PDA

View Full Version : Buehrle the Bridesmaid again


DaleJRFan
01-28-2005, 12:17 PM
Brian Anderson? Better pick-off move than Mark Buehrle?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1977698

chaz171
01-28-2005, 12:23 PM
Since Brian Anderson lets more Guys on base than Mark Burhle, He'll need it more.

OurBitchinMinny
01-28-2005, 02:23 PM
Brian Anderson? Better pick-off move than Mark Buehrle?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1977698

Anderson does have a very good pick off move and he does probably have to use it more (unless he is 2 hitting the sox or something). Its just the guys opinion.

HomeFish
01-28-2005, 02:37 PM
I always wondered why we didn't get Anderson as a FA a few years back.

SoxxoS
01-28-2005, 02:39 PM
I always wondered why we didn't get Anderson as a FA a few years back.

Because he is awful?

SoxSpeed22
01-28-2005, 02:40 PM
Anderson has the Better Pick off move, but Buehrle has the better everything else.

"Would you look at that! College blernsball's finest female hitter making her big league debut against pro-ball's worst female anything! I've never seen anything this bizzare - and I've seen Mr Belvendere naked! Woo!"- Bob Uecker on Futurama

HomeFish
01-28-2005, 03:02 PM
Because he is awful?

In 2003, the year we could have got him (it appears to be a missed trade rather than a missed signing, my apologies) he was better than Garland. We didn't lose the division by all that much. Who knows what sort of difference an imporvement in the starting rotation could have made.

Add to that the fact that, since he played for Cleveland and KC that year, he probably beat the Sox several times.

santo=dorf
01-28-2005, 03:35 PM
In 2003, the year we could have got him (it appears to be a missed trade rather than a missed signing, my apologies) he was better than Garland. We didn't lose the division by all that much. Who knows what sort of difference an imporvement in the starting rotation could have made.

Add to that the fact that, since he played for Cleveland and KC that year, he probably beat the Sox several times.

He beat the Sox 5 times in 2003, and the Royals re-signed him right after the season ended because there wasn't much of a demand for his services. He ****ing sucked last year and was just as bad as any of our fifth starters!!! What is your problem? :?: :rolleyes: :kukoo:

HomeFish
01-28-2005, 03:59 PM
He beat the Sox 5 times in 2003, and the Royals re-signed him right after the season ended because there wasn't much of a demand for his services. He ****ing sucked last year and was just as bad as any of our fifth starters!!! What is your problem? :?: :rolleyes: :kukoo:

My problem is that, in 2003, Kenny could have gone out and gotten Anderson, and it would have made our team that year far better.

Mickster
01-28-2005, 04:05 PM
My problem is that, in 2003, Kenny could have gone out and gotten Anderson, and it would have made our team that year far better.

I agree. KW is stupid and JR is cheap!

SoxxoS
01-28-2005, 04:06 PM
My problem is that, in 2003, Kenny could have gone out and gotten Anderson, and it would have made our team that year far better.

Wow.

He could of got a lot of players but you do the best you can with what you got. We could of got Randy Johnson in 2000 if we would of gave up Jon Garland, Kip Wells and Jon Rauch and that would have helped the team too.

Nothing like 20/20 hindsight for a Monday Morning General Manager.

HomeFish
01-28-2005, 04:08 PM
Wow.

He could of got a lot of players but you do the best you can with what you got. We could of got Randy Johnson in 2000 if we would of gave up Jon Garland, Kip Wells and Jon Rauch and that would have helped the team too.

Nothing like 20/20 hindsight for a Monday Morning General Manager.

Anderson was very much talked about as a potential Sox acquisition that year. The fact that KC acquired him shows that Cleveland was willing to trade him within the division.

santo=dorf
01-28-2005, 04:16 PM
My problem is that, in 2003, Kenny could have gone out and gotten Anderson, and it would have made our team that year far better.

So could've 28 other teams. I found it confusing as to why the Indians traded to the Royals (within the division,) and KW tried to get Weaver (Yanks wanted Cotts,) and there was interest in Ponson. What about Hawk's "knock your socks off comment?" :?:

KW isn't the reason why we lost in 2003. Quit living in the past and wake the **** up already. :kukoo:

santo=dorf
01-28-2005, 04:19 PM
Anderson was very much talked about as a potential Sox acquisition that year. The fact that KC acquired him shows that Cleveland was willing to trade him within the division.

Does anybody know who the two minor leaguers were that KC gave up (in late August mind you)?

I can't somebody is actually bitching about not trading for Brian Anderson in 2003. It's 2005, and we look very prepared to win the division in this year. Get over it already.

Kuzman
01-29-2005, 12:02 PM
you have to realize sometimes that we all here are white sox fans, and some of us will find any reason to blame the losing.

i.e. Albert Belle completely affected the 2001 season im sure someone will come up with that nonsense