"mercutio" <jim.DeleteThis@witsend.com> wrote in message
news:8n5bi25mm5ldhdarqj06eculj2b4askck8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:24:48 GMT, "T-Bone"
> <behyndblueeyes.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, at least I can give you credit for feedback nonetheless.
> >Unlike all the other NG's activity, here I attempt to encourage others to
be
> >responsive - sometimes tactfully, sometimes provocatively, sometimes
> >aggravatingly and other times sincerely. I feel quite frustrated because
I
> >wish to chat baseball, particularly the White Sox. The common "excuse"
for
> >what I've seen here is that there are better blogs and chat boards that
are
> >well monitored, however I can tolerate utter stupity as well as
repugnant -
> >X-rated language, etc. Sometimes posters throw stats in my face to refute
> >what I've posted - as if stats are all that matter.
> While I agree that stats sometimes don't tell the whole story how can
> I (or anyone for that matter) take an dissenting point of view with
> someone who admitedly doesn't get to see very many games. Someone
> who's opinion is simply that and not based on observation or any
> research at all
A follower of a particular team, keeps track of the games through every
option available, every game. That includes national broadcasts, newspaper
articles, box scores and so on. I might be a little handicapped considering
that I hadn't subscribed to MLB broadcasts and that I don't live in N. IL.,
but I can also read. Considering your comment that I offer nothing but
"opinions" sounds quite PC (sportsmindedly). However a newsgroup such as
this is a place to participate in written conversation, be it opinions,
facts, reasonings, and variable interests.
> After all, who would
> >have taken the previous historical stats of Jermaine Dye (even '05's
Derek
> >Lee) and followed up by commenting that his high powered '06 season would
> >have ever actually come to fruition?
> It's called a salary drive. He was in his option year and wanted the
> club to pick up his option. How do you do that? you bust your ass and
> produce.. This year was better than previous years because he had 2
> proven producers hitting behind him
It also shows what he's capable of. What would you say if next year, he hits
fifty HRs? Would that be unreasonable. It does appear that you're
expectations of Dye's capabilities are limited. I don't recall him cranking
many long balls after their post-season possibilites were considered
unlikely. Dye's proven all along to have a quiet personality and a lot of
integrity.
>
>
> >As far as next season, I'll be posting under a different 'handle' so as
to
> >eliminate the pigeonholed perception of my input.
> >Until then, this season isn't over and I've taken to Oakland to win it
all.
> >I truly have appreciated all that Frank Thomas has done for the W.S.
since
> >'90-91. I have debt of appreciation for the all-time White Sox slugger,
> >wherever he goes. As far as I'm concerned, when he left - it was as
though
> >25-50% of the team was lost even though they are still have (had) the
> >potential to win it all.
> Losing Aaron Rowand was was a bigger loss to the club then losing
> Frank. I firmly believe (based on Franks producton the last few
> seasons and the nature of his injury that the right decision was
> made)(and I selldom agree with the decisions KW makes). I also believe
> and this is just an opinion (based on the afoemantioned) that if Frank
> stays with the Sox he doesn't have the season he did this year in
> Oakland. Because of what happened in Chicago Frank was an incredibly
> motivated inividual this year. He had nothing to prove with the Sox
> but he had plenty to prove TO the Sox
I can agree that Rowand would have won us 7 or more games, but then how many
would they have lost without Thome?
It was good to see Thomas start a new career in Oakland because he deserved
it and I hope the best for him. The upper management pretty much had lost
faith in Frank's health - and that was understandable. But without Frank in
'05, there would never have been a post-season. He proved - as long as he
wasn't on the DL, that he had matured and was there to win.
> > Hopefully, little changes will be made for next
> >year because how they "placed" this year is hardly understandable.
Let's just hope that KW doesn't do the same eratic things that - was it
Shaeffer (?) had done to the '94 team and its pitching staff. That was the
team that was definitely going to bring into fruition the 90's dynasty.
>> Stay informed about: Frank Thomas, future Hall of Famer 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
