PDA

View Full Version : Just Got My SI and TSN Magazines


kevingrt
03-26-2003, 04:26 PM
In Sports Illustrated they rank us 2nd in the AL Central and #15 overall right behind the #14 Scrubs. It pisses me OFF!

In The Sporting News they rank the Twinkies 1st overall winning the World Series while they have us at #13 and the Scrubs at #15

Juan Pizarro
03-26-2003, 04:51 PM
Hey, it's better to fly under the radar.
It's more important what is written after the season than before it. That's why they play all those pesky games. Thank Jah baseball isn't the Oscars.

TheBigHurt
03-26-2003, 05:20 PM
WOW i think everyone is ignoring us..........

ohh well it all go away come March 31st

BE GOOD

Blueprint1
03-26-2003, 05:51 PM
I remember in 2000 everyone ignored us too. Oh yeah and in 2001 everyone thought we were going to win the division. Hmm I guess its okay with me. I know we can win this division its not going to be easy but we can do it.

Shoeless Joe
03-26-2003, 06:05 PM
Let's be grateful that we weren't on the cover of SI. The last thing we want is the "SI" curse on us, that'll go to the Yanks this year. Besides, White Sox fans will rejoice once October comes and the Twins are going home for the playoffs.

jeremyb1
03-26-2003, 07:14 PM
wow. that's absolutely incredible. i guess flying under the radar is right. i just don't understand how you could rank us below the cubs. we won 14 more games than them last season and it'd be hard to argue they've improved their team more.

oh well, this is just what happened in '00 when we'd played relatively well with a young talented team in '99 and then were picked to finish in last place in the division. its fun proving people wrong sometimes. in some ways though, i really do find the lack of respect offensive.

Lip Man 1
03-26-2003, 08:45 PM
I don't think the Cubs are better then the Sox but I can see why people think that.

Dusty Baker is an outstanding manager much better then Manager Gandhi and the Cubs starting rotation (on paper) is among the best in the National League. The Sox have two studs and until proven otherwise, three question marks.

Also I'm sure they looked at fielding skill, and execution of fundamentals. Again until the Sox show otherwise on the field, these are areas that could be a problem (again)

Also the Cubs payroll is what 75 million? The Sox is 53 which buys you scant respect.

Lip

Daver
03-26-2003, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1


Also the Cubs payroll is what 75 million? The Sox is 53 which buys you scant respect.

Lip

How much respect do you have for the Oakland A's? They have made the playoffs pretty consistently the last five years and their payroll is lower than the Sox.

Not everything is based on payroll.

Dadawg_77
03-26-2003, 08:58 PM
TSN is off its rocker thinking the Twins are the best team. They will be lucky to win 90 games this year. (So will the Sox) The AL Central will be the worst division in baseball and the division winner will have 86-90 victories.

Lip Man 1
03-26-2003, 09:00 PM
Daver:

Since teams that have been outside the top ten in payroll the last five years have won what? 10 playoffs games total, I think it has a little something to do with it don't you think?

Money buys you respect, money buys you "name" players and money seems to be you pennants.

I think the A's are an abberation (although an extremely talented one at least for now until they lose all their players)

Lip

Daver
03-26-2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Daver:

Since teams that have been outside the top ten in payroll the last five years have won what? 10 playoffs games total, I think it has a little something to do with it don't you think?

Money buys you respect, money buys you "name" players and money seems to be you pennants.

I think the A's are an abberation (although an extremely talented one at least for now until they lose all their players)

Lip

The A's spend better than most teams,they spend it on scouting,and their farm system is well stocked enough to make me think they are not an aberration,they are the model that all teams will soon look to as the current CBA plays itself out.Keep in mind,all the so-called "luxury tax" numbers go up in yearly increments as the CBA matures,next year every team will strive to have what the A's enjoy now.The Yankees and the Mets are the only two teams that gambled with the numbers thinking they will give it one last shot before the future kills them,every other team saw the writing on the wall and stayed away from anything that will kill them next year financially.

If people thought this years FA market was bad,wait till you see what happens next year.

In the past you may have been correct Mark,but given todays economics,the past is gone.

MarkEdward
03-26-2003, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

I think the A's are an abberation (although an extremely talented one at least for now until they lose all their players)

Lip

Are the Twins and Angels also abberations?

Dadawg_77
03-26-2003, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
talented one at least for now until they lose all their players)

Lip

Lip, the A's are built on replacement value economics. They will Miguel, but they already have some who will be as good if not better in the wings. That is the key to the A's, you become to expensive, see and we get some one else to take your spot. That is why even when the A's lose players, they won't lose much ground.

Jerry_Manuel
03-26-2003, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Dusty Baker is an outstanding manager much better then Manager Gandhi and the Cubs starting rotation (on paper) is among the best in the National League. The Sox have two studs and until proven otherwise, three question marks.


I see two guys in the Cubs starting five who I know will have a good year. Same thing for the White Sox, I don't really see how anyone can say Clement, Zambrano, and Estes rounds out one of the best staffs in the NL.

Clement was good last year, but he had good season in Florida and San Diego that he couldn't follow up on. If he can follow up on them than the Cubs top three will be great. I think he and Garland are in the same boat.

Zambrano had some moments last year, but so did Wright.

Estes isn't a world beater by any means.

jeremyb1
03-26-2003, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I don't think the Cubs are better then the Sox but I can see why people think that.

Dusty Baker is an outstanding manager much better then Manager Gandhi and the Cubs starting rotation (on paper) is among the best in the National League. The Sox have two studs and until proven otherwise, three question marks.

Also I'm sure they looked at fielding skill, and execution of fundamentals. Again until the Sox show otherwise on the field, these are areas that could be a problem (again)

Also the Cubs payroll is what 75 million? The Sox is 53 which buys you scant respect.

i still don't buy the argument that we have three question marks on the back end of our rotation. even if one will argue that loaiza and garland aren't a good three and four, they still aren't question marks. its not as though we have no clue what they're going to do.

garland has thrown 379 innings in his career with a 4.65. that's pretty reliable in my opinion. it may not be excellent but i really don't think its likely that he'll implode this year. i think we can count on him for an era under five and 180 ip. that's not a question mark to me. a question mark is a pitcher that you're not sure will be good enough to stick in the rotation and give you quality innings.

loaiza is a veteran of 8 major league seasons. with the exception of last season when his era was 5.71, his era has fallen between 4.13 and 5.16 in each of those seasons. again, he's not a great pitcher but he's a good five and probably a relatively solid four.

we definately don't have a sure thing in the five especially with wright's health issues but its not like we have buehrle, colon, and then three guys we just threw out there. garland and loaiza both have proven track records and garland still has massive upside. if you're going in terms of a proven track record and experience in the league the sox have at most one umproven pitcher more than the twins in their rotation.

Brian26
03-27-2003, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i still don't buy the argument that we have three question marks on the back end of our rotation. even if one will argue that loaiza and garland aren't a good three and four, they still aren't question marks.

Let me add to that: Garland and Loaiza are as big of question marks as Wood and Prior at this point.

Will Wood pitch a complete season this year without going on the DL? Has Wood been a solid starter since his performance in early '98? Will Wood keep fooling everyone drinking the Cubbie Koolaid over one stinking game that happened 5 years ago? Is Prior a proven major league commodity at this point? No way.

Kilroy
03-27-2003, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by kevingrt
In Sports Illustrated they rank us 2nd in the AL Central and #15 overall right behind the #14 Scrubs. It pisses me OFF!

In The Sporting News they rank the Twinkies 1st overall winning the World Series while they have us at #13 and the Scrubs at #15

I got my SI out of the mail box, and was walking in the house with it. I flipped right to the rankings and read that where SI had the Cubs ranked #14 and the Sox #15, and just threw the magazine in the recycle bin. What a crock of ****.