Balta1701

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 04:33 PM) Are you for building free health clubs for all Americans? Because which is better, saving money and lives or costing money and lives? We could keep going on and on. PP is a very narrowly focused health care and education provider. Those services are available in other locations. Again, I happen to appreciate their work, but I'm not ready to believe the dire predictions you've posted. Those services are NOT available in other locations to the poor.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 04:31 PM) Yeah, in that sense you're right. I guess I was meaning more that today's politics you have a douche (rich) or a turd sandwich (rich) who create policy for the rich. The belief that average American's can be adequately represented is completely gone. That was my big enthusiasm for the tea party. In such a short time people banded together and got people elected. Shoot, even with Obama I was hoping he would be like that. But then they get to Washington and those dreams die. The people they elected were more corporate friendly than the ones they replaced!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 04:10 PM) Glad you've made the decision of "life" for everyone. I think an anti-abortion person would argue you have them backwards. And I see both sides of the argument here. I just don't think it's as easy a decision as you are making it out to be. Couldn't I use the same economic argument on say, supporting the de-listing of the grey wolf? It's saving the country money. Why not let the government decide if the species is really endangered or not? Actually, there's lots of reasons to think that the introduction of the grey wolves and their restoration into their normal environment has produced economic gains. The wolves have massively increased the health of the ecosystems out west. Over-grazing by wild herds is cut back, because the wolves keep those populations under control. The herds of elk, deer, bison, etc., are healthier because the Wolves take out the weak ones. Grasslands improve. Water quality improves.

QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 03:55 PM) Wasn't Carl Everett named somewhere? Only in the fake list that came out before the Mitchell Report came out.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 03:59 PM) But whether the decision is an informed one or not doesn't relate to whether the government should be funding it in the first place. No, that's the simple question...which is better, saving money and lives or costing money and lives? Because funding PP is the former, and ending funding for it is the latter.

The budget agreement includes a 60% cut in Federal Funds for High Speed Rail.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 03:42 PM) And he told these stories to sell a book, which isn't exactly the most noble of reasons to spill his beans. He has needed money for a while, which is why he continues with side projects at all times too, including boxing and independent baseball leagues. If he doesn't need money, do these every get told? When it comes to speaking about players who used steroids, I trust Canseco. When it comes to the effects of steroids, it's harder to trust one source who has likely embellished quite a bit to sell books. No one bought his book because he said he'd have been a minor leaguer without the roids. People bought his book because he got the names right.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 03:37 PM) What poor person is lying to a grand jury about steroid use? I think Bonds' crime is low enough on the list that spending $50 million is irresponsible. I bet a lot of kids have lied to police and investigators, and yes, grand juries, about drug use in general, and steroid use in particular. How about we simply do not prosecute anyone for obstruction of justice in cases involving drugs? That's a fair standard. We don't send many people to jail in drug cases, do we?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 03:16 PM) Is it justifiable though? It's one dude who has is guilty as hell in the eye of the public and is going to have to deal with the ramifications of heavy steroid use ravaging his body within the next 5-10 years. If he is inducted into the Hall, it's years and years down the road (and I think people who were convicted of steroids are going to struggle to get in no matter what, regardless of what was done before the steroids were allegedly started). Don't you personally think that $50 million could have been spent better? Should we decide not to prosecute people because they can afford good enough lawyers to make it expensive for the taxpayer? Should it be ok for rich people to lie to investigators? What other crimes is it ok for rich people to commit that poor people can't?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) Because he saw people use steroids or he could tell others were using steroids? No. Because he saw what it did to him, because he knew other people that were using and saw what it did to them. One thing I always come back to is that for steroids, all we ever have is anecdotal information. Canseco probably has about the largest knowledge base of anyone as to what effects steroids have on baseball players.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 03:20 PM) Pretty sure abortion is the end of the plan. Not much to plan for at that point. Hence my point about it being ironic. Huh? So, you think people plan to get pregnant so they can have abortions?

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 02:45 PM) $50 million has been spent prosecuting this guy. That's tax payer dollars. And for what? The fact that we don't base prosecutions on how good of a legal team the defendant can buy, but instead on whether or not a crime was committed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 02:56 PM) That doesn't say anything about the reliability of his perception of the effects of steroid use. Honestly? It kinda does.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 12:50 PM) Besides Canseco is a greedy and egotistical prick. No one would have talked about his book if he had sad it only added 0.010 to his slugger percentage. No one would be still talking about his book if he wasn't ~ 9/9.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 01:53 PM) Same law that eliminated public money and accomodations to the Boy Scouts. A private organization can raise private funds for legal purposes, in some cases then they just can't also have public funds. Good, exactly where I wanted you to go...the government has every right to decide not to contribute to Planned Parenthood, just as the government has every right to decide not to contribute to the Boy Scouts. The government can also base its decisions for who to contribute to on the behavior or effectiveness of that organization. If the government wants to stop contributing to Planned Parenthood based on what they're doing with private donations, this is entirely reasonable. The government can also tell PP that it will only contribute to PP under certain circumstances. What the government cannot do is tell PP what it can or can't do with privately raised funds as a matter of law. This brings us to the real issue...why does government money flow to PP in the first place? The answer is...because it works. The Nixon administration was the one that started it, and the reason why he started it was that the government was spending a ton of money providing healthcare and child-bearing services to people who were left behind and uninsured. By increasing the funding for PP, the government made it so that more women were getting those services...cancer treatment rates improved, child development was improved, unwanted pregnancies were dropped. The government gave them money because that money was being well spent...it was saving the taxpayers money in other places. If the government wanted to, it could instead of funding PP, set up its own version of PP that did not provide abortion services. However, first, doing that nationwide will cost a hell of a lot more money than just using PP's already existing network, the Feds wouldn't have the already-established PP name to work with, and it's very likely that funding for that organization would be subject to the whims of whoever took office...such that clinics would be opening and closing every few years, a total mess. The government funds PP because it saves the taxpayers money, it makes people healthier, and it works. If the government wants to spend more money and have more premature births or dead mothers, it is the Republicans right to demand that, and it's equally my right to say "You do this and you kill women and babies, and you waste money to do it." because I'm fully accurate in saying so.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 10:56 AM) Can anyone recall a lights-out closer who transitioned from an extended, multi-year "apprenticeship" as a set up man, like Thornton? I honestly can not (I thought maybe the Nasty Boys, but I think they were mostly always interchangeable). There have got to be a few, but it seems like most of the best either got thrown right into the fire, converted from starting, or set up for no more than a year. Latroy Hawkins has been cited here as an example of a failed transition, and I'm wondering how often it’s done successfully. As has been said, I think there is a huge difference between innings 7-8 and 9, and mental intangibles (or just plain gonads) are a key to closing. Unfortunately, they have to be tested under fire, and 0 for your first 3 = a failing grade. Heath Bell spent 5 years as a setup man before the Padres let Hoffman go. Brad Lidge and Octavio Dotel both spent years as setup men for Howry, then as rotating closers in 2004, before Lidge took over the job.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 08:34 AM) That's cause he pitched in the 7th/8th inning for so long. When you blow a game in the 8th, it counts as a blown save. But if you keep the lead and then the closer comes in, you get credit for a hold but it doesn't count as a save opportunity. His stats say 17 saves, 24 blown saves, which is an awful 41.5%. But if you include his holds & saves, it's more like 122 holds/saves, 24 blown saves, which is 83.6%. Not the best either, but way different than under 50% And you don't get a Hold for a game where you come in while it's tied or while you're down by 1 either.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 08:34 AM) Wasn't 98 his usual last year, though? While 1-2mph doesn't sound like a lot, at that speed, it's a world of difference. His average fastball last year was 96.1. His average fastball on his career is 95.7. He's exactly where he's been the last 5 years.

Broken left thumb for Furcal.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 08:28 AM) On the Billy Koch gun? If the link goes to the right spot, here's the Pitch F/X data for Thornton last night. Average fastball was 95.6, hit 96.7 at his top.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 08:20 AM) I don't know...Thornton's "fastball" looks slow...and he's essentially a 1 pitch pitcher. Without that dominating fastball, he's Jenks without the hammer...and that's a big problem. And I have no concerns about Pierre. He's an average outfielder, but dropping fly balls like he's been doing is clearly out of character for him. Trouble is, his fastball looks slow and is still clocking 96.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 08:14 AM) The logic is, and was, exactly what the poster you responded too doesn't want to hear. Whether you two want to hear it or not, it is what it is. Ozzie made up his mind that he'd not overuse Buehrle this year, as Buehrle has been running out of gas mid earlier and earlier every year as the innings pile on. Furthermore, it's been said that even in games like this one, Buehrle would be removed...where a closer *should* be able to protect a 1 run lead over an anemic Oakland offense. Hell, add in the fact that Matt Thornton genuinely needs to work his way through whatever's going on with him, and pulling M-56 was clearly the right call.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 09:52 PM) If you factor in the posting fee, is that one of the worst contracts ever? It's no fun to say "one of" the worst contracts ever, you can always just add to the list of them.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 08:09 AM) Thornton worries me more than Pierre. He's been a decent defensive OF (minus the arm) his whole career, I don't think he permanently forgot how to catch a ball. He'll get his head in the right place and be fine. But closing is, IMO, a very different game, mentally. And I am not sure if Matt has the right mindset, nor am I sure he can find it. Some pitchers just don't. I don't know about mindset, but Matt Thornton looks more hittable than he has at any point since 2006.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 10:09 PM) AGAIN?!?! That is not Thornton's fault. To be a little fair, Matt did fall behind him and that only hit his glove because he ccovered a ton of ground. Still shoulda been caught obviously.