Soxbadger

Its really just to early to comment. Injuries play a huge role in how teams develop, and the team that can stay the healthiest at the key positions, usually do the best. That being said, I think there are 4 teams: Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, OSU, who are ahead of the pack. Purdue, Michigan State, and Penn State are just to up and down. And Wisconsin is way under rated again, Calhoun will be good, they are returning most of the WR core, and well eventhough Stocco is not great, when you have Calhoun and Bernstien you do not need a great qb. Also Wisconsin has perhaps the easiest schedule: Iowa, Michigan, Purdue at home, no OSU. Toughest away game's are at Minn and PSU (maybe UNC). Pretty much a recipe for the Rose Bowl, all they have to do is go 2-1 at home verse the the top 3, and win out the rest. SB

The newest Gammons article says that the Blue Jays turned down Ryan Howard for Lilly. So Id say Lilly is out of the question at those prices. SB

Frank always seems to do better as the weather gets warmer. This year he never had to even play a game when it was cold. Anwyays hes been looking good. SB

Can we put to rest the, Frank should not be playing every day. SB

Kap, Full Ruling Its 37 pages so its kind of long. If you are arguing that the govt should never be able to use eminent domain, that is one thing. But if you argue eminent domain should be allowed for "public use", then what criteria do you use for that. Does it have to be 100% public, because that would mean that many railroad tracks etc could not be used by private companies because the land used to make the railroad was taken through eminent domain. The facts of this case are, part of the land is going to be for public use, marina, museums, etc. The other part is going to be for private use, hotels, residences, etc. They want to combine the 2 so they can make a greater economic impact. Their economy has been destroyed by the closing of military bases and by general decline, and the govt is trying to increase jobs and give the area a little boost. The ruling states pretty explicitly that it only applies to mixed usage of public and private, and while the sensationalisation of the newspapers would make you believe it allows the govt to take your house to sell it to microsoft, that just is not the case. There would have to be some public use involved, and a govt plan passed by the legislature which falls in line with state law. Here are some snippets from the opinion, Okay so who made Steven's a state rights, deferring to the legislature justice? Damn those activist liberal judges upholding what a city legislature passed, and what the state law allows. It is interesting to read an opinion by a judge, because I promise you that each of them will make a good to great argument for their side. I do not think this opinion is the end of the world, in fact I think it represents the status quo. The court did not go as far to say that a govt could take for a completely private use, just that the govt could use the takings clause for a mixed public and private use, such as the development in question here. Parts, the marina, US coast guard museum, and state park are clearly public. The residentual homes, restuarants, etc are clearly private. But what the court is trying to say, is that the legislature of the city should be able to chose its own destiny. If they pass an urban development plan, and part of that plan is public, they should be able to use imminent domain to make sure the entire project can be finished. What point would it be to make a marina, musuem, etc if there are not going to be restuarants, hotels to take advantage of all the city money that is being spent? I agree that the govt should have less rights taking peoples land. But when the state law allows it, when the state supreme court does not find it was excessive, but instead only questions what burden the govt should have in whether they can take, and when the city legislature passes it, you should give deferrence to the state. In a matter such as this, where it is so close on either side, the state and local level probably know what is better than the federal supreme court. Just my opinion. Also you have to remember, the only parts of the opinion that are binding are those which all 5 agree with. So any parts where only 4 of the majority or less agree, are not really law. I know it is very complicated and unfortunately newspapers do not hire lawyers to write the pieces on Supreme Court cases, but generally they just take the most outrageous idea and run with it. How many are really going to go to their local law library and the ruling and read all 37 pages? Dont believe the hype, read for yourself. SB

Actually read the decision before you believe what the newspapers say. The decision states that the govt can use eminent domain for mixed public and private use. This is nothing new, as it was already the same law that Connecticut had, and was the same ruling the Supreme Court of Conn. handed down in a decision, with the dissenters not arguing the govt went beyond what it could do, but instead that the there should be a different burden on the govt in proving it was necessary. The reality is, this law changes nothing. It would be like saying when they use eminent domain to make a highway that they can not make any of those islands because those are private and not for public use. This is just the status quo, and the whole opinion is based on state law. So if Illinois, or any other state does not have a law that says the govt can use eminent domain for private use, than the Supreme Court would have gone the other way. The simple answer is, if the citizens of Conn do not like it, they should have their legislature change the law, instead of having the Supreme Court try and dabble in state affairs such as this. The Supreme Court of the US does not know the intiricacies of the financial plan as well as the local govt or the state govt. How many newspapers sell with the headline: "New Supreme Court ruling means that the law will be the same as it always was" SB

Willis is one of the most charismatic players in baseball. They are trying to sell magazines, not trying to be expert analysts. Not sure why people can not get that ESPN, SI, etc are businesses. And you make more money appealing to a wider audience. If the White Sox win a WS, the next few years they will get more publicity. Its just how it works. SB

I think they meant green because Grienke will not be traded under any circumstances. He is the future of KC and dirt cheap. As for Lilly, I think hed fit nicely as he is left handed and would give our rotation better balance. They also could be trying to get one of Toronto's 3b, now that Hill is on fire and Hillenbrand, Hinske, and Koskie are going to be splitting time. Sb

Well I could of said imagine if Mozart could not perform until he was 18, but Doogie is better. Sb

I never thought in my life I could actually use Doogie Howser in an argument, but it paid off. I do not think the NBA's problem will be fixed when the age is raised to 19. I think that it will have almost no impact. Instead of there being 4-5 18 year olds drafted, there will be 10-11 19 year olds drafted. What does the NBA need to do to fix itself? 1) Figure out what it wants to sell and market. The NBA is all over the place, they need to think about what they feel is a "good" game, and then try and facilitate that style of play. They have changed rules like hand checking, zone, 3-point line, illegal defense, etc. I really do not know the technical aspects of the game, but it is clear that the NBA has been changing rules to try and get the game to be something. But what exactly? They seem to hammer the NBA finals as boring, etc. They were the 2 best teams, and 1 of them was the defending champ. Its clear that their style of basketball is successful, so the NBA needs to change the game, or else more teams will start to duplicate the Piston's and then you will have more "boring" games. 2) This is all subjective. If the Bulls had been winning for the last 6 years, we may very well be saying that the NBA is at its glory days. When your team is losing the sport just does not feel fun anymore. When I watch a game it does not seem different, but I just wonder why I used to actually enjoy watching it. 3) Repair the relationship with the people that have been displaced by the NBA. Try and find out what they enjoy watching. If the flashy players are not what people want, perhaps the NBA should do something to try and get teams to pick up more team players. I do not really know, the biggest problem I have with the NBA is it just seems to be in its decline. As for the NFL, the answer is the same. I do not think an NFL team would draft an 18 year old player and put them on the field if they thought there was a risk. What would they have to gain? Thousands of dollars in attorneys fees? It just makes no sense. They draft the best available, or best potential. If they draft on potential they are not going to go out and try and destroy it. They are going to try and protect their investment and make sure that it pans out. I guess I just do not see why the NCAA will protect students more than a professional team would. SB

I knew you were going to use a Dr. so I was going to argue against that in my previous post, but I did not think you would fall into that trap. Dr's have certain standards because they treat other people, they directly impact whether some one lives or dies. Whenever you work in an area where you are directly impacting peoples fortunes, there are always higher standards. You need to pass the bar to be a lawyer, you need a CPA to be an accountant, etc. But to suggest that being a basketball player is on par with being a Dr is ridiculous. There is no way that the difference between being allowed to take the bar or not would be, If you are 18 you can not, if you are 19 you can. Or that you could be a Dr when you turned 23, but not at 21. I guess you missed the show Doogie Howser, where the young boy who was exceptionally gifted was able to be a Dr. It was based on ability, not on age. So if you want to say that there should be a skills competition before you can be an NBA player, than I say go for it. Because the difference is not an arbitrary age, but instead based on the skills of the individual applicant. {Edit} And yes employers have rules, but they can not generally have rules such as age discrimination. The only reason the NBA can is because they are a self governing entity with a collective bargaining agreement which gives the parties the ability to negotiate their own rules. SB

The college players with the best fundementals are the players the NBA never picks. They pick based on potential, barely ever do you see a player picked on fundementals. And why are players going to learn more from college coaches than from NBA coaches? You would think that practicing basketball 365 days as compared to going to college and having offseasons would make them better players, yet you argue that it is making them weaker players. SB

Sleepywhitesox, Sorry I do not agree with if they get hurt tough luck. I think if the NBA is going to enforce an age limit, then they need to do something to make sure those players are protected in case of a career changing injury. Palehosefan, The argument that they are treated great does not overcome the argument that they do not want to be there. You can be at the greatest hotel in the world but if you do not want to be there no matter how great it is, you are not going to really enjoy it. As for who will suffer I can not predict that. You are all saying how great it will be to get Odin, etc, but what if in his first practice he suffers a career ending injury. He may lose a million. Of course you can not predict injury, but at the same time the NBA can not make the argument they are preventing injury. Injuries happen, there are a lot of people who had severe injuries even at the High School level who were prevented from going farther. As for why the NBA is losing fans? Its because basketball players are so unappealing its almost impossible to watch them. Most of them seem to play for a pay check and show up when they feel like it. Personally I think this will make college basketball less enjoyable for me. I watch Wisconsin basketball, they do not have all the flashy players of UNC, but they play a team game and play hard defense. They win because they get players to red shirt, to stay for 4 years, and to take advantage of the fact other teams are filled with freshman and sophmores. Why will college basketball be any better when you have a bunch of freshman going out and trying to get a contract? They are not going to learn fundementals, they are going to try and go out and put up numbers so they are picked first. And coaches will be severely undermined, instead of having all the players want to be there, you are going to have some who do not care. It just is ironic though that many of the NBA's most marketable stars did not go to college, yet they think some how this will solve a problem. And I know that it may not affect many people, maybe it will only affect 1 person ever. But you do not make rules on how many people it may or may not impact. And the reason I do not agree with this, is I do not believe that any arbitrary rule should ever be able to deny a person an opportunity that they wish to seek. SB

Qwerty, Think about how many pitcher arms are blown out in college or the minors who could have potentially been great players. As for the NFL, I think that it would be self regulated. Teams are not going to put millions into an 18 year old that they are not sure about. Think about how when a NCAA player transfers to the NFL, if they are considered small at the NCAA it kills their stock no matter how good they are. So if a HS player is small, very few teams would even look at them, let alone put high draft pick. It would only be a supremely gifted player like Mcpherson from Ok, who would have a shot to really be drafted that young. Right now Adrian has nothing to gain at the college level, he would have been a first round pick, he can just as easily improve his stock as hurt it. But unlike the real stock market, he can not sell his stock at its height, he has to wait. It could cost him millions. Rex, I do not disagree, what is best for the NBA in terms of money, is that they have the least risk as possible. By having kids go to college you weed them out. The ones who can not take the pressure, the ones who can not handle the fame. The ones who let the hype get to their head, etc. Those who can survive 3 years of college, have much less risk than those who have only had success at the HS level. Some of these players may have only put up great numbers for 1 season, and a team is having to base a multimillion dollar investment into it. Of course the NBA wants to protect the owners. And as you said, the NCAA is free publicity for the NBA. The NCAA markets the players, the players are paid 0, and everyone benefits. The players are given a college degree, although even 3 years would mean only the Jay Williams and Vince Carter's of the world would graduate. It is not that I do not think there are benefits for raising the age, I just think those that benefit are the ones that need it the least. Will my life really be better if the NCAA and NBA have a little better competition? Do owners like Mark Cuban or Reinsdorf really need the extra insulation? Or are the people that need it the most, the people everyone else is saying they know whats best for? I mean look at Lee Evans. He decided to stay at Wisconsin because he was a good guy, etc. He goes out in spring practice and wrecks his knee. Luckily for him he was able to eventually come back, but he risked millions on those 2 years of college. And yes it is admirable, yes an education is a very important thing. But why do most of us go to college? It is not because we are going there to expand our mind. We go there so that we can get a job that we want or that pays the most. These people have the chance to have a dream job without having to go to college, I say more power to them. There are plenty of very successful American's who dropped out of college, and most of them were not being offered millions of dollars in contracts, (Gates, Dell, Jobs, Geffen, Huizenga, Turner). Here is an interesting article from the Princeton Review on who college is right for, notice they do not think it is right for everyone... http://www.princetonreview.com/college/res...shouldyougo.asp SB

Well this argument should not be about what you want, but instead what the people who it affects want. How can you count how many High School players have made it and how many have not? How many college players do not pan out. I mean there is a significant risk in both. Do you think baseball should not be able to draft players at 18? Teams should be able to control their own destiny. If they want to take a player at 18, maybe he will be the next KG or Lebron, or maybe he wont be. But the same could be said about a whole bunch of college players each season. For every Jordan there is a Sam Bowie. Teams have the choice, players should have the choice, and injuries will happen at all levels. You could even argue that in the NBA they would have better medical access. Not only that, but teams are generally not very willing to just burn out their best youngest players. The only reason the NBA wants to regulate who can enter is because forcing them to play a year in NCAA gives them a free look and better chance to make a wise decision. IE They are risking players careers so that they can save money. SB

Players like Kevin Garnett who wanted to go to college but did not have the ACT scores to get into UNC will not play JUCO when they can make a million playing in Europe for a year. And if I was a European club, I would pay through the teeth to get a player like Lebron for 1 or 2 years. The guy is one of the best in the NBA already, imagine what he could do for a European franchise. I also do not think it will impact the NCAA significantly as for every Carmello Anthony, there are hundreds who make little to no impact as a freshman. And its not about needing the money, its about risking millions of dollars to play for $40k worth of schooling. If you are injured when you play in the NCAA, you could ruin your entire career with out recieving any compensation besides for a college education. And while that is great and all, most college graduates do not make $20million in a lifetime (50 years of working at $400k per year not counting taxes), let alone in one season. If I were an 18 year old basketball player who felt they would be drafted in the top 10 out of High School and was presented with 2 options: a) Go to college for 1 year, make 0, and then go to the pros. Or B) Go to Europe for 1 year, make $1mil, and then go to the pros. I would have to say choice b is the best option. You can always go to college if you have the money, and if you make $1mil (subtract $200k for college), you are left with $800k profit, versus the 0 you make playing for the NCAA. The injury risk is the same, and as the NBA draft has shown, if you are good enough it does not matter where you play, you will be drafted high. Once again just my opinion, but if at 18 I was offered $1mil a year, I would not have gone to college. SB

I think that you will see more 18-19 year olds head for Europe to play for a year or 2 and then come back. If you want the money, you do not have to play in the NBA. I am against any sort of age limit on all sports, as it should be up to the team and the player to decide what is best for them. If Microsoft wanted to hire an 18 year old and pay them $10million, you would not see IBM try and make the US create a law that says you have to be 19 before you can be a computer programmer. ::shrugs:: There is really no reason for this rule, and I hope it burns the NBA with some of the best young talent going over seas. SB

Timo has to be happy to be making $1mil a year. I mean come on Timo makes $1mil to sit around and watch baseball games. Id sit on the bench for less than minimum wage. Sb

Frank needs to start if he is healthy. The reality is, Frank Thomas at his best is so much better offensively than any other player on our team, so we need to see what he can do. Everett has played a lot of games and if you look at his history, he has never been a guy to go 150+ games. Prior to the season I did not think Everett could do more than Gload. But, the White Sox need to realize that they have a very good chance at making the playoffs this year. Right now if they go .500 I believe they win 93 games, the winner of the Central has not won over 93 games in the past 2 seasons. Carl is only $4mil, they should keep him try to get him as many AB as possible, with Frank as the full time DH. Nothing against Carl, he has done great this year, but Frank is Frank. SB

He is a Cubs fan, but he probably had the choice of seeing the Cubs or Sox and chose the Sox. Eventually it will not only be celebs making that choice if we keep winning. SB

These threads are so stupid. Split AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB HBP SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS June 47 13 17 1 0 4 8 8 0 9 0 0 .362 .455 .638 1.093 PK sucks trade him, he has the audacity to be a human and feel sorry for a player. OMG he must die, he tried to be nice to Clayton and say that some times everyone makes mistakes. Lets lynch him, or trade him. Guess it is true, nice guys do finish last. SB

Yep just got Brazoban in a league I play in where I needed some saves. Score for me. SB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I#Ar...risoners_of_war Here is Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, the exception is included in there. The important part is: ***Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly: *** And no, the prisoners being held at GITMO have not had a trial like the Nazi's in your case. If the GITMO prisoners had a trial and were convicted that would be a completely different argument. The Bush administration is arguing that they can hold and detain them indefinitely with out charges. SB

Nuke, Also there is an exception under the Geneva convention for not having to always be uniformed. If you look under the specific articles of the Geneva convention it should be there. And this is the real argument, how they should be classified. The internment of Japanese American's really has nothing to do with this. And it has been ruled unconstutional as well. Winodj, Because the people who believe in GITMO do not believe that they are changing their standards. They believe that this is the way it should be, just as many believed that slavery was correct, or seperate but equal. In each case people had opinions that reflected their standards. I will not be so quick to try and judge some one for their standpoint, as perhaps my position will eventually become the one that was historically incorrect. I can only try and defend the position I believe true, to the best of my abilities, and hope that what I believe is right. SB

And your argument is in direct opposition to your statement that they are illegal enemy combatants. The people here are tried in the law of war. The United States is explicitly taking the position that the prisoners of GITMO are not soldiers, or part of a war. Because if they were to be tried by the law of war, they would fall under the Geneva Convention. Therefore if you want Quirin to be precedent, you have to argue that they would now fall under Geneva Convention protections. SB