Soxbadger

How in the world am I supposed to know what Ozzie's planned alternatives were? I know that hes done better than the White Sox DH's. But I have no idea what Ozzie had planned or Kenny, or whether their plan worked out or not. Thats a lot of assumptions I have no idea about.

Classic old man skills? The only classic old man skills I know of at 38 are managing. Dont just tell me about all these great over 38 players, show some examples of how players of 38 trend upward statistically. Show that as players get older they dont tend to trend downward. Hell even use Frank Thomas, who was injured the 2 previous years and had a solid season for the A's at 38. He was a far better hitter career than Thome and his stats at 38 were well below his career average, but at least back up your argument some what.

Its not a fluke? How many other players over the age of 38 have put up numbers better stats when they were 38, than their previous 3 years? That is what we call a fluke. Anyways, its the past, I dont feel like arguing over something that nothing can be done about. Had the Sox signed Thome and he hit for nothing and wasted a roster space, most people would be saying why did we bring back an over age veteran who can only walk or hit a hr. Thome's August obp was .298 last year. His September obp was 235. His April obp last year was .317 That is 3 months of obp around .300. So maybe over the entirety of last season he had a obp of 366, but for 3 months he was pretty brutal and there was nothing to suggest this year wouldnt be the same. Hes doing great, good for him, but there was no promise of this. And every statistical trend of last year suggested that he was just a shell of his former self. /shrugs

Its great that Thome is doing well, I didnt expect and I dont think it was so obvious that he was going to get back to his old form. You can say the Sox had a space, but so far no one has suggested who would play 1b when Konerko needs rest? Furthermore, if other players were dinged up etc and needed some rest and to play DH, it would have left the White Sox bench woefully thin. In retrospect its easy to say what if, but I just hate looking back and arguing about what should have been done. Its over, decisions were made, all the Sox can do is try and make the best of the future going forward.

If everyone thought Thome was good, then why is he playing for the Twins at a really low salary, instead of starting for another team? Its not like teams were salivating over Thome and only the White Sox (and I) thought Thome had lost it. It just is really easy after the fact to say how smart every one was about Thome. I just saw nothing last year to expect this, but hey no one is right all the time. Maybe I just got tired of the slow White Sox line up, with the strike out or home run mentality. Maybe I just wanted some change and felt that even if Thome may be the better hitter, he just brought nothing else and if he wasnt hitting hes a waste of space. Well see how it all plays out at the end of the season, but Thome had some good months last year, as well as some horrible ones.

Ozzie, Sox, does it really matter who was the driving force behind the decision? The end result is that the Sox management agreed with Ozzie's assessment at the end of the day. Jerry and Kenny could have signed Thome and forced Ozzie to play him. Ozzie may have been the most vocal, but if his argument won, it means that the others agreed with him at the end of the day. If anyone thought Thome would put up a consistent .864 he probably would have been back. I just think Ozzie (who watched the guy every day) didnt think he had much left in the tank. You arent sitting a guy 5-6 days a week if hes performing. Its not like Kenny and Reinsdorf were saying "Oh hes going to be a 1.00+ ops player" and Ozzies response was "Well where can I find room for that in my line up." The argument was more likely: Kenny: Hey Thome may have a little juice left, he wants to come back cheap, lets do it. Ozzie: Im not so sure about that. He was pretty brutal at the end of last year and looked like his bat is slow. If you sign him and I have him on my bench I wont have as much flexibility. If Konerko goes down, who will play 1b? Thome cant field, Im not so sure hes even worth a spot if he is free. /end scene In retrospect Thome was much better than ANY of them thought. But that is like saying "The Cubs should have never picked Prior 2nd because he would bust." Its easy to predict the past.

Kalapse, Youll have to be more specific im not good with pronouns. Do you mean Andruw Jones played the same positions as Kotsay? Princess, I may not be a lawyer but I slept at Holiday Inn Express one time! Soxfan, It seems that Jerry usually leaves a little in reserve for that special impact player. They didnt see anyone and thought it was a good business move to save the money for a rainy day. Who knows if they would have spent the money wisely. But maybe the money they saved will allow us to trade for a bigger impact player than we otherwise would have.

And I dont think the Illinois Constitution is infringing on the US Constitution, and strangely enough, neither did the Supreme Court. If the Illinois Constitution is an infringement, then shouldnt the Illinois Constitution be under attack here? Instead it is the City of Chicago. The state of Illinois has the ultimate right to interpret its own Constitution, unless the Supreme Court states that the Illinois Constitution is unconstitutional. Thus it should have been up to the Illinois Supreme Court to decide whether or not this law was legal under the Illinois Constitution. If the law was deemed legal, then it should have gone before the Federal Supreme Court. The Supreme Court cut out one of the most important steps of state rights. Generally you do not have a situation where the Constitution of the State is slightly different than the Federal Constitution, which could give rise to a different interpretation of law under both. But in this case it existed and in this case the state was given no deference to interpret its own Constitution. Its probably one of the biggest blows to state rights in history.

Youre taking my arguments out of context. The money argument was for Kalapse and why the Sox did not get a suitable DH replacement. The argument for Thome was that the Sox thought he was done and didnt have roster space for a back up DH who cant play any position. (Edit) If you can find one post where I said the Sox didnt sign Thome for financial reasons, feel free. But ive said they didnt sign him because he looked horrible and didnt play any field positions, it wasnt about money. The reason the Sox didnt sign another DH (THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THOME FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO CANT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND) is due to financial constraints.

Its not Kotsay vs Thome. They are not even similar arguments. The decision on Thome was entirely independent of the decision on Kotsay. They didnt think Thome had anything left, I honestly agreed with them. Maybe we were wrong, or maybe Thome has just been remarkably hot in limited at bats and will cool down. Who knows. But Kotsay was kept as back up 1b/of etc. Thome cant back up any position. If we kept Kotsay, the Sox would have no 1b back up. Theyd have had to get a guy who could play 1b, unless you want to start getting creative and putting new guys out there. Ive never even heard of a back up DH. (edit) Kalapse, You know the answer as well as I do. When the exact player that they want is available, the Sox often will stretch the budget. They felt that Damon was that player (high obp, etc) and was going to bring them exactly what they needed. It wasnt like they had $6mil disposable cash, and if Damon didnt take it they were going to give it to some one else. That money was a 1 time exception.

Its my opinion that the Sox were some what in a money bind last season after getting Rios/Peavy and completely flopping on the field. Worried about bad attendance to start this season (which happened), the White Sox were going on the cheap with free agents, feeling that they added Rios/Peavy. Id love if the Sox had unlimited resources, but I just think they were at the top of what they could spend. The real mistake was adding Pierre and his salary even if it is only 3mil/5mil the next 2 seasons. Its obvious that they wanted to change the dynamic of the team from a slow plodding one dimensional offense, to something else. Whether or not that something else is good, who knows. But I was honestly tired of seeing slow guys stepping up to the plate and swinging for the fences every at bat.

We all have different opinions, but I was honestly happy when the Twins signed Thome because I thought he was done. Watching him with LA was just sad, he couldnt hit fastballs, he couldnt hit anything. His bat seemed a little slower at the end of the season with the Sox and I just figured time had gotten to him. Some times you hit, some times you miss, but you gotta believe that Ozzie who was with the guy every day, felt he had nothing left in the tank.

It would be inconsistent because generally the State Constitution is the final interpretation of law when it comes to state matters. This ruling makes it clear that the Federal govt does not need to respect state Constitutions or state Amendments. The Supreme court could have easily reasoned that the Illinois Supreme Court is the final statement on the rights of Illinois citizens and therefore it is up to individual states to reasonably interpret their own constitutions. It should be also noted that the Illinois Constitution has been accepted for over 100 years and the Supreme Court never ruled its Amendment on the right to Bear Arms was unconstitutional. When Illinois was accepted the Supreme Court of the US could have very easily stated that they needed to have the 2nd Amendment verbatim in its Constitution, but its clear that US allowed Illinois with the Constitution as is. So it only stands to reason that at some point, Illinois had the right to interpret the 2nd Amendment as it liked.

I had little faith in either Kotsay or Thome as a full time dh. But as a bench player, Kotsay gives you more flexibility in the fact he can at least play the field. At the end of the day the Sox chose flexibility. While you cant get caught up in sample sizes, did you honestly believe that Thome would put up an ops over 900? His bat looked slow, he looked like he was done. Its just really easy right now to second guess the decision.

If you knew Thome was going to increase his production to pre2007 totals, why are you not out picking lotto numbers? I dont care what numbers Thome puts up this season, I care about this: 239 .308 .465 .773 Those are Thome's second half splits last year. August: 238 .298 .500 .798 300 obp? Sub .800 ops. His September stats are even worse, but those were in limited at bats. Conversely here is Kotsay: Second Half: .283 .338 .417 .755 August: .333 .389 .467 .856 September: 324 .385 .493 .878 Im sorry but there is just no way anyone expected that Thome would turn back the clock. When I watched Thome last year (eye test) he looked like he had lost it. Kotsay may not have been the best player in the world, but at the end of the year, Kotsay looked like he was going to be far more solid than Thome. Thome is gone, him leaving wasnt the worst decision ever, it just is what it is. If the Sox thought Thome would hit 1.00+ ops they would have signed him. They were worried hed put up stats like his LA stint or his August stats, and that they would have a player wasting space on the bench who cant even play the field. Dunn has nothing to do with Thome.

I posted this on another board. Its not my most elegant work, but I believe it sums up my opinion on this topic (if any of you are interested). The gun control debate is a difficult one for a variety of reasons. The main problem is that it pits different ideologies against each other. If people were consistent on their application of these ideologies Id probably have less problem with the ruling, but its so apparent that Supreme Court Justices tailor the law based on their personal opinion, that it leaves the rest of us to suffer. AnywayI dont agree with the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. My interpretation differs from the current courts, and therefore my opinion is that the govt, state or federal, can regulate people's right to bear arms, but it can not restrict those in the militia from bearing arms. The text of the Amendment reads as follows (although there may be a different text that was actually signed by the states): I read the amendment as saying that the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The reason I read it this way is that in the beginning of our country most of the "army" was comprised of militia, which represented the states. The state militias were the only thing that would be able to stand against the federal govt abuse of power. Therefore it was necessary to have an amendment that stated that the right of the state militias to have arms, shall not be infringed by the federal govt. I think this is the most logical reading and makes the most sense given the context of the historical period and the actual phrasing of the amendment. It would make absolutely no sense to reference the militia in the Amendment, have it be the first clause (and therefore arguably the most important clause) and then give the statement no weight in the interpretation of how we read the clause. If the founding fathers wanted all American's to have an unlimited right to weapons (which is what this amendment would grant), they could have easily written the Amendment as follows: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed." So the question is, why do we give no weight to the arguably most important statement of the clause? My only answer is revisionist history. When a Democrat judge does this, you hear it called "liberal judges" who "rewrite the constitution". This is where my problem with ideologies come in. If people want to be strict constructionists in term of the constitution, then do it. But dont just pick and choose when you are going to take the constitution as cannon and when you are going to rewrite it to suit your own needs. That being said, this argument has absolutely no legal weight. Barring some major change in the composition of the court (ie I became Chief Judge of the Supreme Court) you will never see this argument made or relied upon. The law believes in Stare Decisis (unless the Supreme Court decides it doesnt for that opinion), which means that you let what has been decided stay decided (there are innumerable exceptions made, the most recent being with how much money Corporations can donate for campaigns). As for the application of current law to the 2nd Amendment. I think that its a sham and why Im not invited to Conservative parties. Im fine with state rights, Im fine saying that a state can decide whether or not it wants to allow gay marriage. I dont agree with it, but I understand the idea that certain states may different ideas on what is best for their state. What Im not fine with, is picking and choosing when states rights are going to matter. Here is the Illinois Constitution: The constitution of Illinois is crystal clear, police power trumps your right to bear arms. You will also notice, there is absolutely no mention of the militia (as compared to the federal constitution). I believe that the Illinois constitution is the more accurately written amendment (unless you read the federal one as only applying to the militia). It would also make the federal govt constitution make more sense, as the fed constitution would be preventing the fed from regulating the state's right to arm its militia, as opposed to the state regulating its own citizens. Most people who are pro-gun do not believe that you should be able to own a nuclear weapon, or any type of weapon that you can dream of. They do not believe that terrorists should be able to have machine guns, or convicted murderers be able to purchase a cruise missile. But that is the literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, if you take it as applying to all citizens. Its clear as day, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, there is no qualification, there is no exception. Over time the Supreme Court has decided to read into the Second Amendment the idea that the govt can restrict "some" weapons, but they use subjective tests and basically make it up as they go along. In essence they are saying that the police power of the govt can decide when a weapon is so dangerous, that the weapon is some how no longer privileged 2nd amendment protection. The Illinois constitution is far more clear and makes far more sense. You can own any weapon, carry any weapon at any time, subject to police power of the state. Therefore the state can make any law limiting your right to bear arms, so long is it based on the states power to police itself and protect the people. So if the City of Chicago believes that the people of the city will be safer if no one can own a handgun, or be able to bring a gun into court, that is okay (side note you cant bring a gun into federal court either, under the 2nd amendment shouldnt I be able to? If guns make me safer, wouldnt I be safer in court if I could pack my own heat?), it is their right to do it. No one forces you to live in Chicago, no one has to live here. There are plenty of cities, counties etc where you can have guns, etc. But if the majority of the people of chicago, believe that we would be safer if no one can have a gun, why cant we make that decision? I understand the argument of tyranny of the majority, but I dont believe that it applies to this situation. The people of Chicago are not using their majority to unfairly hurt a minority (Ie the people of Chicago pass a law that any minority has to give a white person $1 when they see them on the street or go to jail). They are instead using their majority to make a difficult decision on what is best for everyone's safety. Its not like we are voting against guns because "Well we just hate gun owners" or that there is some underlying motive. Its because based on our life, based on our experience, we believe that this city would be safer if no one could legally own a gun. People may have different opinions, just like they may differ on how high Chicago sales tax is, or any of the other innumerable differences that set 1 city or state apart from another, but that is why we have a Republic. So that if we have differences we decide them on a vote of the people. A Republic is not having a group of 9 people, none of them ever living in the State of Illinois, maybe a few of them having lived in Chicago for longer than a month, making decisions on how we should live our life. So that is my argument against this ruling. That a state should be able to interpret the 2nd Amendment based on their own constitution. That each of these constitutions were accepted by the federal govt when the state entered the Union (which by implication means that the Federal govt accepted the States constitution as being constitutional under the Federal Constitution), and therefore the State should have the ultimate power to interpret its own law and rules. What really gets me, is that the same justices who will expand the Federal govt's power beyond comprehension when it comes to crime, gun rights, making drugs illegal, morality, etc. Are the same justices who say that they are for state rights. You cant have it both ways, it just doesnt make sense. If you believe in state rights, you should mourn this decision.

There is never a guarantee of success. I just was merely pointing out that there is more to economics than win shares, etc. If you want to win now, you generally are going to overpay in terms of prospect talent. (edit) Expected 1.047 ops against righties? 2009 he hit .881 ops against righties. 2008 he hit .868 ops against righties. Unless he found the fountain of of youth, no one expected him to get back to 2007 form especially because he seemed to be suffering from injuries last year.

What is the value of a playoff appearance? My guess is in excess of $6mil. Thus if Dunn = playoffs it doesnt matter what numbers you throw around, it will be a win for the Sox. And Dunn > Thome, so if we had Thome we may never get Dunn. Not to mention Thome is only playing part time and theres no way of knowing if those stats extrapolate to full time player.

Ive had a bad feeling for a week or so now. Id love to be wrong, but Im not nearly as convinced as Steve that Lebron would never play with Wade. If Wade is telling Lebron/Bosh that he personally will take a pay cut to have them both play in Miami, its a pretty good pitch.

In case anyone didnt know the Stanley Cup is at the Daley Center and you can wait in line to take pictures with it.

Altidore has potential, but Id agree with Slav about not counting on Altidore being a "stud". The term stud suggests that he is going to be a top striker on the world stage, not just one of the best players on the US team. I have 2 concerns with his potential. 1) He just doesnt seem that fast. He seems to have plus power and agility, but he never seems to run away from people. He may have above average speed, just not world class. 2) He doesnt seem to care about defense. Jose doesnt not seem to like to chase the ball. It lets the other team kick it around with very little pressure on the ball on the defensive end. If they guy is scoring a goal a game it may not matter, but otherwise you have to be a complete player. Against Ghana he seemed to have a little more fire in this regard. So while he may become great, I just wouldnt count on him to be. Which is exactly what Slav said. And im an American. /shrugs

Looks like MLS is going to consider implementing extra referees and/or review in light of the performance of res in this World Cup. Ive been trying to figure out why this World Cup has gotten so much attention about reffing, when clearly other World Cups have had equally if not far worse calls. My gut feeling is that because ESPN has been doing so much of the coverage, they are using all of the American style replays (most of the EPL and La Liga games use very limited replay in my experience) and it has been showing just how quickly they can make the right call. Who knows, but it seems like this World cup is the first time a lot of different countries are seriously talking about different officiating ideas.

YOU DONT QUESTION SWEET LOU PINELLA!

I disagree, but Im talking years in the future, it may take 20-30 just for the US league to be on the cusp, and then another 20-30 to start having teams that would be competitive in the major European leagues. The US has world class sports facilities and more importantly is closer to South America than any of the other leagues. The problem is that US sports are built on parity, so MLS has salary cap, etc. In my opinion Soccer world wide is a sport of haves and have nots. Each league has a handful of dominant teams and then other teams. If the US got 1 or 2 eccentric owners, who started shelling out money for some big names, youd start to see more casual fans care. Im pretty sure when teams like Chelsea, Man U tour the US that they sell out those games in pretty big stadiums. Its just hard for US sports fans to spend money on a second rate league. Even Beckham increased ticket sales and he was pretty past his prime. I can imagine the US league starting to snatch up big names as they pass their prime, the problem is that I think they need to start trying to get into South America and get some of the leftovers that the other big clubs are passing on. Ive seen some shows on players in Brazil, and quite frankly some of the teenagers who get cut would be superstars in the US.

No one is saying that Laroche isnt a good idea, or that the Sox should be looking to pick up another hitter. Just people tend to underestimate how much a player will cost in terms of prospects. If Laroche was available for nothing, hed most likely already have been traded. If Kenny could get him for cheap and has the green light from ownership to add salary, Im sure hell be here quickly. But to act like Kenny needs a wake up call is just hilarious. As for what I thought 2 weeks ago, you can probably search my posts where I said it was way to early for people to make decisions and that if I was the Sox I would take a wait and see approach until the end of June. I didnt think theyd win 11 straight, but I was pretty sure that given the schedule they could claw to about 4-5 games back and then have half a season to see what happens.