Balta1701

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 10, 2013 -> 01:06 PM) Was McGwire/Sosa/Bonds less impressive because they were juicing? Um, Hell Yes.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Sep 10, 2013 -> 12:21 PM) Cody Winiarski has really finished the season strong. Does he have the stuff to be a back-end bullpen guy? He's at the age (24) where they'll likely give him a shot this time next year if he continues to progress. Would love to see any up-to-date scouting info or opinions anyone has on CW, and also Kevin Vance, who had been rolling along nicely until the last couple of weeks of the season. I'll see what I can find as well. I have some video on Vance from last Saturday but he has no AAP thread so I don't know where to post it.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Sep 10, 2013 -> 12:39 PM) You are right. There is always a place for super athletic, toolsy players. The problem was that KW wanted athletic players and JR did not want to spend money on the draft. In turn, the Sox end up with players like Mitchell, Walker, and Thompson because of it. This reminds me a ton of the discussion about high/low ceiling pitchers. In 2005-2006, KW was drafting pitchers that were "low ceiling" guys, guys like Broadway, who had long college careers but didn't have the kind of stuff Chris Sale brings to the table. The idea was to get them up to the big leagues fairly quickly and possibly have them set up as trade bait. People got mad because the Sox were taking "baseball" guys rather than drafting guys with big time talent and trying to develop them. This strikes me as people being mad over precisely the reverse. Going after toolsy, high-risk, high-reward players is exactly what people spent years demanding the Sox do.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 09:37 PM) You can see him getting more comfortable as the game goes on which is obviously good news for him. Ok, I turned it off so good to hear for his side.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 09:24 PM) Mike Shanahan offense - so far, very stoppable 10/21, 2 INTs for Griffin. Only 10 on the ground. Should he have played?

200 strikeouts on the season for Sale

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 09:07 PM) lol Great part about America, you dont have to like America. But if you are just going to plain hate, expect to be called on it. Of all people I would have thought youd be cheering in the street that a possible non-military solution was on the table. But instead that option is now "a terrible loss" for the US. Its as if you wont be happy unless you can point out all the mistakes that the US makes. Yeah we make mistakes, yeah bad things happen. But we try, and thats a lot more than I can say about 99% of the world. So why not put things in perspective? Why hold the US to some unattainable standard that it will always fail at? So when this "offer" collapses, I assume you'll be so angry that you'll finally stop supporting stupid bombing campaigns in the Middle East? I'll admit it if I'm wrong and be incredibly impressed if they can pull this off, I don't think the us has any intention of trying it and the way the US instantly backed off as soon as the Russians had a positive response is a pretty good but of evidence.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 08:49 PM) And only a person with an indefensible position would quote Samuel Johnson as if he was someone to be proud of. You know he was the guy who argued that colonists had given up their right to vote! And only the lowest of the low human beings would take a disagreement on policy and decide that they should question another persons patriotism.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 08:43 PM) Sometimes the truth hurts. But I implore you to prove me wrong. How does a deal on destruction of chemical weapons = peace treaty for Assad with rebels? Or even this, what can the US do that you would think is the "biggest negotiating victory for the US". Because Im not sure youve said 1 positive thing about the United States in this thread, and thats kind of pathetic seeing as the United States (for better or worse) is one of the few countries who even remotely cares about the plight of others. There is just an irony that you have fought for days against the US striking Syria, and now that there is a peace option you call the US "losers" if they take it. What game are you even playing here? Its just berserk. I mean who cares if the US is perceived winners, losers or indifferent if the outcome is good for the world? I just dont understand what you want, besides for trashing the US and whatever it does. The US government will care. And that will prevent them from taking Any offer seriously. I want te US to stay the Hell out of another war in the Middle East. Not a single one has worked well for us.

"The last refuge of the scoundrel" summed up very well in your post.

You deserve a response to that BS that is against the rules of the page.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 06:04 PM) You keep predicting the future... Its interesting, instead of actually discussing the topic, you just fixate on something that hasnt happened and may never happen. I cant imagine you actually have a copy of the exact text of Obama's speech tomrorow. So how can you be so sure what he is going to say? Why not wait for the facts? The reason why the us can't accept this offer and te reason the Russians jumped at it is that the US has refused to negotiate over Syria unless Assad leaves. Refusing to negotiate does exactly what it is supposed to do, shut down negotiations entirely and force a military response. If the US accepts an offer to negotiate with Assads regime over the chemical weapons, the US will be dropping its deman that Assad leave before any negotiations take place. That's why the Russians jumped at it, it's a way to force the war-hungry us government to the negotiating table. If the US sits down and negotiates, then Assad and the Russians will have extracted the biggest negotiating victory they could have asked for. The gas attack will have been an enormous success. Conversely, when the US refuses to negotiate on those terms, it makes the no vote in Congress even more likely since the US will be refusing to negotiate over an offer with international support.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 05:55 PM) In what world is the US getting Syria to sign the CWC and not having to kill anyone, bad? How is the US bad with that result? Im just not understanding this line of reasoning. Do you just hate the US that much that you want it to look bad? Its a damn tricky situation with lots of lives at stake. And you care more about how we look than getting a good solution? Is that really the case? Just hard to imagine. The world where the President is going to go before national TV tomorrow and try to explain again why people need to die.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 05:47 PM) Youre basically arguing that a case never settles the day before trial because lawyers wouldnt prepare for a big trial just to settle at the 11th hour. If the President of the United States doesnt have multiple contingency speeches based on what events transpire, then I really am overestimating the office. I just cant imagine a world where they have 1 plan. But maybe so, itd be terrifying but maybe its true. But if I was the President, Id have multiple speeches and one of them would be written about how I did this amazing thing of getting Syria to sign the CWC, something that no other President could accomplish. Id pat myself on the back and call it a day. Its really not that difficult to play all sides and make yourself look good. Just like its not hard to play all sides and make someone look bad. Considering that extending this offer on Wednesday would make themselves look good while the President will have to figure out how to explain it away or ignore it tomorrow, they totally let the Russians play them and make them look bad.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 05:34 PM) He could have, he might have, I dont know, Im not privy to any of the information. But I do know that no matter what happens, there will be some people who write that it was a masterful plan and others will write that it was the worst plan ever. Generally speaking I think most people negotiate from an extreme position and then settle on a middle position. It rarely works where you offer a middle position, then move to an extreme position, to finally settle on middle position. Not how Id play the game, but I guess its a possibility. My preference is to start with the extreme and then move towards middle. But really thats just personal preference. Actually you do know, because the U.S. is pulling the same "we refuse to negotiate with Syria until Assad steps down" line that it has used in so many other countries to zero success. The only reason why there was a response here was that the Russians were looking for a way to make the US look bad, which is why the U.S. has been trying to walk-back the concept of an "offer" all day. If they'd actually intended to make some sort of "offer", they wouldn't be doing it the day before the President's big attempt to sell why we need to murder Syrians. At least not publicly. Undermines everything the President will say tomorrow.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 05:19 PM) Once Syria failed to fulfill its obligations under the UN charter, it no longer is entitled to the rights and benefits of the UN. Therefore it can be argued the US action would be legal, as Syria is no longer fulfilling its obligations. Simply put, any authority is only as legitimate as its actions. And if the UN will allow a member to use chemical weapons without reprisal, then the UN isnt worth anything anymore. Might as well call it the League of Nations. And you know who is left the authority to determine that Syria is not fulfilling those obligations? The U.N. Security council. If the UN will allow the United States to attack another country without reprisal then the UN isn't worth anything any more. Might as well call it the League of Nations. Every single statement you make about the Syrian Use of chemical weapons would apply 100% as much to the U.S. aerial murder campaign. Every single one.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 04:59 PM) Without the US does the UN have any ability to enforce any of its laws? You can call something illegal, but if you have no police, you have no law. (edit) And Im not up on the UN rules etc, but Im thinking that in order for any US action to be declared illegal it would have to be voted on by the UN Security Council, which means the US can veto it? Apply every single word of this post to your focus on the illegal chemical weapons attacks. The conventions on chemical weapons usage similarly do not establish a police force or enforcement mechanism. That is left to international agreement, to the United Nations. Here's article 2 paragraph 4 of the UN Charter: Without the support of the Security Council, bombing Syria is just as much of an illegal war crime as syrian use of chemical weapons. The U.N. has no enforcement power you're correct, but basically the U.S. bombing Syria would be declaring that we're big enough to make our own rules because we know no one will enforce them against us.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 04:43 PM) I dont believe that its illegal for the US to attack Syria. How so? The U.N. Charter explicitly makes military action against member states illegal without the support of the U.N. Security Council. It doesn't give exceptions, it says that under all circumstances except when authorized by the U.N. Security Council, making war against a partner nation is illegal. If military action was to be legal in response to deployment of chemical weapons, it needs to be authorized by the Security Council The U.N. Security Council has shown no interest in supporting a U.S. war against Syria. By any reasonable definition, the U.N. Charter makes war with Syria illegal. At least in the cases of Iraq and Libya, the Bush and Obama administrations were able to get resolutions that gave them enough latitude you could make a case the intervention was legal. In this case, it is completely the opposite.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 04:38 PM) Its not a good argument. Just because someone else does something bad or wrong, doesnt mean you should as well. Eye for an eye and the entire world goes ... I see. So you'd agree that since an eye for an eye is a terrible thing, illegally bombing a country as punishment for using chemical weapons is a ridiculous idea. After all, an eye for an eye and the entire world goes...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 04:35 PM) Because unless the U.S. is going to overthrow Assad, Assad isn't leaving any time soon. Oh, and considering the U.S. DOD has estimated it would take ~70,000 U.S. troops to secure Syria's chemical weapons if the country did collapse, we're just going to put up with it too.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 04:32 PM) Or he correctly played the game and got Syria to make a major concession in the face of a military strike. What I dont understand is what does it matter if Syria signs the CWC at this point? Isnt the entire point of the civil war that the govt is illegally holding power and no longer represents the people of Syria? What would it matter if King George signed a treaty that governed the US during the revolutionary war... I have no clue if this was really the end game. But I can predict that irregardless of outcome that people will claim it was Obama's end game. Because unless the U.S. is going to overthrow Assad, Assad isn't leaving any time soon.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 04:28 PM) Oh so are you now saying that Syria's "Well join the CWC is hollow?" and why in the world does it matter what Israel is doing? Basically Syria hasnt signed the CWC but has signed the NPT. Israel has signed the CWC (not ratified) but hasnt signed the NPT. That has 0 relevance. Its just red herring nonsense. Because Syria doesn't have nuclear weapons and they have a nuclear weapons armed country sitting next to them that has a substantial army and has attacked them previously? Syria doesn't have the resources to build the bomb, but enough gas to leave Israel half vacant is a pretty fair deterrent to the threat from Israels nuclear capacity.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 04:18 PM) I guess I used the wrong 3 letters, thought I pulled it from the article but guess not. The US is part of the CWC, which is the chemical weapons convention. Syria is 1 of 7 countries not a part o f it. And I believe they've stated they will join it when Israel joins the Nonproliferation Treaty. Which really kinda makes sense.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 03:51 PM) Unless he's due a significant pay bump, I see no reason not to bring Veal back. He could return to the 2012 version. He's not. The question is whether they think enough of him to plan for him being a major bullpen contributor or if they look for a free agent signee as the main left handed reliever in the bullpen.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 04:08 PM) How arent we trying it? The article seemed to clearly suggest that if Syria would sign the ICC that it could be enough... But lets be honest, at any time Syria could have become a party to the ICC, they just have shown no desire to, until of course the US threatened military warfare. But I guess well discount that threat as part of the diplomatic process. You do realize that among the countries refusing to be a party to the ICC is a country known as "The United States of America", correct?