greg775

I'd start Paulie or at least base it on, believe it or not, the performances of those 3 guys (Dunn, Paulie, Abreu) in spring training. There's no way the Sox should have Abreu, Dunn and Paulie all on the same team. I still say there's no scientific proof Paulie is going to be horses*** this year. I mean, what if he's healthy? We never get the true story on his health so he may still be banged up for all we know, but what if he's healthy? How do you know he won't have a Jeter-like comeback? There should be some hints in spring training if he's finished or not. If he blasts 5-10 ST homers what will you all say then?? It's stupid the Sox put themselves in this position. Dunn, Abreu and Paulie on the same team is a recipe for disaster. My preference of course would have been to dump Dunn somehow, someway. And before somebody says I'm trolling, I'm not the one who started this thread. Anybody who takes a positive Paulie stance is going to get reamed by the majority of people on this board.

Now some kook in the legislature wants to pass a law forbidding the "use" of surrogate mothers in Kansas. WTF is going on here? The water must be full of drugs.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 12:47 PM) Based on what I've read about the case, I would lean towards not guilty, but I'm not 100% certain. In any case, the fact that the Italian justice system allows for double jeopardy is ridiculous, and as I said earlier, Italian tourism seems likely to suffer if they don't make this go away. Thanks, Hickory.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 08:31 PM) If he were actually interested in making an intelligent point, there's one that could actually be made. Hillary may be the early front-runner but he's correct in that she has given us no real obvious policy statements as of yet, there's no real "here's what we'll get done if you elect me", or even a "here's a decision I was right about that the rest of you f***ed up". IN 2008 there were both of those. The Democrats were debating what they'd do with health care, and at least 1 candidate got to say "the rest of you totally f***ed up the most important international vote of the last several decades, the Iraq debacle". Being able to say that was definitely a key aspect in how that election turned out, and there was a big policy point to deal with. Thus far, Mrs. Clinton has not laid out a justification for a candidacy and has not spelled out any specific thing that she would focus on getting done. The counter-point of course is that at this point, virtually no legitimate candidate has done so because we're nearly 3 years away from the election day so there's time to do those things. But either way, that is a valid point..."why are we electing this person" is a legitimate question right now. Instead we get borderline misogynist, ad-hominem bullcrap. That type of line is beneath a decent person. I agree with your points on Hillary. Your first paragraph is what I'm trying to say as well as the insinuations about her personality that appeared in that book or that long article that people posted on here.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 07:08 AM) yes it's a joke (the pathetic kind not the funny kind), yes they're a laughingstock, and yes it's officially the worst state in the union. That's what I thought, Reddy. I wonder if I should move out of principle.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 07:10 AM) remind us all what you have against Hillary? I could use a chuckle. By many accounts, she is a mean spirited B word. She has no real ideas of note. She was blah as secretary of state. She seems to me to be very elitist. What does she bring to the table besides "deserving" to be president after all her years of service. Again ... give her an award.

Our state leaders just passed a law saying businesses can turn down gays for service (restaurants, movie theatres, gas stations, wherever) because of religious objections. If you are a business owner and object to gays for religious reasons you can refuse to serve them. Is this godawful state the only one with such a law? Finally, this state's governor turned down all that free money from the government regarding medicare for some reason that angers me to no end. My question to you is: Is Kansas the worst state in the union? Is Kansas a joke? What do you think of my first paragraph?

I just thought of a good way (at least in my mind) of putting Hillary's being a lock to the the next President in perspective. I feel she is being awarded what amounts to a lifetime achievement award with her being named the next President. I question whether she will have the energy to be President. I mean let's just give her a lifetime achievement award or make her honorary Queen of the U.S. But not President. Can't the democrats, who will again win in a landslide, give us a real candidate who can fricking make a difference and help turn around this country? Forgive my pessimism, but I feel like most of our country's inhabitants are starting to think of our beloved USA as Detroit - a bankrupt, decrepit country. Sure at times we feel patriotic, but with the economy still crap and medical care a fricking joke and the hope of people being able to retire comfortably becoming a pipe dream, we need CHANGE and Hillary will not provide it I'm afraid. Repeat: Give her a nice lifetime achievement award but do NOT give her the Oval Office just because "it's her turn" or "she's had a great life" or "she was a good first lady now she should be President."

Is Knox a murderer or not? The case has been decided a few times now. What do you say Soxtalk people? Is she a murderer??

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Feb 12, 2014 -> 05:51 PM) It's so funny to see you say that contracts over $10 million per are bad contracts, but then also post that we should trade for Buehrle who is set to make $37 million over the next two years. Contradict yourself much? Contraditions aside, name any players out there who are worth say 14 million dollars a year over three, four or five years? How many more of these contracts are we going to see when after one year of the multi year deal teams are clamoring to get rid of said players? And yes, as long as teams are paying out the wazoo, I figure my team might as well get in on the fray. Now would I prefer all teams to stop this nonsense en masse? Of course. As far as Mark, if you've got to pay somebody exorbitant money, it might as well be him because I stand by my statement he's a player and he's a coach. He's a GREAT EXAMPLE for all young pitchers and might teach them a thing or two about avoiding the DL (Sale? Nate?).

Just about every multi year contract in baseball worth over 10 or more million a year is a bad contract. Yet they keep signing 'em up.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Feb 9, 2014 -> 07:28 AM) John or Jordan? Plus Toronto does not need De Aza, they have their OF. We don't need Buehrle either in a lefty-stacked rotation. Jordan. I think we still need Mark for reasons specified last offseason. Veteran presence; a coach on the mound.

I just thought of a great trade. Straight up DeAza for Buehrle. Or Danks for buehrle.

QUOTE (southside hitman @ Feb 6, 2014 -> 05:01 PM) Gillaspie had a nice April but was absolutely awful after that. He hit .241/.297/.400 after the All-Star break and had a .245/.305/.390 slash line over the whole year. He provides average defense at 3B, so no huge value there. His minor league numbers and his opportunities in SF/CHI has shown that he isn't capable of providing league average production at 3B. I don't mind him being on the bench and providing depth, but if Gillaspie is our 2015 3B this team is in serious trouble. Gillaspie is so ordinary (not that there's anything wrong with ordinary; he's still a big leaguer) that I want him gone even though he gave me one of my best nights of the summer. I was in Kauffman when he beat the Royals with a blast in the 13th. And I still don't like him. That's crazy. I don't mind him sticking around as a utility, but we already got utility guys in Becks and Keppinger too. It is possible Davidson could stink and at this time next year I'll despise him as well. I will add this: Gillaspie's defense sucks.

I agree with that quote. People in the past have been irate at me, some calling me a troll, for my unpopular take on a few major issues. ... For instance I love everything about Ozzie Guillen past and present. Of course I disagree with a few of his political and society-issue views but I simply love the guy. Because of my "standing up for him" in threads, I was labeled a troll. Probably 90 percent of the board detests him. One percent loves him. But what is the problem for standing up for a manager you think is/was amazing? I also got leveled for my love of Bobby Jenks, Jermaine Dye, to a certain extent AJP and Pods. Many of my positions have been attacked with again, some insisting I am a troll. My question to you is: Why can't you (if you despise me) accept dissention? My take is that a lot of people want there to be 100 percent consensus on issues. They can't handle the fact some kook out there STILL loves Ozzie Guillen. They want it 100 percent that Oz is a bum or at least a failure. They would rather convince themselves that if somebody loves Ozzie he must be a troll, when in my world, I realize everybody has a right to an opinion.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 30, 2014 -> 04:40 PM) How exactly? The "employees" have the option to play the game or not play the game. No one is forcing them to do it. They can wait and see if they get drafted. They can go play in other countries. That's pretty "free" to me. And it's not a cartel either. The schools don't own some unique product. You can start a school and a football program if you'd like. There's also not any price fixing. Schools charge different amounts to watch the games. They charge different amounts for networks to broadcast their games. And they don't really market themselves the same way either. I fail to see how that's a cartel situation. I don't think AD departments act like normal businesses, so that's a faulty comparison. They have no shareholders or investors to pay back. They worry about funding their programs and maybe expanding the school a little bit. That's it. I'd also bet that the major schools like OSU, Texas, any SEC, etc. could double their ticket prices and still sell out. But they don't, because there's no need to. Present them with the need and they will. The NCAA made 71 million in 2012. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/colle...urplus/2128431/ In the grand scheme that's really not a lot. The NCAA also was selling players jerseys with names on the back for profit until Jay Bilas called them on it. Just pay the players. It's only right. Or at least let them market themselves. Why shouldn't RGIII have been able to sell 1 million jerseys to Baylor fans? Why can't Andrew Wiggins do the same at Kansas? And those Kentucky players? They could make a fortune selling autographed jerseys. Self and Calipari make more than 5 million a year; at least let the players sell their own merchandise to make a huge buck.

Does our government ever send people back over there to be thrown in the slammer? Or do we let them stay here?

Are those outdoor hockey games great just because of the setting? Can you even see the puck? Just wondering.

It must be weird to be a major leaguer like Dunn and constantly hear/read how worthless you are. I mean when's the last time anybody had a positive word to say about Adam Dunn's ability. It's usually mocking the 1-for-40 he's in or the insane amount of strikeouts he's putting up in a week. Oh well, he gets paid zillions of dollars despite hearing how he's not nearly good enough. Most working stiffs make about $30,000 a year to hear the same on a daily basis from their clueless superiors. I think the only good things said about him were during the inevitable preseason stories about how much weight he's lost and that one stretch of 7 days where he allegedly had decided to start going the opposite way to thwart the shift.

The rest of the players in NCAA basketball and football should take advantage of Northwestern's due diligence. The NW players did all the work. Now all this needs is publicity and just a tad bit of organization at each school to jump aboard. Northwestern should do a nationwide advertisement saying they'd like a recent ftball or basketball graduate of each school to contact somebody in charge of this. NW has done the work; I'd hate to see this go to waste.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 06:16 PM) As I stated, you wouldn't be burning bridges, because signing these guys for multiyears with draft pick compensation is doing them a solid at this point. The White Sox aren't in danger of becoming the Marlins, but if you want to be ultra conservative, like is being suggested on this board, being the Marlins might be the best case scenerio for what you will become. I have never seen a group of fans so opposed to increasing the talent level of their team. Amen to your last sentence. It's like there is a group on here who wants bad players cause it means we're still rebuilding. It's not like the cost of going to a game is going to decrease any, so why not put the heat on our front office to spend some money and get some more good players??

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:33 AM) I think those of us advocating signing a starter that requires draft pick compensation realize Hahn isn't going to do it, but is it really the right thing to do? You know for all the hope of spending to fill holes this offseason the Sox have gotten away really cheap so far . . . I don't understand why Hahn is stopping right now. I'm thinking in the offseason, Keppinger and Gillaspie sound like very good players and Flowers/Phegs doesn't sound so bad and our pitching staff seems just fine. But that's wishful thinking, fool's gold. To all of you "rebuilding people" please please answer this. My assertion is if we added a real catcher, another starter and preferably a real second baseman we "could" win the division. It's doable to add all three. So tell me ... do you agree with my assertion we are THAT CLOSE to contending now? If the answer as I expect, is yes, then why not go for it? I'd hate to be out of the race in May when we are this close NOW.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 06:20 PM) I'm left wondering why he took the extension now when he wouldnt' take it after 2012. Cause, he's learned he likes the job and of course he likes money. He's decided he could do this awhile. At least I won't be accused of being an apologist for the manager no matter who he is. Never been crazy about Robin as manager. Of course I was crazy about his predecessor.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 02:35 AM) If you take your premise to its logical end, Chris Sale should sit out next year. His health is a much bigger risk to the franchise than any contract the Sox can enter into. I do agree with Marty on this. For all the people who have written off this upcoming season and say the Sox have no chance (which I'd agree with if Hahn doesn't make another deal or two), why even pitch Sale? Why risk it? Put him on ice so to speak for a full season and just save him until the team is ready to win. I mean what can he possibly gain from more wear and tear on the arm? If this season is just a "get a ton of at bats for Abreu, Eaton, Davidson, Semien, Phegs, Garcia, Viciedo campaign" why risk Sale's health til the team actually needs him? Sale already knows all there is to know about pitching. Any innings in a season we don't contend risk his long term health, right?? I prefer Hahn make another move or 2 and try to contend this year.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 09:48 PM) We lost almost 100 games last year. Even if this division is as putrid as you say, we'll need at least 85 wins. We have surely upgraded somewhat, largely in future returns, but do you think we got 22 wins in the offseason? Please list these wins and where they came from. Two of the biggest acquisitions this offseason were Eaton and Davidson. Both of those may be key factors in the future, but they are not at ALL dependable for production in 2014. Each is more likely to be below-average than above. The reason we signed them is to develop long-term into dependable producers. What I don't get is the impatience. Do you guys think there won't be a Santana-esque pitcher on the market next year? This is not a particularly well-saturated offseason for free agent pitching. It's our last year of the big bopper/whiff king Adam Dunn. It's Konerko's last year. We have Chris Sale for gosh sakes. We allegedly have a starting staff that can compete. We have allegedly a decent bullpen albeit no closer, which is a concern. I'm just saying we have the payroll to work with. Add a starting pitcher, pray the bullpen is finally consistent, add a bat at catcher (we can still trade Beckham and DeAza and be OK with Semien filling in for Becks) and we might win the freaking division and save Robin's job.