Balta1701

...Because the ratings for the Yankees/Mets series, outside of New York, were THROUGH THE ROOF!

You'll note, they also casually took revenge on that "Postcards from Buster" show, which had the audacity to actually show a same-sex couple on it that wasn't immediately on its way to Hell. It lost all its funding too. Seriously, I've always wondered why some of the shows on that network (notably Sesame Street) can't raise enough money to pay for itself solely by selling merchandise. Some of their other programs are worth a little bit of public funds because they're educational, but Sesame Street is such a nationwide icon that it should be able to fund itself.

QUOTE(sayitanitso @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 10:01 AM) This season for like 5 or 6 straight starts he didn't allow one walk and struck out about 40 batters. His K:BB ratio is 72:11. His last start wasn't as dominant, so this game shouldn't be easy for the Sox. I wasn't expecting him to be easy (although he has had a few starts worthy of Jose Canseco's performance yesterday), but I'm expecting us to have a chance against him. His hot streak was I believe 7 starts in late April and May. Everyone goes through streaks. Let's hope he's starting a bad one.

QUOTE(WSox30 @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 03:15 PM) I'm surprised at how low Jim Tracy is considering the consistency he has brought to Los Angeles. Getting the LA Times every morning as I do, I'm not sure that the people around here are that big of fans of Jim Tracy. He had a good year last year, but that was as much due to Beltre and Gagne as anything else.

I'm pretty sure that Canseco's career of injuries started when he actually did come out of the bullpen to pitch an inning.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 12:00 AM) IIRC Vazquez owned us last year. Vazquez owned us last year before his season fell apart. He owned everyone for like the first half of the season, then he completely crashed and burned. He has had good stretches with Arizona, but he hasn't been so utterly dominant like he was against us in over a year. I don't think he's the same pitcher he was before going to NY. And on top of that...people keep telling me that "Speed doesn't go into slumps", so if this lineup truly has some speed, we should be able to work around a good pitching performance every now and then. Unlike last year, when a good pitching performance would kill us.

First of all, I can't understand how people are saying that replacing Uribe with Vizquel would make our defense worse. Vizquel is as good with the glove as anyone in the league at short. Secondly, I still don't want him. One of these weeks, maybe now that Frank's back, Uribe's going to suddenly find his swing like he did at the beginning of last year, and he'll wind up this season hitting .300 with 20 home runs again. He did most of his damage during those first 2 months, and I think he's worth waiting on, especially given he's no longer a defensive liability. If you're going to make a trade, think bullpen help. Particularly a reliever who can go more than 2 innings. That's about it.

Wasn't Widger catching for one of MB's absolutely brilliant outings earlier this year? I can understand if you pick a pitcher or two to not let him catch, but he's seemed like he worked well with the other guys to me.

Griffey is at this point in his career nothing more than a quality DH who keeps getting hurt every time he plays the field. Thanks to his injuries, he won't be a defensive upgrade over ArRow like he would have been 5 years ago, and a hot ArRow can make up most of the difference with the bat, even though his power numbers will be somewhat lower. He'd also cost way more than he's worth. We don't need any more outfielders. We need maybe 1 bullpen guy, if neither Viz nor Shingo can turn it around.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 06:30 PM) How many times must I repeat myself. These people we have down there are free lance terrorists who were captured ON FOREGIN SOIL. They are not US citizens or residents or whatever, they are not part of a standing Army and they are not part of any governmental organization. THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS. Here you are actually blatantly wrong. The Geneva Convention writers anticipated that at some point, this sort of ambiguity could appear. Therefore, they built in a clause into the conventions giving rights to anyone who is not appropriately categorized by the conventions. In those cases, the holding power is required by law to assume that the detainee is granted all of the priveledges of a Prisoner of War, until a "Competent Tribunal" can be held to hear the status of that detainee. They are also granted fundamental rights, such as the right to not be tortured or murdered, as per Article 75, even in the event that they are not found to qualify as POW's. The Geneva Convention was signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. Therefore, as a treaty, it stands as the law of the land of the U.S., and has the full authority of any other law.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 06:24 PM) By your logic the U.S. constitution applies to every person on the face of the planet then. If you want to split hairs about wording it said "no person" without mention of where they lived, you added the part about living here. -By your logic we could go into Russia and tell Vladimir Putin to cease and desist his manipulation of the media and supression of his opponents. -We could go into Saudi Arabia and say that they have to let women vote because women are guaranteed the right to vote under our constitution. For the sake of argument though lets say they meant "no person who lives in America". The terrorists we picked up in Afghanistan do not live in the United States. The people we detained in Iraq do not live in the United States. These people are not citizens, they are not resident aliens and they are not green card holders either. These are a bunch of people who were captured on a battlefield engaging our troops in combat. For the millionth time, their only connection to the United States is that they engaged our soldiers in combat on foregin soil. They aren't even entitled to geneva convention rights because they are not part of any army and are not representatives of any government. The people we're fighting are a bunch of free-lance terrorists and nothing more. They have no rights whatsoever. They are most fortunate to be in our custody because out of all nations we probably treat our captives a whole lot better than anyone else. Nuke...you're creating a straw man here. The argument is not that the U.S. constitution applies to everyone. The argument is that the U.S. constitution is the defining document regarding how the U.S. government operates. Therefore, when the U.S. government does something, it has to follow the U.S. constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say that it applies to all people. Rather, it says "We the people of the United States of America." Therefore, the constitution is rules made by the people of the United States governing how its government will operate. Thus, when the constitution says "No Person" it is giving an instruction to the U.S. government, and the U.S. government alone, that it must follow that rule. In addition, if we picked these people up on a battlefield, as you suggest, then they should be entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions regarding prisoners of war. There is no "inbetween" space. Either they are subject to the regulations of the constitution, or they are prisoners of war. Just because they are not part of an organized army does not deny them the protections of the Geneva conventions. And finally...is being beaten or frozen to death somehting you would be grateful for? Because there is strong evidence of those sorts of things occurring within the U.S. detention facilities since we created them a few years ago.

Something needs to be watched tonight in regards to this post... The Senate supposedly is delaying the vote on this amendment until very late in the evening when very few people are left in the Senate. They will then take merely a voice vote and let it pass. Why? Because, the rumors say, 12 or so Southern Senators don't want to go on the record in favor of an anti-lynching resolution. Don't have any official sources on the matter, but just watch - if it's done on a voice vote late at night, I'll be saying I told you so.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 06:21 PM) Big Frank Thank God we have 1 bat in this lineup.

QUOTE(chi-guy2 @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 06:13 PM) any chance hes willing to show up to relieve contreras :headshake Any chance he can pick up a bat & take a few swings off Estes too? I'll be he could do better than 2 hits in 12 at bats.

QUOTE(robinventura23 @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 04:24 PM) Wonder if Sweet Lou is next after his comments about ownership. It's been my impression thus far that the Tampa owners know full well they're screwing over the baseball team, but they've refused to do anything about it because they're turning in one of the best profit margins in baseball (small crowds + luxury tax revenue + parking & concessions + advertising + TV & Radio - small salary)

QUOTE(danman31 @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 02:36 PM) He was hitting .253 at AAA. He won't. Yes, but he was also hitting much worse than that earlier this year (I think .220 or below) and has come on significantly in the last few weeks.

QUOTE(That funky motion @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 03:36 PM) I get nervous everytime Oz does that in the 3rd game of the series. One thing I notice though is that we are in every game. Seriously, I don't mind him doing that when we win the first 2 games of the series as much as if we split the first 2. If we win the first 2, it's like he's saying we've gotten the job done, won the series, and giving other people a shot at the sweep. If we lose the middle game, like we did with the Pads, that leaves us open to losing 2 of 3 and maybe starting a losing skid.

Tampa Bay Devil Rays outfielder Alex Sanchez the first person to be suspended for violating MLB's steroid policy, was released today despite the fact that he was hitting .346 on the season. This, IMHO, is the true test of the "Teeth" of the steroid policy. The idea behind the policy was that once a person was suspended, everyone would know he was juicing and no one would want to take the risk of signing him. Sanchez was the first person suspended. He was hitting well this season. Now he's been released. If the policy is working...it seems to me that people should not want to sign him. If it is failing, then he'll be with someone else as soon as he can be. And no, I don't want him on the Sox, in case anyone was thinking of asking.

QUOTE(peanut33tillman @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 03:00 PM) ron karkovice LMAO ugliest mother alive what a spare Ah Karko...one of the only guys I can remember who's knees seemed like they were constantly in worse shape than mine.

QUOTE(Cubs Suck23 @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 02:58 PM) has their been any rumors in chicago about the Sox making a trade since Marte is injured. Marte is not that badly hurt. I wouldn't be surprised to see him this series, maybe even tonight. He was having no pain yesterday, but they just didn't have him throwing. With luck, the days off will have been good for him.

My big concern with Jermaine Dye coming into this season was his health. Thus far, he's been fine with that. If by some miracle both Dye and Everett go down, then Alou's not a bad replacement. Otherwise...no, that's a bad idea.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 02:39 PM) Now put the dumb ass parents that drove victims to Neverland Ranch on trial. ANy parent after his that allows their child to anytime, supervised, unsupervised, it doesn't matter, with Jackson deserves to be locked up. They're doing it for the money. Very simple. If you let your kid sleep over there...maybe you can cash in on part of the Beatles song catalog. Don't think it isn't part of the reasoning.

QUOTE(Soxfest @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 02:35 PM) Do anything you want in California if you got money and famous you will simply walk. Not to be guilty on count 2 is a joke he admitted to giving kids alcohol. I believe the "giving alcohol to children" part wasn't charged separately, but as part of a giving alcohol to children to enable molestation charge.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 02:31 PM) Court TV says Jackson portrayed no significant emotion. Just stood there, as if to wonder how the hell he's a free man. I suppose now we'll find out there was a OJSimpson glove moment where the prosecutors screwed themselves and moronic jurors used it as reasonable doubt. 100 to 1 they bought the arguement that the family was just trying to shake Jackson down. That's what the defense built their whole case around.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 02:22 PM) Sadly... he wont stop and even more sad.. parents will continue to let their little boys sleep with him. Someday maybe he'll get caught and not buy his way out of it. Parents will keep doing that because they know that when they do, they have the next shot at stealing a few of those Beatles songs off of him in a settlement.