Balta1701

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Oct 3, 2006 -> 08:30 AM) Is Fields really that solid defensivley to replace agruably the best defensive 3B in baseball? Fields can hit, but is he clutch like Crede? If this team can shore up the bullpen or possibly get an insurance spot starter/reliever (El-duque of '05) in return for Crede than i might consider it. However, i dont see Crede going anywhere. Unless its part of a Tampa package for Crawford No, Fields is not nearly as good as Crede at 3rd base. In other words...you have to get enough back for Crede to make up for that loss somewhere else on the field. You need a ton more than bullpen help and a spot starter for Joe Crede.

Matt Drudge...unable to comprehend that a Republican Congressman could in fact be the bad guy...decides the bad guy is the teenage boy. Tonight on ABC News...

This actually seems to have been reported by Time Magazine in 2002. Despite that, it also seems that the 9/11 commision never received any information about it.

Everyone please note: In 2006, Chone Figgins was basically Scott Podsednik with a couple more home runs.

QUOTE(TLAK @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 04:42 PM) Spot on. Josh is a 'project' who may turn out to be very good but at this stage would be learning his trade at the MLB level. That might be acceptable for a team in rebuilding mode, trying to get to .500, but I think the White Sox have a chance to get back to the Series next year and have to put more weight on immediate results. How the White Sox handle this matter will be telling. On any of these topics though...there are 2 issues. One is the net immediate loss from going from one of, if not the best third baseman in baseball to a rookie. The other side though is the net gain we we would get by trading away the best third baseman in baseball while his value is still potentially through the roof, thus getting ourselves new players and saving money. You do not have to be in rebuilding mode to trade away a veteran player, insert a rookie, and have your team get better. Just as a hypothetical example...pick the one guy in baseball you think would help us the most. Don't care who or what position. Throw in a Crawford, or an Ichiro, or a Verlander, or whoever it is you would love to have on your team. If you could get that guy...but it cost you Joe Crede to do it...that is the evaluation you have to make. Would going from Podsednik to Crawford counteract the loss from Crede to Fields? It may very well do so. Or if you add in a pitcher. Etc. You can win with all of Fields, Anderson, and Sweeney in your lineup next year if you have to. But that can only happen if you are smart about what you do with the pieces you do have. If you turn the guys you remove into exceptionally valuable pieces...you can get better the next year. There is virtually no one on the White Sox who is totally untouchable if the right offer were made. But you can not just sell a guy like Crede for nothing...you have to get back something valuable enough to offset the loss of him if you want to remain competitive next year.

QUOTE(cuddlyboy26 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 03:49 PM) Would Crede want to be a backup to Fields though? There are many teams that would want him to be the starter. I now understand more why his agent wants him to leave. If they are so high on some younger kid he obviously is not welcome and would be stupid to want to sign a long term deal. This is just wierd...there is no sense in which Joe Crede will ever be a backup. Either Joe Crede will be traded, or Josh Fields will. And the factors making that decision will be: whether or not Crede can be signed to a multi-year deal, the price on that deal, and now, his back.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 03:44 PM) Roberts was supposedly named in the Grimsley affidavit as "having used anabolic steroids" Here's the LAT Link where they discuss the original document that they somehow got their hands on.

I think they'll try to get Soriano but only be used to drive up the price for other teams to get him.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 02:56 PM) Just to throw this out there, in regards to the "pedophile" discussion... If the page was 16, depending on where this occurred (DC, Virginia, elsewhere), there may have been no violation of law. In some states, 16 is consensual across the board. On the other hand though, there's a wierd quirk to the laws as written by Congress. Yes, states can set their own ages of consent, and in many cases, that age may be under 18. However, the Federal Goverment has written the laws regarding indecent behavior using the internet. Specifically I think the Protection of Children From Sexual Predators Act of 1998 may be the law most noteable. When Congress writes these bills, they have always done so using the age of 18 as a line. So there's this wierd quirk...where if a judge interprets the laws exactly, it might be legal for a 16 year old and a 54 year old to actually meet and have sex, but if they go home and talk online afterwards, the online part could be illegal.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 02:40 PM) I like Baldelli as much as you Balta, but from what I've seen, he would be much better suited as a #2 hitter. I also don't like the fact he's injury proned. Not only 05, but he missed time in 04 or 03 IIRC. I'm not convinced I like him yet. The injury part always worries me. But I don't have access to significant amounts of medical data on these guys...I'll leave that to KW to research if he thinks its worth it. I thought Jermaine Dye was a big risk when he was signed because of the injury history. If KW could be convinced that he could stay healthy...he could be an ideal buy because others would be scared off by the injury history and the D-Rays might not want to get caught holding him in a crowded outfield. But a lot depends on that injury history. QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 03:10 PM) Brian Roberts and move him to LF. Does his supplier come with the deal, or would that cost us Fields as well?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 02:32 PM) And half of this year as well. Oh and the guy has had a whopping 44 games batting lead off. I honestly don't care about how many total games he has played leading off. The only 2 questions are: does he have the tools of a leadoff hitter (check) and can he stay healthy? Just because a guy has hit in the 1 spot 44 games doesn't mean he can't spend the next 500 games in that spot.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 02:22 PM) Did anyone catch Opie and Anthony this morning? They did a reading of a couple of IM conversations this guy had. He's a creep. Asking how the kid got off, asking for details about his junk, asking him what he liked/didn't like. The reading was hilarious because the kid said 'LOL' about a thousand times (which Jim Norton acted out...quite funny. I think This one might be worse than that one.

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 01:49 PM) You'd have to say Trot Nixon is a top ten option in the outfield Don't you also have to say that injuries are a major concern with him? He hasn't really played a full season (140+ games) since 2002, and then only twice in his entire career.

QUOTE(cuddlyboy26 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 01:49 PM) So you dont think he will be on the team next year? Crede is arbitration-eligible through the end of 2008. The White Sox control his rights for 2 more years. He will not be a free agent this year. So if he's not on the team next year...then hopefully I'll like what we traded him for.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 01:21 PM) Judicial watch sent it to the FBI, or the Repubs sent it to the FBI? Regardless if there wasn't a crime committed, there isn't much you can charge them with. Really it comes down to the court of public opinion at that point. What should they do unless there are actual accusations, I am not sure what they could do. Plus if there were actual allegations, and the FBI was called in to investigate, (and seemingly must not have found a reason to charge the guy with anything, because they didn't do anything before.) how far can you go before you get into slander/lible type areas? Small mistake, it was CREW, not Judicial Watch. Ok, so here's the story as I get it. The head of the NRCC (The guy running the Republican Congressional campaign committee) had seen the emails asking for a photo in early 2006. Boehner and Hastert had both seen them some time around the middle of 2006. CREW also got their hands on those emails at roughly the same time. CREW forwarded them to the FBI, thinking "this just can't be right" or something like that. Basically then nothing happened...the FBI did nothing, the Republicans in Congress did nothing, until ABC published the emails last week. So basically, both the top Republicans in Congress and the FBI seem to have had emails from a Congressman to a 16 year old page asking what he wanted for his birthday and asking for a photograph by July of 06 at the very latest. Thus far, it seems nothing was done by either group until ABC published the emails and the IM's were found. (Not sure why the FBI did nothing). So I'm just trying to figure out how to evaluate the behavior of the guys who had the emaisl and did nothing? About the only thing I can figure that would absolve them of any responsibility would be if they had gone to the FBI and asked and the FBI had said "stay out of it". But thus far, no one has given that explanation, and it'd be hard to make it fit with the fact that the FBI hadn't done anything in terms of starting an investigation. So if nothing else...wouldn't it have seemed logical to take this to the Congressional Ethics committee? Or at least to the other Congressmen who run the Congressional Page program? Or the FBI? Or to do something with it?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 12:56 PM) It all depends on what they knew and when they knew it. If they knew "everything", and knew it early they deserve to be charges as accessories to the crime. Too bad we don't hold people to that standard, or the entire Catholic church leadership would be winding its way through criminal court right now, as they should be IMO. So what happens if they knew some things, like knew that something inappropriate was going on (i.e. by having seen some of the less-suggestive emails months ago) but not knowing the full extent? It sure seems that Hastert et al. had knowledge to some extent of something going on. They had the same email that when Judicial Watch got their hands on it...they sent it to the FBI. 5 years ago a Republican staffer warned pages to watch out for Foley and “don’t get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff.” (ABC news). A lot of these people seem to have had suggestions that there was a problem for months, maybe even years...but basically by just turning their backs and not asking anything else they probably didn't commit any specific crimes. So what happens to them if what they did was basically sit on their hands and just expect it to go away, but without impeding any investigations?

QUOTE(VAfan @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 01:05 PM) Please, NOT: Juan Pierre (Willie Harris is just as good as Pierre), Dave Roberts, Coco Crisp. The one thing I will say about Coco Crisp is that the "Win now" mentality in Boston which permeates every year has caused them to do some stupid things in the past. The whole Mirabelli matter this year, for example. If they're disappointed in Crisp...they may not be as willing to wait on him to improve as they should be, and they may be more willing to do something stupid.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 01:04 PM) Man I hope Crede doesnt leave. He is a class act and one fo the best ballplayers we have homegrown in awhile. Before the whole contract mess...would people have considered Ordonez to be a class act?

So, what do folks think is the appropriate way to deal with the key Republican leaders including Hastert and Boehner who seem to have at least known that something inappropriate was going on with Foley much earlier this year but yet took no action?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 12:25 PM) You know, before this year, people said Soriano couldnt hit in any other parks. But you know what? Just because 1 guy was able to move into a new park without having his numbers decrease doesn't mean that all home/road performance metrics are worthless. A lot of times, there are specific reasons why people are good in one place and bad in others. One should be careful in evaluating the driving forces before making blanket statements. Would one have expected Soriano's numbers to decrease moving from Texas to Washington? Based only on the ballparks, yes. But on the other hand, Soriano also was not going to be facing as good of pitching when moving to the NL. So there are multiple dynamics at work here. I don't know why Ervin Santana was worse in one place than in another. Sometimes it just happens. But you can't just throw the numbers out the window because they didn't apply to Soriano.

So, have people found a way to blame this on TV and heavy metal music yet?

So...I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet... How did things go the last time a player for the White Sox took Scott Boras's advice on medical issues?

QUOTE(joeynach @ Sep 29, 2006 -> 09:07 AM) MB has a 9.5 Mil option for next year or a buyout to make him a free agent. The sox are in no position to trade a guy they currently do not have under conctract. End of story.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 29, 2006 -> 09:04 AM) Absolutely. I think I said the same thing a couple weeks ago when BushCo ratcheted up the war drums. "We must legalize torture and suspend Habeus Corpus before it's too late." So...just on the book...I think it is probably worth noting that this is the same Bob Woodward who wrote the at least much more balanced, if not somewhat pro-Bush book "Bush at War" a few years ago. If he's become this much more shrill...then his analysis of this administration has really, really changed.