YASNY

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 01:06 PM) HAHA. I also appreciate his input as an educated contributor on this site. I just do not take it to god-like status like some have. I think of my own profession and if there was a message board on it (which would be the most boring place ever) and if I was the only person in the front lines posting on the subject. Many would take my opinion and personal examples as gospel, which of course it would not be. My occupation is also based on performance and a what have you done for me lately mentality. Fair enough, Rock. Still, I'd hate to see some attitudes run him off.

He must have something working.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 12:58 PM) Ok. Reword it, whatever. Willis should be an upgrade over the crap they had in 4/5 spot last season and Bonderman/Robertson should be better after down years last season. So 60% of the rotation should be improved. Let me reword it this way for clarification purposes. We don't have Pods and Erstad. Uribe won't be starting. We've got a high OBP guy in Swisher, now. The heart of our order all had a down year in '07 and you'd have to expect some of them to get back to their career norms. As for Willis, I just don't believe the guy will have any success in the AL. I may be wrong and if so, I'll say i was wrong. But I think the AL hitters will rock his world.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 12:55 PM) Probably, but that doesnt say much. I've been impressed by Bureau's contributions to the site. I'm not saying he's the real deal, but I'm taking in what he has to say with an open mind and not trying to prove I'm more knowledgeable than him. And Rock, I'm not saying you are doing this ... but some sure seem to be. In fact, I'm concerned that Bureau might just say "f*** it! These guys know it all already. I'm outta here" due to the tone some have had toward him.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 12:53 PM) I wouldnt anoint someone's OPINION god-like when they are one out of hundreds of people who share the same job, and .00001 percent of them post on a message board. Just a thought. Then again, considering he is a professional scout, he probably knows a lot more than your average message board poster.

QUOTE(JoshPR @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 12:48 PM) Not only Sweeney, Brian Anderson too Brian has to prove to me he has his head on straight. I'll give him a shot to do so, in spring training, but the dude needs a serious dose of humility.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 12:46 PM) Yep. The Sox offense should be much better than last season even without the new additions and the Tigers rotation should be much better than last season even without the new addition. The Sox offense should be much better WITH the new additions. The Tiger's rotation? Hell, I don't know. But Dontrell Willis does not worry me.

QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 12:46 PM) One good point he made was that you only make a trade like this if-you have a realistic shot at contending (we don't) or if you have a deep farm system (we don't). I don't get the slurping of Schaeffer and Sweeney though. It sucks to lose DLS and especially Gio, but Sweeney is looking more and more like the next shaun burroughs. To be honest, I'm more upset about losing Sweeney than either of the the pitchers. I know I'm in the minority, but the guy is only 22 years old and has one helluva sweet swing. Don't want to argue the point though. Let's just wait a few years and see what happens.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 11:46 AM) Up until last season, Robertson and Bonderman were steadily improving each season in the bigs. They certainly haven't proven they suck. If these guys suck what the hell does that make Contreras who has been in steady decline or Danks/Floyd who have done jack s*** in the bigs? I love how some people point to other teams players and say they suck after down seasons, yet they are the same people pointing to some of the Sox players' down years as reasons why the Sox will be better in 2008. Which is it? Let's be realistic here. And then there's those people that look at Sox players after a down year and say they suck but opponents down years are reasons to expect them to rebound.

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 11:02 AM) Er no it has NOT been debunked just because you wish it so. 2005 Sox because of PITCHING, DEFENSE and SPEED. And I don't know what team you were watching but there were more games that I could count where we WON BY ONE RUN. Or threw the other team's rhythm off because of people like Pods on base. Or hit OPPOSITE FIELD. Or hit SITUATIONALLY. Or BUNTED. Yes we hit homers, so what? And nice strawman with the 2007 Sox being the kind of team I'm talking about. Pfft. I don't think so. That old, slow, station-to-station team had literally NOTHING to do with the kind of team I'm talking about, and you know it. My point was I'm tired of the feast-or-famine HR derby of 2004, redux, instead of playing smartball, Ozzieball, whatever it is. Sorry that you don't get that, but take your insults and shove 'em. Thanks. I wholeheartedly agree with you and let add some fuel to the fire. Having Pods on base, or the tendency to hit situationally and also bunting runners into scoring position .... well, all those things have an effect on the opposing pitcher. For example, instead of a guy starting an inning by getting a single and the pitcher has to pitch out of it, he would be facing a situation with a runner on 2nd and one out af a sac bunt ... that's IF the defense made the play on the bunter ... and now he's got a guy in the batters box who's trying to hit behind the runner to advance him. Now this pitcher is trying to pitch in such a way that the batter can't hit behind the runner, so he's being more careful, more worried about the location of his pitches and more likely to groove one because he's thinking instead of pitching. There is also more pressure on the defense because of the situation and also because of the fact they have to consider more options than lift and pull by the hitter. This has kind of turned into a ramble, but you should be able to get my drift ... I hope.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 12:46 PM) Ultimately, a lot of the oil pricing is speculation, no? The price of oil only touched 100 a barrel because one guy bought a small quantity at 100 to say he was the first to do so. Then he promptly sold it for a loss at 99.40.... (I think it was only a $600 loss on the $100 per barrel transaction). I read that on the internets this morning so it must be true. I don't doubt it at all.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 12:09 PM) And Fred says that is a lie to discourage voters and donations. http://blogs.iowapolitics.com/caucus/2008/...a-wont-end.html No! Surely you jest.

QUOTE(MHizzle85 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 12:05 PM) I'd recommend it. I was really into it, so much that I didn't realize that the movie was over 2 hours. Sounds good. Thanks. I'll have to check it out.

Has anyone seen "The Great Debaters"? I have heard that it is a great movie.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 11:26 AM) Getting way off topic now but what the heck... This isn't that complicated. The liberal agenda is that the rights of the individual to equal opportunity(not conidition) is paramount. This can be transferred to the health care issue in that everyone should have equal opportunity to health care with reasonable exceptions acceptable in a democratic country. I think some conservatives make the mistake of thinking that people of lesser means are neccessarily that way because they have failed in life for this reason or that reason. But not all people of lesser means are that way and deserve to be treated with dignity and humanity. Let's take the totally reasonable and realistic stance that the elite and the ultra rich are going get the best health care regardless of the system in place. If you have a national health care system, then the elits and ultra rich are only going to get richer because they are going to set the rules and they are going to set the rules to their advantage and profit. That's why communism and socialism has never worked. It will never, ever be a level playing field. Let the market set the standard, within limits of course. In fact, we need to reverse the current trend and get back to free market and a reduction of insurance to enable the poor to get back to a close level of reasonable affordable health care. What we currently have is a ripoff of the American people. Go to a national health care system and multiply the inadaquencies and injustices by tenfold, if not more.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 11:05 AM) Exactly. The NFL roster only has 53 players, so you can't just bench key special teams guys. I'm not sure what his name is, but I'm sure Indy has a special teams star like Brendon Ayanbadejo is for the Bears. Let's say the Colts call timeout there, and that guy obviously is out there on the punt, and he gets injured. The odds of that are low, but all of us who have watched sports a long time know it's possible. THAT is why you clinch that first round bye as early as possible like the Colts, so that risk isn't necessary. If Cleveland wanted to be in the playoffs, they should have beat that awful Cincinnati team in week 16. Simple as that. Let me put this another way, as a Sox fan. If the Sox clinch the division on Sept 20, I'm setting up my rotation to give me the best chance of winning the playoffs and the WS. I'm resting resting players who need rest and playing those guys who have been riding the pine that may need a few at bats to regain their sharpness. I don't give a rats ass who we are playing and how it effects some other teams playoff possibilities. I am looking to win it all and to hell with everybody else and their fans. And did I say f*** Cleveland?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 11:20 AM) I'm actually not criticizing that stance, nor the Dem one. Just pointing out that its not as simple as you painted it. I think most people realize that SOME things have to be handled by the government. SOME of those things are best handled at the federal level. Other things clearly are best left to private citizenry. The question really comes down to the handful of things that are in the fuzzy space between... health care, business law, etc. Those are the areas of contention - how much government involvement is good? In my opinion, the less the federal gov't is involved the better. I prefer things to be handled on the state level. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions to the rule ( see civil rights, for example) but, in general, that's where I stand.

Athomeboy and Northsidesox both used the word in their answer, but the key word coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire is Momentum. It's not a guarantee, but it can make or break a candicacy depending on the money and/or effort put forth by a particular candidate to win these contests.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 11:02 AM) To say that is "the liberal agenda" is like saying that giving more money to the rich is the GOP agenda. They may both be reflected in their fiscal policies, but I don't think everyone in either party is truly focused on that above all else. It may very well be the GOP agenda, but it's not the conservative agenda. To a certain extent, you have to have an incentive to be successful. If you take the stance of arbitrarily taxing the rich because they are rich, you take away all incentive for an entreprenuer (sp?) to acheive to the utmost of his capabilities. Now granted, there are those that will take advantage of a situation that is over indulgent of the rich. But a smart businessman will pass some of the benefits of success down to those who's sweat and brains helped him achieve that success.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 10:59 AM) I don't think I would go THAT far, but i think she would continue to divide the country. She can be very divisive (might be just perception, might be reality, i don't know) I don't want to find out. I might vote for Hillary over Hitler or Stalin, but at the moment I can't think of too many more who'd I'd choose Hillary over. Ok, I'll add Nero to the list.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 10:56 AM) Because after all, it's our government that should give us this stuff. Nevermind bettering yourself and getting to the place where you can take care of things... my government should do it for me. And that, in a nutshell, is the liberal agenda. It keeps the downtrodden voting for them. And, in turn, they keep the downtrodden downtrodden so they keep voting for them. Why do think they want all these illegal immigrants to have voting rights? It's all part of the scam.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 10:51 AM) Give me a break!! If Cleveland wanted to be in the playoffs, they should not have lost to a HORRIBLE Cincinnati team in week 16. Indianapolis earned that #2 seed and first round bye, and thus earned the right to do whatever the hell they wanted to on Sunday night. If you have nothing to gain by winning, you keep your best players on the bench once you feel they've gotten enough playing time to keep them sharp. As for the time out, if you lose a 2nd stringer, that could cost you a playoff game if your starter gets injured in a playoff game. I don't blame the Colts one damn bit. And as a Sox fan, let me add this: f*** Cleveland.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 10:41 AM) Hillary + Third = A VERY happy AtHomeBoy Hillary Death

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 10:30 AM) In the UK, they are pushing a plan whereby if you are a smoker, you go to the end of the already long line for related care. Also for fat people, and alcohol related issues. And the nanny state over there continues..... That sounds like universal health care to me. It must be a God send.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 10:07 AM) And by the way, Bloomberg says he won't run. Now, if only the other New Yorkers in the race would follow his lead.