PDA

View Full Version : Beefs with Cubune's newest nonsense


cburns
02-04-2005, 12:20 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cs-050203crosstown,1,5724901.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

After reading this article, I must say I am enraged.

MUsoxfan
02-04-2005, 12:28 AM
I don't know....I'm only slightly annoyed. You HAD to know they were gonna give the edge to the Cubs (coming from the source), but they gave the Sox credit where credit was due. The fact is that the Sox have unproven guys on the staff (Iguchi, Crede, and Scotty Po...sort of).

In the words of Lou Brown....let's give them a big ****burger to eat

SomebodyToldMe
02-04-2005, 12:30 AM
I guess they didn't know that Rowand's in center and Pods is in left. Because if they did know that, the Sox would have won both of those.

jake27
02-04-2005, 12:44 AM
:rolleyes: i dont care what the media says any more about the sox because they always get shated. let them have their predictions... come the season.... the sox will make them eat their words

HebrewHammer
02-04-2005, 12:50 AM
First off, he gets our outfield wrong. Last I checked ARow in center and Pods in left, but I may be mistaken.

Second, our bullpen is BARELY better than the ScRubs? I see two guys that are at all reliable in theirs and no one capable of closing. Shingo played a full season last year and it never looked like the league was catching up to him. The ScRubs don't have anyone better than Marte, let alone Zero-san.

Catcher, to me, is a wash, they're basically the same player. Except I think AJ is more of a gamer than Barrett.

If he's not going to do his homework on Tadahito, why bother? We know he's faster than Walker, has a better glove and will, most likely hit for a higher average than Walker, who has never been much better than a servicable second baseman. Does Todd Walker get you excited about baseball? Me neither, The Gooch does.

To not give us all three outfield spots is asinine. The ScRubs have possibly the worst OF in baseball. Show me one worse, please. You wouldn't take Milwaukee's OF or Pittsburgh's over the ScRubs in a heartbeat? Maybe Houston, just because Berkman will be out for a while. Detroit, possibly worse. KC?

I also don't get his point about the ScRubs being built on OBP, defense and pitching. Pitching, fine, they have a great rotation, but nothing after that. No legit emergency starter, no closer, average(at best) middle relief. OBP? I can think of two guys on their roster who will have an OBP over 350. Nomar and Aramis, other than that, strikeout kings and dp's waiting to happen. Defense? They're OF D could be among the poorest in baseball. They're weak up the middle(Walker is adequate, but Nomar has never been anything special). Derrek Lee would be the only player I'd consider a DEFENSIVE upgrade over the Sox.

The ScRubs also have NO BENCH. Hollandsworth(and he'll be starting most of the time) and Hairston are the only two options off the bench. Everyone else is a vaccuum. The only thing the Sox are missing is a legit backup SS, if that's our biggest problem going into the season, fine, I'm thrilled to have backup shortstop as our top priority. It beats needing to find a closer, a left fielder, a bullpen and a bench.

End rant.

Jabroni
02-04-2005, 12:58 AM
Left field

Nowhere is the new direction of Williams' White Sox shown more dramatically than in left field, where speedy, defense-minded Aaron Rowand replaces the offensive numbers of Carlos Lee. But ditto the Cubs, who are replacing the production of Moises Alou with Jerry Hairston/Jason Dubois/Todd Hollandsworth, et al. The new looks in left are gigantic gambles for both teams.

Edge: White Sox.


Center field

The position of "ifs." If Corey Patterson lives up to his potential and finds a comfortable spot in the batting order. … If Scott Podsednik can get on base enough at the top of the order and steal bases. If neither of them do what is expected, the Cubs and Sox could be pondering "what-ifs" in October.

Edge: Cubs, but only on potential.They did it this way because they knew if they compared Rowand to Patterson in CF and Podsednik to Hairston/Dubois/Hollandsworth in LF the Cubs would have lost out at both positions. :rolleyes:

The fact is that:

LF Podsednik > LF Hairston/Hollandsworth (most likely one of these two will start in LF)
CF Rowand > CF Patterson

I also love this one...Designated hitter

When the teams meet at the Cell, the Sox have the advantage, with Frank Thomas (assuming he's healthy) vs. Hollandsworth/Dubois. In Wrigley, the Sox lose Thomas' bat but have a speed-defense team that should be comfortable.

Edge: White Sox.No mention of Carl Everett??? :?: Even if Frank is not healthy, we still have Carl to fill the role. I'd take Everett over Hollandsworth/Dubois any day of the week and I'm sure many Flubs fans would as well. :rolleyes:

santo=dorf
02-04-2005, 01:05 AM
Barrett might be worse defensively than Pierzynski, and Maddux looked like he was going to kill him whenever he had to pitch to him.

Barrett is a career .260 hitter with a .316 OBP whereas Pierzynski is a career .294 hitter with a .336 OBP.

The Cubs can shut down any team with pitching.
I'll have to remember that one Dyckhead the next time Prior strikes out 16 Reds players and still can't win the game.

I also get a kick out of flub fans and Homefish ripping on Pods having a .313 OBP in a down year when Corey Patterson's career OBP is .303!!! Podsednik also stole 70 bases in his down year last season, yet Patterson has managed to steal 71 bases in his entire career.

Banix12
02-04-2005, 01:30 AM
I figured most of the positions they had to give it to the cubs because some of our players aren't exactly proven over a good stretch of Major league time.

I'd say the most objectionable concept is that the cubs are rebuilding around defense and OBP. The team they are going to be starting next season is essentially the same team they ended with with the exception of swapping Burnitz for Sosa and Dubois/Hollandsworth for Alou. Alou and Sosa both have higher OBP than the other three unless i'm mistaken. The only OBP guy they added is Hairston and likely he is going to be warming the bench a good chunk of the season behind the other OF and Todd Walker.

So in all they should see a drop in OBP from last year.

They improved the defense a bit in the OF, not that it could have gotten worse than Alou and Sosa, but none of the infielders other than Lee are all that great defensively and Barrett is no prize behind the plate.

Even pitching, they have good pitchers but arguably their pitching got worse over the offseason not better. Clement last year: Rusch this year. Merker last year: Stephen Randolph this year. Closer last year Hawkins/Borowski: This year hawkins/borowski/dempster/Closer by committee?

Pitching, OBP. and Defense. It's just a phrase to hide the fact that they cubs did nothing of note to improve their team this offseason and have the same problems they always had.

StillMissOzzie
02-04-2005, 02:02 AM
I agree with the LF / CF analysis mentioned above - the Cubune manipulated the comparison so the Sox wouldn't outrank on all three positions.

I think the C spot may be a push, as I see AJ > Barrett offensively, but
Barrett > AJ defensively.

And I think the Sox bullpen is WAY better than the sCrUBS bullpen. They still have no closer, La Troya stinks, and they have a few holes in middle relief.

Other than that, another fair and balanced reporting job by the Tribune.

SMO
:gulp:

Jjav829
02-04-2005, 02:34 AM
Ehh, you had to figure the Cubs would get the advantage from the Cubune. I'd probably go...

C: Barrett over Pierzynski, but barely.
1B: Konerko over Lee, though it's close.
2B: Walker over Iguchi, simply because Walker has proven what he can do.
SS: Nomar over Uribe, self explanatory.
3B: Ramirez over Crede, no-brainer.
LF: Podsednik over Hairston, though I can see this changing.
CF: Rowand over Patterson, how long has Patterson been getting by on potential anyway? :rolleyes:
RF: Dye over Burnitz, with Dye hopefully increasing the gap
DH: Thomas/Everett over Dubois/Hollandsworth, pretty obvious.
SP: Cubs over Sox, though I hope the Sox can make this a close race.
RP: Sox over Cubs, and not "barely."

So that's Sox 6, Cubs 5, though since the DH category is kind of pointless, it's really about a tie, which is what I would expect from the season series.

Jabroni
02-04-2005, 02:51 AM
Pierzyski vs. Barrett? Well, let's see...

Pierzynski (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6109)
.294 career AVG
.336 career OBP
.438 career SLG
.773 career OPS

Barrett (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6098)
.260 career AVG
.316 career OBP
.409 career SLG
.724 career OPS

Obviously, Pierzynski is better than Barrett offensively.

I won't go into the details (because it involves too many stats) but neither is that great defensively. I do know that neither Pierzynski nor Barrett have good throwing arms. I have heard that A.J. is good at stopping balls and we all know he is good at blocking the plate. I'm not so sure of Barrett's abilities. I guess we will be able to make defensive comparisons between the two this season.

nccwsfan
02-04-2005, 06:35 AM
Ehh, you had to figure the Cubs would get the advantage from the Cubune. I'd probably go...

C: Barrett over Pierzynski, but barely.
1B: Konerko over Lee, though it's close.
2B: Walker over Iguchi, simply because Walker has proven what he can do.
SS: Nomar over Uribe, self explanatory.
3B: Ramirez over Crede, no-brainer.
LF: Podsednik over Hairston, though I can see this changing.
CF: Rowand over Patterson, how long has Patterson been getting by on potential anyway? :rolleyes:
RF: Dye over Burnitz, with Dye hopefully increasing the gap
DH: Thomas/Everett over Dubois/Hollandsworth, pretty obvious.
SP: Cubs over Sox, though I hope the Sox can make this a close race.
RP: Sox over Cubs, and not "barely."

So that's Sox 6, Cubs 5, though since the DH category is kind of pointless, it's really about a tie, which is what I would expect from the season series.

Catcher being the exception I agree with this 100%.

DumpJerry
02-04-2005, 07:11 AM
My reaction when I saw the promo piece (I can't call it objective journalism) was "the Cubune thinks the Flubs will beat the Sox? Knock me over with a feather."

ondafarm
02-04-2005, 08:02 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0502040281feb04,1,1612780.story?coll=chi-sportsnew-hed

Like this guy knows anything about baseball?

JUribe1989
02-04-2005, 08:04 AM
White Sox relief pitching better, maybe? What has this guy been smoking. Basing everything on nearly no facts whatsoever. And do your research, Ozzie has said Rowand will play center and Podsednik will play left.

Corlose 15
02-04-2005, 08:11 AM
It seemed to me he was playing the "potential" card too much in the cubs favor. Based on potential, Crede is better than Ramirez, IMO. Based on potential, with Jon Garland anchoring the 5th spot the Sox have an elite roation. It goes both ways.

chisoxlawyer
02-04-2005, 08:12 AM
The Cubune's BS article is so faulty its sickening. First, they say Barrett is better than AJ, they put Rowand in left instead of center so they can give Patterson the edge over Scotty Po based on potential, but yet potential is not factored into the second base analysis when Todd (no defense) Walker is given the edge over Gooch. Potential only factors in for the Cubs not the us. Our bullpen is "barely" better than theirs? Their pen is garbage ours is one of the better one's in the league. I will even challenge the starting pitching comparison. Who else is tired of hearing how great the Cubs rotation is. Can anyone name their twenty game winners? Any eighteen game winners? How about over-hyped. I think our starting pitching is as good as theirs. It should be even. What a bunch of crap.:angry: :angry: :angry:

Palehose13
02-04-2005, 08:31 AM
Did Homefish write this article?

What a piece of crap. Cubs are built on defense? How so? Their best defensive player is probably their first baseman.

Oh...and this burned my ass:
North and south of Madison Street, Chicago's two biggest baseball stars have been removed rudely, the ugly annulments leaving only scrapbook memories of happier summer days when all was right in right field.

:hurt
"Who's the biggest star on the Southside?"

Uncle_Patrick
02-04-2005, 08:39 AM
Potential only factors in for the Cubs not the us.

I noticed this, too. If you want to go by potential, the Crede is "potentially" better (if he gets his bat going; the Trib admitted that Crede's defense is better) than Ramirez, and Iguchi is "potentially" better than Todd "No defense" Walker.

I don't get the part about the White Sox making more improvements to their bullpen, "although they had farther to go". The Cubs pen was terrible last year, especially the closer's role. The Sox bullpen wasn't fantastic, but at they could clsoe games. How did the Sox have farther to go than the Cubs?

What do you expect from the Cubune, though?

Palehose13
02-04-2005, 08:42 AM
How did the Sox have farther to go than the Cubs?


Cause the Sox weren't supposed to win the World Series last year. The article forgot to mention the major improvements of the off-season. With Chip and Stoney gone, the cubs can focus on winning and not comments from the booth. That alone should give them and extra 10-15 games.

mcg
02-04-2005, 08:52 AM
The Cubs not only have given up the boom box, but the big-boomer theory of winning in Wrigley Field. They will go with pitching, defense and on-base percentage.

The White Sox have dismissed their bandbox ballpark and will go with the Band-Aid theory for offense, stressing overall—you guessed it—pitching, defense and on-base percentage.
This part pissed me off before I even got to the position comparisons. I think it comes off as the White Sox copying the Cub's plans. And pardon my newbness but what does bandbox ballpark mean? :?:

Ol' No. 2
02-04-2005, 08:56 AM
This part pissed me off before I even got to the position comparisons. I think it comes off as the White Sox copying the Cub's plans. And pardon my newbness but what does bandbox ballpark mean? :?:It means the guy writing the article is taking every opportunity to spin the article in the Cubs' favor. When the Cubs move toward pitching, defense and OBP it's a good move. When the Sox do the very same thing it's a "Band-Aid theory".

Uncle_Patrick
02-04-2005, 09:01 AM
Cause the Sox weren't supposed to win the World Series last year. The article forgot to mention the major improvements of the off-season. With Chip and Stoney gone, the cubs can focus on winning and not comments from the booth. That alone should give them and extra 10-15 games.

Actually, I'm surprised there was no broadcast team comparison. I'm sure Sox radio would get the nod barely because despite having the superior broadcasters, the Cubs do have legend Ron Santo in their booth. The Cubs TV broadcasting team would have the advantage based on potential.

Ol' No. 2
02-04-2005, 09:17 AM
The Cubs TV broadcasting team would have the advantage based on potential. :rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:

Yeah. They've got NOBODY there, but they could potentially dig up Harey Carey and Jack Brickhouse.

tlebar318
02-04-2005, 09:28 AM
He previews the 2005 City Series and gives the Cubs the edge over the Sox!
I don't think so! His matchups are interesting too...oh well, what can you expect from the totally biased Trib?

Uncle_Patrick
02-04-2005, 09:38 AM
There's already a thread on this in "what's the score?"

jackbrohamer
02-04-2005, 09:43 AM
Interesting, considering he does not know either team's full roster yet. What a waste of newsprint

Brian26
02-04-2005, 09:44 AM
I guess they didn't know that Rowand's in center and Pods is in left. Because if they did know that, the Sox would have won both of those.

Yep. Huge oversight (intentional?). I'd take Rowand in a second over Patterson in CF, and Pods is better than DuBois, Hollandsworth, Hairston in left.

champagne030
02-04-2005, 10:00 AM
Ehh, you had to figure the Cubs would get the advantage from the Cubune. I'd probably go...

C: Barrett over Pierzynski, but barely.
1B: Konerko over Lee, though it's close.
2B: Walker over Iguchi, simply because Walker has proven what he can do.
SS: Nomar over Uribe, self explanatory.
3B: Ramirez over Crede, no-brainer.
LF: Podsednik over Hairston, though I can see this changing.
CF: Rowand over Patterson, how long has Patterson been getting by on potential anyway? :rolleyes:
RF: Dye over Burnitz, with Dye hopefully increasing the gap
DH: Thomas/Everett over Dubois/Hollandsworth, pretty obvious.
SP: Cubs over Sox, though I hope the Sox can make this a close race.
RP: Sox over Cubs, and not "barely."

So that's Sox 6, Cubs 5, though since the DH category is kind of pointless, it's really about a tie, which is what I would expect from the season series.

i agree with all, but catcher. i don't think either could throw out paulie stealing, but i like aj's offense a little better. i actually think that this could be a bigger advantage for the sox if aj turns out to be a leader on this team instead of sitting back and trying to improve his image by fitting in.......

rdivaldi
02-04-2005, 10:13 AM
I almost gagged on my cereal this morning when I read this nonsense. Quickly Dave van Dick is becoming the biggest Flubbie shill in the Cubune. A complete waste of print space without a doubt.

SoxFan48
02-04-2005, 11:47 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cs-050203crosstown,1,5724901.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

What do you think?

PaleHoseGeorge
02-04-2005, 11:47 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cs-050203crosstown,1,5724901.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

What do you think?

I think you need to go to What's the Score and stop posting redundant threads.

Dadawg_77
02-04-2005, 11:54 AM
This part pissed me off before I even got to the position comparisons. I think it comes off as the White Sox copying the Cub's plans. And pardon my newbness but what does bandbox ballpark mean? :?:

Bandbox is old term for a small space band stood in old saloons. With baseball parks it referrs to smallness of a park and it allows cheap home runs. We all know the Cells is very friendly to home run hitters.

santo=dorf
02-04-2005, 12:25 PM
SMO, you said Barrett is better defensively than AJ? :?:

In 529 career innings playing catcher, Barrett has 44 passed balls, 31 errors, has allowed 311 stolen bases, and has thrown out 101, 24.5% CS.

In 534 career in playing catcher, AJ has 23 passed balls, 20 errors, has allowed 197 stolen bases, and has thrown out 82, 29.4% CS.

AJ>>>>Barrett

DrCrawdad
02-04-2005, 12:29 PM
Generally when I read these Cubs/Sox comparisons, I ignore them. Why? Well how the two teams compare matters only in six games a year, unless the two teams make it to the World Series.

However, when the Cubbies signed Burnitz I printed out Dye and Burnitz stats from BaseballReference.com. I don't have the stats in front of me, but IIRC last year at least the two players were about equal. If Dye is healthy, Dye is younger and has the potential to be much better than Burnitz. So I'd go with Dye over Burnitz.

LF Sox
CF Sox
RF Sox
3RD Cubs
SS Cubs
2ND Cubs
1ST Sox
C Sox
SP Cubs
RP Sox

maurice
02-04-2005, 12:36 PM
I have very little doubt that the Sox are better at all 3 OF positions and C. Also, Iguchi probably is better than Walker, though he does need to prove it. However, the Sox bullpen is about twelve times better than the cubs. Seriously, there are four guys in the Sox bullpen who, if traded to the cubs, would serve as "closer."

D.V.D. = cubbie tool.
:dtroll:

Lip Man 1
02-04-2005, 12:52 PM
Folks:

PLEASE let's not get all bent out of shape here. It's only February. That's partially why these type of stories are done.. to rile up fans and get them talking about them.

The fact is it's impossible to compare the two teams because they play in different leagues with different rules. It particularly affects the pitching staffs. One league has a DH, the other doesn't. Apples and oranges.

About the only thing that does seem to be on the money in that story is the fact that the Sox starting pitching staff has great potential, they could be the best group since the 1994 unit. However with real question marks involving Garland, Hernandez and Contraras they also could be very bad. Plus the Sox have little starting depth (assuming as Williams said they want Hermansen for the bullpen.) One injury for any period of time and you are right back to the Munoz's of the baseball world.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
02-04-2005, 01:28 PM
http://www.ricoholmes.com/Gallery/Toonsketch/Aliens/ST-Pile.JPG

Uncle_Patrick
02-04-2005, 01:42 PM
^^Nice^^

DrCrawdad
02-04-2005, 01:45 PM
http://www.ricoholmes.com/Gallery/Toonsketch/Aliens/ST-Pile.JPG

And that's in reference to Van Dyck's article or Lip's comments?

:)

Just kidding there Lip, my pessimistic friend.

SOX ADDICT '73
02-04-2005, 01:51 PM
The part of the article that irked me the most (until I got to those bogus comparisons, that is) was the comment about Chicago's two biggest baseball stars being "removed rudely." How can this joker possibly equate the Cubs handling of the Sosa debacle with Maggs greedily turning his back on the Sox? Ordonez was not "removed rudely," but was practically begged to stay.

Ol' No. 2
02-04-2005, 02:45 PM
And that's in reference to Van Dyck's article or Lip's comments?

:)

Just kidding there Lip, my pessimistic friend.I may disagree with Lip on a lot of things, but he does his homework, unlike our Cubune friend.

slavko
02-04-2005, 04:29 PM
The part of the article that irked me the most (until I got to those bogus comparisons, that is) was the comment about Chicago's two biggest baseball stars being "removed rudely." How can this joker possibly equate the Cubs handling of the Sosa debacle with Maggs greedily turning his back on the Sox? Ordonez was not "removed rudely," but was practically begged to stay.

A Phil Rogers article a day or so earlier referred to Maggs as a "White Sox castoff."

gf2020
02-04-2005, 06:02 PM
PLEASE let's not get all bent out of shape here. It's only February. That's partially why these type of stories are done.. to rile up fans and get them talking about them.

I have no problem with such a comparison article. I actually like them for the fun debates they start. However, I will get bent out of shape when its built on a fundamental inaccuracy.

Dave van Dyck's newspaper had already reported during Soxfest that Rowand would start in centerfield. Even if it hadn't, it would have taken a 20 second trip to the official White Sox Web site...

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/team/depth_chart/index.jsp?c_id=cws

to determine the actual starting lineup.

It angers me that a guy who has one of the greatest jobs in the world wouldn't spend 20 seconds to confirm his facts. It also angers me that this got past the editors and fact-checkers. It's flagrant laziness. It reads more like a message board post than a commentary in a major metropolitan newspaper.

I write and edit for my college newspaper ("The Northern Star") at NIU and if someone made a mistake like this, they would be written up. If they did it again, they would be fired. Does anyone here actually believe that van Dyck faced anytype of reprisal or reprimand?

So while giving an edge to Barrett over AJ and saying our bullpen is barely better annoys me, no one can tell me to not get bent out of shape by this sorry excuse for journalism.

Uncle_Patrick
02-04-2005, 06:32 PM
I write and edit for my college newspaper ("The Northern Star") at NIU and if someone made a mistake like this, they would be written up. If they did it again, they would be fired. Does anyone here actually believe that van Dyck faced anytype of reprisal or reprimand?



He probably got in trouble for giving Konerko the nod at first base over Lee.

Chisox003
02-04-2005, 06:38 PM
I have no problem with such a comparison article. I actually like them for the fun debates they start. However, I will get bent out of shape when its built on a fundamental inaccuracy.

Dave van Dyck's newspaper had already reported during Soxfest that Rowand would start in centerfield. Even if it hadn't, it would have taken a 20 second trip to the official White Sox Web site...

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/team/depth_chart/index.jsp?c_id=cws

to determine the actual starting lineup.

It angers me that a guy who has one of the greatest jobs in the world wouldn't spend 20 seconds to confirm his facts. It also angers me that this got past the editors and fact-checkers. It's f...lagrant laziness. It reads more like a message board post than a commentary in a major metropolitan newspaper.

I write and edit for my college newspaper ("The Northern Star") at NIU and if someone made a mistake like this, they would be written up. If they did it again, they would be fired. Does anyone here actually believe that van Dyck faced anytype of reprisal or reprimand?

So while giving an edge to Barrett over AJ and saying our bullpen is barely better annoys me, no one can tell me to not get bent out of shape by this sorry excuse for journalism.

Amen to that!

Lip Man 1
02-05-2005, 12:34 PM
GF2020:

Then feel free to e-mail him and let him know that. Telling us is nice but it doesn't correct the problem does it?

Just my opinion but I wouldn't bet money that Rowand is going to stay put in center field.

Lip

Shok
02-05-2005, 03:25 PM
I agree about Rowand. I like his arm better in LF. i don't think the trib was purposely spinning that match up. trust me. i'm a newspaper reporter. i know how it works. that being said, that doesn't absolve the trib's sins.

And the Sox bullpen "barely better"? The Sox have four pitcher that can close games. The Cubs don't have one...the Cubs have no one in long relief now that Rusch will be in the starting rotation for Clement.

And, as much as I hate to admit it...I'd give Derrek Lee the edge over Konerko. Guy's a beast. Plays defense and can run. And has proven to be more consistent. Pauly's got to have a full season this year. Two in a row would prove a lot to me...I'm still nervous that he could revert to the Daubach days...

C: Sox
1B: Cubs
2B: Cubs (Walker's proved he can play in the majors)
SS: Cubs (but this isn't as big of a chasm as most people think. uribe's better at defense, and has as much power as nomar...)
3B: Cubs (can anyone see the Sox trading for a 3b if Crede sucks and they're in contention at the trading deadline?)
LF: (Rowand) Sox
CF: Even. Yeah. I went out on a limb there. Patterson is a head case. Scott methinks just a sophomore slump. it's not like he the chance to see good pitches in that lineup. Sexson scared pitchers two years ago. They didn't have a pressence in the brewer lineup. Look what not having Frank in the lineup does to the Sox...he'll have a huge rebound year...trust me.
RF: Sox. Jeromy isn't spoken.

starters: Cubs (barely, until Wood can win 15. Buerhle's better than them all)
relief: Sox. big time. we don't have farnsworth. and we've got some heat coming out of the 'pen w/ vizciano.

pearso66
02-05-2005, 03:52 PM
Folks:

PLEASE let's not get all bent out of shape here. It's only February. That's partially why these type of stories are done.. to rile up fans and get them talking about them.

The fact is it's impossible to compare the two teams because they play in different leagues with different rules. It particularly affects the pitching staffs. One league has a DH, the other doesn't. Apples and oranges.

About the only thing that does seem to be on the money in that story is the fact that the Sox starting pitching staff has great potential, they could be the best group since the 1994 unit. However with real question marks involving Garland, Hernandez and Contraras they also could be very bad. Plus the Sox have little starting depth (assuming as Williams said they want Hermansen for the bullpen.) One injury for any period of time and you are right back to the Munoz's of the baseball world.

Lip

I don't know that I'd call Garland a question mark, or that he could be very bad. If he does his average over the years he's pitched, which is 12 wins, that would be very very very good for our 5 spot, especially considering all the wins we've gotten out of that slot over the years. Now if he is pushed to the 3, and only gets 12 wins, that is worse, but its still far from bad.

Ol' No. 2
02-05-2005, 03:59 PM
I don't know that I'd call Garland a question mark, or that he could be very bad. If he does his average over the years he's pitched, which is 12 wins, that would be very very very good for our 5 spot, especially considering all the wins we've gotten out of that slot over the years. Now if he is pushed to the 3, and only gets 12 wins, that is worse, but its still far from bad.Jon Garland

2004: 12 wins
2003: 12 wins
2002: 12 wins
2001: 6 wins in 16 starts (double that to 32 starts and you get...12 wins)

A question mark? What's the question?

PAPChiSox729
02-05-2005, 05:32 PM
It seemed to me he was playing the "potential" card too much in the cubs favor. Based on potential, Crede is better than Ramirez, IMO. Based on potential, with Jon Garland anchoring the 5th spot the Sox have an elite roation. It goes both ways.

Potentially, Podsednik can become the best leadoff man in baseball.
:D:

PAPChiSox729
02-05-2005, 05:40 PM
I don't see how a player with one decent year is better then a career .290 hitter. And the bullpen analysis is just ridiculous. Hawkins, Dempster, and Remlinger is no where near as effective as Takatsu, Marte, and Vizcaino. But then again, this is the Cubune. I can't say I'm all that shocked.
:angry:

Lip Man 1
02-05-2005, 06:23 PM
The question is whether Garland, a severe head-case, comes completely undone. That was my reasoning for using his name.

Lip

flo-B-flo
02-05-2005, 08:31 PM
WHO CARES what a trib c-- shill writes in February. Of course the c--- are gonna come out ahead. So what. It just shocks my bones that a cubune stooge would totally favor the c---.