Balta1701

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a non-partisan group, has once again released its list of the top 20 most corrupt members of Congress (and they added 5 more people to watch for next year). Here is this year's list. A full summary of why each member made their list can be found at http://beyonddelay.org/

RI-SEN ARG Sept 20 Whitehouse (D) 45%, Chafee ® 40% CT-SEN ARG Sept 20 Lieberman (CFL) 47%, Lamont (D) 45% OH-SEN Quinnipiac Sept 20 Brown (D) 45%, DeWine ® 44% NJ-SEN Quinnipiac Sept 20 Kean ® 48%, Menendez (D) 45%

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 10:19 AM) I hope everyone who is in favor of dealing Crede is aware of the significant drop off in defensive and offensive ability that Fields would bring to this team. Yes, I am fully aware of that. Which is why I am only in favor of dealing Crede if the offer is the correct one...such that the drop-off between Crede and Fields is more than made made up for by the addition of whoever we get from Crede and the money saved by switching from Crede to Fields.

Supposedly this comes directly from the Congressional record.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 10:16 AM) Second reason, and much more important, is... the internet. Why you may ask? Here is what is very different now from 10, 20, or 50 years ago. Information can flow freely into Iran, and does. Iran's population is growing more and more attached to western culture every day - products they cannot easily get elsewhere. And further, they see what is actually going on in the world. This cuts the legs out from under dictators and controlling governments. For this reason, I feel strongly that economic sanctions are much more likely to succeed than they have previously. Wait one second...how exactly does economic sanctions help the people in Iran gain a more free flow of information? What economic sanctions are likely to do is first make the people of Iran more poor, such that it will be more difficult for them to afford the sorts of communications technologies that would allow them greater access to information, second it would make that sort of equipment more expensive because it would be harder to import it into Iran, and third it would likely make the people themselves more dependent on the government for general supplies that they can't get elsewhere, like food, which works against any anti-government instinct that people in that country might have.

Here's my take... If we were to trade McCarthy, I think it's basically an admission that at the end of 2008, we're going to wind up having to do a Cleveland-level rebuilding project. In the next 2 years, a huge chunk of our team will hit free agency. Dye, Thome, Buehrle, Garcia, Vazquez, Garland, MacDougal, Crede, Uribe, Iguchi, and probably a few others. We simply can not afford to keep each and every one of those guys. So where does that leave us? That leaves us either having to let some of them go and fill in the gaps with younger, cheaper players to try to still be competitive in 2008 and 2009, or that leaves us letting nearly all of them walk in 2008 and finding ourselves with Konerko, Jenks, AJ, Contreras, and whoever we get by trading a McCarthy remaining. If we want to be competitive every year, we just can't afford to let guys like McCarthy go. They're too cheap. We just can not sustain a $140 million payroll.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 09:58 AM) Garcia, Contreras, Vaz, those are your 3 trading chips. I personally think that Jose would be a good trading chip because of his age. He can still dominate for a few years, but really will go downhill sooner than later. You get rid of him, you get rid of Uribe, and Pods, we now have some cash to spend. I still think you include Buehrle on that list until you sign him to an extension. If you can't sign Buehrle, you have no choice but to trade him, because his value as a trading chip would be significantly higher than his value as a 1-more-year and gone for draft picks guy.

QUOTE(shawnhillegas @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 09:57 AM) WHY ARENT YOU PEOPLE SCARED ABOUT HIS BACK!!!!!? I was worried about his back coming in to 2006. He is going to wind up at .280/30/100 that season, with defense that would have won him a gold glove had he played in Boston or NY. I'm confident enough now that they will be able to deal with that.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 06:54 AM) I don't agree with France's take on this. Sorry if that wasn't clear. If for the moment we push aside all the mistakes that led us to this moment, and think entirely forward... I do think sanctions are a good idea right now. I think that the best incentive we can lay out for Iran and its people is economics - do they want to be a part of the world community, with all its perks, or not? Sanctions should not be the end of our strategy, but they need to be part of it at this point. The point I was trying to make was more about the labels and the way we look at France's actions. Being the "dove" in their case, saying they want to leave sanctions off as a way to entice Iran to the table, isn't being a "pussy" or lacking in courage. France is standing up and loudly saying that it thinks the U.S. is wrong, that its better to offer a chance than to threaten to take it away. But, I agree with you, that is just not the right approach right now. Do you see the distinction I am trying to make? Ok, here's a counter-point on sanctions on Iran...why exactly would we expect that Sanctions would work at all in this case? For the last century, economic sanctions have an ungodly bad record of actually accomplishing any political goals. They don't turn a population against it's leadership, they often strengthen it, and the people who wind up suffering are the people themselves. Sanctions against Iraq just killed a lot of people, 40 years of sanctions on Cuba has done nothing except increase the cost of sugar and make Coke taste worse, and so on. Virtually all the data out there show this is true. And specifically in this case, I find it highly doubtful that sanctions would do anything at all, because of the oil issue. Seriously, how important is the threat of sanctions against Iran if Iran still finds itself able to sell oil at >$50 a barrel? Someone is going to buy that oil, whether it be China, India, Pakistan, Iraq, or someone else. And that is going to render whatever sanctions regime we come up with quite ineffective.

QUOTE(AssHatSoxFan @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 09:35 AM) just ordered a 360 online yesterday...i recall microsoft saying they wont drop the price of the 360 especially when PS3 is already more than a 360; go with the full blown system since you get a wirelesss controller and the HD and headset its a better value then having to buy all those things later You never know how sales will wind up working out. Don't forget that Nintendo is releasing a lower-priced system as well.

QUOTE(VAfan @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 08:30 AM) The problem going forward is that the Tigers and Twins have great YOUNG pitching, while, except for Garland and Buehrle, all of our starters are on the wrong side of 30. Sure, we have McCarthy, but after the way he pitched this year, don't some of you have doubts about him? I think Ozzie mismanaged him more than any player on the team, but I still think he should have sucked it up and performed better. He was given several chances to win ballgames down the stretch and he lost every one. Great young pitching is not always a guarantee of winning. In 2001-2002, the Chicago Cubs were looking at having great young pitching. Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, Angel Guzman were all at the top of the "Pitching prospects" or "Great young pitcher" lists. All 3 have since imploded. The White Sox have some things that are very much to their advantage. They have young talent at multiple positions. Young closer, 1 young starter, 2 potential young starters, young CF, young LF/3B, young RF waiting in the winds. And on top of that, the White Sox have money. You don't need to build an entire starting staff under the age of 27 if you have money to afford a few veterans. And there's never any guarantee that young talent, especially at the pitching position, will remain healthy and at the same level. Having money allows you to turn some of that young potential into proven talent, which is what KW has spent the last 2 years doing. For the Tigers, Twins, and Indians, every one of their young guys has to work otherwise they have a hole they can't afford to fill. If a hole appears on the White Sox roster, KW has the ability to move that talent to fill in that hole with a veteran whether or not it the talent he moves will ever blossom.

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 09:24 AM) Um what's his "new pitch"? My apologies, I missed out on that whole angle... Split Finger Fastball. And it looks like a good one.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 08:27 AM) once again, its ONE down year. He is one of the most consistently good pitchers in the entire MLB. You dont just give up on your best pitcher, your Ace, your staff leader because he had one down year. Mark has a career 3.63 ERA, find me a replacement for that type of production. Every pitcher will have a bad year or two, its called baseball. If Buehrle were to be moved...IMO, you don't do it because of this season and how poorly he's pitched, unless you know something none of us know about his health that would lead you to believe he'll never be back to where he was in 2005. You do it because the offer you've gotten for him is that good. If you can get a good enough package for him, including a young starting pitcher and a young position player for example (Think Milledge + Heilman quality) then you have to be open to it. Don't just dump Buehrle for nothing. Don't dump any of them for nothing. Weigh every offer you get for every pitcher, weigh everything you know about each of them, Buehrle's health, Garcia's fastball, Vazquez's brain, Contreras's age, Buehrle' and Garcia's contract status, and then make the smartest deal you can possibly make to improve this team for the next decade. If that involves trading Buehlre, as long as it makes the team as good as humanly possible, then it's the right move. But if the best way to make this team better long-term is to hold on to a potentially dominant lefty pitcher who is on an off year, then do that. (Just don't let Mark enter 2007 without either being traded or extended.) QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 08:55 AM) I would hold onto all of our pitchers now and see what ST brings and make trade decisions then. Buerhle, Garcia, Contreras, Vazquez and Garland have the talent and I an not sure trading any of them would be the right thing to do. I am not impressed with McCarthy and don't see him as being ready to take over a starting role. Holding on to all of them until ST is a terrible, terrible risk. First, you may miss a chance of some team that wants to find another starting pitcher before ST. But more importantly, Garcia and Buehrle are in their contract years. In other words, if either of them reach ST without a contract, they can really hurt the Sox future by just being unwilling to negotiate with the team until the end of the year...thus guaranteeing that they'll hit the Free Agent market. In both Garcia and Buehrle's case, what we could get by trading them this offseason is much, much more valuable than the draft picks we would get if they left as a FA.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 06:15 PM) so is a Toyota, but I prefer my Lexus. Ok, so would you prefer a Lexus and a Ford Pinto, or a pair of new Toyotas?

Well, he got out of it. Keep up that work Freddy. Give those GM's somethign positive to look at.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 05:11 PM) Clearly this team deserves a standing O. Anyone who disagrees isn't a "real" fan! LOLZ! Standing up... bOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...(that's mostly o's right?)

There goes the perfect game.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 04:31 PM) why is that in green? Because Anderson should have been part of the "A" team all year, or at least in particular after June 10th or so.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 04:22 PM) Pick up the option. Anyone who says Mark Buehrle's option shouldn't be picked up is out of their mind. If we let him go he'd sign somewhere else for about whatever Zito gets this offseason.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) I agree, but until they're eliminated he's got to go with his "A" team So why is Anderson playing?

Absolutely no way you do not pick Buehrle's option up. The decision is what you do with Buehrle after 2007. He is a free agent that year. If you hold onto Buehrle without signing him to an extension, the most you'll get for him is a couple compensatory draft picks. Which is significantly lower than Buehrle's value right now. I think you have to sign Mark Buehrle to an extension this offseason if you feel there's a good chance he'll return to his pre-June 06 form. If you think he's a 4.50 ERA pitcher for the rest of his career, you deal him now while his stock is still at its peak and he could bring back top-caliber players. Personally, I try to re-sign him to an extension unless his demands are through the roof...and after this season, I think they might soften a little bit. But there are 2 things that should not happen. Mark Buehrle's should not be a free agent this season. And Mark Buehrle should not start the next season pitching for the White Sox without an extension.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 02:56 PM) The Sox are in the drivers seat. If you are going to move Joe, you get a franchise player back, no question. Which is of course, all I'm saying. We're not coming off a world series, and we're looking at a good chunk of our team being free agents within 2 years. We don't have to be desperate and we're not forced to deal anyone except Buehrle if we can't extend him, IMO. We need to trade 1 starting pitcher. But aside from that, all I'm saying is that we should be open to any opportunity we can find. No, Josh Fields is not going to be the best 3rd baseman in the league. Yes, Joe Crede is either the best or the 2nd best depending on who's healthy. But having the best player at 1 position does not always guarantee you success. If any player on this team can be moved for the right price, it's probably worth doing...it's just a question of what you hold the right price to be.

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 02:44 PM) Good point William Tell. The core is there. We just need some adjustments. But shipping out Paulie, Iguchi, etc.... that's radical amputation surgery. Shipping out Iguchi is not a radical move. Why? Because Iguchi is a FA at the end of 2007. If there were another option presented to us and a good deal in place for Iguchi, that would not be a radical move. QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 02:34 PM) Don't blow it up, look at the Yankees. They won it all in 96 and didn't even make the playoffs in 97 but won it all in 98, 99, and 2000. But there were significant changes between the 96 and 98 seasons for the Yankees. 96/98: C Joe Girardi/Jorge Posada 2B: Mariano Duncan/Chuck Knoblauch 3B: Wade Boggs/Scott Brosius Pitching staff: Andy Pettitte, Jimmy Key, Kenny Rogers, Dwight Gooden, David Cone, Ramiro Mendoza. Closer John Wetteland. 98: Orlando Hernandez, Hideki Irabu, Andy Pettitte, David Wells, David Cone. 3 of their 5 starters turned over in those 2 years. Closer: Mariano Rivera (setup man in 96).

QUOTE(CWSOX45 @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 02:39 PM) PS Isn't Julio Lugo a free agent? Yes. He's reportedly asked for something in the $12m a year range, or ridiculous numbers like that. He's going to work for all the $$ he can get. So, back on the Crede issue, here's a hypothetical for the people saying we shouldn't trade Crede at any cost. Anaheim is in desperate need of a bat at either 3rd or 1st base or somewhere like that. They reportedly offered up Ervin Santana for Miguel Tejada earlier this year. Furthermore, every time the Angels have asked the D-Rays about Crawford, the D-Rays have said it'll cost E. Santana plus some more. So, here's a hypothetical for you. Crede goes to the Angels for E. Santana. E. Santana is spun off to the D-Rays for Carl Crawford along with some mid-level prospect. Podsednik is thrown on the trash heap in one of those 2 deals or somewhere else along the line. Would you tolerate Josh Fields at 3rd base next year if it meant Carl Crawford was your leadoff hitter and Left Fielder?

In the grand tradition of Mike Brown...who went from running an Arabian Horse Trading association to the head of FEMA... George W. Bush has decided to appoint a special envoy to Darfur from the U.S. to try to alleviate the disaster there. His choice? Andrew Natsios. Who is this guy? Yes, that's right, the guy who told us Iraq would cost the U.S. $1.6 billion, and the guy who managed that wonderful program that all conservatives everywhere love...Boston's Big Dig...is the guy who's gonna stop the genocide in Darfur.