Balta1701

Let's go Jon...20 wins by the 25th!!!!

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Aug 2, 2005 -> 03:55 PM) I think big Jon will get us back on track. We pwnz the Jays. Back on track? Haven't we won 4 games in a row?

QUOTE(sayitaintso @ Aug 2, 2005 -> 04:20 PM) That's it, only 2 HR's? Yeah, who do you think he is, Tuffy Rhodes?

Oh Damn WCIU...game's not carried by DirecTV. Guess I'm hanging out in my office with the network connection for an extra couple hours tonight.

Via ESPN's Mark Stein

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 2, 2005 -> 01:53 PM) Sure throw Israel on there, it only strengthens my point. The UN is inept to do anything that is supposed to be doing, and one crappy nomination isn't going to make things any worse than they are already. We have sent administrations full of "yes"-men up there and got nothing but dead people all over Africa to show for it. At this point why not send someone who thinks that the UN is doing it wrong up there. I though the first step in solving a problem was admitting that you have a problem? To be honest, nothing I have heard out of the UN really sounds like they even think anything is wrong with the way things have been going. I don't see a problem with anything you've said there. Why not let Bush send up a conservative guy who thinks the UN is doing it all wrong? Can't hurt to try. But Bolton is not just a guy who thinks the UN is doing it all wrong, he also seems to be a terrible person. It's been alleged repeatedly in several different places where he served that he harassed underlings. He lied to the Senate when they asked if he had testified recently in any investigations. One of Bush II's state department appointees said Bolton was a "Serial abuser". Up and down the list, it seems no one has been able to work with the guy. He has been implicated repeatedly in eitehr spinning or falsifying intelligence to support his beliefs on Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. And the Bush Administration has a bunch of documents they're hiding that are apparently so damaging that they would rather give Bolton a recess appointment than have him get an up or down vote in the Senate. Bush can appoint a guy who thinks the UN is doing everything wrong any time he wants. It probably couldn't hurt to try...you're right. But to me, that's not what this case is about. This is about Bush appointing the single worst possible guy to the UN to do that job. I'm totally serious when I ask whether the right has somehow run out of guys who dislike the UN and Bolton is the only one left. His career is a nightmare. He appears totally unqualified to remain in public service based on all of the testimony and information that has come out. So I ask...why is he the Only one who can get it done? Does the Bush administration somehow not have enough guys who dislike the UN that they can't find one who dislikes it but hasn't chased people aroudn a hotel like a "Madman"?

I wasn't saying that Bolton was going to screw up the UN, I was saying that Bolton has a very good chance of screwing up the ability of the US to get anything useful out of the UN.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 2, 2005 -> 12:16 PM) I'm expecting him to be totally average. Others seem a little over geeked about this guy. I just want him to not be such a big dropoff from our regular guys that we end up losing games because someone gets a day off, as was starting to happen when Harris would play or when Ozuna would play third. Don't need him to hit .780, but a nice .250 wouldn't hurt, along with occasionally moving a runner along and not making too many errors on defense. He'll help even more if he can rotate into the lineup for Paulie every few days to give that guy some rest before the post-season hits.

QUOTE(juddling @ Aug 2, 2005 -> 12:16 PM) I have a serious question for those of you here that are speaking out AGAINST Bolton. What are you afraid he is going to do? Or not do? And please, don't spout off the party line, we have all heard that one before, just as we have all heard what he WILL do for us. Inquiring minds want to know! There is a long list of issues that are going to come up before the UN which Bolton could, through his personality or individual behavior, make worse for the U.S. Start with Iran. They're about to restart their uranium enrichment program again. If negotiations between the 3 European powers and Iran fail to shut it down, the only option the U.S. will have left will be the U.N. A Security Council resolution could be enough to force Iran to back down, especially if it contains a genuine threat. But if you're unwilling/unable to negotiate with a person in good faith, that resolution never happens. Aside from that, you can basically pick your issue, and there's a dozen ways that a single person in Bolton's chair could screw it up. Negotiating for more aid to Iraq. Negotiating for additional measures against Al Qaeda groups in Asia. Arranging for the UN to do something about the Sudan. Trying to convince nations to increase aid to African countries. Trying to get condemnation from the UN on acts of violence against Israel. Reforming the UN itself. And so on. These are all issues before the UN, and they're all issues that the U.S. will want something. In order to get that something, negotiation is going to be necessary. Bolton does not seem liek he is the sort who is either willing or able to negotiate in good faith, and his lack of support from the Senate will only exacerbate that situation. My question to the pro-Bolton folks is this; Bolton has lied to Congress, harassed and possibly even threatened subordinates, done damage to this nation's efforts against WMD proliferation, and couldn't even get out of committee with a positive reccomendation. Is the political right on this country so devoid of people who can't stand the UN that they have to pick this guy as the only one who can help reform that body? Seriously, is there suddenly a dearth of people on the right who can't stand the UN?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Aug 2, 2005 -> 11:00 AM) I'll tell you what .. the very last thing we need is for this to happen to a Sox player. Don't be too smug about this issue. I'm still sitting here hoping that through all this, with the exception of 1 or 2 notable guys who are no longer with our team, the guys who make up our roster have seemed to be clean to me. If nothing else...there was at least 1 big presence in our locker room the past decade who was quite outspoken against their use.

In the late 90's, the Republicans held up Clinton's nominee for UN Ambassador, Richard Holbrooke, for over a year in the Senate. There was some consideration of giving him a recess appointment, but Holbrooke didn't want it, on the grounds that it would diminish his credibility at the UN.

QUOTE(ceffa2000 @ Aug 1, 2005 -> 06:10 PM) Focusing on the Blue Jays, Focusing on the Blue Jays, Focusing on the Blue Jays . . . AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! (runs screaming) ?????

QUOTE(The Critic @ Aug 1, 2005 -> 05:47 PM) The only 'roid guy I see this hurting as far as the HOF is concerned is McGwire. I think he was seen as one-dimensional anyway, and when that one dimension is thrown into question then many people can easily justify not voting him in. Palmeiro is still one of only 4 guys to get 3,000+/500+ and he will probably get to 3,000+/600+. Hard numbers to ignore, even with a steroid suspension. If he gets another, however.....that could be a different story. So...let's say for the sake of argument that he's been on steroids since his career took off, as alleged by Jose. Most of his home runs haven't been 450 feet. A lot have probably just cleared the fence. So how many of those home runs would have been flyouts? How many pitches has he hit that have just gotten over someone? How much more playing time has he gotten because of his home run numbers? How many balls did he hit off the wall for doubles that would have been flyouts without the extra 10 feet? If he was 2500 hits and 100 home runs, would you vote him in? 2600 and 200? 2700 and 300? 2800 and 400? Some people were saying Palmeiro shouldn't reach the hall even before this just because he never dominated a league. This is just another wrench. If he isn't voted in, I think the Vets committee will murder him based on this conviction too.

QUOTE(TLAK @ Aug 1, 2005 -> 05:52 PM) These are guys who were contributors to the 2004 team and are now at Charlotte. I think that KW/Ozzie deserve a lot of credit for improving the bottom of the roster to the point that these guys can't get even back on the team. Widger and Ozuna are new guys who have made valuable contributions, hopefully Blum will too. You know, I'm not sure I ever really thought about it in that way. I've told people this year that 1-25 we probably have the best roster in baseball, but I haven't thought of how KW/Ozzie should get credit for working the bottom end of the roster as much as the top. I like this line of thought too...if the Yankees had 1 more quality starting pitcher on their roster last year they probably win the world series. They've got a lineup which probably rivals almost any in baseball history - Jeter, Sheffield, ARod, Matsui, Giambi...but they're not even leading their division. The Red Sox may have the best 1-2 punch since Maris/Mantle or even Ruth/Gherig, but we're way ahead of them too. Why? Well, could be that both of those teams have filler sitting around at several positions, while through our whole lineup, starting 5, bullpen, and bench, we really have very few truly weak spots.

QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ Aug 1, 2005 -> 05:37 PM) You think the Yankees or Red Sox care about that... They'd sign him in a heart beat... Especially the Yankees... I want to win now period... We can sort out the how we won later... But once we win thats something no one can take away from us... The Yankees are exactly the example of why I don't want a guy like that and why I do care how we win. I don't want to win by being like the Yankees. I just like a little honor and dignity in the way my teams win...instead of going out and buying the most juiced-up player available. Anywho, I actually doubt either team would sign him...both teams are loaded with 1b/DH players. (Olerud, Millar, Ortiz, Giambi, Martinez)

QUOTE(ScottPodRulez22 @ Aug 1, 2005 -> 05:38 PM) I meant that as more of a reinstate peterose thing Well, I don't want Rose reinstated either, but that makes sense too...just sounded to me like you were attacking the steroid testing policy. My mistake. My beef with Rose is very simple; in every major league clubhouse, there is a sign telling people not to bet on baseball. It has been there since the 1919 mess. If Joe Jackson doesn't get into the HOF without the sign, Rose doesn't get in after ignoring it.

QUOTE(ScottPodRulez22 @ Aug 1, 2005 -> 04:47 PM) Maybe we should show this to good ol bud selig Bud Selig floated a 50 day suspension for the 1st offense earlier this year...the Players association hasn't acted on it, and I'm not sure how much Selig has pushed it. I get the feeling there's sort of a "let's get through this season first" feel to it...and I'll guarantee that Palmeiro testing positive after his performance on the hill will drive them to get a new deal done. Otherwise, Congress will jump in, and Raffy's test seals that for me - a guy who stuck his finger in their faces and said no just tested positive. If that isn't motivation for Congress, I don't know what is.

QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ Aug 1, 2005 -> 05:33 PM) For the league minimum, does a good job of replacing Franks bat in the lineup... I could care less if he's on steriods, coke, smack, extasty, if he could help us win a championship i'd say welcome aboard... Maybe I just want a Sox would series that darn bad that I'd even be willing to sign scum like this if they could hit.... See, that's where we differ...I want to win a title, but if it takes cheating to get there, I don't want it that badly.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Aug 1, 2005 -> 05:24 PM) Wow. That was an dumbass post. Why would you even say that? He makes a very valid point. We are the best team so we would be last to pick someone up on waivers. If another contending team doesn't want us to get an impact player, they would do something to prevent us from getting him. Ignoring the other poster...could you give me some more details about how the waiver process works and how our record plays into it? That's a detail I've never heard.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Aug 1, 2005 -> 05:28 PM) The team is filled with 21-23 year olds, and Sweeney is the perfect guy to have in the clubhouse with them. Mike isn't going anywhere for a while. The team would love to trade him I think, but no team out there is going to take on a $11 million or so a year contract for a guy who can't stay healthy. His name is in trade rumors every year, but the fact always ends up being that the Royals don't want to trade him without getting back prospects and having the other team pick up the tab, and for a guy as injury-prone as sweeney, that just won't happen.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 1, 2005 -> 09:35 AM) Two successful space walks for station repairs so far. The last one swapped out a gyroscope for one that failed back in 2002. they are still deciding if they are going to do another space walk to adress the problem with the protruding filler. No astonaut has ever done a walk underneath the shuttle, but they may decide to do it here. They're going to do it. Honestly, I'm quite glad that they're at least giving it a shot...in the Columbia investigation report, it came out that one of the biggest problems was the guys at NASA just assuming that because the foam impacts had never been a problem before, they always would remain unimportant. Just because this filler has popped out before doesn't mean that this won't be the time that it'll be a big deal - remember, they overhauled these things completely after Columbia, sticking in new parts, new sensors, etc, so who knows if something small might have happened by accident at some point.

QUOTE(Al Lopez's Ghost @ Aug 1, 2005 -> 04:52 PM) In today's Trib or Times Here's the actual article.

QUOTE(Wanne @ Aug 1, 2005 -> 04:33 PM) AJ better be given an extension ASAP! The guy's invaluable to this team! He's also arbitration eligible I believe, so he won't be departing at least next year.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Jul 30, 2005 -> 12:53 PM) I say let Pluto be a planet, even though many think it shouldn't, it's been a planet for a while now. Plus it has it's own moon, that's enough for me. I believe some reports say that this thing has a moon of some sort orbiting it as well. On a side note...the guy Mike Brown whose group did this announcement...he's 1 building over. Real nice guy, had a class from him last year. Does some real interesting work on the Kuiper belt.