Balta1701

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 03:27 PM) Calling Jeter overrated is ignorant. He has 4 rings and he's posted consistently solid numbers throughout his career. I'd say a .316 career batting average is awfully good. His OPS for his career is also in the mid .800's which for a SS is respectable. How is he overrated? "Respectable" and "Consistently solid" do not equate with being one of the top players in baseball, having his name up in MVP talk, or having the highest salary of any player who's being paid entirely by 1 team in all of baseball. Not to mention his defense.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 03:20 PM) And the Colts fan says Peyton Manning is the best QB in the league. J.P. Losman sucks.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 03:16 PM) Sure it's better, but he's still hitting around .210 on the season and that's my point, he's been a constant drag on the offense for the whole season. I wish it weren't the case, I'm a big fan of Brian's. Let me say this in response...the only way Brian Anderson's offense has cost us ballgames this year is that it has made Ozzie decide it's a good idea to platoon him with Mackowiak.

Overrated: Player: Jeter, and this is the easiest pick on this list. Manager: Mike Scoscia GM: Ryan Shapiro Underrated: Player: Jermaine Dye Manager: Ned Yost GM: Ned Coletti

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 02:06 PM) Doubt it. Moose will determine it. We generally cant hit him, and if he keeps it up, we are done. In other words...it's up to Javier Vazquez to match his performance.

The answer to this question will be decided ENTIRELY by 1 person. Javier Vazquez.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:44 PM) If the guy is terrible defensively at 3B, what makes you think he'd be good as an outfielder? Has he played out there at all? No he hasn't. But he does have the makeup to learn the spot...strong throwing arm, decent speed.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:40 PM) I thought I read that it was Freddy. Buster Olney said Buehrle.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:35 PM) A criticism of Brian has never been taking walks. I would not be surprised at all, based on what I've seen from him since June, if BA could wind up as an ideal #2 hitter within a year or two.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 11:37 AM) Mechanics, body type, tons of things come into play so I'm not big on saying just cause you throw hard your more likely to get injured. In fact, I bet if someone looked up the numbers of injuries, you'd find out that 90 MPH FB pitchers get hurt just as often as a guy that throws 98. You know, I understand your point, but I would be willing to bet the opposite...that there is a rough, but existent, correlation between how hard a person throws and how often they wind up with some sort of arm injury.

QUOTE(Beltin @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 11:16 AM) Toronto got Overbay for a song. Look at his numbers right now (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=4598). He is not a monster like Thome, but his strikout totals are far fewer. He is also way cheaper and would not have cost us the players we gave up to get Thome, particularly Mr. Rowand. I understand your arguments, but frankly, all things considered, I think you're wrong here. Toronto is paying less for Overbay this year than we are paying for Thome, correct. Toronto is paying $2.5 million for Overbay this year. However, this was, IIRC, his first arbitration year. Next year, that number is probably going to double, to the $4-$5 million level. Which means, given the amount of Cash the White Sox got from the Phillies, he will only be a couple million cheaper than what we have Thome for ($14 million a season for 3 years, with the phillies chipping in over $20 million, IIRC). The difference in production between the two, IMO, is clearly worth an extra $7-8 million over 3 years. There's also the value of having a gigantic, SCARY bat in your lineup, the kind of guy that teams have to game plan around, which is also not shown in the stats. It is also worth noting that in that scenario, we'd also still be paying for Rowand, which this year, would eat up another $3.2 million of the difference, and I think more next year. So in other words, you'd be paying basically teh same amount for Overbay and Rowand that you are for Thome and Anderson. And sadly, ARow's offensive stats are still nothing to write home about either this year. .258 BA, 12 home runs, actually a little worse than he was last year in BA, little better in power.

TPM Media is continuing to follow the "Joe was hacked" story. Here are interviews, which don't exactly match, with a couple of Joe's tech guys. Here is a discussion into the software and Hardware the Lieberman campaign says it was using, and how it could potentially have been the real problem.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 11:02 AM) Expain this then... http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/cubsatte.shtml Easy.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 11:00 AM) Now the government interest in making sure things go smoothly is a completely different beast. Of course it is in the best interest for the airlines to move smoothly and safely, but it could be argued that it isn't the place of government to legislate and decide how airlines have to do business. This may be where we fundamentally diverge here, but I for one would argue that in many cases, it is the governnment's responsibility to set a mandatory minimum level of safety in many spheres of private industry and life, just because it is the only entity large enough to both recognize a problem and deal with it. For example, automobile safety. The government does not necessarily have to mandate certain levels of safety in automobiles, and there are those who argue that the government shouldn't do so anyway, because autos with fewer safety features would be cheaper and more accessible. However, the government has, and I believe rightly, decided that it is going to be more detrimental to society to have cars on the road which are more of a threat to life than a certain level, so the government has been willing to mandate some level of safety precautions in those cars, thus while some people wind up being unable to afford cars because they'd have to pay for more safety features, as a whole, society benefits, because a great many lives are saved. This is the same deal. The government can judge based on the potential losses (very high, as we've all seen) that a specific standard of safety must be met by all of the airlines. It can enforce that level of safety itself, or it can leave it to the airlines. The last time it was left to the airlines, it failed dramatically. In response, the governmetn took away some control from the airlines, and increased that minimum level of safety required to something that hopefully has a better chance of maintaining security and saving lives, just as the government sometimes increases the safety requirements on cars in response to a new problem/invention. QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 11:03 AM) This is not WWIII. More like, World War IV.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:54 AM) I find it funny that Lamont's liberal supporters are getting so bent out of shape about this. Lamont wins the Democratic primary, but they're so frightened of Lieberman's popularity among moderates and conservatives that they're actually asking him to quit. LOL! Actually, the paper that you're so quick to bash happens to be Lieberman's hometown paper, and it endorsed Lieberman over Lamont in the primary.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:46 AM) You could even make a great arguement that is isn't any business of the government to decide what happens on planes and by the airlines. It shouldn't even be a necesity for airlines to provide ANY security at all. It is a choice they make based on their business decesions, which should leave them open for anyone who has a loss because of their bad practices to be able to seek retribution through the court system. And then the next step would be that any regulation of flight travel by the US government could be construed as interfering with interstate commerce. But that is a horse of a different color. Ah, but there is reason for the govenrment to be involved, because of what happens if a plane doesn't take the proper actions. In the event of another attack, who is it who spends the funds to do the cleanup, undertake the investigation, arrest the people responsible, etc.? Those tasks won't be done by the company. And furthermore, the defense of this country is the job of the government as well. So the government does have a real interest in making sure that the appropriate security measures are followed.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:29 AM) Balta, I'm not sure that I entirely agree with you. One of the things that the US has as an implied right or privilege is the ability to travel freely. The US currently prohibits travel to only North Korea, Iran and Cuba. If suddenly international travel for Americans by the American government was severely curtailed... I wonder if you'd feel the same way. I kind of believe that the ability to move freely is a right for law abiding citizens. There's a difference between being allowed to move freely and restricting access to one method of that movement to people willing to follow certain rules. I'm not advocating saying "All people of middle eastern descent can't fly", but something along the lines of saying "If you want to fly, you have to go through this process, it will take 3+ hours, you will be asked this set of questions, you will be subject to full searches", and so forth. That doesn't mean that anyone can't fly or can't travel, it just means that in order to be willing to travel by that means, you have to be willing to go through said procedures. QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:31 AM) I would contend that our economy depends on travel. While it isn't a right, it is necessary for many individuals. So those individuals would be in a position to have to subject themselves to a search that would normally be against our rights. Same with employers that want our bodily fluids. My best point here is what difference will it make if the government can't do something, like search and seizure, if we allow everyone else to search? But the difference here is that it is a search in response to a specific request for a service. It's not just an arbitrary search. If that service is a necessity for some businesses, then the people doing it have to be willing to put up with what is required.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:15 AM) It is applicable in an abstract way. How does our society change if we allow invasive searches to get on an airplane (for example). We are accepting that we can not have the freedoms our parents had. I don't see any turning back. We can't eliminate terrorism. Our freedoms are not just about the government and what they can do, but also about what we will allow each other to do. It doesn't matter of the government can't search your person 24/7 if we allow employers, airlines, buses, retail stores, etc. to make the same searches. But Tex...here's the counterpoint...no one needs to go on a plane. Going on a plane is not a right. Going on a plane is something you purchase a ticket to do, it's a choice. It's more of a contract between you and the flight provider than it is between you and the government or anythign like that. The governnment has restrictions on what freedoms it can take away. Those we have to defend against people like Bush. But airlines are a different beast entirely...they are private corporations. If the rules for the contract people purchase with thsoe airlines were to be significantly changed, I'm not sure I see the problem with it in the same way I see the problem with the government changing its rules.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:03 AM) oh, how cute. Now they're being like CEO's of companies doing mergers and all... capitalistic pigs. Communism clearly is the solution! Honestly, I don't know if this was such a big deal (although, I do wonder, since this message came out a few days ago, if this might have been the trigger for Britain in some way), Al Qaeda has done these sorts of things many times before. The group that they're talking about is if anything small, and it's had it's ass beaten in Egypt. Hell, Zawahiri's original group in Egypt, that he brought to Al Qaeda in 98, was quite a bit more imposing than this one, IIRC.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:00 AM) they may be more pro-bush than any other country, but that isnt saying very much. most of the people living htere hate bush. most dislike blair and the majority do nto support the war. not to mention that the UK has been hinting at troop reductions and withdrawls constantly. i should have been more specific. an event like this will remind the people, and the givernmnet there whats really going on. That we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, right? Sorry, couldnt' resist.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 09:56 AM) how's that? They were already attacked once (successfully), they've been more Pro-Bush than any other country in the world, they're the only country still giving us real meaningful support in Iraq...etc.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 09:51 AM) He rescinded the demand though. After another season of turmoil and losing, he won't be as willing to play for the Orioles again. He put up with the whole Palmeiro/Sosa/B-12/manager being fired mess the year before.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 09:46 AM) There's a lot of talk that we have to unload a big contract like Freddy's in order to bring back the rest of our main guys next year. The most important thing this offseason is to re-sign Crede to a long-term deal. Talk amongst whom, if you don't mind my asking? And has this season's massive attendance increase already been spent/factored in?

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 09:47 AM) I have a feeling Tejada's going to demand a trade this offseason. That will put them in a much tougher position to get back a top package for him than the situation they were in at the deadline. He demanded one last offseason, and look what happened with that.