Balta1701

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 12:36 PM) Not neccessarily. Ventura said they actually worked harder on fundamentals in spring training 2013 than they did during spring training 2012, and the result was much worse. I posted this because if they do suck again, it should be noted it wasn't because they were laying around drinking beers all spring. Although I can't rule out that's how they spent last spring training based on their performance...would you agree that if the team comes out and looks just as fundamentally rotten as last year, that result should be taken as a major, huge failure and a direct indictment of the coaching staff?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 12:34 PM) Yes, in limited situations based on an actual, legitimate reasons - i.e. airports and government buildings. A general "someone might shoot me" argument is not legitimate. Those arguments failed during the fight for concealed carry in public. Oh, so it's fair to assume that certain situations are more likely to produce actions where guns would not be wanted, and based on the type of things they're doing people ought to be able to determine whether those things should be allowed?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 12:24 PM) No no, let me be clear here: I don't find that to be a legitimate reason to restrict a right of public accommodation (even assuming that sexuality is a protected class) under existing laws. What i've said is that the logic and legal arguments behind the two are the same - you need a legitimate reason to curb or restrict that right. I've called Balta a hypocrite because he'd gladly infringe upon someone's right to carry a weapon over the right to publicly accommodate someone. That's him simply valuing what he agrees with over what he doesn't agree with, which is no different than what the legislators in Kansas and other states are doing (they think their religious freedom right trumps the right of public accommodation/anti-discrimination). The fact that the two deal with a person and an object or one is more dangerous is irrelevant. And yes, the 2nd amendment arguments are obviously more complex, but "guns are dangerous" as a legitimate reason has, thus far, been applied only in limited situations, usually in government or quasi-government areas. If that reason had been accepted concealed carry in public wouldn't exist. So you agree that the law allows restrictions on where you can carry guns as dangerous items?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 11:31 AM) From CSN. If the Sox suck this year, please don't blame spring training again. The White Sox have pushed their players harder than in past years in order to get them focused during workouts. Ventura said he and his coaches have taken a strict approach to practices and players have responded. General manager Rick Hahn is pleased with how the pre-exhibition games portion of spring training has been run. So you'd agree they did a poor job last year and realized they needed to change preparation tactics?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 11:07 AM) Nuclear fusion power production has been about 30 years off since the 1950's. Have you been keeping up with NIF? They've actually made some real progress in the last 6 months (minus the 4 week break they took for no good reason last October).

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 08:50 PM) Harm has nothing to do with it. It's your belief, end of story. And really, your fear of being harmed by a gun entering your business is about as ludicrous as a gay guy raping someone in a shower full of straight men. This is why it's better to let everyone be a racist/homophobic/gun-hating prick. Everyone will be hated equally and the world can move on. I know, could you imagine? I'm teaching a class, I have to fail a person, they get angry, and that person winds up carrying gay with them? Oh my god how scary would that be? To have someone you have to deal with being irresponsible with their gay? I mean, why couldn't they have just left their gay at home? Or, god forbid, black. Could you imagine how scary it would be to have someone being irresponsibly with their black?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 08:14 PM) As SS said, I dunno that that's true. And I guarantee that's the next step in this debate - is it constitutional to bar someone entry into a business for doing something that's constitutionally protected. But really, you're a hypocrite. You don't agree with something that someone does/is, and you're fine discriminating against them. When the "something" is what you support, it's terrible. When it's not, it's acceptable. I assume you support the no gun sign provisions in the various concealed carry laws - how is that any different from what Kansas and other states are trying to do here? I'm waiting for you to give me an example that does not explicitly have the potential to cause me harm. If 2 gay people enter a room and want to purchase something my risk of death is not abnormally increased, if a person walks in with a gun that is fundamentally the case, my life and everyone else in the room, including the person carrying is at elevated risk. A more comparable example would be a creationist or something like that, although again that still has the problem of being a clear personal decision. And, as a person who wants to be a geology professor, that's one I fully expect I have occur.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 05:15 PM) Texas was brought into the union with the possibility of splitting into four states, but that was more of a response to slavery issues than anything else. Didn't Arizona start a petition to split into two states last year? While all this is theoritical, what is fact is that this is the longest the US has gone without adding a state. While I consider any of the splitting possibilities far fetched, I do see a 51st state within the next ten year. Probably Washington DC but possibly Puerto Rico. The problem with all this is that there's no legitimate non-partisan way to do it. If you add DC you're giving the Democrats 2 senators so you need to add 2 Republican senators somewhere, but if you try to break Republican counties away from a state, the state government isn't likely to like that. Puerto Rico isn't an option because it's not exactly an obviously-Republican demographic. The counties that want to leave Colorado, for example, are trying to keep oil money, and Colorado's not dumb enough to allow that. The California plan is written in the same way, to give the Republicans a big boost in the Senate and gerrymander the Democrats into more political weakness, and California's not going to go along with that.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 05:29 PM) It's still something that Balta is absolutely 100% against. I'm wondering if he feels he needs to shut up and deal with it or if he'd be against such a customer entering his business. Of course the problem is I could ask them to leave the weapon outside, so it doesn't exactly work. I also am struggling to figure out how two men kissing will kill me. On the latter basis, probably not. If the person was willing to unload it or carrying a toy of some sort, fine.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 06:03 PM) There was a time when folks were drooling all over themselves for Jesus Montero, a Yankee catching prospect. Now they mention some minor league guy and want to dump Gordon Beckham for an unproven prospect. Amazing Frankly, if Gordon Beckham could be dumped for someone who was an "actual prospect" of any talent, I wouldn't complain at all about them being unproven, because as of now Beckham's been proven to be mediocre and a non-tender candidate.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 05:47 PM) He apparently started juicing after his White Sox days. And Flowers isn't on PEDs Given Ozuna's 2006 campaign, I have trouble believing he was clean that year.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 04:56 PM) Um, no? I didn't know what the law is. Looking it up on wiki, it says there is a "Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for public employees only based on an executive order by Governor Kathleen Sibelius in 2007." See, that's part of the problem. It's actually hard to believe that 30 states allow people to be fired or denied housing solely because they're gay, but that's the law.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 04:25 PM) Well, their everyday second baseman is Brian Roberts, and their every day SS is Derek Jeter, both of which are injury prone. They're also betting on a Kelly Johnson bounceback that may not come, so I'd think the Yankees are in great need of IF depth. If you think about it, Cervelli/Romine are essentially the C versions of Jake Elmore: pre-arb depth with some small upside. I don;t see why the Yankees wouldn't at least consider Elmore + a guy like Duente Heath for one of those two guys. While all of that is true, they also have Eduardo Nunez and Brendan Ryan in their infield rotation and none of the guys we'd offer are obvious guaranteed upgrades on those guys. If someone actually does get hurt severely then they definitely could use them, but they have 5 guys in the rotation to cover those 3 spots who are all about as valuable as Gillaspie/Keppinger right now. Maybe, Maybe Beckham is a slight upgrade over what they have...but again that's if someone gets hurt.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 02:46 PM) Plus, wasn't Viciedo coming up around that time? If so, It was his time to be given a shot. Yes, although you could make a decent case for giving him more time in the minors at that point as well. He'd had one really good 1/2 of baseball at AAA but spent that whole season dealing with a hand injury due to a HBP in spring training, and it was IIRC his first real stint in the OF as well. The reason to give Viciedo the shot was that the team was clearly cutting spending after the 2011 debacle and that meant moving contracts of guys who were expensive, tradeable, and not under team control for very long.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 02:42 PM) I just don't think organizational depth is a reason to sell low. That was the rationale to give Quentin to the Padres, for example. Um, no it wasn't, the rationale was that he was 1 year away from free agency and was hurt all the ****ing time so there was virtually no chance the Sox would even think about extending him. Considering that he has played 1/2 a season each year with the Padres and is being very well paid to do so, I'd still say that was the right move.

QUOTE (Wanne @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 02:18 PM) I'm not so sure about that. Like Balta said...he could be primed trading material. Sanchez has always been a pipedream of mine... Given their needs we're going to have to give up solid pitching to make that work. Quintana is the only obvious name that comes to mind, although perhaps a combination of Beck + Jones might do it as well.

The problem with that defense, frankly, is the fact that a person can be fired for being gay in about 30 states is absolutely insane and completely, utterly indefensible.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 12:24 PM) Is it under their state law? LOL, you're kidding right?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 12:42 PM) Right, a team friendly contract. Like Felipe Paulino does.

So...if you're in Houston's shoes, you clearly need a QB but you don't think the QBs on the board are the best players and either Clowney or that OT from Auburn are. Are there any QB's obviously available via trade or FA that could allow them to not go into next season with Schaub as a starter? Vick is the only one that comes to my mind, any other obvious candidates?

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 09:33 AM) They're not looking to deal Sanchez. He will be the everyday catcher once McCann gets moved to 1B/DH, probably in 2017 when Texeira's contract expires. He's likely to start the season in AA ball and they won't have a place for him on the big league roster for 3 seasons? That actually does sound like a guy a team would trade.

I think with the Yankees the odds are that we'd have to wait for a mid-season deal (unless they already know that Jeter or someone like that is hurt). They have enough mediocre IF's right now that they ought to be able to wait for one of them to get hurt.

"The reason you're still talking about it is that you've stunk it up on the field. Shut us up with your play"

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Feb 25, 2014 -> 01:54 PM) The biggest thing at the combine for scouts and general managers is the interview parts and the medical stuff. That is why they have the combine. The other stuff is just fluff. Mike Mayock always says the only things they look for at stuff like 40-times is extremes. If someone runs a crazy fast 40, they will go back and double check the tape or if someone runs a really awful 40. I'd genuinely guess that another thing scouts will be interested in is the degree of preparation these guys do physically to prepare for the combine. It gives GMs a chance to see how their bodies and minds respond to that kind of pressure, that's another useful point.