AbeFroman

I don't mean to change the subject, but I have another scoring question for any umpires out there... I've been thinking about this for a while. How so they score it when a player is ejected for a corked bat. I was in a bar with some idiot cub fans when the Sosa play happened and I asked the question... nobody knew... Is it just the same as a fly ball to the pitcher? Anyone have any ideas?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 14, 2006 -> 03:21 PM) I would bet you that right now, if Zito for Milledge was available, the Mets would pull the trigger. I would also bet you that right now, that deal is no longer available, as the A's have dragged themselves back into first place, as they always do once it gets warm. They would only do it if Zito were tied up long-term (2-3 years). I don't think the mets would deal Milledge for a rental pitcher in Zito.... and since zito recently hired Mr. Scott "Test the Market" Boras, Zito is headed for free agency in the off-season. not to mention that the A's are still in it and won't be dealing Zito anyway. Personally, I think the mets are more likely to do the deal for Vazquez than Zito. And frankly its all irrelevant anyway cause I'm pretty sure they will keep Milledge no matter what... By the way, I wonder if Buster Olney knows how powerful he is: By merely mentioning a possible trade on tv today, he triggered a 175 post thread involving 44 separate posters in chicago... many of whom have been checking the tread all damn day...

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jul 14, 2006 -> 01:45 PM) This game can't start soon enough. My head is spinning from reading all the trade threads. Yup... when you don't play baseball for four day, the trade threads go nuts.

QUOTE(whitesoxin @ Jul 14, 2006 -> 11:39 AM) "Mark Prior has the best mechanics in baseball. He will never get injured." If I had a dime for everytime I heard that one in 2002

QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ Jul 14, 2006 -> 02:41 AM) I really hope this is the end of the "Eat s***" era... I'm really not crazy about the "eat s***" era either. Personally, I think those posts add absolutely nothing and just serve as gratuitous nonsense. Looking back at some of the "historic" threads from last year (WS, Clinching division, etc.), the eat s*** posts really lower the level of discussion. Frankly, when the sox won the world series, I was just so overjoyed it never even occurred to me to mock the astros, angels, red sox, etc. This is nothing personal against the individual who tends to post these most frequently... I just don't think those posts elevate the discourse on baseball very much.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Jul 14, 2006 -> 05:28 AM) I think you're wrong, Abe. If the President enjoyed immunity from civil suits while serving, Paula Jones could not have moved forward with her suit, Clinton would not have had to testify, the perjury trap would not have been sprung, and that whole mess would have been avoided. Except for the mess on the blue dress, of course. yup... I'm way off. completely wrong. I remembered from law school that the president had immunity... guess I should have checked my facts a little more carefully my apologies

I understand the many points made against my previous post. Frankly, I don't think it has much credibility either. I was kinda just posting it cause I think it made some logical sense.... Basically I am surprised as the large scope of Israel's military action. There has obviously been large/suicide attacks against Isreal before... And, its been no secret that lebanese, syrians, and iranians have supported those attacks in some way. WHILE I HAVE NOTHING TO BACK THIS UP IN ANYWAY, i do find the timing of the decision to blockade Beirut and destroy its airport unusual in light of the fact that Israel has never take such decisive steps before when faced with terrorism supported by regional foes. Edit: As a note, I'm inclined to believe that Nuke's theory, the one being perpetuated by the administration and media, is probably more accurate....

Ok this is my own little conspiracy theory... I have nothing to back this up, but the logic does seem to flow. Assume the following: 1) Israel and the Palestinians have been at odds since 1948. 2) Full fledged war in the Middle East has been close several times since then. 3) Israel has had the grounds to strike at Hezbollah, Hamas, etc virtually the entire time. 4) Iran is presently developing Nuclear weapons 5) No nation is more threatened by Iran's development of WMD than Israel. 6) Any military action by Iran would almost certainly be met with overwhelming defense by Israel. 7) Iran has sworn to defend Syria, Hezbollah, etc. 8) An unprovoked assault on Iran by the US or Israel would be met with great resistance internationally. If Isreal can literally provoke a war with Hezbollah, Syria, etc, Iran will probably jump to their defense. Israel's acts are "self-defense" and therefore justifiable. Once Iran is inevitably drawn in, Iran can be struck by Israel (and possibly the U.S). Thus ending the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran. Is Israel's real objective to stir Iran into this skirmish so that they have the international grounds to strike Iran? I don't know... but it seems plausible.

Devout White Sox fan Richard Roeper (who is truly an excellent columnist independent of his baseball allegiance) has a great article on this from yesterday's Sun-Times: http://www.suntimes.com/output/roeper/cst-nws-roep12.html If you're an underdog candidate for public office and you're looking for an issue that might catapult you into contention, two words: Online gambling. Take a stance against legislation banning Internet wagering, and you'll gain the support of scads of potential voters who love to bet on sporting events or play poker or blackjack on their home computers. On Tuesday the House voted in favor of a bill designed to end online gambling in the United States. The legislation, now bound for the Senate, would make it illegal for American gamblers to use their credit cards to make wagers with online sites. The bill's sponsors say it will aid our impressionable youth, who have those darn computers. "Never before has it been so easy to lose so much money so quickly at such a young age," said Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa). In that case, why not ban online wagering on horse racing as well? The Internet gambling numbers are indeed staggering. According to a Los Angeles Times report, there are at least 2,500 gambling sites, with worldwide revenue of $12 billion a year -- $4 billion to $6 billion of it coming from the U.S. But the sites are offshore -- so none of that money stays home. "There are hundreds and hundreds of these illegal, unregulated, untaxed offshore sites that are sucking billions of dollars out of the country," said Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), one of the sponsors of the bill, in the L.A. Times article. "This is really the worst form of gambling that you can have -- all the ills that come from gambling without any of the regulations." Actually, the worst form of gambling you can have involves a vigorish that multiplies every week and a guy named Mookie who shows up at your door with a Louisville Slugger, but the vast majority of gambling doesn't involve such a dramatic scenario. What Goodlatte is really saying is there's a big online gambling pie out there, and our government missed the boat and thus didn't get its slice. Gambling is a heavy favorite You can argue all you want about the ethics and morals of gambling. I'm sure conservative agenda-setter and slots junkie Bill Bennett has a different view from the politicians leading the charge against online wagering. What you can't argue is that this nation and individual states have hypocritical policies about gambling. Bet on the horses! Go to the boats and try blackjack and the slots! Lose your money on sucker games such as Lotto or Keno! As long as we're getting our cut, we'll sell unrealistic dreams on billboards and in TV ads. But if you want to play online poker --which requires skill and strategy as well as luck -- you're entering the Devil's Playground. We have to save you from yourself. What a bunch of nonsense. It would be virtually impossible to put a stop to online gambling. If you rounded up every man, woman and teenager who has played a hand on Party Poker or made a wager on Bodog, you'd have to build a holding tank the size of North Dakota. But as long as the issue is in play, it's something a maverick politician might want to embrace. If you say you're defending the right of every adult to go for the inside straight or to take a hit on 16 for real money, you'll pick up votes from people who haven't been to the polls in years, if ever. A pirate's treasure Speaking of staggering numbers, "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" set the record for the highest-grossing opening weekend of all time. Sort of. The list of the top 30 biggest opening films ever, which includes such timeless classics as "Ice Age: the Meltdown," "Rush Hour 2" and "The Day After Tomorrow," doesn't contain a single film released prior to 1997. That's because tickets, like everything else in life, are way more expensive than they used to be. According to Box Office Mojo, the average ticket price in 2006 is $6.40. In 1990, it was $4.23. In 1980, it was $2.69. In 1956, it was 50 cents. You can't easily compare the opening weekends for "Pirates" and "Spider-Man 2" with "The Ten Commandments" and "Star Wars." For one thing, in generations past, there wasn't such a fascination with box office, and opening numbers weren't reported. Also, movies didn't open on 7,000 or 8,000 screens back in the day. "The Godfather" played in just six theaters when it was released. Even "Titanic" was in some 2,700 theaters, far fewer than the 4,100 theaters for "Pirates 2." By any measure, the "Pirates" sequel is a monster hit -- but not an all-time champ. It will rank among the highest-grossing films of all time -- if you don't make adjustments for inflation. If you do, it won't touch the totals for movies such as "Gone With the Wind" and "The Sound of Music." Today's simple media math is deeply flawed. The movies credited with breaking box office records are NOT the movies that drew the largest number of actual human beings to theaters.

Hmm... the President enjoys immunity from civil suits while serving as president pursuant to Jones v. Clinton and a host of other well established cases. I wonder if the vice-president enjoys the same privilege.

Well I hope pete rose bet the under on the number of Reds Wins for the rest of the season

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 04:15 PM) If they were willing to consider Milledge, I'd do it in a second. But they've also been unwilling to consider Milledge for Zito. Milledge............(drools) Unfortunately, I don't think the Mets would trade Milledge for anyone right now short of Pujols, Santana, or maybe LeBron James

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 12:18 PM) You're putting a respected newspaper on the same level of a free access internet message board? I'll ask you to reconsider the use of the word "respected" when talking about the Detroit Free Press

Wanna laugh for a half hour? read the 104 post thread presently going on this at nsbb

Big Papi has a corked bat... take a look at that slo-mo shot again if you have a DVR... you can see the notch at the top of the baat

I'd be fine if none of our pitchers played in the ASG. By the way, I genuinely fear Liriano...

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Jul 8, 2006 -> 12:42 PM) POds is a butcher in left. I would really consider a trade for Soriano. consider? I'd do it in a heartbeat...

Jermaine Dye will compete in the All-Star Game Home Run Derby. It will be Dye, Miguel Tejada, Lance Berkman, Troy Glaus, David Ortiz, David Wright, Ryan Howard and Miguel Cabrera. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/allstar06/ne...tory?id=2511829

wow... we're 2/2

the St. Paul Tribune was reporting on their website at 1:00 that Liriano had the lead over A.J....

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 05:19 PM) About 45 minutes ago, I accidentally voted for Liriano. Kinda sleeping at the wheel here. If A.J. loses by one vote, feel free to ban me. I accidently voted for verlander one time also...

I'm still voting... I haven't been stopped yet

To be honest, I don't have a good feeling about this. Last year, I felt better about pods.

I am still voting... for some reason it hasn't closed on me yet

My lowest validation number so far was 137... can anybody beat that?