This SHARK anti-Vizquel vendetta is bizarre and curious. Yeah the guy is old, but it's not like his presence is exactly keeping the next Aparicio off the roster
| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Big Oaf and Little Oaf https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=61295 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Aggravated Sox Fan Bob [ Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
The Sox lost this game in the top of the 8th when their strikeout kings Oaf and Dukes of Hazard Little Oaf STRUCK THE FUCK OUT with two men on. Why THE OAF ever plays is a mystery and Little Oaf Beckham is at the plate bewildered. Little Oaf has no plan and he reaches for everything. |
|
| Author: | bigfan [ Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
Got the Score on, they did a station break and then came back and Farmio says "Sox lose 6-4, be back after these commercials." I guess someone hit a HR, lol! |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
More concerned with the Sox than with Santo's statue. Shocking! |
|
| Author: | bigfan [ Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
yes concerned is an accurate word |
|
| Author: | Aggravated Sox Fan Bob [ Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
Frank Coztansa wrote: More concerned with the Sox than with Santo's statue. Shocking! Santo's statue seems to be the perfect place to replace the Golden Gate Bridge as the favored spot for suicide in this great Country of ours!!!! |
|
| Author: | HossasSlavicRage [ Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
Little Oaf plays because he is one of the best defensive 2nd basemen in the entire league. He also hasn't been all that bad at the plate over the past few months, he had a big homer yesterday. |
|
| Author: | Aggravated Sox Fan Bob [ Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
HossasSlavicRage wrote: Little Oaf plays because he is one of the best defensive 2nd basemen in the entire league. He also hasn't been all that bad at the plate over the past few months, he had a big homer yesterday. The HOMER is the problem. Little Oaf has to shorten the swing and drive the damned ball. He is NOT the next Ryne Sandberg. |
|
| Author: | SHARK [ Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
Aggravated Sox Fan Bob wrote: HossasSlavicRage wrote: Little Oaf plays because he is one of the best defensive 2nd basemen in the entire league. He also hasn't been all that bad at the plate over the past few months, he had a big homer yesterday. The HOMER is the problem. Little Oaf has to shorten the swing and drive the damned ball. He is NOT the next Ryne Sandberg. Guys, what I'd like to see from Gordon Beckham is to see him take more pitches and become more patient at the plate. That strikeout he had in the top 8th was way out of the strike zone and was as bad a K as any Beckham has had the entire season. He did beat out an infield hit and singled in the top 7th when Tommy Hunter resembled former Westwood One/NFL studio host Tommy Tighe that helped tie the game last night and helped get Philip Humber off the hook with a no-decision. Beckham doesn't piss me off nearly as much as Adam Dunn, guys. Dunn had 3 more K's in the 6-4 10 inning loss and now has 145 on the season. I think the big question Ozzie has to be asking privately is how much longer does #32 continue to swing & miss and move closer & closer to Dave Nicholson's 1963 White Sox record for strikeouts in a season. I know other managers have benched guys when they've struck out as badly as Dunn in recent years. Does Ozzie do the same with Adam...eventually? |
|
| Author: | Darkside [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
Jesus look at Dunn's last 10... 36 AB, 5 H (4 singles and one useless 9th inning HR), 15k's. Ok, he's not going to turn it around. Let's give him an early winter vacation. |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
I heard a stat yesterday on the CJH show. On Weds, Dunn struck out at least 3 times in a game for the 20th time this season. In his CAREER, guess how many times Joe DiMaggio did that? Also, Dunn's strikeout total will soon pass his batting average. Pathetic. |
|
| Author: | Hank Scorpio [ Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
Frank Coztansa wrote: I heard a stat yesterday on the CJH show. On Weds, Dunn struck out at least 3 times in a game for the 20th time this season. In his CAREER, guess how many times Joe DiMaggio did that? Also, Dunn's strikeout total will soon pass his batting average. Pathetic. Seven (7) |
|
| Author: | HossasSlavicRage [ Sun Aug 14, 2011 5:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
There is no damn reason to ever play Vizquel at 2nd. Gordon's defense is so damn good (seriously, he is one of the top defensive 2nd basemen in the entire league) that it makes up for any struggles at the plate. Gordon has time to develop, I think he will become a more consistent hitter over time. Beckham should play almost every day. |
|
| Author: | SHARK [ Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
HossasSlavicRage wrote: There is no damn reason to ever play Vizquel at 2nd. Gordon's defense is so damn good (seriously, he is one of the top defensive 2nd basemen in the entire league) that it makes up for any struggles at the plate. Gordon has time to develop, I think he will become a more consistent hitter over time. Beckham should play almost every day. I don't know what the White Sox are waiting for. General Manager Ken Williams should be on the phone right now seeking whatever he can get in return for Omar Vizquel, put the #11 in mothballs once and for all & start getting a #23 or #7 jersey ready for Triple "A" infielder Eduardo Escobar once Vizquel is officially sent packing. It's pointless that Vizquel continues to play as much as he does, and the Sox are ONLY 21-19 in games that he starts this season. This is a situation where Vizquel can be the final piece of a team that hoists the World Series trophy in October and maybe, just maybe, Omar can finish his career with a ring. As for Gordon Beckham, while his offense has been maddening at times, he's gotten really good with the glove this season. At last check, he's second in the AL in fielding percentage and believe it or not, I read something a while back about Beckham and Gold Glove in the same sentence. I doubt that'll happen, but with this Sox season nearly shot, I think you continue to see if Beckham & third baseman Brent Morel can continue to develop. I've seen enough of Vizquel. |
|
| Author: | Rod [ Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
Frank Coztansa wrote: On Weds, Dunn struck out at least 3 times in a game for the 20th time this season. In his CAREER, guess how many times Joe DiMaggio did that? I doubt he ever struck out three times in a game. Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio? |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
Juan Pierre probably hasnt either |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Frank Coztansa wrote: On Weds, Dunn struck out at least 3 times in a game for the 20th time this season. In his CAREER, guess how many times Joe DiMaggio did that? I doubt he ever struck out three times in a game. Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio? He did indeed; one time. |
|
| Author: | Apologist [ Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
SHARK wrote: the Sox are ONLY 21-19 in games that he starts this season. Basically what your saying is, the team is better with him starting than without - is the basis for sending him packing immediately? |
|
| Author: | Rod [ Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
Apologist wrote: SHARK wrote: the Sox are ONLY 21-19 in games that he starts this season. Basically what your saying is, the team is better with him starting than without - is the basis for sending him packing immediately? I get the feeling SHARK just hates the fact that he's wearing Aparicio's number. |
|
| Author: | Apologist [ Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
This SHARK anti-Vizquel vendetta is bizarre and curious. Yeah the guy is old, but it's not like his presence is exactly keeping the next Aparicio off the roster
|
|
| Author: | SHARK [ Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
For starters, I frankly don't give a damn if Luis Aparicio gave Omar Vizquel permission to sport #11 on this White Sox roster. #11 is technically retired and Vizquel knows it. What was wrong with #17, now sported by catcher Tyler Flowers? That was supposed to be Vizquel's number when he originally arrived on the South side. I wouldn't be so pissed if Vizquel flipped his traditional #13 to #31 like Alex Rios did when he flipped #15 in Toronto to #51 here. I have all the respect in the world for Vizquel, his ability and how he's been able to stay in tip-top condition to this day. The guy can still play at age 44, but he's better suited for a team that's in the PENNANT RACE! Even though the Sox are now a game over .500 with their 14-inning marathon win over the Indians that didn't end until around 12:30a this morning, I believe the Sox should deal Vizquel to a team that's a lot closer to winning this year's World Series than his current team. I keep hearing Vizquel and Baseball's Hall of Fame in the same sentence, but a WS ring would seal the deal in my opinion for Omar. That's why I want Omar out of here and to put #11 back in mothballs where it belongs. |
|
| Author: | Elmhurst Steve [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
Frank Coztansa wrote: I heard a stat yesterday on the CJH show. On Weds, Dunn struck out at least 3 times in a game for the 20th time this season. In his CAREER, guess how many times Joe DiMaggio did that? Also, Dunn's strikeout total will soon pass his batting average. Pathetic. Thats funny coming from a guy who praised his signing. I said it was a terrible idea to sign Dunn because that (14 Million) was too much to pay a DH (he's a disaster on defense anywhere he plays) and that Dunn would probably not fare as well in the American league with many pitchers he will be seeing for the first time....hmmmm . I will say this though-I never thought he would be as awful as he has been. Now THIS is historic! |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
Elmhurst Steve wrote: I said it was a terrible idea to sign Dunn because that (14 Million) was too much to pay a DH (he's a disaster on defense anywhere he plays) and that Dunn would probably not fare as well in the American league with many pitchers he will be seeing for the first time....hmmmm . I will say this though-I never thought he would be as awful as he has been. Now THIS is historic! Can you post the link to where you said that it was a terrible idea to sign Dunn? I just reviewed your off-season posts and I didn't see any reference to Dunn. You seemed to have spent a lot of time on Will Ohman though so please don't use the "I don't post much when it's not baseball season" excuse.The first post I've been able to find about Dunn calling it a bad signing was on Jun 1st, when you had the benefit of knowing how he was playing. Even with that though, you never actually said that it was a bad signing. You simply said it was a big signing and he hasn't been good(factual) and that he could have signed someone for cheaper(factual). Does your brain not comprehend the difference between factual statements and opinions? So, once again Steve, you need to stop filling in your baseball thoughts after the fact. You did not say it was a terrible idea to sign Dunn until it was obvious to everyone, including Frank, that the signing may not be very good. I guess this is a way to convince yourself and a few other gullible people that you know what you are saying but it's way too easy to actually go back and check your posts. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
By the way Steve, if you can actually provide a link to a post where you actually say it was a terrible idea to do the signing, at the time of the signing, I will have no problem apologizing to you and admitting you were right on it. Please don't do what you did last time and start bumping posts where you say that Alex Rios sucks though. |
|
| Author: | sinicalypse [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
I was on record saying that the Mets-like Dunn signing worried me because once his batspeed slowed down some it had the potential to get very ugly. I believe that I invoked the name of Rob Deer when attempting to elaborate on the word "ugly", however, even I had no idea that DAT OAF would fall so low that he couldn't muster a 24/69 type of HR/RBI line, as he's at .169/11/40 right now and it'd take a miracle for him to end up at a Deer-like .179/25/64 (1991 season). As for Beckham, he totally fooled me. I remember going to a game in 2009 and seeing him go 3-3 off of CC Sabathia, falling behind in his first two at bats, only to work the count back to 2-2 or 3-2 and then hit back to back doubles down the right field and left field line... hell, he intentionally loafed on one of those doubles to invite a throw into 2nd base to attempt to get him out while a runner was rounding third and heading home. I applauded his baseball acumen and bought a jerseyshirt. Now it looks like my hipster-ass is going to have an ironic whitesox shirt I can bust out in 10 years for laughs at social gatherings =D |
|
| Author: | cantaloupe [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Oaf and Little Oaf |
This settles it. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|