Balta1701

QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 07:19 PM) Lots of hitting in that division, except for Pittsburgh, and zilch pitching Speaking of which, Houston signed Woody Williams today also. Maybe a little bandaid. The one thing that catches my eye...all of the top 5 teams have a potential ace. Zambrano, Oswalt, Carpenter, Sheets, and Arroyo. Beyond that though, it seems teams are relying on a ton of young pitching. Hill, Prior, Cotts, and maybe Meche in Chicago, Reyes and Wainright along with Weaver in Stl, Backe and God knows what in Houston, a bunch of pieces in Milwaukee, and a bunch of pieces in Cinci. Whoever's young pitching steps up will win that division. All 5 of those teams have a darn good offense, the question is pitching, pitching, pitching. But of course...if any of those teams were really smart, they might realize they all could be 1 veteran pitcher away from running away with that division...and might look to finding a team with a veteran starting pitcher or two to deal. Sort of a shame that teams like the Cubs and the Cardinals have basically a wasteland in their minor leagues.

I wouldn't complain about replacing Uribe if the deal was right...and I can think of teams that would be thrilled about a solid defense, 20 home run+ right handed hitting short stop/utility guy...but the one thing I don't want to do this offseason is get older. We have talent to deal. If we get older, then we're setting ourselves up for a total rebuilding at the end of 2007/2008 when guys like Vizquel actually retire and Dye, Crede, and a couple of starting pitchers have departed as free agents. If we want to be competitive every year...getting a guy like Vizquel is a band-aid for 2007, but not an improvement for 2008 and beyond.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 01:41 PM) You suggest rebuilding the team after next season if it's a 'failure.' First, define failure. If next years ballclub were to win 82 games, you'd consider it a failure, no? Or would you believe whoever tailed off merely had a poor season and we should maintain them for 2008? There needs to be clear, indisputable guidelines for determining our success. I believe it's foolish not to prepare beyond 2007. You can't just rest your hopes on one season; and if it doesnt go how we wish, completely disband the ballclub. If this philosophy were truly felt by Williams, why doesn't he trade McCarthy -- as well as the remaining prospects of value -- and go all out next season? Flash, I think you and I are coming towards the same point of view on this offseason, at least by the looks of it. My point of view is this; we have 4 key guys who are Free Agents after 2007, and a ton more who are free agents after 2008, and right now we don't have the talent to replace those guys in our system, nor do we have the money to resign them all at the current going rate. The obvious solution, to my eyes, is some sort of compromise. We are NOT going to be able to resign Mark Buehrle, Jermaine Dye, Tadahito Iguchi, and Freddy Garcia at the end of 2007. More than likely, at least 1 starting pitcher is going to be traded to make room for BMac, but to my eyes, that still is not enough. And on top of that, you have a couple guys (Dye, Crede) coming off of career years, such that their value may never be higher than it is now. We have 2 options from my eyes. We hold onto these guys, and wind up stockpiling draft picks after 2007. Or, we sign as many of them as we can (#1 priority = Buehrle), and we use the guys we are potentially going to lose to rebuild our minor leagues right now. I mean, look, the Dodgers just signed Juan Pierre and Nomah...with Ethier, Loney, Nomar, Pierre, and Kemp, either Loney or Kemp is going to be left without a spot to play, and they have other guys out there too as backups...so they literally have to find someone to move. And they are looking for a right handed power bat, since that was a key piece they were missing last year. Don't you at least have to look at the possibility of making a deal for a guy like Kemp and one of the Dodgers pitching prospects for Dye? If teams won't meet our prices, then we try to resign all the people we can, except for dealing either Garcia/Buehrle to open a spot for BMac. But if there are this many teams this desperate to win now, I just can't help but think about a rotation in 2008-2009 of Buehrle, Garland, McCarthy, and 2 other ace young guys we pick up this year (Billingsley, Pelfrey, etc.), an outfield of Milledge/Anderson/Kemp/Sweeney, an infield with Crede, some good youth at SS and 2nd, and Konerko/Thome at first, and plenty of talent for KW to deal at the trading deadline if he so desires. If we make the right deals, I think we could still compete next year, especially if we manage to hold onto a top 4 of Mccarthy, Garland, Buehrle, and Contreras with a solid young #5. But even if we miss the playoffs again, I think I would rather do so with a young team on the verge of ripping the AL Central apart in 08 than I would with an old team about to turn into 6 draft picks when 3 guys leave at the end of 07.

QUOTE(kevo880 @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 03:32 PM) I don't think Mackowiak and B level prospect is enough for Chone Figgins. Figgins>Mack by a decent amount and they play the same role basically. Why would a B level pitching prospect intrigue them so much to move figgins? That's a question of what you have and what you need. Now that the Halos have signed Matthews, they may just not want to have the need to find playing time for a guy like Figgins. Mackowiak, as mainly a backup player, does have more power than Figgins, may be able to hold together a higher OBP, and will almost certainly cost less over time. Figgins has somewhat more value than Mack, but the difference to my eyes really isn't huge in terms of trade value. QUOTE(ptatc @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 05:50 PM) Beware of outfeilders with foot problems, it's worse than chronic hamstring problems. A DH like Thomas could get by. An outfielder cannot. Do not sign him. Kenny Williams has one of the best trainers in baseball working for him. He managed to take a look at a guy who missed almost all of 2005 and realize he had 40+ home runs in him in 06, he managed to realize that Jermaine Dye's injury history would be in the past in 2005, etc. If KW and Schuler could be convinced that his foot problem would not be a nagging problem, that's a decision I'd trust. But that's entirely up to them. A 1 year deal as a place-holder for Sweeney/Fields might not be a bad thing. But I keep liking Milledge, personally. QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 04:07 PM) Add to the mix the already cash laden large market teams and demand is sky high. Take into acount that the market has "checked" itself the past few years after the A-Rod year bonanza and that their aren't that many quality FA's and it makes perfect sense. Beyond that, there are 2-3 teams who do have a ton of money who are spending like desperate, drunken sailors. Specifically, Toronto and the North Siders and the Astros...they've literally redefined the bottom of the market in the past year or so through the fact that they're desperate for rapid improvement.

Just saying this to get it out there...if the trade market winds up being as overblown as the Free Agent market currently is...then there may never be as good of a time for a rebuilding season as this year.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 23, 2006 -> 09:02 PM) It wouldn't take that many troops. It would take a lot of air support, a lot of technologies that you (or I) don't know about, and some other methods. I'm not going to sit here and waste my time - any military victory can be achieved by this country - but most people wouldn't or couldn't stand for it. And no, I'm not talking nuclear weapons or anything like that, but the type of warfare that would be needed to 'win' is no picnic. We would need more troops, but not 500,000 more. That's a bogus number only used to hype your point. Our country has wussified 'war' to keep casualties down. That's ok, but it leaves the political climate such as we see now, and people in our country (in general) don't think war with a price is necessary. So, I for one would like to hear exactly what it is we can do to "win" this war? You're clearly advocating some application of airpower, to what purpose exactly? And who is the target? Taking it as you say and totally ignoring how bloody things could be, what do we do? Do we target and attempt to ethnically cleanse Iraq of its Sunni population to put an end to the insurgency because we can't tell which Sunnis are fighting us and which aren't? If so, we wind up finally finishing off the process of handing another strong ally in the region to Iran and Syria. Do we attempt to go after the Mahdi army, which forms the bulk of the support in Parliament for the current prime minister, and thus bring the entire government down? What exactly do we do? Anyone we target, at least to my eyes, makes things worse. Taking sides in this civil war won't work, either we'll be helping out the Iranians or we'll be tearing apart Iraq's government. Just attempting to attack indiscriminatly any place that violence outcrops won't work; it doesn't do much to hit an already exploded car bomb with a JDAM. We can't enforce a curfew on the entire country, because a.) it wouldn't work (those Sunnis burned to death today happened under a full curfew), b.) we don't have nearly the manpower to pull it off, and c.) it sort of shuts down the entire country. So, what is it exactly that we can do?

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 11:43 AM) People WANT this guy back? What the... Do any of these people who want him back remember how detrimental he was to the offense in the second half? I don't think they do. Jim Thome was a disaster to the Philadelphia Phillies offense in 2005. He hit .207 and put up a .712 OPS. You'd have to be out of your mind to trade 3 people for him, right? There is a reasonable possibilty that the reason Podsednik was so very very bad last year was that he was hurt all year. We would not necessarily know this where we are sitting, but the man making the decisions might. If KW were convinced that all of Podsednik's struggles were due to injury and he would be healthy again in 2007, then that is not the worst gamble I can imagine (Especially if Fields spends the first month or two of the season playing LF in the minor leagues as a backup option). But yea, I'd still prefer an outside solution.

Needed to get myself a 1 gb flash drive for quite some time, got one this mornin' @ Staples for $8.

Now it's J.D. Drew or the trade market for teams that want a bat.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 09:48 AM) I guess it depends on how hurt Pods was. Only the sox and he know how badly he was dinged up. If he was hurt and it kept him from going all out--which it seemed like both at bat and in the field--keeping Pods might not be bad. Esp. if the prognosis for Pods is that he'll be 100% for 2007, and very aggressive in the field, at bat and on the bases. There's the real key...how badly hurt Podsednik was last year. He had basically no offseason and no spring training at all because he was recovering from surgery, so his body never got a chance to get into playing shape. There is at least a remote cahnce that he'll come back out at the start of next season healthy and will put up 70/80 in stolen bases and a .300 average again. That said, I still think there are better options, maybe within our own system. I like the kids we do have, but Fields will k to much to lead off for anyone except the Cubs, and Sweeney needs another year in the minors just to grow up a little. Personally, unless someone were interested in moving a leadoff hitter to get their hands on Dye, one of my favorite options would be to have an outfield of Milledge/Anderson/Dye next year.

Well, this certainly isn't good.

The LA Times this morning ran a piece on how some of the deals the Cubs are making right now might serve to cut into the price the Tribune Company would get if they did sell the team (and remember the damn Tribune company still owns that paper)

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 11:23 AM) We also have 18,000 voters who didn't cast a ballot for Congress but did for Agricultural Commisioner in an urban area of Florida. It's possible that happened. I just doubt that would be very likely. And beyond that, there was also a much, much higher percentage of undervotes on the electronic machines than there were on the absentee ballots from those same areas.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 02:00 PM) And, I don't understand why he would strike out more in the AL. Johan Santana says hi.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 09:35 AM) The O's offered 5 and 65 iirc. Still, we got quite the deal with Paul considering todays market. I believe the tax rate is higher in Maryland, which makes up for some of the difference between the 2 numbers. But PK also didn't want to go to B-More...the Angels basically offered the same thing as the White Sox.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 07:55 AM) The White Sox generally don't go more than 3 years with pitchers. I think they gave Navarro 4 years and were prepared to give Alex Fernandez 4 years. I can't see them giving Buerhle more than 4 years, maybe if he returns to form there's a slight chance at 5, so chances are after 2007 if not before the end of 2007-he gone. I have a real feeling that if the Sox aren't willing to go into Oswalt territory (5 years), then there's no shot at resigning Buehrle.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 06:10 PM) Wow. You're equating prayer to neo-nazi chants? Muslim prayer. Update: so today it seems, one of the clerics attempted to purchase another set of tickets so that the group could go back home, and US Air refused to sell them tickets. (There are a lot more details at that article, encourage you to read.)

Please never say that one of our players is "in the clear" again.

A lot more details in the article, I encourage you to read.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 12:02 PM) It seems pretty simple to me, as PA said earlier. If they violated FAA regs on when and where to stand or sit, then fine, remove them. If not, and this was just some nervous, small-minded boob giving in to irrational fear, then these people were indeed treated disrespectfully. I'll toss out a ditto on that. Without exact details, it's hard to know exactly what they did, but until the plane starts to Taxi and the flight attendents give the safety presentation, usually it's perfectly ok for people to stand up.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 09:19 AM) The Thomas signing was also awful. Nomar at 3rd base is gonna be a joke and he'll be hurt in no time. I don't give that much money to guys that have proven over a relatively long period that they can't stay healthy. What exactly is it that suggests Nomah will be playing 3rd? Did somethign happen to Betemit?

YAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAY! Never thought I'd be so happy for a Twinkie.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 10:51 AM) My question here is why should we bend so far backwards to accomodate Islamic Law? This is another example of how these people think their religon is the be all / end all of existence and that nothing else matters. What was stopping these guys from doing their prayers before takeoff? Before they came to the airport? They totally should have been bounced from that flight cause they thumbed their nose at the rules. Maybe if Muslims were more tolerant and accomodating of American Culture ( which still is for the most part tolerant of their culture being a guest in our country ) they would find less hostility to them. When exactly did either standing while on a plane or praying while on a plane (both of them before takeoff) become against the rules?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 10:32 AM) I don't think this particular incident is a set up. At the same time, I don't know that the Imams were particularly friendly or personable during this situation. It was most likely a little bit of inappropriate behavior on both sides. Would you be particularly friendly if someone asked you to remove yourself from a plane?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 08:51 AM) I see what you are getting at, but I have to disagree. If some company found a vaccine for AIDS, they'd be set for income for eons. No way they don't try to do that. Yes, they ALSO go after the simpler, annoying things that they can treat for life. They do both. Yes, but the key question is the one of funding priorities. The drug companies do spend some $ on trying to develop cures, but it's not nearly what a government institution would spend on the same task. I'm not arguing that private companies fail to fund them entirely, I'm arguing a position of priorities. It is so much more profitable to treat the symptoms rather than develop a cure that a company who's goal is maximizing profit will focus the majority of its research dollars on developing treatments, not cures. PR value, undercutting other companies, yes, those are nice things, but drug companies focus on one thing above all else, profit, and you all know that. Here's a piece from the RAND corp. making the same point.