Jump to content

Balta1701

Admin
  • Posts

    128,658
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    73

Everything posted by Balta1701

  1. QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 10:48 AM) is marion berry on this guy's staff by any chance? I'm pretty sure he's in jail.
  2. QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 01:08 PM) Good point. Now, for the counterpoint. If his back goes out, they aren't locked into a long term deal. So...the question that raises is this: does that mean Crede's back is as bad as some people have feared? Even if his back goes out in 06...if he can still play in 07, his salary will be roughly what it is this year because of the arbitration system, so the only way that avoiding a long-term deal with Crede makes sense is if there's a chance his back will go out to the point that he won't be able to recover even with surgery.
  3. QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 11:26 AM) Yes, this is good news. Not really unexpected. Boras was not going let Crede sign for anything beyond 2008 so Joe could Fee agent eligble asap. The Sox had no incentive to sign for more than one year unless it was stretched to '09 or '10. Well, I would have said that the Sox probably did have an incentive to sign him for something like 2-3 years. Since he's still arbitration eligible...if we want to keep him after next year, we'll either have to sign him again or offer him Arb. again. From what I understand, it's very unusual to see a person's salary decline in arbitration from year to year, even if the player is hurt or has his numbers go down (how far can Crede's actually go down?). However, if Joe somehow turns last September into a season, all of a sudden he'll be in a place to ask for another million or two in arbitration next fall, and the Sox will probably have to pay it. If we signed him to a 2-3 year deal now, it could have kept his price at that $2.3 million for each of the next 2-3 years, maybe saving the team a mil or so.
  4. QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 12:54 PM) I have a question about Pods defensively. Obviously, I'm not able to see Sox games consistently...but those that did, did it seem like Podsednik was getting better as the year went on defensively in LF? I think I've heard people say that, but I can't seem to recall it exactly. Hard to judge because of his injuries, which would have made him slow down even if his jumps were improving.
  5. QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 10:32 PM) I just do not understand why Torii Hunter gets manlove up the ass around here and everywhere in general, and Mike Cameron gets relatively unnoticed. They're very similar players all-around, with the exceptions of average and plate discipline, where Hunter's a better hitter with not much of an eye at the plate, and Cameron is a worse hitter with a better eye. Well, with Cameron in NY and in the NL the last few years, and now in SD, and Hunter playing in Minny, Hunter faces the Sox 19 times per year, and we might see Cameron for a 3 game set every few years if he stays in one place. Plus, Hunter has probably leveled more White Sox Catchers than Cameron. Anywho...I can't complain about Cameron...I believe his trade brought us Konerko.
  6. QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 11:24 AM) They may go after Derrek Lee after 2006 if the Cubs don't lock him up soon. I think they'll do both. Giambi will be in the last year of his albatross in 08.
  7. QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 08:38 AM) Well, he kinda did. Since Tex is arb eligible for two more years, I think he did well to get his client some money (probably more than he would've gotten in arbitration) for the two years and then can get the big money in '08. Now Tex doesn't have to worry, Boras gets his client to free agency and Texas has their 1b for two more years. And the Yankees get theirs in 08.
  8. Somewhat disappointing that we couldn't find a way to make it a 2 year deal. Now if he does ever have a breakout season, he'll be in a position to demand even more the next year. Anywho...glad he's back. Makes for better signs.
  9. 1 more interesting thing...isn't it odd how the anti-judicial-activists are willing to step in and try to overturn the decision of a state's voters in this case?
  10. So in other words...at least on this case, Roberts has taken up Rhenquist's old position ideologically, as expected.
  11. QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 09:35 AM) Ames is different because it was Clinton doing it. No outcry from MSM, just praise and adulation. Do you think the Gorelick wall had anything to do with the gov't. not being able to look into Moussauis' computer files? Clinton was the best. :puke :puke No, Again, Ames was different, as was said above, because FISA was amended in 1995 to specifically make illegal searches like the Ames search. At the time there was no law on the matter. And on Moussaoui's computer files...it was the FBI which decided that there wasn't sufficient evidence against him to apply for a FISA warrant to search his computer files. However, a bi-partisan investigation by the Senate found that in fact the FBI agents were clearly wrong and that their evidence certainly met the standards required by a FISA warrant. Via a letter from Colleen Rowley...
  12. QUOTE(RME JICO @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 03:26 PM) New Coaches Vikings - Brad Childress Packers - Mike McCarthy Lions - TBD (Marinelli, Haslett, or Grimm) So...do we have some reason to think that any of those guys are the next hall-of-fame coach? I haven't yet. Could be good, but could also wind up quite bad.
  13. QUOTE(soxhawks @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 03:47 PM) no, because the league wants patriots/ colts I would agree that would hypothetically be the goal...but then why would that call have been allowed to stand? It led directly to 7 points for Denver and indirectly to 3 more.
  14. QUOTE(RME JICO @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 03:45 PM) He also started the year really bad (0-2, 13 IP, 23 hits, 17 ER, 2 HR, 4 BB, 17 K) in his first 3 games. So hopefully he can start out strong this year. Yankee Hangover?
  15. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 03:35 PM) Throw in the President of Iran and Flava Flave and we have a reality show for VH1 Which one of them would Flava wind up dating?
  16. QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 03:22 PM) I thought so too. Did you feel that same thing when the Patriots were called for a phantom pass interference in the end zone @ the end of the 1st half on Saturday?
  17. Officially done with buying textbooks = flush with cash.
  18. It was either Pearl Jam's Vs., Soundgarden's "Superunknown", or Stone Temple Pilot's "Purple". I honestly don't remember which was first.
  19. Woo-hoo! Now I just need to arrange for my life's story to be made into a book, featured on Dateline, and used at the DNC to try to rebuild gun-control as an issue, thus immensely infuriating Nuke!
  20. QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 02:55 PM) yeah but the packers almost beat the bears twice this year with a offense with arena league players and Minnesota will actually have a real coach next year, same with detriot. teams change so much year to year its hard to tell for sure. Can you give me some reason to think that those 3 teams will hire good coaches and not bad ones? (i.e. Dick Jauron?)
  21. What would you guys pay to see what happens if we put this guy, Jesus, and Pat Robertson in a room together?
  22. QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 02:06 PM) IMO, Borchard should be ready to wipe his own butt before being given a shot at the CF job.. He better be hitting .350 with 15 home runs in 200 at bats off of the bench before he gets a shot @ starting in CF.
  23. QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 01:26 PM) Buffalo burgers are great. I love them and yes buffalo meet is better for you than beef or mostly any other meat. One of the bars in Bloomington served those...had one every time I was in there it seemed. Damn good stuff.
  24. QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 01:24 PM) Maybe it wont go bankrupt but Im sure you agree that bennies will be sharply curtailed by the time most of us are ready to retire. Even if the Social Security trust fund were to run out of funds in 2043 or so as predicted...Social Security would still be able to pay out a higher rate of benefits in today's dollars to those receiving it than currently is paid out today, due to the effects of population growth and productivity growth.
×
×
  • Create New...