bmags

I didn't know this was going on. I say we withhold any further entries.

Well done.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 15, 2009 -> 08:42 PM) Especially when the state of Illinois could be looking at a billion dollar influx... Yes. But, even with that. I feel like we look at these lowlifes like they have superpowers, or something. I really doubt, if a play is made to release them, that just because the jail is off U.S. shores, this means the U.S. would not be hit in that "play." How many countries have needed an offshore jail for their most heineous criminals?

I really feel this "national security threat" is incredibly overblown.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 15, 2009 -> 09:17 PM) Then people need to STFU about what Fox practices outside of the newsroom. Fine. But I don't even know an example of what you are talking about?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 15, 2009 -> 06:25 PM) You write that as if it was one, and only one, pro-union piece that has ever graced the pages of the NYT. How silly. Yeah, there have been. It wouldn't change my point, that the original post's point is stupid. Are we to understand that a newspaper's ownership and management not only endorses, but practices every editorial message they publish? And then, so, is Bill Krystal pro-union?

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Nov 15, 2009 -> 03:57 AM) Yeah, this is why the United Center is more Wrigley Field than Chicago Stadium: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/blackhawks...khawks-fan.html article in summation: I can't spell I can't keep track of numbers I'm trying to act older and more hardened than I am Please think I'm funny Please think I'm funny Please think I'm funny

it's now 15 years after probably the greatest american documentary they is http://tinyurl.com/ydxcjv8

So they had an editorialist write a pro-union piece and now the times management, which is probably far, far removed from that, must only hire union workers. Another amazing post.

Your : "opinion" waiver doesn't do anything. And, also, a critical point, the problem with fox news isn't that it's "conservative", it's that it's republican. And that's a big difference.

Yeah, it was a pretty awful trade.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 13, 2009 -> 04:37 AM) And I will throw this out here Re:Albert http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...,7287484.column I saw that, but keep in mind who that was written by.

Hypothetically, if Jerry all the sudden popped the wrong meds and was like "Kenny, you got 200 mill to work with", what the hell would our team look like? That would be the rams.

I'm really enjoying Surfer Blood - Astrocoast. The fact that it's summer here helps it probably? I unno, I really like it though.

yeah. The city's love affair with its players along with pretty good revenue, I don't see the cardinals not re-signing pujols.

Yeah I don't see the point. I loved Let The Right One In. So creepy and happy and all kinds of weird emotions provoked. And the kids seemed like kids and not kids saying adult lines.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 05:52 PM) What his "Rejection" means is that he's not yet satisfied that he's been presented a comprehensive plan, and thus he's not going to put more blood and treasure on the line just yet. Which is an impressive move, if its true that the entire defense side was just basically saying "More troops" unanimously. I'm not sure where i saw this but I believe I read a key thing he wants is some sort of workable structure for the debacle that is the Karzai government, such that we're not just backing up a corrupt dictator with more troops. I can't complain about that line of thinking. This is what I was getting at. Karzai needs to make some major reforms as a sign of solidarity, like, stop profiting from the poppy trade.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 05:24 PM) Exactly, this "rejection" rumor doesn't mean we're pulling out of Afghanistan anytime soon. It also doesn't mean that we are pouring tons of troops in either. It's nice to see such a deliberative process with this - I get the sense that they are really trying to find a strategy that both works on the ground and for our soldiers out in the fight. I didn´t say that it meant we were pulling out, I said we SHOULD. BUT I think it does mean we are not going with a huge McChrystal surge, I think we realize it will just give Karzai some comfortable years before we retreat and he has his head chopped off. Or he chops off others.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:51 PM) It probably means adding 30,000 troops instead of 40,000. It doesn't mean we're leaving anytime soon. but the 30,000 troops plan was already the option on the table.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:07 PM) I think it would have to be that kind of deal, like the Haren deal sort of. I'd try to get Bell too, but I don't know if the Padres would want to package those guys. But we still could do 7 good prospects + 1 throw-in for Adrian alone and come away just fine IMO. Winning one WS title, or just making two consecutive deep trips into the playoffs, would really fire up the fanbase, increase ticket sales, and hike up our payroll while others are falling around the league. And because Adrian is sooo cheap contractually, we would be able to take advantage of FA bargains to fill out remaining holes on the team for 2010. After 2010 then more cash comes off the books just as Danks and Q start to get pretty expensive, and Adrian's deal would still allow flexibility. I understand. And, hypothetically, If rios really sucks, having Mitchell at least allows something to point to.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:25 PM) That's funny right there. But, really why trade away our strength. The way the offense is shaping up it will be pitching in 2010 or nothing I agree.

Eh, ESPN the mag is awful. Awful format. Awful writers. Trying too hard. I´ll take S.I., but i take neither.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:27 PM) In terms of overall depth Boston has us beat IMO, but in terms of impact prospects who are ready now I think we may have the edge, and if Boston doesn't want to include Buchholz, then we beat the s*** out of Boston there. Casey Kelly and Tazawa are in there too for them. But again, the Padres should be looking primarily at who is ready now. It also needs to be said that SP is an area of need for Boston more than Gonzalez would be, especially if Bay comes back, and I think they want King Felix a bit more. They may have reservations about dealing a ton of pitching for Adrian when they could deal pitching for a true ace. The Sox can offer something like this: Dan Hudson - slots in as their #2 behind Latos, right now Tyler Flowers - starting catcher, right now Dayan Viciedo - starting 3B, maybe even right now because they'll trade Kouzmanoff, but probably by midseason Jordan Danks - midseason 2010 starting CF, possibly earlier Nathan Jones - possible future closer candidate, would likely be up sometime in 2010 Then give them 2-3 of the following: Clevelan Santeliz - could compete for a 2010 spot Lucas Harrell - could compete for a 2010 spot Jon Link - could compete for a 2010 spot Johnny Nunez - could compete for a 2010 spot CJ Retherford - could start at 2B if they ditched Eckstein Charlie Shirek - could compete for a 2010 spot John Shelby - could compete for a 2010 spot Stefan Gartrell - could compete for a 2010 spot Christian Marrero - could compete for a 2010 spot Brent Lillibridge - could compete for a 2010 spot Carlos Torres - could compete for a 2010 spot Brent Morel Jon Gilmore Santos Rodriguez Miguel Gonzalez Charlie Leesman Steven Upchurch Nevin Griffith Gregory Infante etc. At this point I would want Heath Bell in the deal too, which would make a great deal of sense for us anyway, even if we don't trade Jenks. But the point is, the Sox can offer quite a bit, and certainly nothing that other teams would sneeze at. And I still believe that draining the farm for a bat like Gonzalez is acceptable, because you're draining it in exchange for a shot at a World Series title for two consecutive years. are you talking like a 7 for 1 deal? Theoretically if we did do that, I suppose we could get away with it. 1b Gonzalez is young, becks at 2b, ramirez SS, Teahan 3b. All not needed to be replaced immediately, Teahan though, would hopefully be. OF of CQ, Rios, and ?. Both are on the good side of 30. That leaves C with AJ, which I don´t worry about that much. I´m more interested now than I was. That is a pretty damn good package.

I´m very encouraged that Obama rejected all the options for afghanistan last night. I realize there will be bloodshed and women will be in terrible shape, but I really don´t think there´s anything we can do. That country is run by a drug kingpin, and that´s our best option? An afghan woman just met with the president to tell him that women´s rights are still being trampled on now. I don´t think he´ll have the balls to say we are withdrawing. BUt I don´t think a huge troop increase is going to happen.

Teahan probably won't produce more than Beckham did at third, or would at third. But will Teahan produce more than Getz would at second, I'd say yes. Nix? Yes. Will Beckham produce more than Getz would at second? Yes. Nix? Yes. So is getting better production at a position better than getting worse production at a position but keeping a future star? Yes, because we aren't moving Beckham off the team to start Teahan. He's moving to a position that arguably, and likely, the organization thought would be his best. And replaced him with a lesser player, albeit one that will produce more than the players Beckham is replacing.