squally1313

He also actually has the highest LD% on the team. Yeah...hasn't shown any power yet, but if can keep hitting line drives and taking walks like he has, his normalized stats should be pretty good, or at least good for his standards.

While doing it on a pitch by pitch basis is a whole different thing, I don't understand why they can't have a system similar to the NHL where there's a main office that follows all the games and has access to immediate replay for all plays in the field. If they see a blown call, or even something they want to take a closer look at, just buzz the crew chief and stop play for a minute or two. There's usually about 30-45 seconds between the end of the play and the first pitch of a new at-bat anyways. I never understood why the NFL doesn't do it like that. The whole charade with the field ref having to go look at that screen on the field just seems like a huge waste of time. Have someone upstairs who's already seen the replay a dozen times by the time the coach challenges make the final decision.

Bryan LaHair has a long way to go before he matches what Corey Patterson did in the majors before hurting his knee. Talk to me when he gets there. Or since hurting his knee. Seriously. Corey was really good in 2004. Like really good. 2003 is (I think) what you're referring to. That was the year he got hurt, but 298/329/511 in 83 games as a 23 year old is pretty impressive. 2004 he went 266/320/452, which is still pretty good.

lol It's really not out of the question that we could lose 97 games, I'm suprised you think this is funny. If we go up and down the roster, for every player underperforming, you could also find a player not likely to continue at this production rate. Do you really think LaHair is going lead all firstbasemen in OPS by September? Seriously, this is the kind of logic/argument I absolutely hate. You begin by saying that, at best, we can win 65 games, which would give us a record of 65-97. Then when someone dismisses this (granted, without any argument, but still), you come back with it not being out of the question that we could lose 97 games, which, about ten minutes earlier, you said was our best case scenario! Does this piss anyone else off as much as me? I didn't see it the first time around, if you know what I mean. Yeah, I mean, obviously there are worse offenses. I just think stuff like this makes it so much easier to throw out (usually incorrect) hyperbole without really having to defend it. Edit: Ohhhhhhhhhh.....

lol It's really not out of the question that we could lose 97 games, I'm suprised you think this is funny. If we go up and down the roster, for every player underperforming, you could also find a player not likely to continue at this production rate. Do you really think LaHair is going lead all firstbasemen in OPS by September? Seriously, this is the kind of logic/argument I absolutely hate. You begin by saying that, at best, we can win 65 games, which would give us a record of 65-97. Then when someone dismisses this (granted, without any argument, but still), you come back with it not being out of the question that we could lose 97 games, which, about ten minutes earlier, you said was our best case scenario! Does this piss anyone else off as much as me? You should really re-consider your priorites in life if it pisses you off THAT much. Good argument. Like the rest of them.

lol It's really not out of the question that we could lose 97 games, I'm suprised you think this is funny. If we go up and down the roster, for every player underperforming, you could also find a player not likely to continue at this production rate. Do you really think LaHair is going lead all firstbasemen in OPS by September? Seriously, this is the kind of logic/argument I absolutely hate. You begin by saying that, at best, we can win 65 games, which would give us a record of 65-97. Then when someone dismisses this (granted, without any argument, but still), you come back with it not being out of the question that we could lose 97 games, which, about ten minutes earlier, you said was our best case scenario! Does this piss anyone else off as much as me?

The silver lining to come out of Toews' concussion is the fact that Sharp/Kruger/Stalberg has been playing like a legitimate second line for the past 6 weeks or so. If they can keep that up, that means we can throw Hossa/Toews/Kane on the top line, which I think has to be one of, if not the single best line in the NHL. It's hard to count out a team that can have those three on the ice at the same time for 18 minutes a game. I also am excited about seeing what Keith looks like after 10 days off.

It's going to be interesting to watch these last ten games of the season. Barring a total collapse from one of Nashville, Detroit, or the Hawks, they should have the 4-6 seeds locked up, and I think it's very obvious that the 6th seed is a way better spot to be in than the 5th seed.

Let's see. Knicks were OK before the trade with a decent amount of young talent. Got him, didn't win as many games. Melo got hurt, Lin took over, they won a lot of games this year. Melo came back they started losing. NYC hates him. So his value won't be much lower than it is right now. And look at the schedules during the winning streak (NJ, Utah, Washington, LAL, Minn, Toronto, Sac) versus the losing streak (Boston, Dallas, San Antonio, Milwaukee, Philly, Chicago). Can we at least agree that Carmelo would be a clear upgrade over Deng. And if so, why not even bring up the idea with New York in basically crisis mode?

I saw a Boozer/Asik for Melo proposal get thrown out in the General NBA thread, but that doesn't really work for either team, for obvious Deng and Stoudemire reasons. But it does lead to the question... What do you guys think about something like Deng+Asik for Melo? With how Melo is perceived right now in NYC, I honestly don't know if that's enough, too much, close, or even a good trade for us in general. The salaries are close enough to make it work (throw in Mike James or something).

Yeah, I'm all for shutting him down this season. This isn't the first time he's been concussed either. I don't think you can purposely waste one of the years when Hossa is performing at/near his peak. While I'm worried about Toews too, especially considering how inept the medical staff has been with Hammer this year, Bolland last year, and others....if there's a week we can afford Toews to be out, it would be this week. Hopefully we get him back (with rested legs) for Detroit and St. Louis starting Sunday. According the the playoff odds websites (http://www.sportsclubstats.com/NHL.html pretty cool site) we still got a 70% chance of making it, with strength of schedule factored in. Tread water, grab that 6th seed, and see what happens. While it seems like we have all the time in the world for Kane and Toews, Hossa/Keith/Sharp/Seabs aren't going to be here forever.

1, but he also wasn't usually the smallest guy on the court and able to be neutralized by a bigger, better athlete during crunch time. Right. You can't win a championship with a stud point guard and a bunch of role players. The only way we get pass the Heat is Lebron doesn't play and Wade plays like crap. Or our role players play out of their minds. C'mon guys you all know this. You really think both of these things need to happen?

Thankfully, so is good Toews.

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7561727/former-usc-trojans-qb-mitch-mustain-signs-chicago-white-sox I think this is one of those things that don't even need a punchline.

Archer came in at around 63, I believe.

That's a really good point and one that will be lost on most. Much of the statistical information that is currently in use and frequently mentioned here requires sample sizes that make their predictive utility of little practical value. Doesn't the fact that a single season WAR number is made up of a lot of information somewhat negate this though? For example, couldn't you just run the same analysis for his WAR in half seasons, or even months? Just splitting it up into 3 month periods would have you 22 numbers to run, which seems more significant, and 3 months of data is still a pretty good amount. Just throwing it out there. Obviously there are many outside factors that would also play into any sort of performance prediction.

Also....kinda like Cashner? Just saying. Love this trade.

Wait, 29 starts last year with a 4.32 FIP, 3.64 xFIP (both better than Zambranos), career high in K/9, career low in BB/9. That's the guy we're so upset about getting?

You could have Todd Bertuzzi and Tomas Holmstrom. Trust me, we'd take Holmstrom. Even Bertuzzi would be a big step up, but I don't think I'd be able to stand him wearing the Indian.

Ugh. Considering none of our "rivals" are really big threats to get him, Toronto posting the highest bid would be worst case scenario. The odds of Darvish wanting to go to an east coast Canadian team are pretty much zero.

That's not far off from Dice-K That's just an insane amount. As MWV implied above, it all depends on the length of the contract being signed. If the team gives him a 6 year deal, $112 total isn't that outrageous.

I guess I just don't understand how trading Garza is being tossed around because the pitching market is so barren this year that we could net a huge return, but people are also exploring getting Headley/Stewart when the third base market is just as bad. I know our system isn't top of the line, but giving up 2 top ten prospects is a fairly decent amount. We've got more than one fringe-y prospects capable of playing the position (Vitters, DJ, Flaherty), and I don't know if I agree with not giving any of them a chance, especially in a year that (realistically) we've got a pretty slim chance of competing. Why not hold on to the prospects, and let those few guys battle it out in spring training/early in the season. The difference between Headley and some combination of those three plus Baker for half a season is maybe a win and a half (probably less for Stewart). If June/July rolls around and we're in contention, then pull the trigger on getting a premiere guy. It's not like the demand for third basemen will be that much higher than it is now. If not....reassess who we have after the year, and if we're not satisfied, then you take another look around the trade market next winter, or look the free agents that might be available. Reynolds might be out there, Wright has a club buyout (but who knows what will happen to him), and then a little outside the box, Kinsler and Cano both have club options for 2013, and Phillips might be available. Summary: I love the idea of selling high, and if we could get a king's ransom for Garza, we should do it (and I trust Theo/Hoyer enough to make that decision). But trying to get an above average third baseman in this market is buying high, which I don't think we should be doing as currently constructed.

My only thought was that it could have something to do with the disappearance of that prosecutor. Because yeah, outside of murder....I can't imagine much being worse than what has already come out.

At least he's bringing on a smart coaching staff. Just kidding. Here's a nice little gem about their new hitting coach. Because any good offensive statistic should assign negative value to the single most valuable offensive play in the game. Here's the rest of the article for more grinding goodness... http://www.southsidesox.com/2011/11/1/2528851/getting-to-know-jeff-manto-mark-parent-and-joe-mcewing

Arkansas/South Carolina might be the least watched game between 2 top ten teams of all time.