Balta1701

QUOTE(qwerty @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 01:43 PM) I fully believe curry would have not lasted here past this season either way... healthy or not. Curry did not want to be here and skiles clearly didn't like him. That is a combination that doesn't work very well. Plain and simple paxson needed a back up plan that is not malik allen. Well, that's not what I'd consider the biggest problem...if Pax had done a sign and trade with Curry, but the heart condition had never occurred...he'd have been coming off his best season since he was drafted, looking like a near all-star at tiimes in scoring in the paint, and being a big, solid guy. How many teams would have given up a lot more than we gave up to get a guy like that on their team?

Has anyone given any thought, when discussing Paxson, to the fact that one of Pax's biggest scoring threats from last year, and one of his key players, suddenly came down with a totally unexpected heart condition, which dramatically reduced the amount of size and depth we had inside, and may have set us back a full year in building a team?

QUOTE(robinventura23 @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 11:36 AM) So now the question is...can we scratch Texas off the list of potential teams Garland will be traded to? If I were them, I'd still be looking to add starting pitching, but they may very well think they're set with Eaton and Millwood fronting that rotation and their series of bats. They may be right too, with the Angels still treading water they may have a shot at that division, if people on Oakland keep having injury problems.

A truly fair and balanced poll from Fox News.

QUOTE(spiderman @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 11:39 AM) I hear too that the program isn't good, but the people who tell me this are so far left, they wouldn't give Bush credit for anything. Saying that, can you expand on what's wrong with the program ? Are there any good things in it ? What specifically needs to be fixed, etc ? Thanks! Well, one obvious thing implied by his post would have been to fully-fund the program and its mandates, but we're long since past the point where that would happen at the federal level. There are also a few other insane portions of that bill which I can already tell you need to be changed just from what I know about it...the bill for example requires something ridiculous like a 100% graduation rate by sometime about 10 years from now otherwise the schools will be classified as failing, that is obviously going to need to change. The point of NCLB was supposedly to try to fight against failing schools by forcing the schools to make their lowest level students pass or face losing funding. What this article seems to make clear, along with the rudimentary early data, is that schools are doing exactly that, but at the expense of all of their other students - if the entire goal is making sure a specified percentage of students graduate, then you just assume like 75% of your students will have no problem and focus all your extra resources on the ones at the margins where you can make a difference. The problem with that of course is that you hurt the 75% at the same time as you're helping the marginal ones that you wind up graduating. Is there a solution? I'm honestly not sure...there has to be a balance between spending resources on people at the top of their classes so that they're prepared to blaze their way through colleges and wind up leading fields in research and industry and trying to get everyone through high school, but I'm not sure where that balance is, and at least this early evidence suggests that NCLB is too focused on the lower end, to the point of doing actual harm to the upper end.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 11:10 AM) No, no. That's good, constructive political analysis. Call Clinton a rapist -- that'll get people to change their minds, for sure. Whatever happened banning for unwarranted personal attacks? If I understood things correctly, that's why they created this new sub-forum, so that people could go off and be as nasty as necessary (within the obvious limits of course, no running around pantsless calling people fascists and saying they all mated with Bill O'Reilly on Christmas or anything like that)

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 11:01 AM) The Cubs bullpen is going to be much better than it was last season. As much as I dislike Pierre, he's still a much better leadoff hitter than anything they had last season. Tejada will absolutely destroy the ball at Wrigley, and it wouldn't shock me to see their 3-4-5 all hit between 35 and 40 homers. As much as I think Bedard's overrated, I've long thought that Prior's hype doesn't match his productivity. The Cubs pitching would keep them in games, but their offense would be extremely good next year. I would probably agree with Fathom that the Cubs offense could make things interesting next year if the deal went through as written up there, but that's only because I've spent the last 2 seasons being disappointed by Prior, and I'm at the point where I don't think the Cubs are going to get a full, solid season from him anyway. Getting Tejada and bedard basically for Prior and a little bit more would really be a steal for them, IMO. Edit: Let me add this too...if Carpenter, Rolen, and Edmunds manage to stay healthy for most of the season next year, then that division will be wrapped up in August, assuming of course that Albert stays healthy as well.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 10:58 AM) Jason, what are you hearing on the Dodgers front? Anything in the papers? Are they going hard after Jeff Weaver or do you suspect something else? The LAT keeps saying that they want to add another starting pitcher and they are "Negotiating" with Boras, but they've gone no farther than saying Weaver is a possibility, and they always line up the other possiblities, from Garland to Billingsly, whenever they write about that 5th starter spot.

Here's a WaPo editorial on something I didn't even really realize until this morning; President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" act has done some serious damage to the best students the public schools in this country have. The act was constructed based on forcing all schools to bring their lower level students up to some level of proficiency. In response, schools have done exactly what you'd expect...poured funds into getting those students up in grades. So where have those funds come from? They've come at the expense of the higher performing students, who are suddenly becomine even more rare in many states, including California and Tennessee, for starters (have data on those places).

Ed Koch endorses Bush in 2004 Boy, there's a shocker, a man who endorses Bush thinking that the paper (which btw held onto a story which may have allowed Bush to be elected, and had a reporter go to jail in another case which may have also allowed Bush to be elected) is too hard on him. Wow. Can I go and try to find statements by Republicans who aren't happy with the Washington Times or Fox News?

Haha, yeah, right, like the U.S. would ever place any meaningful sanctions on the country which provides so many of our cheap consumer goods.

Ok, so now we're just citing what other people say about this? Former Nixon official: Bush committed an impeachable offense

QUOTE(Yoda @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 09:38 AM) On paper he has. Like you stated before, Millwood is going from Jacobs Field to Arlington Park. The ball flies down there in Texas and I don’t see Millwood with an ERA close to what he had last season. Probably an ERA just below 4 is possible. That would still have made him Texas's best or 2nd best starter in terms of ERA last year next to Rogers, and if Millwood could avoid beating up any cameramen...

Personally, I like this one better:

"Does anyone have page 10?"

QUOTE(timotime @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 07:28 AM) magic johnson is no longer HIV positive...does anyone here know of that? if you can afford it, you can beat it. problem is, most people with AIDS are junkies and/or degenerates (there are, of course, exceptions) who cant afford the treatment Magic could. such is life. ce la vie. Magic Johnson at last report had "undetectable" amounts of the virus in his bloodstream. That does not m ean he is no longer HIV positive, it means that the expensive drugs he has been taking have managed to keep the virus count down, as happens with many patients who are placed on the powerful mixtures of drugs currently available. Here's a link to an old AP story on this.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Dec 26, 2005 -> 07:53 PM) Rafael Betancourt got busted last season. Thank you, that was the name, and I was too lazy to google it yesterday. Kinda interesting how both of our major rivals had key relief pitchers who were suspended for steroids last year.

120 volt air compressor (needed to inflate bike tires) Simpsons DVD's (filling in gaps, I now own seasons 1-6) Wilco's "Live in Chicago Album" (Man I miss seeing them there) U2 Vertigo Tour DVD (please do 1 more tour leg!) New DVD Rack (other one was full) Sox sweaters Sox Hat Sox Monopoly Game Simpsons Seasons 13-14 book Family Guy seasons 1-3 book Family Guy Season 4 DVD

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Dec 26, 2005 -> 01:50 PM) Almost as bad as the BSA audits. Where do they get the authority anyway? BSA? Boy Scouts?

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Dec 26, 2005 -> 02:19 PM) Just a thought, but maybe the companies are fearing that if they invest the billions into developing the drug, that it will just be taken away from them to help all the people around the world with AIDS, thereby losing the immense 'value' that they should get from developing such a drug. You just know that you would have the UN clamoring for the evil drug companies to simply donate their new wonder drug to all the poor nations in Africa who simply couldn't afford to purchase it. And even here at home the various AIDS groups would be demanding that it be rpovided for free to people. How long until our knee-jerk government simply takes it away and does just that? Not saying they are right, but that it could be the reason. Heck, it's not even that as much...everyone these days in the medical industry knows that there's vastly more money available in drugs like Viagra than there is in vaccines, simpy because if you develop a vaccine/cure for a virus, people need to take it one time, but if you develop a drug like viagra, claritin, a heartburn drug, or something silly like that, the profit margins are massive because you need to take it hundreds of times, as each pill is necessary. That's the same reason why there are only like 1-2 flu vaccine makers available...the market favors drugs that you need to take many times. There is very little market value in actually curing any disease, only in treating a disease. This is one of those cases where the market is driving the wrong way, and the only solution is government investment. The Market would like nothing better than to develop a drug that you need to take for the rest of your life to control the symptoms of AIDS, but if you develop an actual cure, then the makers of all those drugs that you need to take to keep the disease under control would lose tons of money, and so the drug companies have very little impetus to actually develop a cure. Sometimes the government needs to intervene in the private market to force it in a direction it doesn't want to go. Drug research is a prime example (note, the Bush admin. is already doing something similar with avian flu - there is promising research into new techniques for creating flu vaccine but the drug companies don't want to pay for it because there's so little profit in flu vaccine, so the Bush Avian Flu plan included hundreds of millions to try to perfect those better methods to produce vaccine)

As others have said, there's probably more to the story than we've even been presented yet, but seriously, you need to get out of there if this sort of thing is happening. My fiance's relationship with her parents is awful, its' been 2.5 years since I got her 2000 miles away from them, and she still has problems with them of all sorts. The longer you're around them, when they're trying to kick you out over silly things, the longer you'll regret it. Even if you're still just in college...if you want a new year's resolution, resolve to end the year out of there. If it's so bad there that you're posting @ random message boards about how you've been kicked out of your house for drinking legally, then it's worse than probably even you're willing to acknowledge, and the longer you stay around there, the worse things will get. I wish I'd been able to get my Fiance out of her place earlier. Seriously man. The only way you can get things fixed in your own life is to try to build a life on your own. Btw, if she ever makes a name here...no one tell her about this post.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Dec 26, 2005 -> 12:58 PM) The Indians are probably better than they were last season too. I like their rotation more this year than last anyways, and their bullpen should still be just as good. It will be a fun race in the AL Central this year, there is no question about that. Their Bullpen lost Howry already, and is still counting on Wickman to be its closer. Also, 1 of their guys was already caught Juicing, and would face a 50 game suspension if he was caught next year. Wickman is still old and injury prone, and it was maybe only by luck that he got through last year. They don't have an obvious backup plan either. Their starting rotation has lost the guy with the best ERA in the AL, even though he couldn't win games, and a guy who really helped carry them late in the season in Elarton. They've replaced them with a couple of guys who scare me less than the 2 they used to have, and who may very well be easier to beat next year. Make no mistake...the only way the Indians can improve next year is to improve offensively. Their bullpen has taken a step back, and it seems their starting rotation has done so as well. They need the guys they have to take a step forwards for them to get better - Sabathia and Lee on the mound have to improve, and their offense cannot start as slowly as last year if they want to be better. Both of those may happen, but they also may not. The Indians are gambling on both parts. But either way...the White Sox have almost certainly gotten better as well...our bench is better, we've added a massive lefty bat, we've added more power to our lineup, and we are starting the season with a guy who has a 99+ mph fastball closing instead of a guy with an 88+ mph fastball closing. And we may well have added thhe guy with the 2nd best changeup in the AL to our starting rotation out of our minor leagues. If our young team stays healthy, then the Indians will have to improve even more than we do next year.

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Dec 26, 2005 -> 04:01 PM) the white sox rotation is the best in baseball, i never even hinted that it would be better than the white sox. however, i think the rotation will be pretty darn good next year. beckett, schilling - there both can't miss talents. wakefield, although losing mirabelli may be a factor is one of the most consistent players in the game. two of arroyo, wells, and clement will be traded, and possibly all three. The Red Sox rotation is very good...IF Schilling of 2006 is as good as Schilling of 2004, and if Beckett of 2006 is as good as Beckett of 2003, and IF both Beckett and Schilling stay Healthy, which is honestly doubtful for both of them. The Yankees' Rotation is the best in baseball if they ALL stay 100% healthy the entire season and pitch like they did during their best seasons. They won't. The Red Sox have the same worries...they have guys who are very good when 100% healthy and in shape, but the problem is not them pitching when healthy, it's them getting hurt and missing time or pitching while hurt.

ESPN today briefly reported this trade was done, now they're just saying it's "close". The deal is Glaus and a prospect going to Toronto, Miguel Batista and Orlando Hudson going to the Diamondbacks. I can't say that this is as good of a deal as I hoped for Toronto as written, simply because they're having to give up major league talent, to try to get him, and they're getting prospects back in the process. Toronto is clearly making an effort to pass Boston this year when Boston seems to be going obviously down and the Yankees still are locked into a few horrific pitching contracts (Although not as bad as last year, when we broke through). Glaus can help them, but he's a big risk, especially if you have to weaken your bullpen in the process. If Toronto could do this deal only giving up 1 major leaguer, I'd tell them to go for it (Koskie + cash plus prospects would have been what I'd have tried to do). But having to give up ML talent really hurts them.

The way I look at it, it's hard to say that the Rangers move isn't a gamble, but it's basically the best gamble remaining on the FA Market. Right now they still have one of the top 3-4 offenses in the AL. If they could get any pitching at all to go with that offense, the AL West could be theirs. It's been that way for 2 years. Why not take the risk on Millwood? The question is...what were other teams offering? If no other team was offering more than 2 years, this would be a terrible deal. But somehow, given the lack of pitching on this year's market, I can't imagine that there weren't other teams offering at least 4 years. If Texas wants to compete next year, they had to do SOMETHING to help that staff, and this may be the only move left to them which makes sense. Although, if I were them, and I wanted to build for the long term, I would keep drafting pitching, save this money, and try to make runs at Garland and Zito next year. Or try to trade for them this year and sign them. I would rather have either of them at Arlington than Millwood.