Chisoxfn

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 06:32 PM) Jabroni ... Even if they do, who says they won't get something else back? Personally I will wait to judge this whole thing if and when something happens. If we didn't get Stephen Drew back, the club would be totally jobbed. No one is going to tell me we can't get a pitcher offering 12 mill a year for 3 years next year (if we kept Garland for a year and let him walk). Not only that, but we'd be getting 2 1st round picks for Garland. I'm not opposed to letting him walk, depending on the Dbacks offer. If the Sox make this deal straight up (and take the cash) they should get a solid to good prospect in return, if Chris Young is a part of the package (the Sox better get 5-6 mill each year or Stephen Drew) .

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 05:45 PM) I would do the 3yr/$30M deal. What the hell is the difference? Oh would he not be able to feed his family. If i were him I would want to be in a place where I have a real chance to win a Championship. He could do that in Anaheim and 3 yr 30 is a lot different than 7/77. Thats 44 million more in guaranteed money (he's set for life if he gets hurt). Sure he's set at 30 million but why would you be stupid enough to throw an additional 47 million in guaranteed money out the window.

Young and Garland?? That would be horrible. I don't give a damn if Garland walks at the end of the year either at that expense. I hope to hell Rosenthal is wrong.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 07:42 AM) It could be Vazquez is owed $24M over the next two years though couldn't it? Do the Dbacks absolutely have to forfeit that $3M from the Yankees for '06 and '07? No, they don't. Thats why I don't see the logic in this. If were going to pay him 12 mill, no one is going to tell me that Garland wouldn't take a 3yr 30 offer or even a 3yr 30 with a 4th year option (that would have a buyout at 3 mill and a yearly price of 12 mill or so). It would make sense simply because Garland would be getting a few million more in his 1st two years and would be assured a 3yr 33 mill deal. Sure its paying a lot per year, but if your going to pay 12 mill a year or so, I'd much rather be paying Garland. Now if the Sox were getting something else in return and some cash, than I could see it. Lets say they do the deal straight up and end up getting Vazquez at around 7.5 mill the next two years, well than its not as bad (especially if Kenny was basically told straight up that Jon won't be back). However, I have more faith in Jon being good than Vazquez. Javier has a good arm and good stuff, but Garland has been the one getting better while Vazquez has regressed the past two years.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 07:39 AM) This has been covered numerous times in this thread. Vazquez is owed $8.5 million in 2006 and $9.5 million in 2007 because the Yankees are picking up $3 million per year of his contract. That's a total of $18 million over 2 seasons that Vazquez is owed, not $24 million. No no no. The Yanks sent cash to the dbacks. That meant the Dbacks were paying that, but the Dbacks don't have to send that cash (that the Dbacks are receiving) to the Yanks. They can keep it.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 10:19 PM) Wow that sucks only 13.5 credits for 7 classes.... I get that many with like 3. Thats cause its heads and he's taking cake classes

Personally I'm not a Vazquez fan. He may have good stuff but he's incredibly over-rated and is a whiner. I hate this proposed trade. Sox better be getting some cash or a good prospect or something else. Garland for Vazquez straight up is a loser of a deal (especially if they don't give us the cash the Yanks gave them and they don't have to either).

Ya, I'd love to see a clip of that. sounds funny.

Was it the other Moviel the Sox drafted that you talked to?

QUOTE(Nokona @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 05:32 PM) Hilarious. the god-fearing republicans are running around dancing as a man is put to death. "Let God Sort 'Em." Yup. That's what Jesus would have preached. Here we have a man who has been nominated for FIVE NOBEL PEACE PRIZES. FIVE. He has been awarded Presidential honors. He is now making a contribution to society from behind bars and you all want him to die. George Bush was running around doing coke and dodging drafts. Should he be punished for what he did in his past? -Oh and when you ask if he killed anyone, what if his plane was shot down? I'm pretty damn sure 50,000+ Iraqis would still be alive.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 04:18 PM) If he does he'll probably file a lawsuit. :rolly A murderer should be able to watch TV

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 04:12 PM) Just lock em in their cell 23 hours a day. That'll make their jobs plenty easy. But Inmate 32455 doesn't want to miss the new episode of Lost on Wednesday :headshake

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 04:11 PM) Don't we spend an inordinate amount of time trying to separate the 10 commandments from government as it is? Ya Personally I think its a total waste. Why we have to spend money defending or dealing with issues like whether it should be a Christmas tree or a Holiday tree, I'll never know. It sickens me how a total minority will create issues like that which are solved with tax paying money that could be invested into better causes (and this is just one example, the whole holiday thing). I just find it totally pointless and meaningless. It should be pretty clear. You celebrate Kwanza, well you can have a spot in your city to have a little quanza sanctuary, same with Jews, Christians, etc. The town could just say none of it is allowed (or if one is allowed than the others are allowed). I got zero problem with all religions getting equal say. However, if everyone in a fire dept is Christian (a particular one) than they can simply have an Xmas tree. Regardless, I think people that b**** about things like this are losers that got nothing better to do (and they ruin things for the vast majority of people).

I vote for it to stay the way it is. Its a great source of general baseball news, but its also a great source for any White Sox rumor. If there were seperated it would be too diluted. Some great discussion has been going on there.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 03:48 PM) Sometimes this board amazes me. Now we're looking up to places like China and the Taliban and Saudi Arabia who use public executions as a deterrent? This is what we should aspire to? I never said we should do that. I simply am debating people who say its not a deterrent. Honestly, if your crazy enough to kill someone than I think on the most part you could give a s*** if you end up getting the electric chair. However, lets just assume it was stealing a loaf of bread would result in death. Well than I bet no one in there right mind would ever steal a loaf of bread. I think the people who act as if this guy is a good man and restored themselves are nuts. These guys murdered people himself and as a whole he was a part (by creating the gang and running it for 7 years) of a hell of a lot more deaths. This guy is a total criminal and is a total scumbag. I could give a crap if two gang members decide to kill each other. If there was a sanctioned place where two gangs could go to shoot each other up and die, I'd say let em have it, at least that way they are in an isolated spot where there bullets won't kill someone whose life is actually worth a damn.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 03:46 PM) LMAO at it's ok to pay to house and feed some thief, rapist, hooker, small time drug dealer, bookie, but we damn well better not spend money on locking murders up. The people on death row amount to such a small percentage of what we pay to incarcerate people in this country. If money was really the issue, decriminalize marijuana and safe way more than on killing a handful of inmates. Who the hell talked about price. I still find it hillarious how people b**** and moan about hte rights of prisoners. They are in there for a reason. As far as I'm concerned they should essentially be slaves and work for everything (there wages will be a place to sleep and food to eat). I honestly don't know what exactly prisoners should work on and sure they can be paid (they are) as long as they are going to be released from prison (hell, maybe pay them in some sort of credits which go toward mandatory educational classes that will help them get some sort of decent job when they get out). I will say one thing, I don't feel bad and I don't feel any sort of compassion for prisoners. They made mistakes and most of the time they were serious mistakes and if someone totes up all they did was smoke weed or deal weed well I will make one statement, I got no respect for people that do illegal drugs nor for people that sell them (no matter how harmful or non harmful they are).

1 down, 4 to go. The 1st one was about 2hr's and 10 minutes (its the most ridiculous class ever). Its a corporate finance class, problem is our teacher is insane and half the test is problems that we've never ever seen before. They aren't even in the damn book.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 12:08 PM) So while this thread is being kicked around - if I read that one article right, you can compress down to where the DVD's will fit to one burned DVD? Most "old" dvd burner programs didn't give that option. If that is the case, do you all think that the quality goes down enough to not do that? Thoughts, please? Mine compresses it. Typically it just means that if its a widescreen the image gets compressed a bit. I don't really notice any difference in clarity though.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 11:24 AM) Ah, I think it just didnt work in my PS2, could that be the issue? The PS2 won't play burned DVD's. At least not the original models. Maybe it changed for the new ones.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 03:22 PM) Ya'll are sick. You don't think a 13 year old can be taught? Huh..his son was a 36 year old. The 13 year old was the person who was raped.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 08:55 AM) Is it just me, or does that statement open up the whole additional can of worms of "well, the Death Penalty really hasn't been shown at all to prevent crimes" ? Just look what they used to do in China. When they'd behead someone and stick the heads of the dead on the polls outside the village. That sure as hell deterred crime. Not saying we go to that extreme, but when used properly an execution system can deter crime. It won't stop it, crime will never be stopped. There will always be sick f***s somewhere that end up murdering someone.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 07:41 AM) If a warden strapped a visitor to a gurney, injected a lethal dose of poison, and they died, he would have committed a sin in God's eyes, and murder in the state's laws. If a warden straps someone down, who a jury ruled should die, then some believe it is not a sin. Funny how man's laws can trump God's laws. The hubris is amazing. Since when does what god think come into play as to the government. The constitution isn't the 10 commandments.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 07:40 AM) We've been over this ground before Tex. The Death Penalty isin't a deterrent because it takes an average of 12 years to kill these assholes and it isin't imposed in a uniform manner. You and LCR should save your tears for the thousands of victims created by this piece of s***. Couldn't agree more with your comments on this situation nuke. Glad common sense is still around.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 12:57 AM) Well thats your opinion.....In my opinion living the rest of your life behind bars is much worse than being put out of your misery and isnt it cheaper overall too? Hell if they are going to have a death penalty why not just make it cost efficient and shoot the guy in the head. The reason the death penalty costs so much money is because of all the legal fees that go into fighting each and every appeal that goes through when a person is up for the death penalty. It has nothing to do with the actual cost of the lethal injection.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 11:35 AM) Gio is a serious talent who looks like he is the next coming of a stud pitcher. he was easily the best arm we had in our system last year. But you have to think there was a reason that we gave him up instead of others in that deal. Haig has control issues, and Gio has durability issues and his motion could make him injury prone. Im sure that these issues were more serious than we think, and I would trust Dave W to make the correct read on these players. Also A-row going into his prime?? Looks to me like he already had his prime, and no is regressing, remember he was no more than a reserve corner OF'er 3 years ago in our system. Technically speaking, a healthy Lummy has a better "arm" than Gio. Not saying he's a better pitcher. I'm really pulling for Lummy to get healthy. He's got a great work ethic and is a total competitor (plus he's got a great arm).