Balta1701

Out of all of those options I'm going to have to choose 0, but I don't like choosing zero. I'm choosing zero because I think it's somewhere between 25% and 0%, and given that number and the 3 available choices I'm forced to round down.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 10:15 AM) The problem is that there is no such thing as an independant media to even start to portray this as an accident, or whatever it was. The ayatollahs approve all news coverage, and you can bet your bottom dollar that this is getting reported as an act of British aggression that was bravely met by the heroic Iranians... or something. So, I'm just curious...am I the only person left in the world who actually thinks its important for some side to come forwards with some evidence about the actual position where this incident happened? The Brits haven't done so yet, and neither have the Iranians, but both have made claims on the position of the incident, and their position relative to the coastlines (on what is in fact a disputed border) is certainly a key to learning who is the one being the aggressor here.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 12:39 AM) Bulls won last night, but the game reminded me why I wanted us to take Aldridge over Thomas. Thomas might be really good eventually (I would say yes), but Aldridge is your legit 6'11 post scoring 4 to go along with Ben Wallace if you have him. I leaned strongly towards Aldridge before the draft, but the more I watch Thomas, the more I think the Bulls made the right choice. Tyrus is a year younger than Aldridge, but when you count how each of them have performed per minute of game time, Thomas gets almost 2x the amount of blocks per minute, 1.2 times the number of rebounds per minute, and .9x the amount of points per minute. In other words, they're almost the same on scoring, but on the defensive parts, Thomas has so far been significantly more productive in the time he's been given. It's still an open question how they'll develop, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Bulls made the right choice.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 09:34 AM) Can't we all just get along? You have been shot in the face.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 08:58 AM) Well to spin that question around, do you think Iran would stand by while the British seized one of their ships and 15 sailors? Well, we actually have some examples to look at recently...because there have been Iranian personnel taken into custody by the U.S. in Iraq, almost always people who are there on some sort of diplomatic visit. And Iran has done exactly what the British have done in this case...raise immediate diplomatic protests and see what happens. Usually, the people have been released in a couple of days without further incident.

The only way a signing like him makes sense is if we're pushing the salary to $130 million. I'll say the same thing for any team in the league...if you're signing a $20 million pitcher, you need to push your salary to the Luxury tax threshhold or it just isn't worth it in terms of having to go with scrubs at other positions.

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 08:36 AM) If you take those numbers from 01-05 and "extrapolate" them (because he had under 500 at-bats in one or two of those years), I think what we would expect in SB's comes closer to 18, around 8 homers, pretty similar RBI numbers to what Iguchi has put up. As DJ said, he's not afraid to drive in a run. Actually, I think that in equal number of at bats, Erstad would have about 10% lower RBI than Iguchi, assuming injuries haven't cost Erstad anything. Just from comparing Erstad's best 4 years since 2000, not the injury-shortened seasons, and Iguchi's last 2 years, Erstad has generated 10% fewer RBI than Iguchi overall. The reason Erstad's numbers are almost to where Iguchi's are is that Erstad's seasons have been 650-700 plate appearance seasons while Iguchi's have been 550-600 plate appearance seasons. I think for 500 plate appearances in a good season, assuming he hasn't lost anything and isn't nagged by injuries all year, Erstad might put up 50-55 RBI, 5-6 home runs, and about 10-12 steals. Of course, that's also assuming he has someone on base to actually drive in> QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 09:10 AM) Which is exactly why it's a HUGE deal Anderson made the team. He'll get his chance again in the OF, because there is ZERO way in hell those 2 guys stay healthy. Even beyond the health concerns...what do we expect the OF to look like when we see a Left Hander on the mound? It's going to be ozuna/Anderson/Dye almost certainly...so we finally do have a RH hitting OF out there. Hopefully he gets the starting spot pretty quick and doesn't let go this time.

About $10 billion a year we're spending on this thing. And it can't take rain.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 07:16 PM) Catching a ball game is much more physically taxing to a player then 1B, and since they didn't want Hall to wear down in ST, they decided to put him at 1B. Name one time this whole ST where the Sox left their catcher catch the whole game. Maybe for Gustavo Molina, but that is because he sucks and has no shot at ever making the team. He does now.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 07:09 PM) oh, i'm sure they'll tack that 21 billion onto some other bill. Most of it is at least tangentially hurricane-relief related spending, at least the big chunks are, so you're probably right. That's what we get for Trusting Mr. Bush with U.S. cities.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 06:59 PM) i fine with that too And to top it off...that $20 billion is stuck in the Iraq war supplemental in order to get it passed (it'll be vetoed anyway)...so you get the best of both worlds!

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 06:46 PM) i got an idea, how about cutting pork instead of raising taxes? that 21 billion the Dems just tried to tack on would be a nice start. Here's an even better idea...end the Iraq debacle. That'll save us that $21 billion in like a week and a half.

I won't say it doesn't have bugs, but for $15 for the whole season, I think it's worth it. I do an awful lot of work sitting at my computer in a windowless basement office, and that's 3 good hours of listening work I get. The audio is usually pretty good. There'll be a few times throughout the season it'll go down for no good reason, and lately I've had a bit of a problem with some skipping sounds, but that could just be my connection/4 year old PC. It's also pretty darn nice those few games during the year which simply aren't broadcast because Fox owns the licenses. You can log onto your computer at home and still follow the game. Although, if I had the money and a faster PC, I'd spend it on MLB.TV just to get Hawk & DJ.

QUOTE(WSoxMatt @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 05:40 PM) If you guys are so bummed for the season, just go to the Tigers board and start cheering for them...Season hasnt even started and half of you have given up already. This isnt the Delta I remember.... Why do people assume that a lack of enthusiasm for the way this team looks right now leads directly to being a Tiger fan? I can remember quite a few decisions I wasn't happy about, but that doesn't turn me into a fan of some other team. For crying out loud, I've wasted 2 years posting nearly 20,000 comments at a random online message board about this team, I'll cheer for them through whatever, and hope they surprise me, but that doesn't mean I can't be concerned that I won't get to enjoy a good season this year.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 12:59 PM) So you're telling me that we have only 140,000 people in the military right now? (I know that's an extreme number I'm throwing out there, but I want to try to make that point without doing a bunch of research that I don't have time to do). At the heart of it, though, I agree with your original premise, minus the draft is needed part. /faints There are about 500,000 soldiers in the U.S. army right now, and another 180,000 in the marines. But when we start counting deployments...there are about 70,000 U.S. soldiers in Germany, another 50,000 in and around Japan, another 33,000 in the Koreas, another 12,000 each in the U.K. and Italy. That's nearly 180,000 deployed without counting Iraq and AFghanistan at all. When you count in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's over 1/2 of the fighting force of the U.S. army that is deployed at any given time. This leaves virtually no time for equipment repair (which is desperately needed), training (units are being sent to Iraq instead of receiving time at the NTC already) and on and on. If you're talking about deploying a higher percentage of the army...we just can't do it for any length of time. A month or so. If that. It is simply not feasible to throw troops into combat when their equipment is broken down and there isn't enough equipment running around to even cover the surge, let alone anything beyond that. Anyway, I want to switch topics here. I was trying to illustrate your point earlier...that there is not the will right now in this country to actually do anything you would qualify as winning this war. I naturally, place a huge chunk of the blame for this on this administration...because they act as if they don't need to do anything else to win, why should Americans do anything else. But here's the other point. We can sit here all day and come up with these grandiose plans to make things work in Iraq. We can say that we could push up to 300,000 troops in for a month or whatever. But there's one key element we all neglect when we do that; George W. Bush. Right now, George W. Bush is the decider. Barring specific action of Congress, George Bush sets troop levels, gives orders, tells them when to stay and when to leave. We can come up with all these great plans, but sitting there making the decisions is a man who thinks things are going just fine there, who's wife goes on TV and says everything is fine except for that bombing a day, and who seems to seriously think that the only reason people think things are going poorly in Iraq is the media. Right now, this is the man running things. And nothing we can do will make him institute a draft. Nothing we can do will make him jump up to 250,000 troops in Iraq. Nothing we can do will make him adopt whatever fancy partition plan people come up with, or redeployment plan, etc. If we leave this war to George W. Bush for the next 2 years, then in January of 09, we will be EXACTLY where we are right now. Similar troop levels, no political progress, and a lot more dead people. This is the classic game that quite a few political writers have played for the past 4 years. Say that "George W. Bush needs to put 150,000 more troops into Iraq within the next 6 months or all will be lost", when they know damn well George W. Bush will do no such thing. He will not attempt to spend political capital to win a war he thinks is going just fine. The point I would like to make is this; if we just leave things in Mr. Bush's hands, if we do not set some sort of deadline, if the Congress does nothing to force him to do something, whatever magical plan we come up with here to win this war is not going to be adopted, because George W. Bush thinks this war is going beautifully. The only way things are going to change at all in Iraq from the status quo is for Congress to step in and force Mr. Bush to change things. If people sit around and say that doing nothing different is going to lose this war entirely, and George W. Bush is unwilling to do anything different, then I feel it is simply irresponsible to let George W. Bush continue on that course. Your particular plan may not be adopted. I don't like this particular bill. But it is at least something. It is something different. Pretending that a better option may come along after 4 years of Mr. Bush insisting everything is fine is just ignoring every single thing Mr. Bush has done for the last 4 years. /rant.

Something that should have been passed a long time ago, IMO. Paying $750 billion out of bonds to finance a war while cutting taxes is just asking for long-term trouble.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 05:16 PM) I just hate not being AS excited as I usually am for the upcoming season. There has just been a bad vibe this spring it seems, with some very questionable decisions coming from management. I hope they make us all look like idiots, but right now I am not thrilled with the was this team is headed into the Opener. Before 2005, and I wasn't here so there's no evidence, but I was pumped. I was pumped that we actually had a balanced lineup, I was pumped that we had a pitching staff that could go 1-6, I was pumped that we had a bunch of people who might be on their way to improvement. I just am not pumped right now.

QUOTE(ChiSoxLifer @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 05:09 PM) Can anyone here say the 2006 Cardinals or the 2005 White Sox had the most talent when they won their respective World Series? I'll give you the 2006 Cardinals...but here's the key thing. When all of the cards have been shown, when each team has had its season on the line...what is the one commonality? Their pitching stepped up. In 2005, the White Sox pitching staff carried a mediocre offense to 110 wins. The pitching was just phenomenal the entire year. In 2006, the Cardinals struggled, but when they hit the playoffs, they finally had a rotation where guys stepped up, and those pitchers took care of business. I was saying in July of last year that the Mets would lose in the playoffs the moment they ran into a team which was pitching well, and they did. Most talent is not the issue. Most talent, and most performance, at the key spots is a much bigger issue to my eyes. You get starting pitching and bullpen pitching...and you look pretty darn good as long as you're putting something on the field. Especially if you combine that with defense.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 05:08 PM) Once again, I just get an awful vibe going into this season, and I hate it. My mood just significantly soured...and the combination of the performance of our pitching staff combined with the whole Erstad/Anderson situation is worrying me more and more. With the FA situation, it may be entirely possible that the White Sox could be selling by the trade deadline this year and stockpiling more for next year. QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 05:09 PM) Super, the only position where I felt we upgraded during the offseason, and now it's a downgrade. Are you certain? I'll give you a choice between Wiki, the Widge, and Alomar Sr., and suicide is not an option.

Erstad, CF Iguchi, 2B Konerko, 1B Dye, RF Crede, 3B Cintron, SS Anderson, LF Molina, C Vazquez, P Roberts, CF Vizquel, SS Bonds, LF Durham, 2B Klesko, 1B Feliz, 3B Molina, B, C Winn, RF Cain, P

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 12:53 PM) Need Damien Miller. Yay! Finally someone noticed what I said a little while ago!

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 12:50 PM) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/preview07/co...&id=2809709 Interesting stuff. I thought Jenks hit triple digits more than he did. Although he has that nasty curveball to use too. Zumaya, though: what a monster. Jenks hit triple digits a ton in 05, but very few times in 06. His 05 number might have looked like Zumaya's if he was up the whole season, but he never got back to that level last year.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 11:36 AM) Oh, and you don't need the draft. If you want more than the troop levels we have right now...yes, it requires a draft. We probably can't sustain these troop levels for another year no matter what we do.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 12:37 PM) If Toby Hall is the most significant injury to the White Sox this season, it will be a great year health-wise. Already, I think this sounds like the most significant injury to the White Sox in the last 3 years. Yeah, there have been people who have struggled some, Marte in 05, Contreras last year, but who for the most part didn't miss more than a couple weeks on the DL. Of course, there's the Frank Thomas think in 05, but he was already hurt from 04. I think this is the first guy who we projected on our 25 man from the start of spring training who will miss several months worth of time since 2004.

Ok, KW needs to be on the phone with the Brewers. They have the opposite problem...too many catchers. Damian Miller went on the DL last year with a concussion and missed a lot of time. While he was down, a guy named Mike Rivera, who is wearing a White Sox cap in his MLB.com photo, came up and did an admirable job. Rivera has had a good spring, and is out of options, so the Brewers don't want to lose him, but also don't know if they want to use a roster spot to hold 3 catchers. One of those 2 guys should be available and it shouldn't cost an arm and a leg.