Balta1701

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 12:34 PM) DO you think if he sits out we wont trade him? I would rather try to get something for him if hes gonna sit out than just let him rot. The Patriots picked up an extra first round pick for Branch when Branch was holding out.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 01:33 PM) I'd rather have Javy at 3/33 than Buehrle at 3/45. Honestly, I think I'd go the other way; if Mark would have taken 3/45, I'd rather spend that on him than on Javy. I doubt Mark will take less than 5-6 years though.

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 01:25 PM) If he goes 9-13 with a 5.50 ERA he gets more than 11 mil in arbitration? Or is this based on your perception of Vazquez succeeding? Again, everyone, this is a high risk move in some ways. Like it or not, there is a chance this guy could psychologically fall off the cliff he seems to teeter on and put up ridiculously bad numbers. No matter what he does this year, if the White Sox were to have offered him arbitration...Javier Vazquez's salary would not have decreased in 2008. The only way that Vazquez's salary could have gone down, other than this deal, would have been for the White Sox to not offer him arbitration, at which point the Sox could lose him as a FA with no compensation.

QUOTE(U can putitontheboarrrrd...YES @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 01:24 PM) And ya gotta love a stance that basis all pitching contracts longer than 3 years becoming a total flameouts based on ONE player. Can you please name for me the last Free Agent Pitcher who signed a big money deal for more than 4 years who has earned his money? Some examples who come to mind immediately: AJ Burnett Mike Hampton Darron Dreifert Kevin Brown Carl Pavano

QUOTE(FlaCWS @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 01:20 PM) I'm pretty confident he's not kicking anyone's ass this year. When has he ever kicked ass in the past 5 or 6 seasons? He is garbage. I don't like this move at all, unless it makes it easier to trade him. Let's hope so. 2003. That's well within the past 6 years.

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 01:19 PM) If Vazquez tanks, this will look like one of the stupidest deals in Sox history. I don't understand why people are convinced this guy is moveable if he fails again. Vazquez could put up a 5.00 ERA this year and I think this deal would still be moveable. You wouldn't get top of the line talent for it, but as long as he eats innings, that deal is still moveable.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 01:17 PM) 3 years 34 million reported. A GREAT deal by KW. That's a little more than what I want to spend, but my concerns go away if Vazquez can improve on last year's overall performance.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 01:12 PM) I'm going to completely disagree with you on this. I think it's the complete wrong time to extend his contract. He has done nothing so far for us and yes I know his secondary numbers were solid last year and we all know what kind of stuff he has, but until he can equate that to actual performance(not letting runners score) then he's doing nothing for us. We're giving him an extension entirely based on potential instead of actual performance. I don't like this. I think this is the ideal time to extend his contract...IF...and I mean this is a big IF...we can do it at favorable numbers (Favorable = below $30 million for 3 years). If Vazquez comes out and is mediocre again this season, but he's extended for $10 million a year or less, then he still would seem to have significant value on the trade market. In fact, I'd say by extending him at $10 or less, we might actually push his value upwards. That deal would be moveable as long as he doesn't get hurt. If it's significantly over $30 mil a year, then his contract moves into Gil Meche territory, at which point it's not at all justified based on what he did last year, and it would probably hurt his trade value unless he significantly improved his performance. I don't want to see us pay for what he might do. The benefit of extending him now is that we could pay him less based on his low performance the last few years, and maybe it turns into a bargain, and if we he doesn't improve, people will still give up talent for innings-eating righties with reasonable contracts.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) He hasn't gotten the job done in his 2 years in the AL, he hasn't spent 2 consecutive years with the same team since '02-'03 let alone the same league. Give him back to back season in the same league with the same team and he'll flourish, this is mine and KW's thinking obviously. Of course if you wait until the end of the season to give him an extension and he does kick ass this year it's going to cost you insane money to keep him around. This way you sign him to a potential bargain price in hopes that a second year with the team will do him some good. He could anchor this staff for years to come if they could just get him in a comfort zone. And IMO like I said before I really don't think a 3 year deal worth around $35M guaranteed is that much of a risk. Has the $35 m number actually been reported anywhere? That'd be more than I'd be wanting to offer him at this point personally.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 01:05 PM) ugh, I dont know if I would compare Meche and Javy. Javy got his first big contract based on 1 great season, Meche got his based on 0 good season.

The quality of this deal will depend entirely on the money. I'm pegging my good deal/bad deal dividing line at $10 mil a year. If he gets more than that, bad, less than that, good.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 12:30 PM) Javy doesn't exactly look like a Gold Glover. Perhaps we can trade him to Detroit for Verlander. They could use the defensive upgrade on the mound.

So, while everyone has been distracted by Libby being found guilty, the House and Senate have been holding their first hearings on the dismissal of 8 Federal Prosecutors and their replacement by Bush Cronies. There are so many posts it's hard to link to any specific one, but TPM and Associated sites have been following this story from the get-go. Here's a brief summary of the skeleton of what we've learned so far:

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 11:58 AM) I don't know about the pardon, it could potentially piss a lot of people off against the Republicans, and the '08 political season has started already, it seems. There would be a huge uproar if he was pardoned. When has that stopped a President before? Clinton, Bush 1, once they're on their way out after their 2nd term, it doesn't hurt them at all, they couldn't care less, and by the time the next election rolls around it's totally forgotten (seriously, was the Mark Rich pardon an issue in 02? All of the Iran-Contra pardons an issue in 1994?). There are some people even speculating that the goal now for Libby's attorneys is to slow down the appeals process enough to keep him out of jail for a little under 2 years. And on top of that, when has a huge uproar stopped this administration from doing anything? I can think of their Social Security destruction plan, but that's about it.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 11:28 AM) Bush nominates a replacement. Must get majority vote from both houses. Evil laugh...

Statement from Harry Reid's office:

More and more bad news leaking out of the McCain camp.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 09:22 AM) Really? Why? Well, couple reasons. First, its entirely possible that Mr. Libby knows more than he was willing to share, and he could have been hoping he could find a way to avoid the charges but still protect the VP (who was a key element in all of this according to the case, and may not be totally out of the woods yet). It's also possible that Mr. Bush may just want to protect a person who served his administration...I mean, if Tenet et al. can get Medals of Freedom... Bush the First got away with pardoning a heck of a lot of the Iran Contra guys, and now half of them are back in government working for this administration.

Enjoy the jail time, Scooter.

QUOTE(retro1983hat @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 06:54 AM) Sun Times reported today that Bobby felt great after yesterday's session. Hit about 93-94 mph. IIRC, that's faster than he was throwing at this point last spring.

Well, either Wes Clark thinks that his late start in 03 worked so well that he might as well do the same thing this time, or he's not going to be in the game.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 11:53 AM) 1.) Where you're living you can't have a dish (apartment, condo, dorm) This should be broken into 2 categories: a. The place you're living does not allow satellite dishes (apt, Condo, Dorm) b. The place you're living does not have a view of the southern sky. I think the best argument about doing something in this case is that it denies a government-subsidized form of entertainment to people because they happen to live in the shadow of or on the wrong side of a tall building.

Well, I will admit, this is vastly more amusing and less annoying than the stupid attempted Clinton/Obama dust-up a week ago. E&P.