Balta1701

Garland gives up 3 straight hits to start the game, and 1 run in the first... and his ERA actually goes down.

Harry Reid...AG Gonzalez will be gone within a month "one way or the other".

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 24, 2007 -> 01:14 PM) Unfortunately, when you have 30/30 potential you're no longer considered a grinder. We had no use for that. Wrong grinder.

Jon Garland on the mound today trying to work the kinks out of his shoulder. Game starts in a few minutes. Erstad, CF; Iguchi, 2B; Thome, DH; PK, 1B; Crede, 3B; AJ, C; Cintron, SS; Mackowiak, LF; Terrero, RF. Garland pitching.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 24, 2007 -> 10:28 AM) Anyone else willing to hold off anointing a 5th starter until Russell pitches tomorrow? Five innings against the Texas Rangers should not be overlooked. If he fares well -- ie; 5IP, 2 hits, 6SO's, 0ER, 1BB -- it should provide our coaches with a tough decision. I'd actually be more willing to have Russell as our starter because of one fact -- Boras. I just despise the idea of wasting arbitration time unless Danks remains in Chicago for good. Which certainly isn't guaranteed. Again, it would depend upon his Texas outing. He obviously possesses the pure stuff to succeed in the majors. Judging from his starts against Seattle and Kansas City, I'd say he's no further away than Danks. Both could use further conditioning; it just happens Danks is lefthanded and Russell throws 94 mph -- with movement. If the issue with Danks is whether or not he's ready, I just can't understand the urge to rush Russel to the big leagues even faster than Danks.

I'm sure Tracey will end up completely lost on the MLB scrap heap, totally worthless to anyone. Just like all the other starter/reliever candidates the White Sox brought up and developed the last few years. Jason Grilli, Gary Majewski, John Rauch. Total garbage.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Mar 24, 2007 -> 08:06 AM) It seems that Karl Rove does most of his e-mailing from his RNC Blackberry. A new theory is that any correspondence from that device and his RNC e-mail account would not be covered by Executive Privilege. Link. See, now that's fairly interesting, because IIRC, if I go back a couple of pages in this thread, I recall that CREW filed a complaint against the White House because it's in some way illegal for people within the White House to be using outside email addresses to conduct White House business because it circumvents disclosure requirements.

Chone figgins broke a finger and is out until about the beginning of May. Kerry Wood threw a scoreless, injury free inning today.

I just hope we're not moving him too quickly...

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 03:14 PM) True, but still 17 mentally. What's crazy is that those 15 and 16 year olds getting married way back when probably looked like 12 and 13 year olds nowadays. I thought somebody else on here said the age of consent was 17 in Illinois and posted a link, but I'm not sure. Yes, the age of consent in Illinois is 17. The law is @ that page. Interestingly, I just also learned that adultery is a "Class A Misdemeanor". For reference, exposing yourself to a child is also a Class A Misdemeanor. Fascinating.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 03:16 PM) I haven't seen the bill, and haven't seen if what Bush says about pork is actually true. Maybe he is referring to the pullout as the pork. ETA: Wow. Something in that sentence sounds really bad if you read it out loud. The thing is loaded to the brim. It's the only way Pelosi could pass the bill, not that that's an excuse. There's about $20 billion in hurricane relief (covering mainly "livestock" I believe). $35 mil for NASA, about $4 billion in farm subsidies covering everything from spinach to citrus and milk (actually, both milk and OJ prices have shot up 25% around here lately, some subsidies might be nice ) about $3 billion for Hurricane Recover ($1.9 billion for levee reconstruction), and so on. Link 1. Link 2.

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 01:10 PM) Can somebody explain--I know, mea culpa--how waivers works? Does it mean that basically we have a claim to a player, but if we put him on waivers, we're giving up that claim and anybody can try and get him? Not sure of every last detail, but I can infer this much. Last year, Sean Tracey was placed on the White Sox 40 man roster, thus using up a roster spot. When we signed Erstad, we filled up the last available slot on our 40 man. Every player on the 25 man roster must also be on hte 40 man. Right now, even Danks is not on the 40 man...you don't need to be put on there for some time after you're drafted/signed. Since the Sox had no room on the 40 man, if they wanted Danks to start the season with the big club, someone would have to be removed from the 40 man. To remove a player from the 40 man roster, the player must first pass through waivers if he is to stay within your system. When placed on waivers, each team, going in order of record at the time/during the previous season, has the right to claim that player with no appreciable cost. If no team claims a player, he can be taken off the 40 man and sent back to your minor league organization. If some other team claims the player, he's theirs. There's a lot more details that come into things when you start getting contracts involved for guys who've been in the majors for a while, but I think that's the basics of it.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 01:04 PM) you think Tracey is in the same talent category as McCarthy and Anderson? or are you implying some sort of devious ozzie guillen plan to get rid of players he personally doesn't like? I think it's clearly the latter.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 12:38 PM) So the House says all combatant troops to leave by September of 2008. Passed by a slim, non-veto-proof majority. Senate is working up a similar bill. Bush has already said it ain't gonna happen. Does anyone think that a required withdrawal is a good thing in this fashion? And if the Prez does indeed veto, does anyone thing both houses could muster a veto override? Seems to me our current path is worthless, so a pullout is better than what we've got. Though eveyone seems to be ignoring the alternatives. So, the more relevant detail, IMO, is that this is the funding supplemental bill. IN other words, based on the logic of the campaign, Mr. Bush is now against the Iraq war because he is going to veto funding for it. Furthermore, it's also worht noting that if Mr. Bush signed the bill...there's no enforcement mechanism in the bill...the "Blue dog Dems" had that taken out as a condition for joining in. So if Mr. Bush wanted to ignore it, he could. What are these "other alternatives" you're speaking of?

QUOTE(Melissa1334 @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 12:39 PM) makes sense to me, for some reason i dont want to see him there either.... You just want him dealt to the Marlins...

Come on Gavin, have a good outing. I'd be happy to see Danks have a good one too, but I'd still like him to start at AAA. And Brian, for the love of god please keep hitting.

QUOTE(maggliopipe @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 10:39 AM) Dude, don't worry about that. If it comes to that point, KW will make a last second trade to reacquire Chris Stewart. He'll be jetted into Chicago and get a police escort to the park to catch Haeger's start. Trust me, I know how these things work. Didn't people here say last year that Stewart actually didn't catch Haeger all that much?

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 10:21 AM) Would you have preferred Garcia for Gio and Floyd, or Garcia for Gio and Lieber? Gio and Floyd every day of the week and 6 more times on Sunday.

QUOTE(G&T @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 10:23 AM) I think they want to give Haeger the benefit of the doubt because he's a knuckleballer in Arizona so they don't want to judge too quickly. I'm guessing they have some way of judging his ability and how it will translate in Chicago. Last year, they gave him the last start of the Spring, in Hotlanta IIRC, and he came out and pitched well. Anyone know if he's on the schedule in any of the games after they break camp?

With one of my usual topic switches... According to that same NYT, both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State spent January arguing that it was time to close down the prison at Gitmo. The article says they were overruled by...you guessed it...a combination of the AG and the VP.

Well, considering tha tout of Haeger and Aardsma, no one has stepped up to take that last bullpen spot, and we have 2 lefties other than Sisco who are pretty much locks...it sure looks like it's coming down to Danks in the rotation and Floyd in the pen, because no one else has bothered to pitch like they want the jobs.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Mar 22, 2007 -> 09:36 PM) Who the f*** is Matt Schaub and why is he even remotely close to worth two 1st round picks (plus swapping 1st round slots) and $48 million??? Where did he come from and what has he done? Schaub is a 3rd round pick the Falcons got a while ago as a backup to Vick. In the games where Vick has been injured, Schaub ahs come in and impressed a lot of people. In Atlanta, there's been talk for years of trying to turn Vick into a RB/WR because they wanted to do something with Schaub. He has a chance to be really good. That said...this is still a very high price paid by the Texans...but the Falcons were demanding a high price for Schaub. Personally, I wouldn't have paid it, but it's nto the worst deal in history.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 09:28 AM) I don't disagree with you all about "acting" - the question is, how, without totally effecting the economy? By the way, I like the one congressman's quote in response to the Goracle's testimony, basically saying if we take the Goracle's recommendations literally, we would have to all stop living, driving, and die right now to make the Goracle's recommendations pass to fruition. Except that, no, we wouldn't. Not in the least. Not unless we spend the next 10-20 years still doing nothing. The earlier we act on this problem, the easier the impact is to take. The 2 specific things Mr. Gore said were that he would want a freeze of emissions growth in this country and a dramatic decline, by 80-90%, by the year 2050. That's 2050. Not tomorrow. Specific actions he suggested were no more building of non-clean-coal plants in this country, small scale renewable energy production using wind and solar @ the scale of people's homes, and giving people the ability to sell back energy they generate to power companies to encourage more small scale production. Like I keep trying to point out, we're not talking about huge changes here, not yet anyway. Probably over the long-term yes. But if we act now, we still have time. Just simply putting scrubbers on Chinese coal plants and creating a Carbon trading market involving the U.S. and China will give the Chinese an economic incentive to import more expensive but dramatically cleaner energy production technology (clean coal). Right now, there is no incentive at all for their businesses to spend that money. And it's not a huge amount of money we're talking about either...it'd be in the billions for all of China, but compared to their growth rates, it'd be pennies a year on products. There's just no monetary incentive for them to do it. Thus far, much of the world has done nothing. That's the key thing to realize...until a few years ago, there was virtually no incentive anywhere for people to limit their carbon emissions. Which means that the cheapest, easiest steps have not been taken. Things like scrubbers at coal plants, small pieces of machinery, better management of forests, etc. There has been no economic incentive at all to do that. A small incentive, from a C-Credit trading program, will be a dramatic encouragement to clean up.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 06:39 AM) If nothing illegal happened, why the inquiry in the first place? When people started asking questions about Monica, I can't tell you how many times I heard that it was legal, and that is a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" to be asking questions about something that does not matter if it happened or not. So now when the same type of situation pops up on the other side of the aisle, its suddenly the duty of all mankind to investigate it? Bush could have fired these guys because they wore blue ties to work. Karl Rove could have told Bush to tell Gonzales to fire them. None of that would have been illegal. Nothing illegal happened until after the investigation started, just like with Clinton. Except in one case its due dillegence, and in the other its a grand waste of taxpayers money. I know none of you guys will ever see hypocracy in the people on your own side of the aisle, but this is exactly what happened to Clinton. Its a partisian witch-hunt. Period. If you guys can't see that, that's fine. The inquiry happened in the first place because something happened that might not have been illegal, but suggested a flaw in legislation. One of the things Congress does is hold hearings in order to investigate how legislation they pass is working and whether or not they need to amend things. The new provision in the Patriot Act was used to replace those people with no Senate confirmation, and the Congress has every reason to ask whether or not that was appropriate, especially since it seems that none of them were actually aware of the clause that was inserted when they voted on the final bill...even supposedly the guy who inserted it (Specter). Either way, yes, it's partisan. Yes, they're going after Rove. Yes, it's also the right thing to do. Because that's the way things should be done in Washington to my eyes...if one side is acting in a way that seems underhanded, and does something that seems wrong, it should be looked into by someone. The only reason everyone is freaking out so much right now is that for the past 6 years, everything that would have spurred investigations during previous, divided governments was easily covered up. I'm still not sure about whether or not there was any reason to investigate the whole Whitewater dealings, since that really, really seems in hindsight to have been nothing, but given the he/said, she/said nature of harrassment claims, there was fully reason to investigate a lot of the actions of the previous President as well. Investigation is important. Unbelievably important. If you want evidence as to how important, just look at the past 6 years. I'd much rather have investigation after investigation than coverup after coverup. A lot of investigations cost the Senate a bunch of hot air. A bunch of coverups cost the nation tens of billions of dollars and maybe even a lot of lives. QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 09:02 AM) Because it never HAD to get that far. Congress, back in the "old days" (hehe) accepted the fact that they could have hearings that aren't "under oath" (aka in front of the cameras grandstanding about how everything's WRONG in the Bush administration). I would imagine that if the White House was interested in making sure that didn't happen, they would offer testimony with transcripts and under oath but behind closed doors, and I would wager the Dems would have accepted that offer. One thing that's worth noting...going along with what Rex pointed out...As far as I can tell, there have only been 3 administrations in history who have had testimony of their aides requested by Congress and refused. One person refused during the Truman admin. All of the rest come from the Nixon admin. and Bush 2. The Clinton Administration never appears to have refused testimony of any of its aides in any of the investigations done, including the campaign finance investigations and the whitewater investigation.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 06:22 AM) Wow. So that was published in Op Ed of NYT then? I think this points out what I've been trying to say here for some time. The media is going downhill not as a matter of political bias, but as a matter of trashing the basic principles of good journalism in favor of sensationalism. Polarity and conflict sell better. And as newspapers struggle to make money, they succumb to those base tools. How embarrasing for them. No, that was not printed in the NYT. It was an angry letter to them in regards to something that they did print a few weeks ago. I'm pretty sure this is the article he's writing about...one of the attempted NYT hatchet jobs on Barack already. Since it's behind the TimeSelect wall, I'll be nice and post it...just don't tell anyone. Compare this to his description of the interview...and yeah. Damn liberal media.