Balta1701

If Damon discussion is coming up...has anyone yet pointed out that Boras is Damon's agent?

I think he underestimates how dominant BMac can be with that changeup too...but he's right on when he says Brandon needs to throw it more. God did that pitch destroy the Red Sox. If he can add in something else with a speed somewhere between the fastball and the changeup/curveball, either just a 2 seamer or a cutter that he throws for an occasional strike, I don't know if anyone in baseball will be able to hit him (maybe Pujols).

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 02:12 PM) Last time this stupid trade winds thing was open, all we got was Geoff Blum ...and a bunch of new T Shirts and hats, and a Monopoly game and a Wheaties box...and the guys on the team get nice shiny rings...

QUOTE(HighHeat45 @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 01:42 PM) The grocery store i work at still has San Antonio Spurs World Champion ones out. Im gunna have to look somewhere else. Time to start checking expiration dates on food you buy there...

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 09:25 AM) I somewhat agree. Where I disagree is, you hear EVERY SINGLE DAY about a soldier who died on ABCNews. But do you ever hear about schools being rebuilt? Infastructure that is being rebuilt? We're constantly being reminded about deaths, and the insurgent's activity. But we're not hearing a lot about the other stuff. Granted, hearing a soldier's death should give us all pause, but I bet it doesn't for most, sadly. It's only on the news because it's "bad" news, and I know you differ with me on this point, but it's more true then not. It's a reminder to the Democrats looking for blood in the water that we shouldn't be there at all. By the way, I meant to respond to this one earlier too... Yeah, you're constantly hearing about the 3-4 soldiers killed per day in Iraq, but at the same time, there's an enormous amount of bad news you're also not hearing about. For example, there are something like 60+ attacks per day on U.S. troops. In general, you only hear about the ones that kill an American. What about the other 50-60? Furthermore, there is an enormous amount of turmoil amongst the civilian population we don't hear about. For example, did you know that right now, according to Al-Sharq al-Awsat (reputable), did you know that right now there is a wave of assassinations taking place against physicians in Baghdad? In the past few days, 5 of the most prominent doctors in that city have been killed. Since the war began, 150 physicians have been killed in and around Baghdad, and over 3000 have fled that country. And on top of that, there's always the question of what sort of job has been done on reconstructing those schools. There have been more than a few reports coming out of Iraq which said that basically in those multi-million dollar school reconstructions, all that really happened was the walls were painted over and a few new items were brought in - no real reconstruction was done, and after the paint began to chip, the school was back in the same condition it was in before the war. 1 example. There are also still over 80% of the schools in Iraq which have not received any "Reconstruction" at all since the invasion, according to ABC News last May (in a story exactly like the ones you're requesting, by the way). My point is this...yes, there is some progress being made in some areas of Iraq, and there is some progress you don't hear about. But at the same time, there is an enormous amount of harm taking place that you don't hear about either. The news has chosen to focus on the U.S. casualties, and I think that's the only sensible path to take. You can run some stories on the other items as example pieces, but you simply cannot run a story every time a school is rebuilt and call it another triumph, just as you can't really cover every single wave of murders of prominent Iraqi civilians, mainly because it just happens so often.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 02:05 PM) the Braves would've been in last place without Jones. Especially with all the injury problems. The Cardinals won because of their pitching staff. Not because of Albert Pujols. The Cardinals had to deal with the losses of Reggie Sanders, Larry Walker, Scott Rolen, and Yadier Molina, all for weeks at a time up to the whole season. His protection in the lineup for portions of the season went from Walker to Molina to Mark Grudzelanik to somebody named John Gall (your guess is as good as mine). Furthermore, while the Braves had a terrible bullpen and the Cardinals did not, the difference in their starting pitching was virtually zero. St. Louis's starters had an ERA of 3.61, the Braves' had an ERA of 3.65.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 01:09 PM) It's almost if I took something from the Limbaugh letter (which, NO, I don't get it... LOL - Rush is a windbag too) and posted it on here, you all would pretty much disagree with that puppy too. Yes, I would probably disagree with it, but I'd also make it a point to challenge whatever points/lies Rush was peddling in that piece. I understand if you see an actual report from the NYT and clam up because you feel that the NYT's reporting is suspect (hell, I'd do the same thing if I saw something printed by Judy Miller, or something in the NYT on Iran's weapons programs, etc.). I do the same thing with Drudge and the Washington Times. But that doesn't mean that their op-ed pieces can't be used when people consider them to be well written and containing good points.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 02:00 PM) Jones deserved it. Sorry but he was the reason that the Braves made the playoffs. I don't care what his BA was he deserved it. And the Cardinals would have made the playoffs without Pujols?

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 01:59 PM) I saw a clipping somewhere about how all 30 teams called Eyre's agent...I think roto(qwerty)world. I'll see if I can dig it up. On a side note...it's things like this which are why Neal Cotts has a very bright future as a lefty reliever and we shouldn't push him back into the starting rotation unless we have no other choice.

It is also worth considering that there may be more here than the statistics can show. When Iguchi first came over here, he didn't know any of the pitchers he would be facing or how they would pitch him. It took him quite a while to settle into a role, and over a month before he hit his first HR, IIRC. As the season went on, he did adapt to his role...which in a huge number of cases, involved pushing the ball to the right side. As the season went on, you could even see this in the way he was swinging - he'd try to inside-out pitches even when no one was on base (it's probably hard to adapt to not doing that on some pitches.) When he'd hit a home run, a lot of times he'd even hit that to right field. I don't think we can really give a perfect estimate of how his numbers would change if we stuck him in a run-producing spot in the lineup the whole year and let him try to produce runs out of that spot...through either hitting the ball over the wall or driving the pitch where it's easiest to hit it.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 01:36 PM) So this is something that can only be tested within 36 hours of the HGH being taken. Is HGH a drug that is used strictly for building body mass, or is it also a drug that is used for energy bursts? If a runner was attempting to build stamina, and used HGH in his training and built up his stamina, would it be necassary for the runner to continue taking HGH to maintain that stamina through his races? there is so much I dont know about steroids, im not trying to be argumentative as much as I am trying to get information to form my own opinions. I think one of the big questions we have with many of these steroids is what happens to players when they get off of them. For example, let's say Bonds started juicing right before the point ESPN suggests. Let's then say he kept it up through 2002, and stopped in 2003. How much would his performance decline? If he continued working out, would he be able to maintain the muscle mass, or would it decay withotu the drugs? The trouble is, there's almost no way to do a controlled study on these things, because you simply can't find a statistically significant sample of athletes willing to take them and let you monitor the effects. I sure as hell wouldn't be a part of that. Not even considering how illegal it is. HGH is usually taken to help build muscle mass. Human Growth Hormone...kinda sums it up. One of its big advantages was that it was undectable in urine tests, and very difficult to detect until very recently. If you believe Victor Conte's words and calendars (from 60 minutes), it was a key part of the schedules he designed - THG one day, HGH the next, etc. But when a person comes off of it, what happens? We don't ahve a clue.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 01:33 PM) Would of liked to seen Jones win it, but grats anyway. Some more remarkable stats...via Stark...

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 12:43 PM) Good to see this is happening. I am especially happy that they added speed to the list. First positive test...we probably don't even know about it.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 12:27 PM) i was under the impression that it couldnt be tested because it is a naturally occuring hormone in people Link

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 12:47 PM) I'd be willing to bet that the two Lawton trades happened when his steroid test results leaked out. No evidence, just a feeling. That would mean that there was an awfully long appeals process. Lawton was traded first on the trade deadline, and second at the end of August. If you're right, that means that there were at least 3 months between his first trade and the announcement of his test, and that there were at least 2 months between the 2nd trade and the announcemnet of the positive test. That seems like an awful long delay in either case, although I can't prove it didn't happen. Lawton did say he didn't appeal, but then again I don't know if MLB would confirm whether he appealed or not.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 12:32 PM) Ahh, so the NY Slimes is brought in to support the thinking here. Thanks, I'll pass. Again, as I've said so many times before, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I am also in the camp that there's reasons way beyond what any of us REALLY know as to why we are where we are. We sit here and throw dung around as if we really know what we're talking about, and I don't think any of us do. We counter and counter point using whatever biased report supports our belief. At the end of the day, I don't think ANY of us know the real reason(s). So just because it's from the NY Times...you absolutely refuse to even bother intellectually engaging the points made by the piece. That says something important.

I think it's much harder to disagree with ARod winning than it is with Pujols winning.

Since HGH can't be tested for using a urine test...the real key question you guys should be asking is not whether or not HGH is tested for, but whether or not this program allows for a blood test.

NYT Today (behind their Timesselect wall)

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 10:44 AM) Ok, that may be true, but if they had the weapons, you're saying that they couldn't have repaired them to a usable state? That's one of the things that I don't or haven't understood. We did find things - but they were in "dis-repair"... so these people were just stupid and couldn't put things back together and use them however they saw fit? There have been mulitple people that have said the programs existed, they were told to lay low until they were called upon to "restart" the programs. OF COURSE they weren't going to be doing this stuff with the possibility of inspections happening. But there's nothing to say that this stuff could not have been used again at some point. That is exactly why we needed to get the inspectors back in and let them do their job. Let's put it this way...between the end of 1998 and 2002, Saddam had roughly 3-4 years where he was genuinely unmonitored and uninspected. That would have been plenty of time to start to rebuild the foundations of those programs. Saddam did not do so. In 2002, we got inspectors back in and they were well on their way to confirming this fact when Bush invaded. There is no reason why we could not have maintained a program of inspections and monitoring in order to keep Saddam from reactivating things. We had one running in Iraq throughout most of the decade of the 90's. We had one running in North Korea until we allowed the Koreans to remove all of the monitoring equipment while we were preparing to invade Iraq. There is currently one operating in Iran, although it may be facing serious obstruction - stronger than what Iraq put up in the 90's. Compared with the $300billion or so that this war has cost, maintaining inspections in that country would have been chump change.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 10:28 AM) And yes, it SHOULD have been different, but it wasn't. The point remains that I think they all knew a lot more then they are CURRENTLY leading us to believe. This can be partially proven incorrect by what we already have learned...we can't prove the rest until the Republicans allow the senate to complete Phase 2 of that investigation, but here's a prime example. The details of the UAV's were fully known at the time. In fact, after Bush made one of those claims, the Iraqis even allowed some reporters to see where they were housed, and the bloody things were held together by duct tape. But that is not what Congress was hearing...Congress was hearing that those things could be used to launch an attack on the U.S. mainland.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 10:27 AM) Why, then, were the quotes coming from the Congress the same before 2001 as they were after? The data seen was from a DEMOCRATIC White House. Something tells me that the intelligence gathered 1-2 years later wasn't that much different then what they had already seen from 1990-2001. There are 3 major points. 1. The 1998 bombing campaign was key to wiping out the remnants of any WMD program Saddam still had after the Gulf war. However, this could not be verified until we got an actual program of inspectors back in. 2. George W. Bush, through some brilliant sabre-rattling, forced Saddam to let inspectors back in. These inspectors were well on their way to proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam was disarmed. Then Bush chose to stop them and invade anyway. 3. Virtually all of the intelligence that was coming to us from 98-02 was coming from defectors. We had no boots on the ground, we only had what the defectors were telling us. Now, defectors can be useful in intelligence operations as a guide, but what I was saying before the war, and what the CIA has known for decades, is that defectors alone cannot be considered a firm, confident source. They have far too much incentive to invent stories, exactly as happened here. You simply cannot base an invasion on the stories of defectors. The stories of the defectors should have been motivation for exactly 1 action; getting the inspectors back into that country to see if the stories being told were true. However, we launched an invasion based on those stories. That is hugely different from anything Clinton did, said, or considered.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 10:17 AM) In regard to the second point about the investigation, the first part of the Congressional investigation was specifically limited to how intel was mis-handled, with the second (yet to happen) investigation to focus on the potentially more sinister why aspects. I basically agree with you but I think that this is a poor way to phrase what is really a key point. The 2 previous investigations, the 1 by the Senate and the Silberman-Robb investigation, were both designed more to look at where the bad intel came from. In other words, how it was collected and what decisions were made in the process of collecting it. I don't know that it's as much a question of how it was mishandled...they looked at where it came from (defectors, Chalabi's group, Curveball, the guy we just learned about last week, etc.). The only political-related issue they were able to look at was whether there was direct political pressure on intelligence people at the lowest levels to produce data fitting the administration's conclusions. As far as I know, both studies found that there wasn't major pressure at those levels. The question which has not been investigated at all is what happened at the highest levels...how those doubts disappeared from the documents given to Congress or from the speeches made to the people.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 09:54 AM) Pfffffff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow, spit all over my screen. So, lets get this straight, on offense, A-rod had better numbers right? So...You think if Ortiz played the field then he would have won, because he would be about the same value in the field as A-rod? Well, then A-rod would be more valuable because he would still be better offensively, right? Now, lets stop smoking crack for a second. Ortiz only plays one side of the ball. He has no chance to help, or hurt his team when they are in the field. A-rod helps his team by being a good fielder at 3B and plays twice as much as Ortiz. If they had identical numbers on offense, which they dont, and A-rod helps out his team twice as much as Ortiz does Stark.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 15, 2005 -> 09:44 AM) I agree with the sentiment of your post in that we should all be concerned. However, OUR ENTIRE GOVERNMENT, whether Deomocratic or Republican, Congress or CIA, FAILED US. To pin it solely at the feet of George W. Bush I have a problem with. You all say that it was HIS decision to go to war. Hmm, funny, I think Congress passed a resolution for it as well. I think they ALL have blood on their hands, and they are ALL playing Mickey Mouse poltical football over it, and that's SICKENING as soldiers continue to die. EJ Dionne in hte WaPo today....