YASNY

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 01:40 PM) YAS, everything said in reply to this theoretical question is assumptions based on a whole lot of nothing. Its just a what-if. That's my point. You are stepping out saying Gore would have been so much better, but there is absolutely nothing any of you can base that on.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) I can't really make the call on the domestic side but it would be hard for me to imagine how Al Gore could have done any worse on the world stage. Here's your assmuption based on a whole lof of nothing. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 01:38 PM) For those of us who don't see BushCo's policies as having done much positive for the war on terror, it seems unlikely we would have seen any more 9/11's. Most of what Bush has done has only made us less safe, not more. (NOTE: I said most, not all) Economically, SS2K5, I agree - that is exactly what I was getting at. Some of Bush's financial ideas and the GOP Congress' policies were very helpful in the 2001-2003 period. Gore would seem to have been likely to do more poorly in that way, and that could have been really bad. This whole question is obviously full of assumptions. I voted for Bush in 2000. But in the philisophical realm, if I could go back and vote again, you'd better believe I'd have voted for Gore. We haven't had any successful attacks on us since. You are assuming that would be the case with Gore in office. I'm not willing to jump to that conclusion.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 01:17 PM) this quote is so much more hilarious because you don't actually say what that way is.... Think trampoline.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 01:32 PM) Well I don't really like making predictions based on "what ifs" so yes I'm making some leaps of faith. It sounds to me like you are making pedictions on 'what ifs'.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 01:14 PM) I'll agree, and narrow it even further. Gore may have struggled economically to get things done right. But on the world stage, and on domestic issues of social or environmental nature, we'd be far better off. Who's to say we wouldn't have had 5 more 9-11's since then if Gore was in office. You guys are make making some hellacious assumptions based on a whole bunch of nothing.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 01:06 PM) Whether or not he's better would depend on exactly how much not-any-speed he has to go along with his superior technique. According to Baseballmusings, Mackowiak had a slightly better out ratio in CF than Williams had in RF last year. Williams ranked as 2nd worst RF, ahead of Burnitz. Mackoviak ranked at 5th worst CF ahead of Griffey, Lofton, Bautista, and Cory Sullivan. I doubt the move back to CF would improve Williams' #s. Also, this isn't going to happen. No way that Mack was better than Griffey of Lofton. Eyes are better than any defensive stats you can find.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 12:44 PM) I don't have a problem with giving him a chance in the big leagues, I just think that it would be better off for everyone involved to wait another season on him. The kid's only 21 years old right now, he'll be 22 in February. There is nothing wrong with letting him wait until he's 23 to reach the big leagues, especially given that the Sox have been watching him gradually develop a power stroke while they've had him. There is no reason to rush him. He may be better than Podsednik, but he's hopefully not going to be that much better, and he may be better than Anderson, but especially in 200 at bats, he's not going to be that much better, and just being able to take another year and get ready to move up will probably be the best thing even for his career, let alone the team. He can earn a spot in 2008 by having a good 2007 at AAA. And even If we don't lose JD after 2007, well, then he looks like an idea LF candidate or trade bait. Okay. Legit points there. It's just on this site, I see so many that don't want to give a rookie a chance with a 'World Series calibre' club and others that think it'll 'hinder their progress' to have them get 300 big league at bats. I just wonder how a kid gets a chance. But, your logic here is solid.

There's only one way to really test a mattress.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 12:36 PM) I would bet MacCowiak plays a better CF than Williams at this point, and is better offensively. Bernie doesn't have any speed, but he does know how to read a fly ball. No way Mack is better.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 12:34 PM) I keep him in Charlotte for 1 more year, hopefully giving him time to grow up and maybe develop more of a power stroke. If someone were to go down with a serious injury in the OF at midseason, I would consider him my first backup option. I would pencil him into my outfield starting in 2008. The only scenario where I would start Sweeney off in the big leagues next year, barring an injury, would be if JD were traded for a big package which made the whole team better for many years (which I still wouldn't rule out). So IF someone goes down with an injusry or IF we losew Dye next offseason, then you bring up Sweeney? How can a guy ever get a chance to prove himself as being big league ready unless there is some disaster?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 10:54 AM) Personally, I think that at his age, giving Ryan Sweeney 250 at bats in the big leagues is a much, much, much worse idea than giving Ryan Sweeney 500 at bats in the minor leagues, not to mention the arbitration issues. So how do you incorporate Sweeney into the big leagues? Do you give him a starting position where he'll get 550 AB's in Chicago? Do you keep him in Charlotte so next year the same scenario is in place? Just how do you do this?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 09:51 AM) Gotcha. Sorry to jump on that, but the last thing I wanted was people to think I was saying racism was the distinct territory of the GOP. That was sort of the opposite of my point - which is that its existence in both parties might cancel out the effect of a minority male running for national office. No apologies needed. It's all good.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 09:46 AM) When you are done hyperbolizing, read my post again. I was quite clear that racism against blacks in the GOP would be, in some form, cancelled out on the other side by racists on the left. In the case of a black man running for President, that means some small percentage of the GOP votes against him because he is black, but also, some small percentage of the Dems vote FOR him because he is black. Is that more clear for you? Both parties, whether they like it or not, harbor certain hateful groups in the fringes of their electorate. In the case of racism by whites against blacks or hispanics, yeah, like it or not, they are a lot more GOP than Democrat. You can not like that fact, but that doesn't make it go away. Similarly, there are fringes on the left that are so full of hate against the majority race or religion that they will vote against them purely for that reason. In BOTH cases, those fringes do not rule the party. But they are there. On subsequent posts, you did make that point. However, those posts weren't there before I posted.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 09:43 AM) But I guess he can still write a book, go on book signings and give interviews on CNN and such, thats not as strenuous for an old man as a debate would be. Carter sets hiimself up as an expert in writing a book, gets called on it by another person, and refuses to be held accountable. LOL. That's another good point. I think I'll observe for a while.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 09:35 AM) Are you really this dense? What you are missing is Carter is a worthy recipient, Bush is not in the eyes of the committee. They could have given it to Al Gore or Bill Clinton and really stuck it to Bush. If you will read the rest of the information on his receiving the award they looked at his body of work since leaving office, it wasn't solely on the Middle East talks. The fact that the committee viewed the efforts that Carter followed as being worthy of an award, while those actions that Bush has taken are not, is not the same as saying they gave the award to Carter to stick it to Bush. They held up Carter's efforts as being noble, Bush's as not. And y'all think an eighty year old man should stand up and debate, that is still laughable in my view. Reagan was too old when he left office, but you expect that from Carter. Good point, there.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 08:53 AM) I completely disagree. The 1% (and I'd say its actually more than that, more like 5% or more) of the population that simply won't vote for a black man is NOT the swing vote - those voters will vote GOP, or maybe 3rd party, almost all of the time. So Obama doesn't suffer for that. Powell might have, though. The far right fringes, where racism is most prevalent, wouldn't vote for any democrat in any case. The swing votes, America's socially moderate, are far less likely to be driven that way. As for sexism and Hillary on the other hand, I think the fear of a female President would exist on that far right fringe, but ALSO exist in other segments of the population. She suffers at the swing much more than a racial minority would. Have you read much on Powell? Or read anything he has written himself? Because I have. I don't doubt for one second his wife said that. Powell was lacking in political prowess and mindset to be sure. He is a statesman in the pure sense. If he lost, that is what would have made him lose. The few percent on the far right of his party (as stated earlier) would not have voted for him, but he would have picked up at least that many based purely on race from the far left in the black community. Wow! There are no racist Democrats.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 07:52 AM) And there-in lies the problem. Kenny Williams says that we can't resign these guys, which instantly turns into we don't WANT resign these guys. We have no idea of what has gone on behind the scenes, for all we know Kenny called Mark and asked him what he was looking for in an extention, and once he said "7 years at $100 million" that was when KW realized he COULDN"T resign Mark. There are an awful lot of assumptions being made at this point, based on one small statement. Assumptions are the mother of all f*** ups.

The father of former NY Yankee shortstop Tom Tresh, if memory serves me here.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 12:01 AM) His parents must be so proud.

QUOTE(whitesox1976 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 01:10 AM) Does any one know when spring training starts? I'm in withdrawl without the Sox!! Pitchers and catchers will report on or about February 15th.

Same song. Different beat.

QUOTE(bschmaranz @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 11:59 AM) "She look-a like-a man" .... or .... Dude looks like a lady.

Buehrle has said he doesn't want to play for the Cards, unless it is at the tail end of his career. He believes it would be too much of an intrusion on his personal life and his offseasons, to be pitching for the locally favorite team.

QUOTE(TheOcho @ Dec 18, 2006 -> 03:44 PM) Don't think Stewart is at all ready for the MLB but besides that ... the signing of Hall is great and the Sisco move can turn out to be great for us. If Sisco does turn out to be something special, it would be oh so sweet. He would be a Cub castoff aquired for another Cub castoff.

Good luck to him ... and good riddance.