Balta1701

Man, I never thought I'd miss MLB.com's gameday, but well, here it's back and I'm happy. Wow. Bottom of the 4th inning, it's 3-2 Braves. And y'all suck on game threads btw.

I still don't believe it's actually going to happen. But they keep saying they'll have the film out in 07, and now they're spending ad dollars on it.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 01:52 PM) However, I completely disagree with you on the AIDS issue. We've been throwing money (and condoms) at them since the '80s, yet too many African men refuse to wear prophylactics and still think that it's "macho" to have extra-marital affairs. It's a social behavior problem that they (and only they) can solve. Except, I would counter by saying that there are examples of places where throwing those sorts of campaigns together actually have worked while they're funded...Uganda for example was able to use international aid dollars and loan dollars (on the order of a few hundred million dollars total) to distribute condoms and launch education programs, which worked together to massively cut the number of cases of Aids in that country.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 01:30 PM) No, that's what Rex is saying. I'm saying that it's not our RESPONSIBILITY to do so, particularly when the rest of the developed world isn't willing doing a damn thing. I agree that it's in our interest to help other nations when feasible. And it's not like it hasn't been done already. I can cite examples from the Marshall Plan to the tsnumai relief efforts. However, it's NOT our "moral responsibility" to financially bail out every nation in the world with a weak economy. Ah, that makes more sense than the position it sounded like you were taking. So, there are a couple of points here that are enlightening I think. While we're talking about Palestine, the U.S. may have a moral responsibility to do something there, but there are also important strategic concerns, due to the area of the world it is in, the intensity of the objections on both sides, resource supplies, and so forth. So there may be 2 reasons for the U.S. to help out in that case; moral responsibilty and strategic reasons that help out the U.S. You would argue that if the strategic reason disappeared (say Saudi Arabia ran out of oil or something like that), the U.S. would be under no moral obligation to keep helping the Palestinians. Interesting line of thought. Not sure I agree with either a yes or a no. Let's try a different case. How about something like the issue of Aids in Africa, or of the Rwandan genocide? Africa right now isn't a huge economic partner of the U.S., and it's not a huge strategic concern. So, in terms of most things that matter aside from how nations view us...the U.S. has limited strategic interest in saving lives over there, from something like AIDS or during a genocide like in Rwanda or Sudan. To what extent would you say morality should drive the U.S. to take action? SHould the U.S. have considered a small military intervention in Rwanda if it could have saved 300,000 lives? Should the U.S. be willing to spend a few tens of billions of dollars to actually save tens of millions of lives from AIDS? I guess I think that there has to be some level at which doing the right thing has to outweigh the fact that it's being done with tax dollars.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 01:24 PM) Are you sure about that? Didn't we help set up a puppet government in Iran in 1953? How'd that work out? There's a huge difference between the CIA enforcing a government upon a country and the U.S. giving aid and rebuilding dollars to help a country get a government off the ground after a civil war. For example...Greece faced a major communist insurrection after WWII. In fact, many of the countries in Western Europe could have fallen had there not been rebuilding efforts. But the U.S. used its economy to help those nations rebuild and help their government fight off the insurrections and create stability for the people, and those countries were then able to prosper.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 01:17 PM) You're right. We should've kept our noses out of Eastern Europe in the '80s as well. Um, basically that's what you're arguing. You don't want the U.S. spending taxpayer dollars in the form of aid to those sorts of countries. You don't want U.S. taxpayer dollars going to try to improve the lives of the Palestinians. Why would you want U.S. taxpayer dollars in the 80's going to help improve the lives of those behind the Iron curtain?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 01:16 PM) I seriously doubt that. Spending a ton of money to force out the Taliban didn't stop the Afghan government from nearly executing a person from converting to Christianity just recently. Throwing money at a problem doesn't always solve it. American companies have invested a TON of money in the Saudi oil industry (substantially helping their economy in the process), yet that didn't stop a few Saudis from flying planes into the WTC. That's not what I was suggesting in Afghanistan. I was suggesting that the reason the Taliban was able to come to power in the first place was that after the Soviets withdrew, U.S. aid dried up, no rebuilding happened, and the government fell into civil war. Had the U.S. been proactive with aid in that case, the Afghans might have been able to better recover from the Soviet invasion, and the Taliban may never have shown up in the first place. Yes, it would still have been a religious government, but it sure as hell would have been better than the Taliban.

QUOTE(G&T @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 01:05 PM) Hey, those red hot Blackhawks have to get their airtime! Are they actually televising Blackhawk games now?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 12:56 PM) As long as the help doesn't come in the form of taxpayer revenue and it doesn't compromise national security, I agree. What if it were to be judged as good for the country to basically use the U.S. government as a charity? For example, had the U.S. government given more dollars to rebuild Afghanistan in the mid-90's, this country might have avoided one of the worst days in its history. Or if the U.S. is a heavy trading partner with a country, say immediately to its south, who's economy is on the verge of collapse, then does it not behoove the U.S. to take steps to protect the economy of that trading partner in order to protect its own? Both of those are the U.S. government using taxpayer dollars basically to support or rebuild other countries, and I think you can easily justify both of them, along with quite a few others.

As far as I know, this is the first official confirmation I've seen that Rowand and El Duque will be @ the ring ceremony. Folks, make sure they feel welcome.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 12:32 PM) "Johan Jr." needs to realize that going more than 20 MPH over the limit after being overserved is not a good idea. I think he needs to realize that getting into the driver's seat of a car after being served is not a good idea in the first place. Hell, if you were sitting on the cusp of a potentially $100 million plus career...would you want to risk flipping the car over and ending your career right there?

Not going to gloat...just going to post...

QUOTE(Felix @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 12:08 PM) I find the fact that before last year, he never hit over .282 at the major league level, very suspicious, and I highly doubt he will come anywhere near the .335 he hit last year. I'm likely wrong, but we'll see Last year I kept expecting him to fall back to earth the whole year, and it seemed like he never did. Never had a month where he hit below .280, never hit less than 7 home runs in any month, model of consistency. He looked great in the WBC too...but he hasn't looked that good since coming back from that & having that small injury. He's a notorious slow starter except for last year, so right out of the gate we should be able to tell which Lee is showing up. The Cubs will desperately need the Lee from last year if they want to have a remote shot.

QUOTE(Felix @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 12:02 PM) I'm expecting Lee to hit something like .290/.385/.520 with 41 2B, 34 HR and 98 RBI. I wouldn't be surprised if he did better than that (some depends on his injury/wear and tear from the WBC)...but even if he was hitting less than .320 with 40 home runs, his offensive dropoff would more than cancel out any improvement they get from having Pierre at the top.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 11:13 AM) If, If, If somehow Wood and Prior come back, they'll be ok. Their pen and the top of the line up should be better That's assuming that Derek Lee will be able to match the absolutely monstrous numbers he put up last year. He's damn good, but the percentages still strongly suggest that he has to drop off somewhere; things tend to even out in the long run. He probably won't hit .270 like he did the 2 years before, but .335 with 46 home runs? I just don't think he'll be able to keep that streak going like he did last year.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 10:50 AM) Is this a real news item? Yes, this one is.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 10:40 AM) It was fortunate for Borchard that Reed broke his wrist, because Seattle is going to have to give him some at bats now. Its up to Joe to prove himself now, he has his chance in a new place. Now he has to show what he has got. Reed did not break his wrist.

Tom Delay's former Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Rudy, (aka Staffer A in the Abramoff indictments) has turned state's evidence and is going to plead guilty. Tom Delay can now officially be referred to as "Representative #2", the role he plays in this deal. (Rep Bob Ney is Representative #1.)

The reporter who took the picture is getting fired.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 08:46 AM) Hey jas, speaking of Anaheim, is Chris Bootcheck going to make that team? He's from a town over from me, and I remember his HS days well. Not to start the year.

QUOTE(JimH @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 08:52 AM) Personally I'm most worried about the innings eater role. I was not a Vizcaino basher last year because I know how important his role is, he always took the ball and pitched and ate innings. You are gonna get blown out from time to time, it happens and you need a guy like Vizcaino. I hope Thornton can fill his shoes. Unless you're expecting one of the starters to go down, I think our "Innings eater" is Brandon.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 08:45 AM) Vizcaino didn't suck. He had about 4 or 5 bad games, but besides that, he was pretty reliable. So many of us were busy bashing him, that we overlooked how many big outs he actually got for us. You know full well that one of the reasons he only wound up having 4-5 bad games was that there were many occasions where he got himself in trouble and was bailed out by Hermanson, Politte, and Cotts. Especially early in the year. His WHIP was 1.47 last year.

Ok, I for one am going to turn this around and be the optimist on our bullpen. Then again, I usually wind up being the optimist, but anywho, I can type pretty fast. I think the Sox are in a pretty good position with regards to their bullpen, for several key reasons: 1. The Sox have several people who can close. Bobby Jenks is naturally at the top of that list, but if he winds up unable to close, just like we had Hermanson as a backup last year, we have Cotts as a decent backup this year. IMO, the Closer still remains by far the biggest key to your bullpen. If you have a good closer, you can have basically nothing else around him and your bullpen will still look decent. Think about last year with the Cubs. Their bullpen was s*** the first 2 months of the season, then they moved Dempster to the closer's role, and suddenly everything looked better. Think about the 04 Dodgers; Depodesta traded away everything from his bullpen except his closer, and they still had a good bullpen (Gagne got himself hurt because of that mess, but that's another story). Think about the Yankees with Rivera, or how the Red Sox look with and Without Foulke. If we can have just 1 guy who can hold down the fort as a closer, we will be in very good shape in the pen no matter what else happens. We may lose games if all we have is the closer, but we will win enough that no one will notice. 2. The Bullpen is going to be used even less than last year no matter how many innings people threw last year. Why? Because we have 5+ "innings eaters" on our starting staff. Last year, El Duque was only able to throw 128 innings. He barely averaged 5 innings per start. Just having him in the rotation guaranteed our bullpen was going to have to throw 4-5 innings at least every time through the rotation. With Vazquez in his place, we are just going to need the bullpen less and less. The guy throws 200+ innings every year, and that's a ton less innings going to the pen. Especially if they follow their word to get McCarthy 100+ innings as well. 3. We have 2 converted starters in our bullpen. Last year, the longest we ever really saw anyone go out of the bullpen was Viz throwing 2.1 innings or Jenks occasionally throwing 3. So every time we got wrapped up in one of them 13-14 inning games where neither team can score, we used our entire bullpen (and sometimes lost the game because all we had left were walker/Adkins). With both McCarthy and Thornton out there...we have 2 guys who are able to keep the bullpen from having to blow itself out. Both of them can throw 4-5 innings out of the pen if the game is tied late and we need them to do so. This can let us keep people fresher. Big advantage. 4. Yes, we have a lot of youth out in the bullpen. But there are also advantages to youth. Specifically: health. We have what, 2 guys over 30 in our pen, and 1 of them is already on the DL? Aside from the guy with the screw in his elbow, there's really no reason to expect that the bullpen is going to struggle to stay healthy this year. 5. Raw talent. We b**** and moan about how Minnesota is able to bring up these guys who can throw 96+ all the time. Well right now, we have managed to pick up a guy who can throw 99+ from the right side and a guy who can hit 97 from the left side. On top of that, we have 2 other lefties who can hit the low 90's and seem to have good control, and a righty in the low to mid 90's. Oh, and another righty who can hit 93-94. 6. Left-handers. Ozzie wants to play the matchup game? There are teams that go entire seasons without being able to make use of a LOOGY. We have f***ing 3 of them. 7. Coaching staff. We've already seen what Ozzie and Cooper can do for our starting rotation, we've already seen what they were able to do with Cotts, we've already seen what they were able to do with Politte, Hermanson, Jenks, etc. These guys are damn good at getting the most out of our pitchers. 8. Catchers. The same guys who were shaken off 2 times last year by Buehrle are calling pitches for these guys too. Are there bullpens better than ours? On paper, probably. But I still think we're going to be surprised how good of shape we're in, especially if Bobby can keep building velocity and can settle into the closer's role full time. We're well set up for this run. I'm just vastly less nervous than most of you are. Edit: forgot 1. Offense. We've massively upgraded the bench/sunday lineup, and we've massively upgraded our DH spot. I've harped on this since last year, but we also had 4 or 5 guys who really disappointed with the bats last year. Score more runs and you'll need the bullpen less, or you'll be able to bail the pen out even more. Last year we were only about 60 runs from being the #4 offense in the league. We've got a real shot @ top 5 this year.

QUOTE(JimH @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 08:30 AM) I agree it's a fair point(s) but the comment on El Duque is incorrect. The Sox asked him if he'd come out of the bullpen in '06, he reiterated he is a starter, and that's why his name came up in talks with the Dbacks. Worse yet, he'd be a $5 million reliever who we can't count on to stay healthier than Hermanson for much of the season. He couldn't stay healthy with 5-6 days off inbetween 5 inning starts, what makes us think he could stay healthy having to work more days but less innings, especially when he's not used to it?

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 05:32 AM) Exactly, especially when he'll probably provide above average defense on top of it. I'd be stoked if Anderson could hit .270 for the season. If B.A. can hit .270 for the whole season, he should push 20 home runs. That'd be a damn good rookie campaign.