer, Biddle, and an Estrada equivalent instead of one it would make more sense to me.

Bob

The Millwood deal was the most obviously lopsided deal I can ever remember, ever. Every trade made for the last decade pales in comparison to that one. You can't judge the Colon trade by comparing it to the Millwood trade; that was an aberration. I mean, the Giants got WAY more for Russ friggin' Ortiz (in particular, Damian Moss) than the Braves got for Millwood, who is far and away a better pitcher than Ortiz. The Rockies got WAY more for Mike Hampton, the worst starting pitcher in major league baseball last year, than the Braves got for Millwood. The Padres got more for Brett Tomko than the Braves got for Millwood. I could go on and on.

Bmr31
02-13-2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
The Millwood deal was the most obviously lopsided deal I can ever remember, ever. Every trade made for the last decade pales in comparison to that one. You can't judge the Colon trade by comparing it to the Millwood trade; that was an aberration. I mean, the Giants got WAY more for Russ friggin' Ortiz (in particular, Damian Moss) than the Braves got for Millwood, who is far and away a better pitcher than Ortiz. The Rockies got WAY more for Mike Hampton, the worst starting pitcher in major league baseball last year, than the Braves got for Millwood. The Padres got more for Brett Tomko than the Braves got for Millwood. I could go on and on.

Why even explain the obvious, he couldnt possibly not know all this. Heck, my sister does.

34 Inch Stick
02-13-2003, 03:56 PM
Let's end this post by simply answering the dumb ass question. Listen up because this is important.


NO!

Thank you, now let's put this baby to bed.

Bmr31
02-13-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Let's end this post by simply answering the dumb ass question. Listen up because this is important.


NO!

Thank you, now let's put this baby to bed.

E
X
A
C
T
L
Y

gogosoxgogo
02-13-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I'm not saying we overpaid for Colon based on other deals. I was just comparing it to an equivalent deal. Why couldn't the Sox have traded for Millwood and given up an equivalent minor leaguer as the Phillies did then go package Osuna or whoever in another deal to fill other holes.

That's my point. It's big picture. If the Sox could have gotten two effective starters for Osuna, Liefer, Biddle, and an Estrada equivalent instead of one it would make more sense to me.

Bob

Yeah, it would have been nice to get Milwood for Josh Paul, but we have no idea what was going on in the front offices. My guess is that the Braves did not go out and contact every single GM in baseball saying Milwood is on the block. I'm thinking the Phils heard a rumor saying they wanted to get rid of Milwood, and offered something to let the Braves know they were interested. The Braves, with the acceptance of Maddux, needed to cut payroll, freaked out, and accepted the first thing that came to them. I'm willing to bet KW never knew there was a remote possibility Milwood could have been in a Sox uniform.

You can't just always say that we should have gotten someone because we could have offered something better. We as fans have no idea what goes on in the front offices. Yeah, it would have been nice to get Babe Ruth for a little cash, but the same deal applies.

gogosoxgogo
02-13-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Maybe you missed the point. Or maybe you're bitter because you've been getting hurt in the stock market. Bottom line is I would much rather have gotten been involved in the Millwood trade over the Colon trade. I'm not saying the Colon trade was bad but just comparing the value of two equivalent pitchers in the trade market. I didn't realize that was such a stupid discussion. Maybe there should be some more posts talking smack about the Twins and how the Sox are going to run away with the division this year. While we're at it we can have a KW lovefest thread because he finally made one good major deal in the 2 1/2 years he's been here.

Bob

I think you're actually missing the point. Just because the Phillies got a great deal in getting Milwood, and we didn't get him, that doesn't mean that we overpayed for getting Colon. Believe it or not, there can be more than one team underpaying for a player in an offseason.

gosox41
02-13-2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Nice post. Still the dumbest thread ever......

Then why respond? Nothing better to do?

Bmr31
02-13-2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Then why respond? Nothing better to do?

I responded for the same reason everyone else did......i believe youll never understand that reason.

Tragg
02-13-2003, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
My buddies and I were discussing this issue. We're all thrilled the Sox got Bartolo Colon, but is it possible the Sox still overpaid for him?



No; we essentially traded Osuna for him. That's not overpaying.
You can't measure a trade by the milwood deal - that wasn't an objective, arms-length transaction. It was a fluke., a feak.

gosox41
02-14-2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I responded for the same reason everyone else did......i believe youll never understand that reason.


So you don't have a good reason and you just try to speak cryptically because in reality you don't want to admit you've been wasting your time replying to the "dumbest" thread ever on WSI. You're just trying to make it sound like there's something more then what it is.


Reminds me of that Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman movie. If you loved it, it means you got that deeper meaning. If you hated it, you just missed the underlying point and will never understand the greatness of the movie.


Bob

Bmr31
02-14-2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
So you don't have a good reason and you just try to speak cryptically because in reality you don't want to admit you've been wasting your time replying to the "dumbest" thread ever on WSI. You're just trying to make it sound like there's something more then what it is.


Reminds me of that Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman movie. If you loved it, it means you got that deeper meaning. If you hated it, you just missed the underlying point and will never understand the greatness of the movie.


Bob


LOL this is comical.....it amazes me when people dont see the obvious.

gosox41
02-14-2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
LOL this is comical.....it amazes me when people dont see the obvious.


Keep posting in this thread. I want to see how long you're going to keep it up. That's comical and obvious.

hempsox
02-15-2003, 09:27 PM
Just because I have been reading this thread for too long to let it die like this...

Originally posted by gosox41
Reminds me of that Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman movie. If you loved it, it means you got that deeper meaning. If you hated it, you just missed the underlying point and will never understand the greatness of the movie.

You're talking about "Days of Thunder" I would assume.

Daver
02-15-2003, 09:38 PM
In the long run the Sox may regret giving up on Rocky Biddle,but the short term reward for the deal far overshadows that.

And I might add anything that gets Jeff Leifer out of a White Sox uniform has to be a good deal for the Sox.

:redneck

EnricoPallazzo
02-15-2003, 10:43 PM
ALRIGHT! EVERYBODY!
Take a deep deep breath, exhale slowly. Do it one more time. There, now doesn't that feel better.

We all have the baseball equivalent of cabin fever (and probably regular cabin fever too).

We buy the paper every day, only to see article after article about Dusty, Stoney, and Sam-me. The scrub fans are getting their methadone maintenace doses while we have to go cold turkey, so we are all getting very edgy.

The nightmare that is February will end soon. Just keep repeating "pitchers and catchers report, pitchers and catchers report"

Go to a movie, take the little woman out to dinner, try to keep the upcoming glorious season out of your minds for a minute or two.

Everything gonna be alright.

hold2dibber
02-16-2003, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by EnricoPallazzo
ALRIGHT! EVERYBODY!
Take a deep deep breath, exhale slowly. Do it one more time. There, now doesn't that feel better.

We all have the baseball equivalent of cabin fever (and probably regular cabin fever too).

We buy the paper every day, only to see article after article about Dusty, Stoney, and Sam-me. The scrub fans are getting their methadone maintenace doses while we have to go cold turkey, so we are all getting very edgy.

The nightmare that is February will end soon. Just keep repeating "pitchers and catchers report, pitchers and catchers report"

Go to a movie, take the little woman out to dinner, try to keep the upcoming glorious season out of your minds for a minute or two.

Everything gonna be alright.

Okay, I've resisted so far, but I can't take it anymore, I just have to let it out:

"IT"S ENRICO PALLAZZO!!!!"

Perhaps the greatest movie ever.

voodoochile
02-16-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Okay, I've resisted so far, but I can't take it anymore, I just have to let it out:

"IT"S ENRICO PALLAZZO!!!!"

Perhaps the greatest movie ever.

I have been trying to remember why I recognized that name... thanks...

gosox41
02-17-2003, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by hempsox
Just because I have been reading this thread for too long to let it die like this...



You're talking about "Days of Thunder" I would assume.

LOL. I forgot they did that one. Of course I was thinking about that other deep movie out a few years ago written by the dead guy (when he was alive).

Mammoo
02-17-2003, 10:43 AM
Never thought of it that way. I guess I just looked at what they gave up and what Colon brings to the staff.

You have a good point about Boras. He's a troublesome fellow!
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/media/105000/105827/010509_ScottBoras.jpg