Balta1701

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 08:08 AM) Which I don't have a problem with at all. The entire world has tried a million different ways to fix this situation, and the only solution Iran would have is the one thing that pretty much no one else wants, and that is for Iran to be producing nuclear materials. Russia even offered to ship them the materials, let them utilize it for power purposes, and then to take it back after it had been depleted. This would solve the problem of Iran's supposed needing more power capability, and it would also satisfy those who are worried about nuclear West hating clerics. Of course this proposal went no where, which raised all kinds of red flags for me personally. I understand your concern with that completely, but I think it's probably also worth noting that according to the non-proliferation treaty, Iran is fully within its rights in developing a nuclear enrichment program for energy purposes, as long as they are open to the IAEA. Now, their openness can and certainly should be called into question, as should the existence of the program itself. However, I think it is worth noting that the U.S. is insisting as a precondition for talks Iran give up something that they have a full right to do under all international treaties. What Iran does not have a right to do is hide things from the IAEA (which they have done in the past) or enrich uranium beyond the couple percent 235 that is needed for energy generation. Thus far, there is still no evidence at all that they've done the 2nd step (And of course, even if they were to start taking the 2nd step, it would take them about 10 years to build the bomb).

QUOTE(pcullotta @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 07:14 AM) I agree, Ozzie does play the Righty/Lefty matchup game wrong a lot of the time (Especially with Iguchi). I was just wondering whether or not BA would have done as well as he did in the second half if he had to face all the pitchers he was spared from. Direct quote from Ozzie - "Right now, Mackowiak is going to be in against tough righties until we see Brian start swinging the bat better." From the Tribune - White Sox OF Rob Mackowiak may play more against right-handed pitchers due to the struggles of rookie OF Brian N. Anderson in center field. I'm not saying BA didn't face tough pitchers. Every Major League player does. I am saying Ozzie did try to protect him from pitchers he didn't think BA could handle. I looked at those numbers before putting up my second half guess about Anderson's numbers. And I also believe that had Anderson been facing right handers, he would have had even better numbers. It wasn't just "Tough" right handers Ozzie wouldn't let BA face. It was anyone who threw from the right hand side. And when a relief pitcher who threw right handed would come in, B.A. would just as often get hits as he would if he was starting. Had he been in those extra 80 at bats or so, he would have faced some tough righties, but he'd also have faced plenty of easy righties. Paul Byrd. Kyle Snyder. Runelvys Hernandez. Brad Radke (while hurt). Zach Miner. Radke again. Adam Bernero. Bruce Chen. Carlos Silva. Vicente Padilla. Josh Beckett. Daniel Cabrera. All of those guys started games just since July 1 that Ozzie held Anderson out of because they were righties. And then there's a few other good pitchers we lit up, like Zambrano, that he also never faced because Ozzie held him out of those games too.

Ah, the world of baseball is as it should be again...the teams with the most money are in the playoffs.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 06:36 AM) Iran's President had an interesting debate last night with leading political analysts. This is no one connected to the current government, but supposedly this is a big step towards maybe having direct talks and dialogue. http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060921/...COUNCIL-DC.html Iran has been asking the U.S. repeatedly for direct talks for years. The U.S. has said they will only talk to Iran on the condition that Iran stops its uranium enrichment program in its entirety.

QUOTE(Dam8610 @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 08:11 PM) I can't believe how quickly Sox fans have turned on Buehrle. Being willing to listen to deals involving players a year away from Free Agency is not equal to turning on a player, at least for me.

QUOTE(shoota @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 05:21 PM) This should have its own thread, IMO. Bashing America is a regular occurance for the anti-American Hugo Chavez. He called this country a "terrorist state" and recently began agressively stockpiling arms and teaming with other Latin American countries to ally against America. Does anyone know how long Chavez can remain in office as Venezuela's President? Pat Robertson was right. If I were Reinsdorf, I wouldn't have allowed Ozzie to bring the trophy to that American-hating POS. This is from the beginning of September: He was first elected in 1998. He is up for re-election this year. They serve 6 year terms in Venezuela. He currently has significant leads in what polls there are in Venezuela.

QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 05:52 PM) That was me. From all that Ozzie has said about BA, it just wouldn't suprise me to see him elsewhere next year. Which is just so ungodly stupid...

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 05:13 PM) Game thread could not be more dead if it were 1988. Some of us are here but barely able to bring ourselves to speak.

At least Mack is not in CF...but Ryan shouldn't be there either.

Link Hmmm...wiseacre...

Bob Wickman re-upped for another year with the Bravos. Huge for Atlanta...their bullpen was by far their biggest hole this year, and Wickman provided some stability.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 03:36 PM) NAME AGE SALARY Garland 27 $10M Garcia 31 $10M Vazquez 30 $9.5M Buehrle 28 $9.5M Contreras 35 $9M McCarthy 24 $400K JC, MB, FG, JG, JV = $48M, 30.2 AVG. Age JC, MB, JG, JV, BM = $38.4M, 28.8 AVG. Age If the Sox keep the starting 5 intact and trade McCarthy, this rotation just gets older and more expensive. You should add a ± 1.5 onto each of those average ages to account for Contreras.

Good ol Rexie...always a step behind...

So, simply pasting the "Embed" section from the Youtube video page into a Soxtalk add reply window does not put the video into a post...do I have to change the

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 02:55 PM) Rex, you must be one of about 4 people on this planet that take that blustering idiot seriously. As much of the U.S.'s oil as Venezuela supplies, someone better take him seriously about something. Even if it's not his oratory.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 02:51 PM) Although the more that it is mentioned, the more I would pull the trigger for Crawford. But not if Crede were in the deal?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 12:29 PM) if he went back to hitting .250 he would still be better than Fields, thats all im saying. But all I'm saying is...if Crede went back to hitting .250, and he was doing it for another team...we'd have acquired whatever we could get for the .300/30/100 Crede. If we get something worth the $$.

Soxtalk.com.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 01:40 PM) If Stevens is the "King of Pork", there isn't an honorific gaudy enough for Byrd. Galactic Emperor of Pork? "They call me 'The Pork King,' they don't know how much I enjoy it." - Sen. Robert Byrd

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 11:43 AM) I still do not think you understand. No matter how much money we save, there will be a sizeable hole defensively at 3B. All of those easy plays and hard plays that Crede makes with regularity will not be so with a rookie. Also he could very well put up Brian Anderson type numbers for much of the season. Thats alot to think about. I'm not denying any of that. I'm just saying you have to weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives as well. Let's say we get a stud young pitcher for Crede. This allows us to deal another starter, thus saving us $10 million+ next year. We go out and use that money on Soriano. Suddenly we have Fields at 3rd struggling, but we have another young pitcher in our rotation, more talent in our farm system, and Soriano shooting for 50/40 in our outfield, while Fields works at 3rd on adapting to the big leagues. There are a few dozen other examples I could come up with. That's just one. But I think it illustrates the point...you have to consider both the negatives and the positives of any proposed deal. I'm not in favor of dumping Crede just to dump. But if the right situation comes along, I wouldn't oppose it. But again, it has to be the right deal.

QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 11:39 AM) That makes sense to me too. Maybe one will go, but I am not really in favor of losing either, if they play in the role they were originally pegged for Unfortunately, Ozzie seems to have no intention of using Mack in the role he was originally pegged for. None at all. Which is why I'm to the point where I want Mack traded this offseason...just so Ozzie can never, ever, ever play him in CF again.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 11:38 AM) It's not knee jerk at all, Kenny has been saying all year that we need a spot next year in the rotation for Brandon. If anything, the knee-jerk reaction would be to respond to how BMac has performed this month pitching from the bullpen and decide to not open a rotation spot for him or trade him entirely based on that.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 10:36 AM) The interesting conclusion was that already Ahmadinejad would be seemingly vulnerable when up for reelection if there isn't some tangible change in the economic situation of the average Irani. I guess they vote with their pocketbooks as well if you believe this reporters research and interviews off camera with Joe Irani. Interesting point...but it's only an issue if you believe that Ahmadinejad is either the only problem or is the actual source of power in that country. I don't believe either of those...Iran's government is still run mostly by the Islamic Clerics, who do not come up for a vote. These were the same clerics who expelled quite a few candidates from the Presidential race that elected Ahmadinejad, and they're the ones who have the power over the military. There is some infighting in Iran constantly in terms of the elected leadership wanting more power from the clerics, but the constitution of that country gives these folks a huge amount of power. They can declare war, run the military, appoint the nation's judges, appont members of their parliament, etc. Simply getting rid of Ahmadinejad will not suddenly make Iran's government pro-America. The Clerics are another big part of the problem.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 10:38 AM) Tell me if I am mistaken, but aren't 2 of those three senators looking like they will lose their next elections, based on current polls? And I have to say I'm a bit surprised at Hastert being in there. He has always seemed to me to be a straight arrow. I'll have to read up on their reasoning there. No, you are not mistaken. And the same things that have landed them on this list are a big part of the reasons why they are losing in their races. Which means they'll be replaced by someone else next year. Hastert's going to be in there because of that land deal that made him a ton of money when he was able to pass legislation that made land he owned far more valuable.