Spring Training Game #18: White Sox vs. A's -- Rich Harden vs. Jose Contreras

by The Wizard on Mar 14, 2008 2:37 PM CDT in Game Threads Comment 95 comments

Time: 3:05 p.m. CT, Radio: MLB.radio (Live Boxscore; MLB Gameday)

Sox: Ramirez, 2B; Cabrera, SS; Thome, DH; Konerko, 1B; Swisher, CF; Dye, RF; Fields, 3B; Quentin, LF; Hall, C

A's: Buck, RF; Ellis, 2B; Barton, 1B; Crosby, SS; Johnson, DH; Sweeney, R, LF; Suzuki, C; Hannahan, 3B; Denorfia, CF

After discussing options internally, Ozzie Guillen is now leaning toward having Buehrle pitch on Opening Day at Cleveland, followed by Vazquez, Danks, Contreras and Floyd. The main reason: matchups. Ozzie likes Buehrle against the Indians and Floyd has had success against the Tigers. This way, Javier will throw the home opener. Of course, this is all subject to change as Opening Day approaches.

***** In other news,

Carl's latest 'Palehose 8' comic strip: Which Illustrates Don Quixote's Discovery of a Lemonade Stand.
Jim predicts the number of double plays AJ will ground to if Swish bats 6th or 7th, and ponders his poem options.

0 recs | Comment 95 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Sweet! A radio feed!

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

by rhythm on Mar 14, 2008 2:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Crap. Subscription only.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

by rhythm on Mar 14, 2008 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah...

for the games against the angels and the last against the mariners the radio feed was open iirc,
no such luck today...

by The Wizard on Mar 14, 2008 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Carl does it again...

This epi is killer!

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 14, 2008 3:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Can't see them here

Blocked at work - have to wait till I get home

So instead of a big splash, there were ripples -- enough to change the tide, Williams believes

by Brush Back on Mar 14, 2008 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

can you see this?

link

by The Wizard on Mar 14, 2008 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope... internally blocked

I'll just have to wait till later

So instead of a big splash, there were ripples -- enough to change the tide, Williams believes

by Brush Back on Mar 14, 2008 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thx though

So instead of a big splash, there were ripples -- enough to change the tide, Williams believes

by Brush Back on Mar 14, 2008 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bear Sterns

Wow. That is some kind of beatdown. Tough long.

Get Yo Self A Handful

by MarketMaker on Mar 14, 2008 3:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

How about this guy?

British billionaire Joe Lewis spent around $860 million to buy 7% of Bear Stearns back when the stock was worth more than $100 a share, and he increased his stake in December when the stock was already around $11 lower. He currently holds around 11 million shares of Bear, according to filings, and now Bear's shares are worth about one-third of what Lewis paid.

Oooops!

by Winning is Fung on Mar 14, 2008 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know all these guys will probably land

on their feet, but CNBC gave a rundown on some of the personal losses of the higher ups in Bear Sterns. Not good. Those guys have all lost hundreds of millions with the collapse of BSC stock. If I had to guess, I would say BSC will get bought out this weekend, before they report earnings on Monday.

Get Yo Self A Handful

by MarketMaker on Mar 14, 2008 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

and if I were a shareholder...

I might have contacted my lawyer after hearing the CEO or chairman say, only 2 days ago, that Bear was in great shape with no liquidity problems, and expected to meet analyst's estimates.
or maybe I'd have bought puts at that point.

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 14, 2008 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You would have

made a lot of money if you shorted that stock today. Dropped from $57 to $30 - TODAY.

JPM through the Fed have bailed them out until their earnings are to be released next Thursday. Either that stock will plummet on Monday or tread water through Wednesday. That it will be ugly.

This is just the tip...Bear Stearns is the first one to go, there will be others.

I think recession is kind of a nice term for right now - it looks as though we are facing a very deep depression.

Whomever stated before to invest in Gold and commodoties is right. I would have loved to have my money in Gold or Oil right now.

Ozzie: "He got a [migraine] headache. I believe him because he's a real religious guy. Someone else tells me they have a migraine, I know they are hung over."

by BobbySouthSide on Mar 14, 2008 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Got a little carried away at the casino last night

so I didn't start trading till noon. Shorted the hell out of that BSC. Turned out pretty well, but I wouldn't dare take any of that over the weekend.

Get Yo Self A Handful

by MarketMaker on Mar 14, 2008 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

WU has been touting gold

for awhile, good call on his part. As for JP Morgan, do you realize they risk nothing on this play? Ultimately, the Fed is on the hook if JP doesn't complete an acquisition.
And you're right about others too: Citi is at the top of my list. And look out for Wamu and Merrill.

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 14, 2008 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

JPM bailed them out through the Fed because the could access the money today, unlike Bear Stearns which would have had to wait.

Ozzie: "He got a [migraine] headache. I believe him because he's a real religious guy. Someone else tells me they have a migraine, I know they are hung over."

by BobbySouthSide on Mar 14, 2008 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As has been mentioned ad nauseum

on CNBC this AM, when you have a crisis of confidence, whatever the source, it takes about a day and you are toast. Today was the day. (It won't be the only crisis in the banking/brokerage/insurance industry.)

Pretty GD fascinating to see stuff happen that has not happened EVER (a Fed bailout of an investment bank).

Joe Lewis is a Cent'l Florida residence - the joke is that many homes in Lake Nona, etc. will be going for a song soon, since he surely needs to raise capital. Faber on CNBC said he was short the puts and long the stock - a "Texas hedge", as they say. Eek.

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 14, 2008 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I give you credit...

I'm normally dismissive of gold bugs, but you nailed this one.
btw, we used to call it the O'Hare spread: put the position on, and board a flight if it went south. Take a cab home if it went your way.

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 14, 2008 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

quick question:

do you think they deserve to "land on their feet"?

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 14, 2008 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not really informed enough to say.

I certainly have no personal cross to bare with BSC.

I'm guessing in light of the CEOs comments from earlier in the week that someone is gonna pay the piper for what seems to be misrepresentations of their finances.

Too bad for the shareholders, but if you are still holding longs from the mid 100s you brought those losses on yourself.

Get Yo Self A Handful

by MarketMaker on Mar 14, 2008 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The market does a good job of deciding

which is why this pisses me off. The Fed is postponing the inevitable and is not allowing healthy market forces to occur. (Drexel failed in 1990 during the S&L crisis, and somehow we lived.)

Bernanke is panicking, and the only place to go is gold/commodities/bonds/managed futures. Even real estate (international) looks pretty good.

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 14, 2008 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

whatever the merits

the comparison to drexel doesn't seem quite apt. by the time drexel went to bankruptcy, it had shrunk quite a bit and the hit to other parties and the economy in general wasn't nearly as large as it would be if bear stearns collapsed.

at any rate, someone (JP?) is going to get a sweetheart deal on those assets.

by larry on Mar 14, 2008 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The comparison is quite apt

Drexel was involved in the flavor du jour - junk bonds when credit was easy - and was the darling of the Street. BSC was involved in lending to hedge funds and collateralizing CDO's and other mortgage crap that everyone ate up when credit was easy. And it has been the darling of the Street (specifically, theStreet.com).

Easy money eventually ain't easy. Bear has lay down with dogs for years (they cleared business for more penny-stock firms than you could shake a stick at) and they are finally getting fleas and taken to the woodshed. Their septengenerian (former) CEO still smokes pot? Like Mary Ann of Gilligan's Island? Puhleeze.

They don't deserve a bailout. Hell, Merrill, if similarly positioned, wouldn't deserve a bailout. Live by the sword, die by it.

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 14, 2008 7:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

drexel had already been cleaned out though

the SEC and DOJ was on them in, what, '86? they settled in '89? by the time they went down in '90, they weren't a big player. bear stearns is. and the interconnectedness is much closer and more pervasive now than with drexel. if BSC goes down, they'd be taking quite a few others with them. with all this repo shit that's been going around and around for the last 5+ years, noboby can even tell you what the effect of this would be. hell, people who don't even know they're exposed to bear stearns would be going down.

by larry on Mar 14, 2008 7:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And it needs to happen, then

So don't compare the Drexel of '90, since they were done by then. Compare '87. Quick, painful, and clean the market recovered by 1990.

At this rate, this is going to be long, slow, and excruciating. And we have many more international funds who are licking their chops, waiting for the final shoe to drop before committing more serious capital.

Bear won't take down the whole financial system. Let it go.

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 14, 2008 7:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you sure about that?

i'd probably buy that. but i don't know what the effect would be. or how extensive. i doubt anyone does. that's the problem: no one's sure what would happen and where the dominos stop falling. i've traced repos. you sometimes end up in (or going through) places you wouldn't expect. and BSC is up to the ears in them.

by larry on Mar 14, 2008 7:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nobody's sure

I'm not that arrogant to say I know better than the Fed, but I'd like to trust the markets. Sir John Templeton said in the arly part of the century, I believe, that the markets are "broken". I believe the way to fix it is to let natural market forces happen.

Besides, the Fed's throwing a shit-pot full of $ at the problem, and it ain't helping. Reducing rates again next week ain't gonna help, either - just drive more $ to commodities and bonds.

We are in the 3rd or 4th inning (as always, IMO). Not time to bring in the closer yet - bring in the mop-up guys. Game's over for the near future.

I remember saying a few months ago that at least one major banking institution needed to fail, and you said the powers that be didn't like to see that happen. I'll stick with my original projection for now...

Back to baseball!

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 14, 2008 7:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

PS Did you got to the lecture yesterday,

or did you blow it off? If you went, was it as you feared - populated by fantasy guys?

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 14, 2008 7:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes

no, it wasn't. or, it was, but, unlike that time, none of BP's "fantasy" experts was there. just general baseball talk.

by larry on Mar 14, 2008 8:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Useful? Engaging? Informative?

Kudos to you for going - do they only meet in Chicago, or do they do a road show?

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 14, 2008 8:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

road show

though it's different people. but chicago is a hub because a lot of the big guns are based here.

i enjoyed it. kept me interested for the 1.5 hours or so. some of it was stuff that an avid reader of BP would have heard before but there was some interesting stuff.

by larry on Mar 14, 2008 10:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Confidence is the biggest issue

These items hurt everyone because of the reputational damage created. Even if the firm is strong, it will take a hit as a result.

The BSC will create further consolidation and the big players will benefit as a result of decreased competition - not to mention the clients that have now have begun to move over. BSC will never recover, and unfortunately the people worst hurt will be the employees that will be out of jobs.
Investors should have been concerned for quite a while, and if they continued to purchase, then they were just gambling anyways.

The big hidden item in this is financial firms are required to report these loan values on a regular basis. Banks on the other hand are able to hide these loans as long term investments, so they are being swept under the rug for the short term (our gov at work). This is something that could be of more concern if the foreclosures continue with no end in sight.

But that's just my opinion - I'm no expert, so I would take it no further than that.

So instead of a big splash, there were ripples -- enough to change the tide, Williams believes

by Brush Back on Mar 14, 2008 8:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm - double talk

I've done that before and have no idea how

So instead of a big splash, there were ripples -- enough to change the tide, Williams believes

by Brush Back on Mar 14, 2008 8:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

one minor quibble...

it was Gulf War 1 that marked the turnaround. Maybe coincidental, but I doubt it.
other than that, I agree that Bear, Wamu, Citi, or even Merrill going down won't be the end of the world. Yes, a lot of pain, but there's no other way to "cleanse the colon" so to speak. The Fed is delaying/propping up the inevitable.
I have great sympathy for the next president when he/she tries to explain the failures or bailouts of trusted, name brand institutions or industries.

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 14, 2008 8:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't we have a recession

in '90? That was my first full yeasr in the securities industry, and it wasn't pretty - not horrible, but not pretty. I do remember an upswing right at the beginning of the invasion, but '90-'91 sucked, IIRC.

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 14, 2008 8:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

delaying is point

the point is to avoid a disorderly implosion. the fear, obviously, is that a dumping of mortgage backed securities by BSC would destroy the mortgage industry. destroy the mortgage industry and banks will fail. if banks fail, well, i'm sure we all know about the FDIC. not to mention the "run on the bank" phenomenon that other banks would experience as confidence is shaken. not to mention all the other crap BSC has itself in.

the obvious hope is that by propping up BSC for a while and throwing a little money away now, the goverment won't have to pay up more later.

perhaps i have a unique view of this due to my field, but i view the loan to BSC as pretty much the same thing as a loan to a company in bankruptcy. the point is to preserve as much value as possible as a going concern until you can do an orderly reorganization or liquidation.

by larry on Mar 14, 2008 10:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bernanke has handled this very poorly

IMO he has been way too reactionary and not proactive enough. I agree with you, let the market correct itself.

He has virtually been pandering to the market. The street has asked and he has given, again and again. I hate this slow bleed with all these false bottoms. Just let the market roll over so we can all move on.

Get Yo Self A Handful

by MarketMaker on Mar 14, 2008 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's been creative and ready -

no one can stop the train, man. The Fed doesn't have a corner on confidence market any more and has limited tools. He's pushing on a string at present. The world's a lot larger than when Greenspan walked the earth as Fed chairman. And, frankly, I believe he got the benefit of the doubt because his predecessor restored the position to one of respect by breaking the back of inflation. Of course, he also turned on the $ spigots when the market crashed, didn't panic, and bought himself some props when his actions panned out.

Lived off of that like Elaine Garzarelli and Joe Granville, who both called the Crash of '87 and never replicated their prescience of that time again. I think Greenspan peaked in '87, too.

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 14, 2008 7:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

ditto

as I recall, Greenspan encouraged the use of ARMs, the next domino to fall very soon.

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 14, 2008 8:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you didn't bring these losses on

yourself if you trusted management, analysts, and CNBC to be telling the truth. Yep, employees will be shafted too, but I don't think the average shareholder is to blame if they were lied to.

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 14, 2008 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree

If you think that the comments people are making about BSC justifies holding a stock that continues to go down you are asking to get hurt.

I think you must take some responsibility in your investing. Risk is inherent in the stock market. "I was lied to" doesn't get the losses back, and isn't really learning a lesson moving forward.

You are the only one who can manage your finances, and as such, the losses(like the gains) are on you.

Get Yo Self A Handful

by MarketMaker on Mar 14, 2008 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

not a big fan of securities laws, eh

by larry on Mar 14, 2008 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good one.

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 14, 2008 4:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like the old school

wild west market.

IIRC, the asian markets used to not break trades. Now that is awesome.

I'm not a fan of bailouts.

Enter at your own risk!

Get Yo Self A Handful

by MarketMaker on Mar 14, 2008 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

i doubt you and everyone else would find the market quite so profitable if one had to price in the risk that every single company was lying about everything.

by larry on Mar 14, 2008 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure I understand.

Was that a ground out to 2nd for Owens?

by ballyb on Mar 14, 2008 5:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

another guy

who thinks manipulative or deceptive devices or contrivances should just be risk. price it in. why not. i'm sure eveyone will just be plowing money into the stock market then.

by larry on Mar 14, 2008 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What are you talking about, Larry?

Those risks are already priced in - in every security.

See any stock associated w/ Ronald Perelman. Nobody believes a word the guy says.

Was that a ground out to 2nd for Owens?

by ballyb on Mar 14, 2008 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

i'm quoting to you the '34 act, bally. rather the point of securities laws is to ensure that people don't have to price in, to as large a measure as possible, that risk from a security.

by larry on Mar 14, 2008 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I never said anything

condoning deception - NOTHING. YOU made that implication re. me,

"another guy who thinks manipulative or deceptive devices or contrivances should just be risk."

Where did that come from?

You made a ridiculous statement "i doubt you and everyone else would find the market quite so profitable......." and I asked what you meant, that's all.

Was that a ground out to 2nd for Owens?

by ballyb on Mar 14, 2008 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you don't know what i mean

but it's ridiculous. got it.

people who put their money into securities largely fall into two camps: 1) long-term investors and 2) active traders. whichever one you are, you need money - and lots of it - moving in and/or out of the market to make money. i think it's fairly obvious - or maybe it's just ridiculous - that there'd be a hell of a lot less money going into securities if one had no idea and no protection from companies lying about everything about their companies.

by larry on Mar 14, 2008 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

bally, gotta disagree

since when are "management lies" factored into a stock price or analysis? Isn't that also called fraud? If that's what you mean/believe why shouldnt the 'investor' just go play slot machines? At least they have a guaranteed payback percentage.

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 14, 2008 5:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you jumped a couple steps there

I wouldn't voice that same opinion in regard to BSC if they had claimed no sub-prime exposure and their stock traded at 150 yesterday and 30 today.

In reality, Bear has slowly been unveiling the extent of their plight and the stock has declined in accordance.

The fact of the matter is, this stock has been in a 9 month selloff.

Your comment is a little overdramatic IMO.

Get Yo Self A Handful

by MarketMaker on Mar 14, 2008 5:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i didn't jump to anything

chiburb said rely on management statements. you said "i was lied to" should be risk and buck up, chuck, it's your own fault when you experience losses when such things happen. obvious conclusion is that you don't particularly like securities laws considering that's sort of what they're in place to prevent.

by larry on Mar 14, 2008 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Having trouble articulating my perspective

but I think you're mistaken.

My point was more about belief in the market's ability to regulate itself than it was dislike of outside regulation of it.

You're being very lawyerly here and I'm not a real big fan of my opinions being given to me.

That was why I debated the conclusion you arrived at.

Get Yo Self A Handful

by MarketMaker on Mar 14, 2008 5:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uh, larry, care to comment?

Chicago hedge fund Citadel Investment Group presents an intriguing possibility, in large part because it has been trying to build out a broader infrastructure across the financial-services industry. Buying Bear Stearns would be a way for Citadel to acquire a public-stock listing, much as the New York Stock Exchange did when it bought Euronext NV.

????

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 14, 2008 8:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

above i'm referencing securities law

and then you ask me to comment?

????

by larry on Mar 14, 2008 10:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Never hurts to ask

It might to answer...

;)

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 15, 2008 6:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And furthermore

I think that risk is priced in.

Get Yo Self A Handful

by MarketMaker on Mar 14, 2008 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really?

So that means that the market would have the same value as it would if it were legal to lie to investors with impunity. I doubt that...we're talking about a form of fraud here and if that were less regulated I'm going to go ahead and say it would happen more, investors would have less confidence in stocks and the market would drop. But feel free to conduct your own thought experiment.

by hitlesswonder on Mar 14, 2008 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't

It is true that probably a lot of the employees of the firm had nothing to do with the mess that they are in. It is the officers of the firm that were driving the ship that got them in this mess. They are the ones losing millions of dollars...but a lot of the employees are going to be losing their jobs and their retirement.

Is it fair, probably not. But we don't always get to pick being the passenger on the plane that crashes.

Ozzie: "He got a [migraine] headache. I believe him because he's a real religious guy. Someone else tells me they have a migraine, I know they are hung over."

by BobbySouthSide on Mar 14, 2008 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sox - no hits through 4

Can't see or hear the game, but the Box Score is not painting a pretty picture today.

So instead of a big splash, there were ripples -- enough to change the tide, Williams believes

by Brush Back on Mar 14, 2008 4:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Forget it Jake, this is Oakland

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 14, 2008 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Skanberg...

The new strip is brilliant. LOL.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Mar 14, 2008 4:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Don't blame Oz for the

"Swisher batting 6th or 7th" idea. That appears to be strictly Chris Deluca's idea. He states it but doesn't attribute it to anyone in particular.

Nick Swisher hasn't batted in the 6th or 7th slot a single time all spring. He has hit either leadoff or 5th in every game except 1 or 2 where he hit 3rd (when Thome wasn't playing). If he's not leading off he'll hit 5th between Paulie and JD.

by bhoov on Mar 14, 2008 4:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Isn't he batting 5th today?

So instead of a big splash, there were ripples -- enough to change the tide, Williams believes

by Brush Back on Mar 14, 2008 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand your point

but it's spring training and there is hardly ever a point when all the starters are in the same lineup..

I can't see Ozzie moving Swisher over the Konerko-Thome-Dye trio unless it was to one of the "table-setter" spots.

A little critical thinking -- going by what Ozzie has said and done recently, as well as what he's done in the past -- would seem to indicate that Swisher will either bat immediately behind the Kong-JI-Dye trio or 1st, depending on Owens status.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Mar 14, 2008 5:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose I should have looked at the lineup today

consider me surprised.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Mar 14, 2008 5:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

and it isn't the first time this spring that Swish has batted 5th with JD 6th. I think Ozzie's love for a L/R/L/R lineup is overcoming the whole veteran thing. Thankfully.

by bhoov on Mar 14, 2008 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

do you think he should start

the season batting 1st? My opinion (with no research to back it up) is that the Sox would score more runs per game with a leadoff double or HR than a single/sb/sac (I'm looking at Owens).
Thoughts?

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 14, 2008 5:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

meant for bhoov

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 14, 2008 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

1st is good

I think Swish is going to be our 2nd best hitter rate wise (behind Thome) and our best hitter production wise. Anything we can do to get him extra ABs is a good thing. I'd probably prefer 2nd or 3rd, but since that isn't happening I prefer 1st over 5th.

by bhoov on Mar 14, 2008 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is anybody a fan of..

in the eventuality that JO batted 1st, then OC, that Swisher batted 3rd and moved down Thome, PK and JD to 4-5-6?

I would prefer that given the 1-2 of JO and OC.

Get Yo Self A Handful

by MarketMaker on Mar 14, 2008 6:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't want to see Owens...

anywhere near the lineup, much less batting first. I would rather see Quentin playing LF with Swisher in CF and leading off. If Quentin isn't healthy enough, I would rather see Anderson in CF and batting eighth with Swisher playing LF and leading off.

by SSH2005 on Mar 14, 2008 7:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That wasn't the question though

I think we all get that you don't want Owens in the line up... the puddles of PUKE on the floor are constant reminders.

Working under the assumption that Owens is the lead-off hitter, I think I would still rather of Thome in the three spot and Swisher in the five spot.

At least this way, Swisher might be hitting with someone actually on base.

I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

by Hazymania on Mar 14, 2008 7:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We shouldn't have to work under that assumption...

There are two other options. I want give up until opening day. ; )

by SSH2005 on Mar 14, 2008 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank gosh Oak is rebuilding

If they were in their prime I'd hate to see what they'd have done to us. (Yea I know, ST doesn't count for anything - But it is discouraging when you just don't seem competitive at times - Guess they were missing that cocky walk to the plate today)

So instead of a big splash, there were ripples -- enough to change the tide, Williams believes

by Brush Back on Mar 14, 2008 7:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Russell, Egbert, Armstrong sent to minors

Roster at 36

So instead of a big splash, there were ripples -- enough to change the tide, Williams believes

by Brush Back on Mar 14, 2008 7:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

One game was all it took for the Sox...

to judge that Hall is healthy enough to be A.J.'s backup? It was probably more about his guaranteed contract than anything else.

by SSH2005 on Mar 14, 2008 7:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

last i checked

it's tough to get two catchers enough game action, let alone three.

by larry on Mar 14, 2008 7:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope this is true...

Link:

Catcher Cole Armstrong was optioned to Birmingham. Armstrong was batting .625 through his first five exhibition games, but Toby Hall appears to have fully recovered from a right shoulder injury and will serve as A.J. Pierzynski's backup.

I am still surprised that Hall's injury was able to heal completely without surgery. It sounded like an injury that would definitely require surgery to be repaired.

by SSH2005 on Mar 14, 2008 7:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How do we know its completely healed

We just know he's scheduled to play. Hech - Erstad and Pods were suppose to be healed and healthy enough to play last year.

So instead of a big splash, there were ripples -- enough to change the tide, Williams believes

by Brush Back on Mar 14, 2008 7:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fully recovered =

is able to throw it to the mound on the fly.

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 14, 2008 7:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

So instead of a big splash, there were ripples -- enough to change the tide, Williams believes

by Brush Back on Mar 14, 2008 8:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

WTF?

TUCSON, Ariz. -- In a bizarre twist, manager Ozzie Guillen said Friday morning that Mark Buehrle will start Opening Day, followed by Javier Vazquez, John Danks, Jose Contreras and Gavin Floyd.

(I know wiz posted similar info, but I especially like the term "bizarre" by Gonzo.)

OK, I'm going to bed.

Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.

by winningugly on Mar 14, 2008 8:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

takatsu to throw BP session; shingo back?

probably not; shingo probably wants to see if coop can help him out with mechanics or something.

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2008/03/fridays-leftove.html

by larry on Mar 14, 2008 11:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

let's play two?

richar, owens back for B.

Game

We start the morning with a B Game against the Rockies at Hi Corbett.

Our lineup:

Owens, CF; Ozuna, SS; Fields, 3B; Hall, C; Quentin, LF; BA, RF; Richar, 2B; Eldred, 1B; Lucy, DH. Pitching will be Egbert, Poreda and Broadway.

White Sox vs. Cubs

And our lineup for the 1:05 matchup with the Cubs:

Bourgeios, CF; Cabrera, SS; Thome, DH; PK, 1b: Swisher, LF; Dye, RF; AJ, C; Crede, 3B; Uribe, 2B. Nick Masset throwing.

http://whitesoxpride.mlblogs.com/inside_the_white_sox/2008/03/saturday_double.html

by larry on Mar 14, 2008 11:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

So where's BA

3 games - he's not around? Was he traded and we haven't been told yet?

So instead of a big splash, there were ripples -- enough to change the tide, Williams believes

by Brush Back on Mar 15, 2008 12:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nevermind...

Was looking for Anderson, not BA in the 1st game

So instead of a big splash, there were ripples -- enough to change the tide, Williams believes

by Brush Back on Mar 15, 2008 12:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Saturday's SSS gathering.

FYI: I walked by Miller's Pub about ten minutes ago on the way to work, and the line was out the door (lots of young suburbanites dressed in green wandering around the Loop today). Perhaps they'll be gone by game time, but it didn't look like the kind of crowd that was going to stop drinking any time soon. Just thought you'd like to know.

by palehose67 on Mar 15, 2008 1:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs