Balta1701

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 04:10 PM) And I agree on Odom, I have no idea why LA would give away Odom for basically nothing. He's not a star, but he's an extremely good glue player. Actually, that's kinda what the league would have hoped the new CBA would do. The Lakers would have to spend a ton to keep these guys on their roster 2-3 years into this CBA since the penalties get worse each year. Of course, they have the money to do it, but the league would kinda want that to happen.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 03:33 PM) What indeed? I'll toss this out there. The candidates vision for America the world and the likelihood they have the tools to get somewhere down that road. No candidate will accomplish all they want to as President. If they can get three or four middle level policies going, that's a pretty good term. So look at what the campaign puts out, decide if you share that vision. I'm just tossing that out as a start. My idea was to focus not on any one candidate. I understand there are some holes in the idea. The wierd thing is, that doesn't necessarily tell you anything. Give you an example. The Obama campaign came down hard on the fact that Hillary Clinton's health care plan concept included an individual mandate. That was probably the biggest difference between their 2 campaign concepts. Once in office, we saw how that worked out.

Evidently it is incredibly bad, to be the worst song in the 1970's despite being released in 1980.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 03:44 PM) Doesn't differ from Williams not calling Boston or Baltimore. Yes it does, enormously, both of those teams would be willing to give up players to take on Sergio, the Sox would not be willing (or able) to give up plyaers to take on Gio.

Spectacular job by the T.J. Yates.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 04:00 PM) It is the way to pull an upset. I just don't like watching teams rely on 3s to win big games. It's not good basketball. The problem is we have to hear about how improved IU is when in reality they're still a bubble team. Except now they're a bubble team that got a huge resume boost. Their guards are mediocre and they're unable to get their best player involved at this stage in the season, which will result in a couple bad losses as we move on. I will take a bubble team with a huge resume boost, if, even on a day that takes a lot of luck, that bubble team can knock off a #1 seed.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 03:29 PM) I think the Sox would be interested in a pre-arb Gonzalez. Crazy. The White Sox have no talent to give up in exchange for a guy who is arb-eligible for the first time this year.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 03:04 PM) If Beane doesn't call the Sox about Gonzalez is he not shopping him as he should? So the story is the Red Sox and Orioles would have ponied up for Santos. I believe the Jays were the best match for Santos. No, because the White Sox aren't in need of a soon to be expensive starter. However, if the White Sox were in need of that player, it would make sense to call them.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 02:40 PM) Really though, how often will a President have to debate? I'm wondering if it is that good of a tool to use in evaluating candidates. What in the nominating process is a good tool to evaluate candidates? Does a candidate who visits every county in Iowa have an advantage in deciding whether to launch a risky military venture to kill public enemy number 1? Does the guy who raises the most money have an advantage on handling the economy, or is he or she just more likely to sell out in order to raise funds for the next campaign?

Anyone want to place a $10k bet about whether or not that's a good debate strategy?

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 01:51 PM) No help from vikes Duh.

"Cry Wolf" was one of their songs.

Wierd thing is, politically it actually makes a lot of sense for one state to split itself into 2 at the national level, because that would double your power in the Senate. However, at the State level it is pretty darn foolish, because of the cost associated with setting up and operating a 2nd independent state level government, which isn't cheap.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 01:16 PM) Toronto didn't give up much to get Rasmus. Enough to win a world series, apparently.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 12:19 PM) It is very hard to see the logic in the trade of Santos. Maybe the Sox don't feel Sergio was the real deal? I was impressed with the kid and we had him locked up for quite awhile. As with all trades time will tell I can see the logic...a starter is always more valuable than a reliever, and if your guys really like this starter, that's a winning formula. I just think that because of where the guy was, you ought to get more for the major league player than this one guy.

QUOTE (Soxnfins2256 @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 01:19 PM) I knew Braunie would have never taken roids. By the way, I'm in Kenosha and I hear a lot about the Brewers on a daily basis during the season and off-season, Braun had a bad calf injury, so he probably took something that he didn't know was banned for the pain. Not knowing it was banned is not an excuse. This guy has a 10 year contract for like $150 million because of the things his body can do. Putting somehting into that body that you're not 100% certain about deserves a suspension. If you are 100% certain because a doctor or company tells you so, then that's why the legal system exists.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 12:30 PM) Or NJ. I'm with you. Plus, I would want to sign him to an extension if we were to do that. Well clearly. No deal happens if he doesn't sign the extension right then.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 10, 2011 -> 10:18 PM) You cannot sue the makers of supplements for something like this because the FDA does not regulate them. They do not need to list all of the ingredients. Remember when Jim Miller from the Bears tested positive in this scenario? He tried to sue the company but as long as he wasn't poisoned or something, they didn't do anything wrong. Here's an NFL Mr. Irrelevant winning $5.4 million earleir this year suing a supplement company for a tainted product. That's more than he'd likely ever make in his NFL career.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 10, 2011 -> 09:59 PM) That was pretty much the first thing that crossed my mind when I heard the news. Could they move him to 1b afterwards?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 10, 2011 -> 09:27 PM) But there needs to be a different process for these instances where there was an honest mistake made as opposed to someone who was consistently taking some kind of designer PED. Really, there doesn't need to be, not when the league has put forwards a list of approved, legal, and clean substances, and in a world where you know you're going to be tested. If you're going to take something that isn't on MLB's approved list, then keep a sample of it. You're making $400k a year, buy a locker, put a date on them, lock up the last pill in every bottle, and if you ever test positive, you've got a major lawsuit against that supplement maker. If you're not willing to do that, then stick to the large list of officially approved supplements. And if you test positive, you're juicing.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 10, 2011 -> 10:07 PM) You, sir, are negative. Unlike Ryan Braun's test results.

QUOTE (Jillian Michaels' Abs @ Dec 10, 2011 -> 10:01 PM) Right. A second test was negative. Which is why MLB isn't coming right out and saying "Ryan Braun tested positive for XYZ and has been suspended 50 games..." Apparently there is a reason for the positive test that is perfectly explainable - hence the second negative test. I'll have to check my twitter feed. Hour ago or so it popped up. I believe you've read the exact opposite of the ESPN article's statement. The second test confirmed the results of the initial survey test and was done by an outside lab upon the request of the player. MLB Hasn't come out and said "He's suspended" because he has some sort of in the background right to appeal, and MLB isn't going to push that during the offseason. But let's be clear, this is a completely confirmed positive test. Ryan Braun had illegal substances in his system.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 10, 2011 -> 09:11 PM) Scenarios: New trainer - different linament - not aware that it had PEDs in it. Health Club - tried health drink - PEDs not listed in ingredients. GNC guy lied to him. . . . Just thinking up Braun's excuses for him. Most of those things aren't valid excuses...that's why MLB and the leagues put out lists of acceptable, league-approved substances that test clean, and why a smart athlete these days will keep samples of everything they take.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Dec 10, 2011 -> 07:56 PM) but it's really an unprovable point to ascribe value to how much a player could have netted in a trade. But there's still that one thing out there. With Santos...we did not have to move him. We have to move Danks, we have to move Quentin, we didn't have to move Santos if we didn't get a return big enough to say "that was a good deal".

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 10, 2011 -> 07:57 PM) Even Balta has seen the light. Doesn't mean I think that it's the right path for the Sox, but it's the path we committed to when we moved Sergio, and there's no bigger mistake than doing it half way.