Balta1701

QUOTE(beck72 @ Jan 15, 2007 -> 03:12 PM) For the sox to get Aybar in a deal for Crede, the angels would have to add a major league piece. Either a bullpen arm, or a guy like Figgins. Getting strictly prospects for Crede would make the sox far weaker in 2007, even with Fields/ Mack/ Cintron/ Figgins taking over at 3b. Aybar probably wouldn't replace Uribe in 2007. Though he could push him mid yr if Uribe was struggling. The sox do need a long term SS. There are few and far between that have the type of ceiling as Aybar. It would make sense from the angels Point of view. I'm not sure from the sox POV though Aybar for Crede straight up probably isn't fair from the White Sox side, but if the White Sox wind up in the situation where Uribe simply won't be here this year, then they may have no better options available. But yes, it would be desirable for a second piece to be included at some point. I would disagree though with the statement that Aybar can't be ready to be a major league starting SS at the beginning of this year. He has spent a full year at each level in the minors, except for AAA, which was punctuated by some time with the Angels last year. He has gone to training camp with the Angels each of the last 3 years, and performed moderatley well in the time he saw. There is very little left that one could ask him to do in the minors, at least to my eyes. 5 full years, taking a step up every year, having big league time last year, multiple all-star appearances...if that's not earning yourself a chance at a big league roster, I don't know what is.

Remember how the Democrats just last week decided to put their 2008 convention in Denver? One of the farthest right-wing Senators in the Republican party, Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado, has decided to honor his term-limits pledge and will not run for reelection in 2008. The Democrats already were lining up a potentially strong challenger in Rep. Mark Udall. This looks like a potentially very very strong pickup opportunity for 08.

QUOTE(Omeed @ Jan 15, 2007 -> 02:54 PM) There's more than a "few" Arabic linguist in the military. Here's a thought: When joining the military, service members sign a contract in triplicate form that states "Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue." Also, annual training on this subject is required. This means you aren't allowed to ask about someone's sexual preference, aren't allowed to promote your own homosexuality, and aren't allowed to perform homosexual acts. This allows for homosexuals in the military "legally" if one doesn't openly admit to homosexuality and doesn't perform homosexual acts, and in theory punishes those who actively try to "out" homosexuals. According to the GAO, 55 Arabic speaking linguists have been dismissed from the military, and some 800 total folks with key skills have been removed from the military due to this program. Discharging and replacing those 800 people has cost the government nearly $400 million. And the 9/11 commission report identified a lack of arabic speakers as a key problem facing the U.S. in its current war messes.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 15, 2007 -> 02:38 PM) The rest of the US has these laws about discriminating. LOL. The military said the same thing about women and minorities. Grow up. Being gay isn't contagious. You won't get cooties. They won't convert you while you sleep. Actually, I believe significant chunks of the U.S. do not have laws which ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. There is no national statute, and it is banned for federal employees only by executive order. Given some brief googling, here's a rough estimate of the status: So while significant chunks of the U.S. do ban that sort of discrimination, significant other chunks do not.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Jan 15, 2007 -> 01:28 PM) i know nothing of this angels short stop and have a feeling i shouldnt even bother looking into him.... dont see anything doing here He actually strikes me as exactly the kind of guy the Sox might like. Probably the best defensive SS the Angels have (had a lot of errors in the minors though, but still has a very good arm), Cabrera included, Really really good speed (although needs to get his SB %age up, like a lot of young guys). Sort of a slap hitter, not a ton of power, doesnt' take a ton of walks, but does hit with a good average. he'd fit in quite well at the top of the White Sox's lineup. Add in more of that disruptive speed Ozzie likes, and toss in defense. Also a switch hitter, which could be very useful. And, its probably pretty likely the Angels won't hold onto him long-term, because of Cabrera, Kendrick, and Wood. They used Aybar some to fill in at 3rd last year if i recall correctly, and they seemed to be fairly happy with having him in their lineup, but they're not going to block Brandon Wood with Erik Aybar. Turned 23 yesterday also, so he's still either young for or right around the age he should be at each level. He's been an all-star at pretty much every level he's played at in the Halos' system. BA ranked him as the #3 prospect in the Angels system in 06, behind Wood and Adenhart.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jan 15, 2007 -> 09:49 AM) I'd give 24 mil a year to Santana. He's just that studly. I do think however, that the Sox won't sign him. Kenny will inquire and hell, the Sox might be one of the last three teams bidding on him, but then they'll get outbid by a ton. Hell, I'd do $30 million a year...if you could get him for a 2 or 3 year deal. The risk in all these deals is the length.

If nothing else, can everyone here at least agree that removing some of the military's few Arabic speaking translators from the service during a time of multiple wars in the middle east because of their sexual orientation one of the worst ideas since invading Iraq?

QUOTE(striker62704 @ Jan 15, 2007 -> 11:49 AM) I don't see us making a deal for a SS until mid spring training if at all. The Sox will have a better idea then if Uribe will be able to play. In regards to Dye, unless the sox are getting a huge break in his price they probably won't sign him, Buehrle or Crede to extensions until they see how their new crop of young hurlers pans out. If they all appear to be busts then I bet at least two of the three get extensions. That's gonna be a really difficult way to do things, as it's probably pretty unlikely that more than 2 of them will see any significant time in the big leagues this season. Gio, Broadway, Danks, maybe Floyd, all stand a good chance of spending most to all of the season in AAA (and most of them probably shouldn't see the big leagues this season either).

QUOTE(greg775 @ Jan 15, 2007 -> 12:18 PM) My question to you is then ... if these players like Dye, Crede, Mark are not good enough to sign, why will other teams be lining up to sign them on their terms? If fiscal responsibility means getting rid of all the cogs of a world championship team and offending its fanbase in the process for what will certainly be downgrades at many positions, so be it. To you who blast me and others for bagging on Jerry for not spending money to keep our heroes ... who do you envision being our next Buehrle, our next Dye, our next Crede, our next Freddie, our next Contreras? You are counting on these guys Kenny is stockpiling to pan out and likely downgrades with Dye and Crede. No one has yet responded to the point I raised earlier. To hold together the exact same team from last year, with 0 improvements, would within 2 years cost something in the range of $150 million a year, maybe more. That's keeping Podsednik in LF, Uribe at SS, Anderson in CF, etc. Unless our revenue is rivaling the Yankees, I just can't see how the White Sox could seriously pull that off. There are 2 ways to do this. Either the White Sox could make 1 last complete push next year and then watch as the entire thing comes crumbling down because they don't have $130 million to spend in 2008 and $150 in 09, or the Sox could take their chances on the same scouts who found the talent that won in 05.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jan 14, 2007 -> 07:56 PM) The Colts can just plain ol' outscore the Patriots in this one. The Chargers played down to the Pats today. What makes you think the Pats can come into Indy and "rip up the Colts?" History.

Just for fun, I spent a moment making a few educated guesses about the money it would take to keep together out entire starting lineup from 06, including the starting rotaiton, as it stands now. You can quibble with my numbers if you want, I'm sure that in the end they'll be off by a couple million, but just for a rough guess of how much it would cost around 08-09 to keep all these guys from hitting FA, here's what I think: (numbers in millions of dollars) Mark Buehrle 17 Jon Garland 14 Jose Contreras 10 Freddy Garcia 13 Javier Vazquez 12 Joe Crede 12 Paul Konerko 12 Jim Thome 7 Tadahito Iguchi 4 Juan Uribe 5 AJ Pierzynski 5.5 Jermaine Dye 15 Brian Anderson 0.4 Scott Podsednik 3 Just with our starting lineup, that comes to about $130 million. Now think about the fact that I probably underestimated a few of the numbers those pitchers will get, that prices will probably inflate more before then, that Thome's option in 09 is $14 million and the Phillies wouldn't be paying for that part, and that mentions nothing about the bench or bullpen, which together should add up to another $10 million or so, and just for holding together the same roster as last year with 0 upgrades, within a year or two the White Sox would have to push the salary to the $140-$150 million range. Was last year's team worth $150 million to anyone's eyes here? A 3rd place finish in the division (even though they won 90)? And then imagine that with everyone 2-3 years older? Like it or not, that's the reality KW was faced with. He had to get younger wherever he could, and that $60-$70 million starting rotation is the obvious place.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jan 13, 2007 -> 11:38 PM) Talked to someone who saw Jenks in person yesterday, and said he looks a lot better than he did last season coming into ST. Just thought I would pass on the info. Now that is great to hear. I assume you mean he's lost a little weight this time. I bet you that a few pounds off his frame turns into a little easier range of motion on that arm and a little regaining of juice on that fastball.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 14, 2007 -> 06:50 PM) Bonds on Bonds. I hate you so much.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jan 14, 2007 -> 06:53 PM) apparently Gregory Pratt doesnt remember Belichick in Cleveland either. Worked out pretty well for that franchise. Except for that game against the Colts yesterday...

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 14, 2007 -> 02:09 PM) I wouldn't say he won us the game, but I'd give him a 'plus' grade; his only real mistakes were his fumble (should've just took the sack there, you're not going to outrun anybody, much less Julian Peterson) and when he threw behind a wide open Berrian (although Berrian did still have a chance to grab that ball). His long throw to Berrian was money. A gem. If we play like this against the Saints, though, we're going to lose by two scores. Oh come on, that throw hit Berrian in the hands...seriously, a QB's allowed to be off by less than a foot, still hit the receiver in the hands, with no defender around, and expect a ball to be caught. His only mistake to my eyes was the fumble, and an occasional mis-read of the blitz (but, he did a much better job of actually throwing the ball away when the blitz came instead of forcing a throw somewhere). And on your second point...more specifically, if the defense plays like this against the saints, then they'll lose by 2 scores. The key to that game? The Bears must generate turnovers. If the Saints hold onto the ball, with the way the Bears defense is playing right now (bending pretty readily), I think the Saints will break through. The Saints...are coming...

.245, 18 home runs, ~60 RBI. Why so low, you may ask? Well, y'all may remember how a few months ago the White Sox advised Mr. Crede to undergo back surgery. Mr. Boras advised Mr. Crede to rehab without surgery so as to avoid having a back surgery on his record when he hits FA. Mr. Crede listened to Mr. Boras instead of the team medical staff. Joe's back went out in September last year, and IIRC his average that month was under the Mendoza line. I think he made the wrong choice in ignoring the team's advice and following Boras's advice, and by the middle of the season, we will start to see that.

Obama is hinting at announcing very soon. Political Wire has heard a rumor and is noting that Oprah's guest this Wednesday is listed as "Check back later".

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 14, 2007 -> 11:19 AM) If that's what he said, that's piss poor. Now if he would have said they have the same ideology as the people who attacked us on 9/11, that's much more fair. Even if it's more fair, I'm still not sure I'd agree with it as an intelligent characterization of why we're stuck in Iraq right now. I think I've been pretty sparing in throwing around Vietnam metaphors, but I think that in this case, its a fairly apt one. In 'Nam, we were there because we were fighting the communists. The North Vietnamese were the Commies and they had to be stopped. But, breaking things down to that level of simplicity wound up ignoring the key features of the 30 years war in Vietnam; yes, the key party was a communist one, and there were plenty of people who were motivated by that belief, but vastly more important in motivating the opposition was the fact that they were fighting for what they felt was their country. The Vietminh may have been communist, but that's not why they won, they won because they were Vietnamese, and not French or American. To some extent, the same exact thing is happening in Iraq. Yes, a few of Bin Laden's actual guys have certianly shown up there. But that's not nearly been the motivating factor that the simple fact of occupation has been. These people are living in a country with tanks on their streets, bullets flying through their hair, their family members being jailed or killed, their lives being destroyed, themselves targeted specifically because of their faith, and so on. To simply say that it's the same ideology that attacked us on 9/11 is to perpetuate some of the very reasons why we're performing so poorly there. It neglects the anti-imperialist, anti-conquest beliefs that almost any state would have, it neglects the deep divisions Saddam created in that country to solidify his power structure, it neglects the real suffering of the people, and it neglects all of the other religious motivations in there. Edit: Btw, here's Lieberman's actual quote:

QUOTE(whitesox1976 @ Jan 13, 2007 -> 07:35 PM) Trading Sammy Sosa was indeed a dumb moment. We lost a lot of home runs when he got rid of Sosa. But, we also avoided depleting our team's supply of hypodermic needles, and those can be a real expense.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 13, 2007 -> 08:06 PM) Wow... For those of us sitting in windowless basement offices for the past 10 hours monitoring PBP online, what's the wow for?

Nowhere Man.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2007 -> 05:02 PM) Well its nice to know that all it takes is a little bad press for Nancy to change her mind... Nothing 'tall wrong with that.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 13, 2007 -> 04:47 PM) Because Peyton Manning is ten times the quarterback Grossman is. Oh, sorry. Because Manning has a better team around him, offensively, than Grossman. And, well, Manning hasn't exactly faced heavyweights. I was never impressed by the Ravens. Doesn't matter if he's 20 times the QB Grossman is...15/30, 170 yards, 2 INT's, 0 TD's, coming after a 3 INT game last week, those aren't good lines, and yet the Colts are still winning. In other words, their defense is playing ball, which is exactly what the Bears need to do tomorrow. And if you're going to cut down what the Colts have done by saying they haven't faced heavyweights, I'd say they've faced better teams than anyone the Bears will have to face except maybe the Saints.

So...the team standing between Peyton and the Super Bowl will either be his nemesis team or the team that ended their undefeated run in 05.

Joe Lieberman...Screwing over America like no other Senator could. Shorter Joe Lieberman: Hey Connecticut voters, hey Americans...SCREW YOU!! WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!