Balta1701

Remenowsky pitching:

Some Jared photos:

Lots of Rienzo photos for y'all: Long Toss:

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 09:55 AM) This is true, but I don't see the reasoning behind dealing Rios. The Sox are in the thick of the race, and Rios has had a fair amount to do with it. If the Sox were out of it and Rios was playing the way he is, sure deal him. But then the Sox wouldn't be looking for 3B help in that scenario. So, the reality is that the chances of the Sox grabbing a big name 3B are slim to none. Basically the Q on dealing Rios is risk/reward. This guy is a high risk of being a complete waste again, either in the 2nd half this year or next year, but the Sox won't win the division this year if they don't have him performing adequately, since D2 is not going to fill in his production. If they're going to decide to be serious about winning this year, then you have to bite the bullet and hold on to him.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 10:19 PM) Perhaps if schools were allowed to check thngs like this, they would not have BEEN here long enough to get thru high school and we don''t have this situation. Hell, I know that here in Illinois the schools can't even verify income or employment status when someone applys for free lunch.I acknowledge that they are people and it isn't a pleasant situation. But neither is incenting millions more people to break the law and reap the benefits if they can hold out JUST long enough to where it is politically suicide to deport their kids. And please answer the first question, why should hispanics who follwed the law care anythgin about those that didn't? Let me give a counterexample...why is it so important that we "look forward" or whatever, rather than going back and prosecuting the entire financial industry? There are 50 million or so latinos living in this country and somewhere between 10-20 million illegal immigrants (obviously not all of them come from latin america, but good enough to first order). That means if you know 10 families with latino heritage, one of your neighbors is probably illegal. Or at the very least, was illegal at some point. Or your kid's friend is. Or you have a cousin who got deported. Or 5% of your kids school class, and your kid comes home asking if he or she is going to be deported. And on top of that, you pile on laws like Arizona and Alabama, racial profiling laws, or whatever the Proposition in California 2 decades ago was, where the state lumps everyone with non-white heritage in together and targets them for added searches and police harassment (and that's exactly what those laws are designed to do), and now you've put a target on the back of the whole community.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 09:08 AM) He got through waivers. The A's signed him after that. Of course he did, no team was going to pick him up on waivers and take on his contract.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 09:13 AM) I still believe that Williams had a deal on the table for Danks, which is what caused Danks to quickly sign a contract. No evidence to prove anything, just a feeling. I don't think that was "Quickly signing a contract", I think that the Sox knew going in to the offseason what it would take to sign Danks, tried for a month+ (including the winter meetings) to trade him, got back crappy offers, called up his agent, and said "ok let's do something now".

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 09:52 PM) And no one has yet responded to my point, why should someone of hispanic decent be all for makign millions of illegal hispanics legal, JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE ALSO HISPANIC? Since Balta completelyt missed my point about criminals and assholes, let's try again. I don't freak out every time a white guy gets busted for something because I happen to be white as well. IF he broke the law, or was an asshole, so be it. So why do some hispanics need to defend other hispanics just because they are also hispanic? If the first hispanic was a criminal or broke the law, oh well. As for your individual cases of people you know who were rbought here when they were young, what would you have done? Every decade or so just reward those whose parents were able to avoid deportation with citizenship? Way to rig the game for even more law breaking. What would you have done? Where are you deporting them to when they legitimately aren't from that country? Are you arresting 2 year olds? This is exactly waht I mean that nothing will ever get fixed when you refuse to acknowledge we have a massive problem with millions of people, and just pretend "oh they're lawbreakers they must be punished".

Here's Castro pitching today.

Kussmaul pitching yesterday for the Barons.

Definitely fun when the 9th place hitter you've never heard of, who is hitting sub .200 with 0 HR's on the year, has a 2 HR game.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 08:32 PM) Except they really value Rolen's leadership and presence around the team. He probably won't even be able to play everyday...so that crosses him off the list. It would be like adding Eric Chavez. More than that, the Reds would want something major-league helpful in return.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 02:46 PM) I view John and Mark as almost the same pitcher. In that situation, I will always choose the younger one over the older one. The first 1/3 of the year in the first season of this decision, it looks like we may have been wrong. I am sure there are other 1/3's of seasons where it will look like we were clearly right. I'd have let them both go, however. I would have dealt John and let Mark walk. I'd be willing to bet that if there were any offers for Danks that were close to reasonable or solid, they'd have moved him. I also don't think anyone was willing to give up more than a Zach Stewart level for a pitcher 1 year away from free agency.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) I actually, and you can go back and search my posts, was never as high on Detroit as the majority of humans. I thought the Sox had a chance coming into this season even without Buerhle. Back in December, when Buerhle left, I didn't feel they had any chance. One reason attendance is low is the Sox had a bad year last year and this winter made no splash. Really, the only hope was bounce back seasons from a lot of guys. That doesn't sell tickets, and it keeps you from selling tickets. The Sox weren't changing much, but losing their most reliable pitcher, whether he's an ace or not. That cost them some sales. Again, you've spelled out the catch 22 here. If the Sox went into the season with Viciedo, De Aza, and Morel in their lineup, people wouldn't look at this team and think "This team is set to compete right now". If you wanted to field a team ready to challenge for the AL this year, you wouldn't give any of those guys a starting spot coming in to this year, you'd spend money to try to put someone better in those positions. Telling the season ticket holders to stay, they're competing again this year...that's a $130 million+ payroll, and it requires blocking/getting rid of question mark guys who might give you something but who you can't count on (Alejandro). Even if you kept Buehrle, you're in the same boat...most of the season ticket holders would have no confidence in the team coming in to this year, except they'd have a $15 million a year pitcher taking up even more of their payroll. You're right it doesn't sell tickets, but that's what the failure of last year left us with. When you go all in and lose, you're out and you have to start again.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 01:59 PM) Ozzie left, so the soap opera was over. I actually loved the Ventura signing from the start. I did initially state we would not renew unless both KW and Ozzie were gone, but we would have most likely renewed had the Sox been seen as "all in" again. At least looked like they were aiming to win the division. Obviously having Buerhle would have helped, and I don't blame them for not giving him $58 million. I just wish they made him an offer, they weren't tapped out. He basically said he would have taken less. How much less we will never know, so any of this is speculative, but I'm sure vendors are glad he's gone. See now you've changed the standard though. It's not just spending another $12 million+ this year, it's being "all in" again. That means committing the money to make sure that the 3b hole didn't exist, that we had better OF depth, that we had a better bench, that we had more veterans in the bullpen. You've gone from asking for Buehrle to asking why the Sox didn't spend another $30 million.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 01:54 PM) As a former season ticketholder, it was my final straw, and I had them long before 2005. I don't think I am far different than most. It seemed to confirm to me they were going into a total rebuild which I didn't want to spend that kind of money to watch, which also kills advanced sales. I think 1K a game may even be low. As Turns out, this season is far more enjoyable than I ever would have imagined, and while I miss my seats, I've been able to get real good deals and have still gone to about 10 games. It was sort of nice not "having" to go to games in April or May when it was not so nice outside. The only downside is if they make the playoffs, I miss out, but I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities to jump right back in if that appears a certainty. There's the key though...all of your points are premised on the concept that they weren't going into a rebuilding year. They were. Trading John Danks for middling prospects would have been the same message, and then we'd be stuck paying Mark Buehrle an enormous amount of money that even the Marlins think is crazy.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 01:50 PM) This is very very true. The Sox did things to themselves that hurt from a ticket selling standpoint. Letting Mark was was huge. Failing to win the division the last 2 years was much, much bigger.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 01:32 PM) Who said he would, but why not throw out your best shot? I actually think Buerhle leaving was the last straw for many season ticket accounts. Obviously, attendance has been trending down for quite some time, but I'd bet if Buerhle stayed, the Sox attendance would be up at least 1000 a game. 81000 x $50 a very conservate number for ticket, parking, concession and souvenier is still $4 million a year. Multiply that by 4 years and what they offered Soler plus just a reasonable estimate what the collateral damage was not bringing back Buerhle was, and you're pretty close. Plus, with Peavy coming off the books, the future money shouldn't be prohibitive. Also, it would have freed KW to trade either Danks or Floyd last winter, even if he was serious about competing in 2012. Maybe the plan all along was to either get someone to overpay for Danks or sign him. If Sox fans have a problem with Danks getting extended, they will have a problem with just about anything. Frankly, I don't believe any of that. The last straw was being a below .500 team last year.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 01:10 PM) Danks isn't getting paid all that much this year. Next year is when the big bucks start rolling in. Its always a gamble to give any pitcher 4 or 5 or even more years. So far it looks like a mistake, but judging it now is so silly its beyond ridiculous. I wish the Sox brought back Buerhle. He was willing to take less than he received, yet there was no offer, and considering they were trying to throw some money Soler's way, its apparent the checking account wasn't as low as they have expertly have it perceived. But signing Danks is a decent move. You win with pitching. He's young, and up until now has been very healthy. He had a circulation problem several years ago that was cleared up quickly, and last year had a rib cage injury. So the injury concern was minimal. Except for his rookie year, when he was shut down, and last year's trip to the DL, he's made at least 32 starts each season. He's been a horse. I still can't get over how many posters wanted a total rebuild, yet have absolutely zero patience. s*** happens. Hopefully, there is no damage in Danks' shoulder. If there is not, there's no reason to think he won't be a real good pitcher the next several seasons. Mark Buehrle wasn't going to leave $20 million on the table to stay in Chicago.

As long as we never acknowledge that these are people and we might want to take into account treating them like people. Then we can be mad about whatever we want, whether it's the politics or Medicare spending.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 11:41 AM) Stewart pitching? What are they planning to give the regulars an extra day of rest? Sale moves a couple days back.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 16, 2012 -> 11:19 PM) I predict he'll be put on the DL. We don't need any more long relievers who suck. The Players union would probably file a grievance.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 16, 2012 -> 11:18 PM) But we already got a meatball long relief guy in Zach. Dodgers really abusing the Sox. I'm smelling a sweep the wrong way. They are good n hungry. Stewart's roster spot would clearly be needed by a replacement starting pitcher.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jun 16, 2012 -> 11:16 PM) Why in the world would you even think he'd be DFA'd?It's worth wondering how long they'd keep him in the bullpen if he came out for a few weeks and continued to be this ineffective.