caulfield12

Of course, the main purpose of all this is to play Devil's Advocate...to force one to defend the idea of Federal government functions. Obviously, we wouldn't do well without a Federal court system, checks and balances, Supreme Court, etc., no matter what our respective opinions of the individual decisions they've made over the last decade, dating back to the Gore decision in 2000. I would love to believe the Tea Party is something other than dressed-up libertarianism with a racist bent because of Obama's presence in the White House....and I fear we will be hearing the phrase "starve the beast" hundreds of times over the next two years. Well, whatever you say about the GOP, they've predicated their election strategy around simply saying no to all spending...even though this spending was obviously okay with them from 2001-2008. So they're to be applauded for that nakedly-obvious obstructionism which has not effectively been countered by Obama and his administration.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 11:13 AM) What does that have to do with the validity of British Colonialism and how terrible it was for the indigenous populations? Because IMO, America has done almost as many horrible things as Britain.... And the same things can be said about our treatment of Native Americans as well, although it was mostly contained on the N.American continent. Obviously, the treatment of aborigines in Australia was pretty abhorrent, though.

QUOTE (G&T @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 09:13 AM) Honestly, why don't we want to settle into a reduced role in the world? This is something that I ponder. I know there is a chest thumping aspect to it, but would it really hurt the US? I remember all the talk of the "peace dividend" at the end of the Clinton administration and defense spending was headed for the 12-15% range versus 20-22%, but then 9/11 happened and Iraq....and the rest is history. Of course, Japan and Germany both have had their periods of imperialism too. My Chinese students are still being taught to hate Japan because of something that happened almost 60 years ago.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 07:46 AM) Yeah, it's a damn shame British colonialism finally came to an end. I'll leave the issue of the assassinations of Guevara, Allende, Lumumba, Castro (multiple attempts), Trujillo in the Dominican Republic...for another debate. I do think it's hard to list many countries that are DEMONSTRABLY better off for our involvement over the last 40-50 years. South Korea, certainly. But North Korea has evolved into one of our biggest enemies. Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, jury's still far from out. Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos....probably no appreciable difference, except in the lives of all the Vietnamese immigrants and "boat people" who were given asylum in the US. Haiti or the Dominican? Don't see how things could possibly be worse in the first country, despite all of our attempts at helping them. Grenada? Too small to matter... Nicaragua and Panama? While Japan emerged neutered at the end of World War II, we did a great amount to help rebuild their country and eventually their burgeoning economy. Yugoslavia/Bosnia-Herzegovina/Serbia/Croatia...time will probably argue this as a "net win" compared to what might have happened. Somalia? Big PR disaster. Colombia? Maybe a slight improvement. Pakistan? Disaster, especially Musharraf and the inability to get to bin Laden. Rwanda? Even bigger failure of Clinton's leadership not to get involved when we had the werewithal to do so, but instead deferred to incompetent UN troops. It is interesting to me that India and Australia have two of the strongest economies in the world...not sure what if any conclusion can be drawn from that, versus the

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 07:45 AM) You're not going to get 75% of the country to agree on anything beyond very high-level "policies" like "we need a military". You're also asking for a completely unbalanced mob rule government. How can you enforce any laws without an executive? How do you check the validity of laws and violations of them without courts? What are you going to do to provide for the millions of jobs lost when you shut down the federal government for a year, and the billions in revenue that state and local governments rely on from the federal government? And there's the problem that a complete democracy is going to give us the best government and the best policies. That people won't vote with little or no knowledge of short, mid and long term implications of decisions. That they wouldn't be swayed by emotional rhetoric and corporate spending. What are you going to do to provide for the millions of jobs lost when you shut down the federal government for a year, and the billions in revenue that state and local governments rely on from the federal government? Isn't this exactly what happened until Gingrich back down 16 years ago? I'm actually hoping that the GOP will overplay their hand and go for the jugular and it will backfire, because I've lost my confidence in Axelrod, Plouffe and Emanuel to deal with the messy day-to-day business of governance versus campaigning. President Obama went more than 18 months without making a major White House address on the biggest concern to most Americans, the economy, and specifically, their job/employment status. That will turn out to be the same level of mistake as the Clintons getting bogged down in Don't Ask, Don't Tell and health care reform their first two years in office. And it's going to take a lot more than H. Clinton as the VP replacing Biden in 2 years if the Republicans get their way in 2011 and 2012. The biggest problem is that I don't feel that the American people believe that the President actually cares about them...on an intellectual level, yes. But this is the single biggest issue going forward, to me...anyone can look at the banks, the stock market, etc., and see that many corporate executives have better lives and bigger bonuses than before, but almost no members of the middle class would say their lives are fundamentally better than they were in the 80's or 90's. I hope Obama can learn to have that political touch with everyday Americans that Clinton and GW Bush had...otherwise, he will end up in history more like GHW BUSH or Carter, unfortunately.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 08:33 AM) China's total revenues inbound are $157B, $77B or more (they say it may be more) are spent on the military. That means China is spending HALF its budget on its military. This is from your own article. Because they have almost ZERO taxation, almost no social safety net (in terms of health care or pensions/Social Security) to speak of...and invest much of their money into foreign reserves like USD and Japanese Yen in order to keep the level of RMB artificially lowered. When you compare per capita GNP, the US is still 10X-12X higher on average, something like $3800 USD in China and around $40,000 USD per person in America. So there's a huge income inequality between the middle class in both countries. The Chinese government is cash rich, but it saves and it also spends money on infrastructure and improvement projects we no longer even dream about. If you've ever been to Shanghai or Hong Kong or Beijing, it would be more apparent where that investment is going.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 08:23 AM) I see zero chance that thsi country becomes the next Russia. The dynamics are simply not at all the same. They are in fact entirely different, in almost every way. Perhaps the best example is a much larger version of Great Britain's empire slipping from where it was 100 years ago. OTOH, we don't want to sink down to the level Japan or Germany (although after China, they're probably example #1 of who we should be studying and emulating, certainly not Japan's stagflation for 20+ years)...not with China on the rise, and India and Brazil not far behind. And the German manufacturing base as well as infrastructure/public works/housing investments over the past 15-20 years have been immense as a percentage of budgetary outlays per capita in the US during that same time period.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 08:06 AM) You do realize that China has the largest standing military on earth, right? More men, more guns, more armor than any other country. And 98% of it is within the country's borders, so obviously it would be pretty insane to attack them. They spend immense amounts of money on their military, make no mistake. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...hina/budget.htm China, $77.9 billion (USD) divided by 1.6 billion people=$50 USD per person US, $664 billion (USD) divided by 300,000,000 people=$2,213 USD per person Something like 19-20-21% of our annual Federal budget. The US alone spends 46.5% of the global defense budget of the entire world. China is a distant second at 6.6%. In other words, the US is still 7X higher in spending even though our population is 1/5th the size of China's. So really, to put it another way, we're spending 35X per person what they are. Or if you calculate it from the other statistic I used above, it's actually 44X the spending per person of China. France, UK and Russia make up 11.5%. The next ten countries combined are at 20.7%, and the rest of the world (roughly countries #16-200) at only 14.7%. http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/wor...litary-spending

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 08:01 AM) The Meandering Manifesto strikes again. You want only essential services and a 75% rule to pass anything, but you want to see a zillion solar panels and bullet trains? I'm at a loss for words. Just give me one good reason to believe that anything will change for the better in the US in the next two years besides luck, chance or "it simply has to." Once again, the 75% would slide down to 50% in the first 9 months, hardly an incredible barrier. And I don't remember a zillion solar panels anywhere in what I wrote. I do think if we challenged our carmakers to build 200 million battery-operated cars for under $20,000 (with the supporting infrastructure of recharging stations that would be critically important...as nobody wants to be an initial adopter until they see that a new technology will be sustained and adopted) by the year 2020 that it clearly could be done. Is there ANY hope at all that Congress will do this on their own? No, I'd say those odds are less than ZERO. What is your plan to keep our country from becoming the next Russia? Prayer?

QUOTE (G&T @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 07:44 AM) How are 300M people going to engage in an intelligent discussion about what to keep and what not to keep? Should we elect representatives to meet in a common location to discuss the issues and make recommendations on our behalf? EDIT: by this I mean that the TV idea makes no sense as it would take decades for every idiot to talk. Also, how can people make intelligent decision about topics like the FDIC within 24 hours? And I know I will feel safe while the US military is disbanded for an entire year. I think it's pretty clear that at least 75% of the people in America would agree with you and feel unsafe without some form of military. I live in China...they don't have a military empire all over the globe, yet you would be hard-pressed to find a single Chinese person afraid of attack at this point in time. Instead of military imperialism, they're practicing economic imperialism while watching the US bankrupt itself like Russia did trying to be the policeman for the entire globe. The t.v. idea obviously needs to be fine-tuned. One thing is for sure, whether it's 24 hours of debate or 240 hours or even 2,400, with the new Congress in January of 2011, nothing will be passed over the next two years and our country will sink further into irrelevancy. And you're making a big assumption that every person who came to Washington would be an "idiot." OTOH, I think we'd all be presently surprised to hear some of the thoughts and ideas of the "common people" because we already know what we're going to get from multi-millionaire lawyers. At the time of George Washington, people came to serve the country in a time of need with the idea they would go home as soon as possible. The last thing any Congressman today would ever want to institute is term limits upon themselves. Remember the Contract with America in 1994? Remember how quickly that idea died for the majority of those newly-elected into power that year?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 07:32 AM) I don't have time to respond individually but let me put in the first word. I think this is nonsense. Half of the ideas here disagree with the other half. A 75% agreement requirement to pass anything would mean that there was no such thing as a government. None of your other ideas would ever happen with that requirement. A balanced budget in the middle of a depression makes the depression worse. Having the government decide where private institutions can spend their money isn't even something I'm interested in. Reaching out to enemies yet pulling back the entire U.S. military, that doesn't contradict? Becoming the world's greatest clean energy power...great...except we have no way to pay for it because you've killed off any means to do that. You really think that more than 25% of the people in the U.S. would keep Social Security checks from going out to those who are 60+? That 25% would say we should let all the Federal prison inmates go free or that all our national parks should be shuttered? The point is that NOTHING will happen in the next two years in Congress...this is the entire strategy for the GOP to win the presidency in 2012. It backfired when Newt Gingrich tried it in 1994-1995, and it would again in 2011. But the Obama administration hasn't been nearly as smart as the Clinton one in developing a triangulation strategy. There are MANY government programs that are good/solid/sound/effective and would have the approval of at least 75% of the American people. They're just not being sold or marketed well enough...which requires leadership. And the 75% would gradually slide down to a 50% requirement...I think you didn't read that part. It's possible to have a balanced budget and still have an expanding/growing economy...of course, it couldn't be balanced in the first 2-3 years, but President Clinton showed it's not impossible to do for 3 years. What will undoubtedly happen is that an austerity-driven, scare-mongering Congress will be able to get the American people to buy into cutting the deficit when the GOP managed to destroy it under Bush with two wars, tax cuts and an unfunded Medicare prescription supplement. And government should never decide or dictate where private enterprise should spend its money...not sure where you got that idea. The people themselves would decide by their votes. As far as the foreign policy question...on the surface, it might seem a contradiction, that we're demonstrating weakness and inviting another terrorist attack. I beg to differ, because 80-90% of the motivation to attack us comes from presence around the world. There's no reason that we should let the rest of the world get a free ride on this issue, especially China. We're spending something like the same amount on defense as the Top 2-10 or even 20 countries do combined. It's simply not sustainable. Pride cometh before the fall...we should have learned that lesson in Vietnam forty years ago, or from studying the Russian war in Afghanistan in the 80's. In order to have ANYTHING we want, we'd simply have to agree on what amount in taxes we're collectively willing to pay for it.

A day or so ago, I saw in the news an interesting blurb...the "Naked Cowboy" was throwing his name in the ring for the 2012 Presidential race. Immediately, I thought things couldn't get much worse, until I saw a video on-line with him speaking about his "platform." America was once a great country, but somewhere around 9/11, we forgot what made us so strong. Today, the Tea Party's rise symbolizes the disillusionment many feel, yet they only offer a laundry list of problems without providing any real solutions. To me, the answer is really quite simple. Power must return to the American people in the form of a Peoples' Congress for 2011. Beginning on January 1st, 2011, we ask the entire Congress, the President and the Supreme Court to step aside for one full calendar year before returning to power in 2012. Every aspect of the Federal government will close on that day. Why? So we can determine for ourselves the functions of government which we can't live without. While the Federal government will shut down and tax rates will revert to 0 on a national scale, local/county/state services will all remain open, such as schools and vital functions such as hospitals, police, fire department and sanitation/water. That will leave decisions on what we want to keep to us. For example, Federal prisons and Guantanamo Bay, Headstart or Border Patrol. Can these programs be run more cost-efficiently AND more safely by private enterprise and/or public-private partnerships? Or national parks, the FAA and air traffic controllers, Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control, the US Mint, Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security Administration, Medicare, National Defense (Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines/Coast Guard), FDIC/FSLIC, foreign aid, the prescription drug benefit, etc. In order to truly appreciate what we now have, we must understand what it's like to miss it. In the process of going through the Federal budget on a "line item" basis, all Americans would learn an important lesson in civics and citizenship as the news media was finally forced to cover substantive policy issues in depth as opposed to superficial 8 second sound bites and "horse race" polling numbers. Now how would this Peoples' Congress thing work? Over the first three months of 2011, it would require a 75% consensus/majority to put anything back into the Federal budget, as well as agreement on how much it would cost (this would come from the Congressional OMB office working in concert with a blue ribbon commission of economics experts on both sides of the political spectrum) and, most importantly, how to pay for it. Think of the movie "Dave" here. Each and every American would be welcome to come to the US Capitol and present their ideas and opinion (carried live on CSPAN) on a given issue for 10 minutes. After 24 hours of debate, an up or down (yay or nay) vote would be held, requiring either 75% of states (38) OR 75% of Congressional districts for passage. At the six month mark (in 2011), the minimum threshold for passage would fall to 2/3rds and finally to only 50% + 1 after 9 months. (As the nation of American Idol, Twitter, Facebook, Apple, Google and Microsoft, we can certainly figure out a voting system that combines landlines, cell phones and computers that can't be gamed!) On a personal basis, after spending the last week in Tibet, two things really struck me. One was the sheer insanity of climbing Mount Everest (Qomolagma is the native word). The other was the ubiquitous presence of solar panels saturating the region. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times immediately came to mind. We have to dream big again. Sir Edmund Hillary did. After all, we won two World Wars, beat the Great Depression, put a man on the moon, pioneered nuclear technology....so why can't America now lead the world in battery/electric cars, wind turbines, solar power and magnetic levitation trains that can surpass 200 MPH? Where once we produced things, now we've gotten fat eating too many Big Macs and SuperSize Cokes while descending into a country of lawyers, financial services and strip malls. Yet we can still determine our collective destiny. It's not too late. Through the Peoples' Congress, we can tackle the big and pressing issues that have become unsolvable due to partisan politics, PAC's, gridlock and lobbying over the last 30 years. Finally, in order for our democracy to once again be viewed as a shining light on the top of world again, we must do the following: 1) Pay off our entire debt to China. 2) Become the world's foremost expert in "green technology" and lead China and India into the future by example. 3) Find the strongest examples of local school reforms and replicate the strategies that work well, incorporating the best ideas of both public and charter school leaders such as Thomas Bloch in Kansas City and Geoffrey Canada in Harlem. 4) Bring back ALL our troops and put them to work in the US rebuilding our most critical infrastructure while simultaneously addressing the future through our "green technology" program implementation. 5) Remind the world that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are two bedrock principles that will not perish. We must reach each out to our enemies with renewed dedication, persistence and patience, from Osama bin Laden to North Korea, from Iran to Venezuela. 6) Martin Luther King, Jr., said "everyone can be great because everyone can serve." A new GI Bill. In return, every American would be required to provide 18 months of service and shared sacrifice between the ages of 18-26. This would be done through volunteer organizations, the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps/USA Freedom Corps, working on projects to rebuild our crumbling dams, bridges, highways and schools or military service/training in defending our country. 7) Most importantly, find/develop/create work and training/retraining opportunities for all of our currently unemployed or underemployed Americans, through innovative and dynamic public and private sector partnerships. Every unemployed American could post their resumes and small business ideas at KIVA.ORG. Banks would be encouraged to lend again to get the economy producing jobs again, from microfinance (see Nobel Prize winner Dr. Muhammad Yunus' Grameen Bank idea from Bangladesh) to reopening shuttered Rust Belt factories to produce the next generation of battery-operated cars, solar panels, wind turbines and bullet trains. 8) A balanced budget. There's no reason why the government in Washington shouldn't be held to the same standard we all must live by in our individual households. 9) Worldwide competitive "research and development" grants from the Bill Gates/Warren Buffett Foundations, supplemented by monies provided by the Peoples' Congress. 10) An exciting and fun new nationwide physical fitness program to be designed and implemented for all U.S. K-12 students. It's not acceptable for 1/3rd of young people in our country to be overweight...and it will end up costing billions of dollars in health care outlays that are 100% avoidable. To me, America's greatest strengths are its creativity, diversity and freedoms. No other country in the world can match us in those three areas. Just like the best and brightest in our 234 year old history, we all can help to restore the American dream that our parents and grandparents fought so hard for...we don't have to be the first generation to be worse off than the preceding one. So instead of fearing the rest of the world, of pointing the finger at China or Muslims, illegal immigrants and globalization, we must learn to embrace the challenges of the future and the opportunities to lead which are wide open to all of us if we can only learn to use our imaginations and dream big again. I know the Founding Fathers would approve. After all, the Tea Party is just a Pity Party...we're all better than that.

The trouble was that they seemed to be waiting for the Yankees to hand them an opening as opposed to the Twins creating their own opportunities. Why wouldn't the Twins be thinking that after all that is what Chicago had provided them much of the year in virtually every big game they played. The Yankees are hardly the White Sox. They don't give teams those chances in the playoffs. The Yankee's have scored 8 runs in the later innings compared to 2 for the Twins. You don't need to look any farther then that. It is perfectly appropriate to challenge that culture of waiting patiently for the Yankees make a mistake. Teams that take that approach are not going to advance in the playoffs. from startribune.com message board I also read somewhere that the Twins have something approaching a sub .200 record after clinching their 6 AL Central division championships...so a lot of fingers are being pointed at Gardenhire now for letting the foot off the pedal and playing their Rochester roster instead of flying into the post-season with momentum. I don't think you'll ever again see the Twins having a clinching champagne celebration until they actually win another post-season series. And lots of questions why the Pohlad family didn't have the cajones to bring in Cliff Lee as their "proven" #1 starter when they were rolling in positive cash flow and the Rangers and Hicks were technically bankrupt. Many Twins' fans also feel they have no leaders on the team (see 2005 Sox examples like Rowand, Everett, AJ and Crede)...that this has been something lacking on the team since Hunter left and arguably Puckett/Hrbek/Morris/Gladden/Gaetti, etc.

QUOTE (Real @ Oct 6, 2010 -> 09:12 PM) Gardenhire gets horribly outmanaged in another post season series? Shocker. Crain has been their best set-up guy all season long. He simply didn't get the job done...story of White Sox relievers for about 6 weeks in the second half. It's easy to second-guess and say that they could or should have used Fuentes there, but that would be hyper micro-managing. It will be interesting to see how Pavano and Duensing handle the pressure of the post-season.

It's going to be the ultimate match-up for Pavano if the Yanks hold off the Twins and take the 1-0 lead. This series has gone from looking like a sweep for the Twins to the reverse in the span of 30 minutes or so...with all the momentum shifting. When it comes down to it, I really can't root for the Twins though. About the only reason I'd like to see them win is for Thome, but it now feels like Philly is going to mow down every team this post-season. Swisher, Thome, Logan, Javy, Guerrier...quite a few former Sox players involved in this series.

Yeah, it's kind of like the dreaded "vote of confidence" which only serves to focus more attention on Guillen and his future. And Ozzie's never been known to let an interviewer's question pass without a comment, so, unless there's some type of "gag order" that he can no longer talk about 2012 and beyond without being relieved of his duties with no buyout/compensation, the soap opera continues status quo. It's like the White Sox don't want to be portrayed as the bad guys in this situation (like with letting Fisk, Ventura or Thomas go) so perhaps KW is just hoping beyond hope that Ozzie says something so ludicrous that the legal team feels they can make an argument for dismissal on grounds. It would be interesting to see if Ozzie's contract is different than the standard managerial contract in terms of warnings and/or events that would precipitate a firing. Like the CEO of HP did something insignificant compared to the Ozzie circus and was dismissed relatively quickly...albeit with $35 million or so in shareholder money or something like that, along with stock options too I'm sure.

And DJ Carasco didn't cost us one of our top prospects in Brandon Allen...not Top 3-4, but he was at least a solid prospect. KW doesn't like to admit his trades were busts. There's also the problem we will probably lose both Jenks and Putz from the roster, Sale will be in AAA in all likelihood, so we need some RH pitchers to fill out the pen.

Where's Elliot Ness and the Untouchables when you need them?

QUOTE (beautox @ Sep 21, 2010 -> 02:28 AM) I've been thinking alot about this since the sox traded for jackson. As much as we sox fans rag on our farm system and complain about its rankings; it has produced some very solid major leaguers. I like other posters just wish KW could the teams long term financial stability into its proper perspective as well as letting our farm system bail us out. I doubt any GM would've kept this core but its interesting to think about; the white sox could've fielded a very competitive homegrown or acquired team on the cheap with plenty of money to lock them up long term, acquire whatever was needed and invest internationally and in the draft. TL;DR Sox could've fielded a good cheap homegrown team *some cherry picking moves* DH - {Quentin} Re-signing Thome or PK in the offseason C - Huge hole here, re up with AJ or make a bold trade in the offseason 1B - Brandon Allen or Vicideo 2B - Beckham SS - Ramirez 3B - Morel LF - Rios {Quentin} CF - Young RF - Sweeney {Quentin} SP - Danks SP - Floyd SP - Gonzalez SP - Hudson SP - Richard LR - Poreda LO - Logan MR - Jenks MR - Infante SU - Santos SU - Thornton CL - Sale to me its kind of mind blowing how much above average talent the sox have given up, if they could've just done a better job evaluating from within in addition to the shrewd pick ups they acquired {Santos, Threets, Floyd, Quentin, Rios, Thornton & Jenks} they would be a model of efficiency. Mind blowing? You're joking right. By the way, it's interesting nobody is talking about Chris Carter anymore...maybe that 0 for 30-something stretch has something to do with it. Young, Hudson and Gio Gonzalez are the only players on that list with close to All-Star ability. Hudson, Gio and Richard all pitch in the West, where there are weaker-hitting ballclubs and larger stadiums that artificially keep a pitcher's numbers down. Look at Jon Garland. Heck, even John Ely and Charles Haeger occasionally looked good pitching in the NL West. Infante one of the top four relievers? Really?

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Sep 20, 2010 -> 01:46 PM) DH What do we do with the DH spot next year? Do we sign a free agent like Dunn? Do we attempt to make a trade for Prince or Adrian Gonzalez? Do we go with a cheaper option and go after H. Matsui or even re-sign Manny? One thing is for certain. . KW won't botch this up again. 1B I think there is about a 65% chance that Konerko is going to re-sign. But lets say he does go to LA or Arizona to be closer to home, where to we go from there? Internally we have Viciedo. But honestly i don't think he's ready. Once again, i will bring up Prince or A. Gonzalez. Its going to be hard to replace Konerko's production but one of those 2 guys can definitley come close. The price will be steep to get one of these men, but it something we will need to look into. 3B I love Omar and what he did for us this year, in fact i want back next year as a backup again. This year we need to look elsewhere. The Teahen experiment DID NOT work. The dude is not good in defensively and appears to be sliding even more offensively. I like this Morel kid and i believe we should give him a shot to develop. I LOVE his tools defensively and he has a decent swing. If the Sox aren't ready for him. I would love to sign Brandon Inge. I love his attitude and overall game. He is a great club house guy and wouldn't be too expensive. C I thought for sure we would be entering the Tyler Flower era in 2011. However, he struggled offensively and doesn't appear to be there just yet. Due to this, I would offer AJ a 1 year deal in which he would likely accept. Trades Many people believe the Sox will look into trading Quentin this year. I think it maybe the right move and the time to do so. What are your thoughts on a Quentin for David DeJesus straight up? The Royals are likely going to accept that 6 million club option and im sure they would love to take a chance on Quentin in exchange for DeJesus. Rotation Peavy, Buerhle, Floyd, Danks, Jackson, Sale I hope the Sox keep the rotation as is and add Sale to it. Obviously Peavy will be a HUGE question mark so keeping Jackson and adding Sale will likely be essential. What are your thoughts on the direction of this team? DH There is a great chance KW botches this up again next year, if they revert to the approach of crying poor and going with another band-aid solution. As far as Dunn goes, a lot depends I think on whether the Nationals offer arbitration. Signing him is going to cost a ton of money, and a pick in the 16-19 range in the first round, it's definitely not worth it. And we've heard over and over again he doesn't want to DH exclusively. Fielder and Adrian Gonzalez are simply not going to happen unless we traded Danks and Beckham to get them, plus more, like a Santos. There's also simply no way we would give a $120-140 million dollar contract extension to Fielder. 3B Brandon Inge is Juan Uribe all over again, with a little Aaron Rowand mixed in. For as great as he can be defensively, he still makes a lot of errors. And check out his batting line from this season...very so-so for a corner INF. Better than Teahen, probably....but only if we could get him for $3-4 million per season, and just to satisfy Hawk's mancrush on him. He's one of those players like Anderson or Rowand that the fanbase seems to love more than his actual ability warrants. C AJ has done fairly well down the stretch, he'll probably end up with more RBI's than he did in some of his much better OPS seasons. This will be an interesting decision. It would seem to be suicide for KW to bring in a rookie catcher who's far from polished in what might be the final season for this rotation to stay together and make a run. The Royals wouldn't take Quentin for DeJesus. Forget that idea...before he got hurt, there were 5-10 clubs interested in trading for him. If we put Quentin on the open market, how many would want him? No NL teams, and that would leave him in the DH-only category for AL teams, and then teams who need a DH (like the Rays) and finally, teams who feel mentally he could handle this position switch in his 20's. Sale is certainly not a slam dunk for the starting rotation next year. You'd like to think he would be ready by late May or early June...hopefully they don't have to rush him. Then there's the concern about how much velocity he'll lose off the FB as a starter, and how durable he'll be with that frame and his mechanics. From everything we've read, they do intend to make him a starter. And there's obviously another KW/Ozzie "fault line" on Viciedo, with Ozzie recently making the comment he might be 1-2 years away. That seems a bit ridiculous. Can he be a full-time 1B and hit against righties and lefties? Maybe not...but for Ozzie to write him off, you know that's going to cause a huge rift with KW because the organization could have had Dunn (supposedly) if they included Viciedo at the deadline. And then Ozzie's going to refuse to play Dayan?

Not to mention Lance Broadway...

Guillen would do better in the AL with the Braves or Marlins or whatever team, although I sincerely doubt he would be able to beat the Phillies. I just don't know about LaRussa. Isn't he 67? The first issue is the salary, which will be 5X as much as we've ever paid a manager. The second issue is what is his role, GM or manager, or both? I wouldn't mind it for one season, though. To tell the truth, I think if we don't win in 2011, unless something changes dramatically next year, we're really going to be behind the 8 ball in terms of expiring contracts and roster turnover. Of course, I don't think LaRussa would take a one year contract with the constant questions about what would happen in the future from the media...OTOH, TLR would never sit patiently (Piniella had the same problem with the Rays) through any type of rebuild with youth. He would just quit after one year, but you still would have to give him a 3 year contract at the minimum.

But it was a fun in the sense you could hang out in the picnic area and talk to Carlos Martinez, Sosa or Scott Radinsky and that was a time before access to the players was more tightly-controlled...of course, the attendance back then could range in the 6-12,000 vicinity most nights. Ivan Bubbling Calderon was actually my favorite Sox player during those years, along with Gary Redus a Bedtime Story. Sad how Calderon died. Joe DeSa, too.

The obvious problem with trading Rios is replacing him. Sure, you get out from under that contract, but it took KW how long to adequately replace Rowand? It sure would be nice if Mitchell was close to ready...but he's at least 1 1/2 seasons away, unfortunately. If you lost Konerko, Quentin and Rios from the offense, your two best players heading into 2011 would be Beckham and Ramirez...of course we'd have 3 new players, but can KW pull a rabbit out of a hat and get equal offensive production for the same amount of money, something like $25-30 million? Maybe. But then when you start looking at available 1B or available RF/DH or left-handed DH types and especially replacement CFers, there's not a ton of them on the market this offseason. It's not like there won't be a bidding war for Dunn, and someone like Carlos Pena could be a horrible sign or the pick-up of the offseason, a J. Gomes/Cantu or a DFA. Unfortunately, the really big salary logjam is caused by Peavy, Buerhle, Teahen and Linebrink...there's no getting around it. The only obvious solutions are trading one of Danks/Floyd/Jackson in a package with Quentin, but that has disaster written all over it IMO.

Shouldn't it be the opposite? We should be more upset the Twins haven't advanced very far or done well in the playoffs, because that makes our own losses to them during the regular season look even worse? If they were a great team, then it would be a stronger argument supporting either the players, Guillen or KW. I mean, I get the bigger point...it's almost impossible for me to root for them. Appreciate them, fine. Then again, I'm SO tired of this argument about the Twins' lack of playoff success and only beating the A's that I'd rather they at least made it to the World Series and then lost so it would be 100%, patently/clearly obvious we needed to step up our efforts to compete with them instead of this 85-90 win goal and "fixing things at the Break" idea which hasn't worked well at all the last two years.