YASNY

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 24, 2008 -> 02:02 PM) Among others. Bonds is the greatest of all time, just like the '72 Dolphins are the greatest of all time... Wait for it. It'll happen ................

The Cubs will contend, but it will be another year of heartbreak and frustration on the north side. They'll either choke it up to the Brewers, DBacks or Mets ... at some point. No World Series in Wrigley this year.

QUOTE(StatManDu @ Feb 25, 2008 -> 11:16 AM) Agreed and I wouldn't give that deal back. However, you have to wonder what that 77 team would have been like with Dent at shortstop instead of Alan Bannister and his league-leading 40 errors. 40 errors! Who was it that year that got so hot... KC? Anyway, Dent wouldn't have made THAT much of a difference. The Sox still wouldn't have won the division. The best thing about that team was just how much fun that was. In fact, that year is when the whole Na Na Hey Hey thing started.

I'll say this much about these two candidates, which of course is like saying the tallest midget, but when look at who was run or managed a multimillion dollar political campaign the best, Obama clearly stands head and shoulders above Clinton.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Feb 17, 2008 -> 12:06 AM) I don't care in the least little bit.. Bonds is the greatest player of all time Bonds couldn't hold Willie Mays' jock.

QUOTE(soxwon @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 01:21 PM) It's Da world famous, Da Reverand from two other Sox Boards. Surely you've heard of Da Rev? There are other Sox boards?

Although I hated it at the time, that Bucky Dent trade turned out pretty well for the Sox. Gamble was a huge part of '77 Southside Hitmen team, which was one of the funnest seasons to be a Sox fan. Hoyt was the ace and CY winner during the '83 winning ugly, division championship season who was traded after '84 for Ozzie Guillen. Of course, the trade payed off handsomely for the Yankees too, when Dent's HR sealed Boston's fate in that playoff game in Fenway.

QUOTE(JFields27 @ Feb 22, 2008 -> 03:36 PM) I liked 27 better too .. and its my favorite number That fact the 27 = 3*3*3 definitely makes it a cool number.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 12:02 PM) No, and I've been critical of Garland's inconsistency here in the past. I wasn't a fan of the trade for Cabrera because it put a gaping hole in the rotation in a year that we're supposedly still going for it. But I don't think that Garland is anything more than a #3 and I wasn't in favor of Kenny giving him another extension. There's something to be said for a #3 starter and Garland was above average in that role. Not a lot, but he was solid as a #3.

QUOTE(JoeCoolMan24 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 10:23 PM) Not sure if it was mentioned anywhere else, but Danks has learned a cutter, and appearantly its very impressive. It's being compared to Buehrle's cutter, and Fields took a few AB's vs. Danks today, and said that the cutter was "nasty" and even better than Danks had been raving about. God I hope this is for real. If Danks has mastered a cutter, then I really really feel good about him next year. With Floyd being praised beyong belief, Danks appearant "sick" cutter, and MacDougal doing really well, there is a LOT to be excited about these Spring Training games. I like hearing this kind of stuff too. But take it all with a grain of salt. This is almost a spring training tradition.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 08:28 PM) I like the goal, but it's a lotfy one, it probably won't happen but we'll see. Didn't Willie Harris make a crazy goal a few years back? That was one where his goal was to score the winning run in the clinching game of the World Series. Crazy.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 01:16 PM) I agree. And where does KW and his .218 career average get off being a GM? How the hell can Theo Epstein be a GM when he never even played in the major leagues. Same with the Texas hitting coach? Why does this board even exist. None of us have any major league hits or strikeouts or wins or saves, how the hell can anyone know anything without that? Because we are all smarter than the so called professionals. Haven't you figured that out by now?

QUOTE(JoeCoolMan24 @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 02:43 PM) Just for the sake of discussion, lets say, LETS JUST SAY, that..... Joe Crede comes out this spring and lights it up. He flashes great defense, his hitting tremendously, and is just better than he has ever played before. Meanwhile, Fields is still struggling with his glove over at 3B, and is misplaying easy balls. Do you trade Crede because his value it is as high as it was before the injury, or do you try and work around keeping Crede with this new found back, and maybe look at moving Konerko with Fields then to 1B (or LF and Swisher to 1B, Quinten/Owens to CF) or any other options that would keep Crede at 3B? You trade Crede. Pure and simple. Get what you can for him.

This is just lame.

I'm not big into college baseball. I do try and watch the games from Omaha. But I will follow this thread if it takes off.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Feb 17, 2008 -> 08:12 PM) The salesman was a scumbag. It's not funny any more. Just my opinion.

QUOTE(Brian @ Feb 17, 2008 -> 11:08 PM) Suntimes today made it sound like Wasserman has to fight for a roster spot. Who you crappin? I believe Wasserman would tell you the same thing.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Feb 17, 2008 -> 02:28 PM) IIRC the danger in Crede's surgery wasn't if it would take or anything like that, but rather the delacacy of the back that nerves could be damaged in the process or something along those lines. It appears he's OK. I really don't know how long Crede's back has been an issue. It is possible its been a problem his entire major league career, and possible he is now healthier than he has ever been. I think the White Sox will really regret letting him go if they get garbage in return. You've to keep in mind that Boras fully intends to take Joe into free agency.

QUOTE(chwhtsox @ Feb 16, 2008 -> 10:37 PM) A used cigar? I'll pass. But hey, seriously,

Congrats. Now where's my cigar?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 16, 2008 -> 09:50 PM) Of course, YAS, we all know that it is solely the United States government's responsibilities to do all and be all for all people, including to those who are not citizens of our country. Furthermore, all advances toward socialistic policies should be met with the upmost of open arms because it advances the thoughts of taking care of everyone for all things. No matter what percent of GDP, .103 or .1 or whatever it is, we need to do more. Clearly, if left to our own devices, we cannot cure everything on the planet earth, because it's SOLELY our responsibility. Thanks for straightening me out. I keep forgetting.

QUOTE(JFields27 @ Feb 16, 2008 -> 09:00 PM) whose watching Miracle on ABC ... great movie Thanks for the post. I would have missed it. What a great day that was!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2008 -> 03:28 PM) And if anyone actually bothers to do the math, they'll note that doing exactly as you say will move us from .1% of our budget going to foreign aid to having .103% of our budget going to foreign aid. Thus getting us that much closer to the goal. Before I jump to any conclusions here, what is your point?

QUOTE(bmags @ Feb 16, 2008 -> 11:48 AM) The supreme court is also the "head" court of appeals. If they have jurisdicition in an issue they can rule on it. And considering this deals with due process (i.e. does it apply fairly to all) they can rule on it. And considering this was a 7-2 decision, I doubt this is a very activist decision. And even so, this is clearly wrong to have crack singled out as somehow worse and cocaine not as bad, considering the racial divide. I'm with you, now. I wasn't questioning whether or not it was an activist decision. All I was curious about was the constitutional basis, because I was thinking that determining 'constitutionality' was basic reason for the existance of the SCOTUS.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 16, 2008 -> 11:41 AM) basically: black people like crack white/hispanics like coke because the sentencing for crack dealers is more strick, this is racial bias. Therefore, the SCOTUS decided that the sentencing judge will have discretion. That was PA's summation of the news, brought to you by Pfizer. Thank you. It makes a bit more sense now.