southsideirish71

This is a great quote with everyone getting into a bunch over losing prospects in trades.

QUOTE(Steff @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 10:51 AM) Hu...?? He can't even hold a conversation with 95% of the team and staff. Good grief.. Oh how I wish Crede had caught that damn ball. :headshake Oddly this Tejada character seems to have a real good glove. And he can also hit for average, drive in runs, and has power and wants to win. Why oh why would we want that.

Don't know if this has been in the endless pages of this thread. But if that Yankee money is coming back towards the sox to balance out the fiscal requirement, this is becoming a better deal by the minute.

QUOTE(Mercy! @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 04:42 PM) Can you provide any facts from any recognized source to back up your “complete disagreement.” Let’s start with the basics first. What do you disagree with in the statement below? I wouldn't use the pyschiatric definition of pedophilia or age of consent. This of course is the same group that testifies in court that Subject X is cured of his pedophilia urges and can be released into society, then a few months later Subject X is arrested for the disappearance of Victim B a 13 year old boy who is dead in the trunk of Subject X's car. Sorry I go by the guidelines of the Illinois Comipled Statutes Criminal Code. This is the criteria we used to use to arrest these types of filth. But based on the guidlines you had posted the 45 year old man who has sex with a 14 year old boy is not a pedophile. I guess the priests are off scott free. I would disagree with that statement. My favorite quote in what you posted is "Pedophilia generally is treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy". In their mind they think they can use some therapy and some drugs and the pedophile will be ok. So take your prozac and you wont want to jump jimmy down the block. It doesnt work that way. Remove the creature from the society and never allow them around children again.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 04:26 PM) Edgar Davids doesn't play anymore does he? Its the glasses man. Thats what gives him super powers for Oranje.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 04:22 PM) Thank you, Kenny. Garland and Young for Vazquez would be retarded. So the deal is going to happen soon

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 03:51 PM) There goes my theory about Macs. Running Virex (free thru ISU) and it's run into 2 trojans. No system is secure out of the box. But it also doesnt help that you are at school. Universities are open warefare from a malware/security point.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 03:44 PM) Protesting? So while Israel is smoldering, we start an investigation? I don't think anyone would fire nukes back at Iran for fear of killing people in nations that are trying to "democratize" (Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind), but it would be a full scale ground and air war on Iran...and I don't think too many Islamic nations would come to their aid. Hatred of Israel or not. Actually my personal view is that if they use nukes, we make them into the biggest parking lot in the middle east. See if the sand will turn to glass. But trust me, if Israel is glowing and we start to build up to go to war with Iran. People will protest. Michael Moore can do a documentary on how the evil americans came to Israels aid.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 02:56 PM) How much better would they have looked if they had the last years money for two more years? Buehrle through say 2009 at $10 million a year would be a HUGE steal, same for Garcia at $8 million. Heck the first few years Contreras deal was horrible, now he would be looking at $10 million a year for the finish he had. There are plenty of examples of the albatross contracts also.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 02:45 PM) From one of my favorites: You're that smart? Let me put it this way: have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Yes. Morons.

Some of the best work you have done so far SF1. Very nice.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 01:15 PM) An attack on Isreal *IS* an attack on the US according to agreements in place and well understood throughout the world. If its an allegedly coming from "Al Queda". Who do we nuke. Before we detonate Nuclear weapons over a country we will need proof like nothing else. I can see it now. A B2 drops a 1 megaton nuke on Tehran. They might deserve it, however how many people would be protesting it.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 10:57 PM) You know, now that I think about it, it's gonna bea tough for anyone not to pick Brazil. As long as they have Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, and Roberto Carlos....they'll be tough. Ronaldinho is arguably the best player in the world right now. But playing in Germany, Germany will be a favorite to with Oliver Kahn mining the net. It's gonna be a great World Cup. Oliver Kahn has had so many personal issues and is not the same GK that he was in the last WC. Ballack is good and all, but they do not play the creative football that the Brazilians play. The Brazillians have so many guns, Kaka/Ronaldo with Ronaldinho creating havoc is pretty nasty. The Brazillians have to be the favorites. The dutch are my dark horse for going to the finals.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 01:05 PM) 11-15 4.47 ERA Todd Ritchie 2001 29 years old 11-15 4.42 ERA Javier Vazquez 2005 28 years old Pretty scary huh? What was the Counts record and ERA before he became game 1 starter of the WS for the White Sox.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 12:51 PM) The response comes from us, comes from Great Britain, probably even France (despite the state being traditionally Anti-Semitic) and it comes so immediately, the Iranian government wouldn't have time to deny it or even regret their decision. Okay, so an atomic bomb detonates inside of Israel. The world reacts, the news presses jump at it. Panic sets in. Then 10 minutes later a video of a masked man speaking Farsi with a picture of the flag of Palestine calling for Jihad and that the will of Allah has been commited and says they are the Jihad Warriors of the World and they are alligned with Al Queda. So do you think that after we obliterate Iran, that a lot of people might get miffed that we jumped too soon. That it could of been terrrorists. Maybe they got their weapons from North Korea, or from the black market from "missing" nukes in the former Soviet Union. Who knows. But before we take retalitory action there would have to be proof beyond a worlds reasonable doubt. Remember also this is not an attack on the US. So technically how are we justified to respond with nukes on Iran. It can become cloudy.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 12:42 PM) But this is a state to state relationship. I find it unlikely that Iran would give its nuclear weaponry away to a non-state actor that they can not control. The risks are too high. If Iran is the only other nuclear power besides Israel, they know that a nuclear detonation in Israel means the end of Iran. Because A+B will equal close enough to C that so many people will rain fire down upon Iran that not even China would dare to step in. States have no problem giving away guns and small bombs to terrorist organizations because they know that they can always top them. But to give them your best firepower would be stupid - because what if they turn on you? As awful as a nuclear Iran would be for the region, it may lead to some stabilization. Iran wouldn't have to fear a US attack as much and could focus on either pressuring its neighbors to sway the way of Iran or focus on fixing the problems within its own society. The US doesn't want Iran to go nuclear - not because it fears an attack on Israel but more likely because it fears what would happen when/if that government falls apart. Will it be controlled like in the Soviet Union? Or will it be chaos like Iraq? The Soviet Union would be a not-so-good but best available option. Iraq would be a nightmare. The US would then actually have a vested interest in keeping some degree of military order and status quo in Iran and that does not taste well to any American government. It doesnt work that way. They could denounce the attack. Its not like Matlock would be out in the desert taking samples looking for reactor signatures. They could also claim that it was stolen. Plus it really doesnt matter. The minute that the Israelies attack Iran its over. The rest of the Islamic world will turn on Israel and attack as they would believe that the Jihad is here. Plus how big is Israel. How many Atomic bombs would it take to wipe it off the face of the earth. If you get the right amount of weapons inside, what is the response?

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 12:34 PM) The thing that confuzzles me most is: If our rotation can win a world series as is- why worry about 2007 right now? I understand as a GM you have to look down the road, but why do this trade now? If we are struggling and are not in 1st place by the deadline- than pull a trade. Kind of like the Loaiza-Contreras deal. I wouldnt assume that just because one year team A won the world series that the rotation of team A is the same next year. Garland or others could regress/get better. But the other teams we face could get better/regress. If the BoSox get Clemens. Facing Beckett/Clemens/Schilling could be a bit different that what we faced last year. It could be harder for us, it could be easier. One year doesnt translate success to the next year. See previous champions.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 12:34 PM) Not that I'm saying anything about the case - this kid was molested and the dude ought to be in prison - regardless about how old the kid was. The kid was harmed by what happened to him and the priest ought to be punished, severely. But let's have a little perspective. In a lot of states the age of consent is 16. If someone dates a person that's 15 years and 364 days - does that make them anymore of a pedophile then if they date someone one day over that invisible line? The age of consent should be at the minimum 17 but I think 18. The age of consent for a lot of items has to be enforced to the letter of the law. I think the sicko who wants to date the 16 year old can wait the one day to molest(I mean date) the 16 year old. If you start to open up the grey areas then how far do you go.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 12:27 PM) :banghead 07? if we get vazquez? uhhhh bmack...mark.....garcia.....vazquez....and resign contreras I cleared it up. I was saying if we stay put and try and resign Jose and Jon and fail at both. Remember the price tag on pitching is silly now.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 12:22 PM) And why do we want to take a chance with a guy like this? The Loaiza for Contreras deal was not a 'big' risk. But trading a sure thing in Garland for a question mark is scary. Even if it is the last year of his deal. Just ride the wave to another title and go from there. And in 2007 you have if you lose Jon and Jose due to FA. Buerhle Garcia Bmac ? ?

QUOTE(Mercy! @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 11:31 AM) May I interrupt to point out that the 34 year old sex offender in this particular case was not a pedophile according to all the evidence available in the news articles? My understanding is that there is a very big difference between adults who fixate on and abuse prepubescent children and those who abuse adolescents. The former have an extremely poor prognosis, while the latter may have a far better chance for a meaningful cure. I completely disagree with this. A pedophile is someone who molests children. If a person is underage then they are a minor and are protected the same as any child. Do you know that some pedophiles use the fact that if the 9 year old has breasts and has a period that she is a woman. Some other pedophiles fixate on the prepubescent look and look at smaller children. Either way they are both wrong. Some 12/13 year olds look like 18 year olds because they develop early. They should be afforded the same protection as the 12 year old that looks like a 12 year old. Because emotionally they are still a 12 year old. If you are attracted to children then you are out of touch with the rest of society and shouldnt be around children.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 11:40 AM) I guess the question to me is, do the pols in Iran mean what they say when they say that it is the obligation of Muslims everywhere to fight a holy war to slaughter the Jews and reclaim the homeland of Palestine? Do they really believe that their spot in heaven will be guarenteed by dying to rid the planet of Jews. Judging by the actions of Iran, and the Muslims who are dying in suicide attacks, I think it is definately credible to think that Iran would attack Israel if they had the capability to hit is with atomic/nuclear weapons. Plus its not like an ICBM will be launched from the sovereign nation of Iran letting the world know that they did it. Maybe a truck gets smuggled into Israel from Lebanon/Syria from Hezbollah. You know the guys that Iran has been arming for years with rockets, missles, and guns. Yes made in Iran and all. That truck drives the bomb into Israel and mushroom cloud time. The Iranians are happy as hell, and they can deny that it was them. With terrorists and terrorist regimes the laws of war dont exist. Armies wearing a flag or uniform dont meet on the battlefield. A truck with a warhead drives into a town square and then a flash of light and its over.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 11:36 AM) I'm not advocating the deal, I'm just citing what would happen. So we're still not on the same page. Damn you

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 11:33 AM) No, then you swing a deal where you trade Garland for something of value in a seperate deal. As usual you are completely lost. Its scary when you and I are on the same page on this. LOL

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 11:31 AM) So lets just say we do trade Duke and Young/Sweeney/Owens for Vazquez. Mark-Freddy-Jon-Count-Vaz? I would say Jon or the Count would be traded after that move. Bmac would be in the rotation as a very economical number 5.