sircaffey

QUOTE (woods of ypres @ Nov 3, 2013 -> 11:17 PM) For people clamoring over Granderson, just remember Granderson is coming off of a wrist injury which will likely zap him of his power. In 2012 when he was healthy, his OBP dropped down to .319. In 2011, and 2012 he had a negative DRS. So, were going to pay Granderson, I assume to be, over 10M a year to play bad defense, not get on base, and not hit for power? Pass. He did not have a wrist injury.

A 2 yr deal to Granderson could turn into a nice tradeable asset. Exactly the type of the deal the Sox should be looking to do.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Nov 2, 2013 -> 11:29 AM) Are you suggesting the book has already been written about a guy with 224 career ML innings? No, I am simply not buying into the top of the rotation hype some people here are throwing around for Hector. I think he can be a very good RP or decent #4/5 SP.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 2, 2013 -> 11:25 AM) His BB/9 was 5.1 in 2012 and 4.3 last year, and his numbers got worse during a few starts in the 2nd half when he was clearly tiring out. lol. I guess going from completely awful to just really awful is an improvement. So because Hector walked 40 and not 34 in 2012, you are concluding that his control got significantly better in 2013? Hector lacks the fastball command that all good SP have.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 2, 2013 -> 11:14 AM) And it's worth stressing more specifically than you did...this is exactly the flaw you'd expect from a guy who kept getting put into the bullpen and didn't have a chance to work on controlling his offspeed stuff. He's always had horrible control. How many years until you accept that it's not going to get much better?

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 2, 2013 -> 01:48 AM) So we don't want to get to 80 wins after winning 63 ? Are we supposed to win 70 then 75 then 80 then 85 in your plan then compete in the 5 th year ? It's about timing. The timing is not right to lock in a $120 million contract. The organization is simply not ready to optimize such an investment. You sign him now, and when the Sox are actually ready to seriously compete he's past his prime and a drain on payroll. It would be a hindrance. You wait and when the organization has developed enough of it's own players, then you sign that high priced free agent in his prime. Ellsbury would absolutely hinder the Sox's chances going forward, IMO.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 05:30 PM) Then there should be zero motivation to trade him. Oh please. No one's giving up an elite prospect like Martinez for him. But maybe you can get a top 100 guy and a couple of interesting team top 20s.

A deal doesn't make sense for the Cubs, but I would totally send Sale their way for Baez, Soler, Edwards, and Bryant. The Cubs would be better off sending Soler, Edwards, and a couple low levels prospects for Price though and signing him to an extension.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 10:07 PM) Aside from the fact you cherry picked data from the weakest and least scientific link I posted, I like that you ignored "light bodybuilding" is ranked higher than "competitive athlete". Nobody here is a professional athlete, a bodybuilder, or even a light bodybuilder...so any recommendations you give should be tailored properly to the audience in question. I'm adding mass with ~0.60 grams per kg, but of course genetics has something to do with that. Reading between the lines, you asked for science, I delivered science, complete with authors and references in the other links provided. I read that post you linked, and her recommendations for most people fall exactly in line with the research I posted, and her recommendations for "bodybuilders" were way over the top...but you seem to forget that nobody here is a professional or even an amateur bodybuilder. Also, keep in mind that person may have a bit of education on this (bachelors, I looked her up), but PHD's with far more experience, backed by clinical studies disagree with her, as cited in the links I posted (not to mention the thousands on Google I didn't post), which aren't just random posts, but backed by the scientific evidence you requested. If you are trying to add muscle to your frame, then you are a bodybuilder. That's the definition. Anyways, I am just looking for science behind the protein needs of someone who is looking to add muscle by lifting heavy weight vs someone who is just active. Maybe I missed it in the articles, but the amount of muscle tissue breakdown between a jogger and a heavy weight lifter is much different. Thus, they have different protein needs. Just curious how much that is. Not trying to argue. We're all friends here. Agree to disagree.

Those aren't the same things. Those are recommendations for normal healthy adults, not adults trying to add muscle mass, which SoxFan1 appears to want to do. The last link you gave suggested .85 per lb for "light bodybuilding", but fails to define light bodybuilding. Up from 0.6g per lb for just active people. So what's throw around heavy weight 4 days a week? Probably close to 1. http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=156380183 An informative post on calculating macros in bodybuilding. It suggests a range of 0.9g - 1.35g given different factors. There's a big difference in building mass vs just staying fit.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 07:28 PM) You didn't, I was merely commenting...I wasn't saying you were wrong, though 1gram of protein per pound is way in excess, 1 gram per lean pound is more realistic, but still overshoots the mark for most, by a lot.. Where does science prove that 1g per lb when attempting to build mass is way in excess? I am genuinely interested in reading it.

Pirates 5yrs, $55 mil

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 08:49 AM) A lot of advanced gym goers do and say a lot of things, and despite scientific evidence proving their beliefs and opinions wrong, they hold onto these beliefs and opinions as if they were a religion. I was guilty of this first hand, for a long time. Using science, we can determine that certain basic supplements help...such as protein. There is no argument that protein works, and science backs this claim. Of course, too much will always be bad, or useless, but the same can be said of too little. Now, that said, science has repeatedly shown that vitamins and mineral supplements don't do much of anything at all, except fill in the gaps from a poor diet, and anything extra is discarded. In a healthy eaters diet, that would probably mean upwards of 99.9% of it is wasted, and unnecessary, or even bad for you. The best part is, you can take that same search, change it to "vitamins are good for you", and the results remain negative, because of reasons ... like science. But, that won't stop the multi-billion dollar vitamin industry from convincing you that you need to OD on vitamins, and further, despite the evidence, it won't stop many of you from taking them anyway. The only time they're necessary/good for you, is if you have a deficiency of some sort, which should be solved with a better diet, or with supplements in the event of a medical condition. Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like I was talking about Vinny the meat head. I meant people that actually understand the industry. There's definitely a lot of bro-science out there.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 01:01 AM) After a little bit of research, It looks like I should be shooting for 3500-4000 calories a day with ~200 grams of protein, 340-360 grams of carbs and 200-220 grams of fat per day. I'm going to do some grocery shopping tomorrow and load up on chicken, ground beef, whole grain bread, oats, peanut butter, bananas, pasta, and eggs. I've used and seen others have success using a guesstimate for maintenance level calories as 16x body weight (for men) given that the person is in decent shape (~17ish% body fat) w/ moderate daily activity. Adjusting around this, +/- 3 to add/lose weight. Using this, a 200 lbs man would maintain weight with around 3200 calories, lose weight starting at 2600, and add weight at 3800. At least when starting on a regimen. Just an estimate, but I have found people seem to find it reasonably accurate. I think you'll see most advanced male gymers go with at least 1g per lb for protein even though some claim you don't need that much. I think you may be a little low on carbs and high on fats personally, but this is no exact science.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Oct 5, 2013 -> 02:06 AM) The only thing that changed was starting work again - meaning an additional two (or so) miles of walking a day, and less food. It's just water and glycogen loss. When you reduce calories the body will turn to glycogen storage for energy. For every like gram or so of glycogen that the body stores, it stores multiple times that in water. Your increase in activity coupled with eating less had a doubling effect on this. This accounts for most of the initial gain/loss in weight that people see when they bulk up or cut down. Up your food intake and this weight should pop right back up really quickly.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 03:30 PM) I get super weak sometimes during and after workouts, protein shakes with carbs really save me from having a hard time and possibly passing out. I'd look into pre and during workout nutrition. It's more important than post workout.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 3, 2013 -> 04:40 PM) For me, I need to take carbs+protein after a workout because I need to be full and the protein helps me with that. I've also found that the added protein helps me with soreness. Some people just drink a shake and s*** it all out immediately. Seriously. Strength training makes us more sensitive to protein synthesis. Consuming protein itself increases protein synthesis and slows protein breakdown (the net determining the ability to create muscle). Nutrient timing has been researched to death though, with nothing proving conclusively that there are added benefits to protein post-workout. There are people on both sides of the argument however. It does seem to make a little sense to me given the above information, so I will continue to do it. At the very least, it ensures that your body does have enough protein to do work. Plus it's a liquid meal which is digested within an hour whereas a solid meal takes 2-3 hours.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 1, 2013 -> 12:11 PM) The only time is's actually useful is if a person has a very strict, nearly protein free diet, which is very very rare, and usually means vegetarian or vegan, and even then, they tend to eat a LOT of soy based proteins. Who says consuming protein with carbs post-workout is not beneficial?

Blowing 70 mil on McCann would be a huge mistake. He's a complementary player who, much like Alexei, by themselves do not make a team markedly better. I really hope Hahn stays realistic and goes bargain hunting ala the Pirates. Patience Rick.

The GOP is an embarrassment right now.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 03:46 PM) How so? The U.N. Charter explicitly makes military action against member states illegal without the support of the U.N. Security Council. It doesn't give exceptions, it says that under all circumstances except when authorized by the U.N. Security Council, making war against a partner nation is illegal. If military action was to be legal in response to deployment of chemical weapons, it needs to be authorized by the Security Council The U.N. Security Council has shown no interest in supporting a U.S. war against Syria. By any reasonable definition, the U.N. Charter makes war with Syria illegal. At least in the cases of Iraq and Libya, the Bush and Obama administrations were able to get resolutions that gave them enough latitude you could make a case the intervention was legal. In this case, it is completely the opposite. Except in the case of self-defense. Then you need not have the approval of the security council. The UN Security Council in this case is just one big ole waste of time. Everyone knows it. Russia and China (Syria's 2 main allies) have vetoing power, and each have used it twice without even looking at the reports given to the council. Touching Syria with approval from the security council, in most any situation especially this one, would be almost impossible. So basically, any time France, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, or the US use their veto in the council, any act of force will be deemed "illegal." Pepe Le Pew could veto and the other 14 countries wish to approve, and it would still be illegal. However one might want to view the true legality of that, is up for debate I suppose, but Balta is right, it would certainly be illegal.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2013 -> 08:13 PM) If it makes Iran and Russia support the government more and accomplishes tasks on the battlefield it shows that the us is so isolated even gassing civilians isn't enough to get people to trust them. It pretty well shows that chemical waepons are fine to use. Unless the us is willing to overthrow Assad themselves. Because Iran isn't backing the US, it shows the US is isolated? Iran? Did you really expect them to support the US? 10 or 11 countries just signed a joint statement at the G20 calling for a strong international response. The US is certainly not isolated in their desire for action.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2013 -> 02:20 PM) And if he's already winning the war and the U.S. is unwilling to commit enough to change that fact, and the chemical weapons deployments have made a difference in the war, and the Russians and Iranians have pledged to replace anything the U.S. destroys, it pretty much does the opposite. Does the opposite of what?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2013 -> 12:04 PM) Air fields can be repaired in hours. Airplanes can't be replaced but this attack wasn't launched from airplanes. It was supposedly launched in an urban area by small rockets. Yes, but there's more to the strike than just punishing Assad. You can't stop small chemical rockets. It's to help ensure that the next one Assad launches isn't of greater size. Once there's a willingness to use such weapons, one must worry about how large he's willing to go. It's a threat to the US' and our allies' securities when you have a nut who has shown the willingness to use chemical weapons, who is capable of delivering the next one on a much larger scale. It's about prevention in this case.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 6, 2013 -> 10:19 PM) You don't actually believe the military when they say minimal collateral damage, do you? I mean its such a well known bold-faced lie I'm surprised the press report isn't in green. If Assad has one lick of brains he'll hide his good s*** in the middle of cities, naturally the rebels will do the same. The American military is lot known for giving a rats ass about civilians that are being used as human shields in those situations. Not that they should have to, you'd figure if we go out bombing we'd have reasons that compel us beyond making us feel good or enforcing international law by breaking it that would make those casualities acceptable. In this situation, yes there will be minimal collateral damage. This isn't like recent military objectives where humans were the targets, living in civilian areas. Assad can hide his small weaponry, that's not the target. The objective isn't to take away his chemical weaponry. It's to hinder his ability to use it in the future, and he can't hide the larger equipment needed to fire such weaponry (i.e. planes, air fields, launch equipment, etc.). Those are the targets, and hitting those will result in minimal collateral damage, absolutely.