Balta1701

Some LA Times writers have provided additional information about his time at the local community college, the run-ins with the police and the "Debts" that he was talking about in the youtube videos (he paid for college courses but got kicked out of the course, he appears to have concluded that the university could steal his money since it was just paper money and wasn't real). If I've got the timeline right, he uploaded that Youtube video the same day that he bought the gun.

Steelers/Ravens and Jets/Patriots rematches next week. 2 3-peat games.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 02:52 PM) Define positive? Why would I delude myself into thinking Crain was a great signing when I really don't believe that? Because it was the Sox who signed him, therefore I have to pretend it's great when I really don't? I guarantee you if the Cubs had signed him to the same deal there would be people all over this site talking about what a dumb move it was. Like I've said multiple times, Crain was pretty good last year. But from '07 through '09 he sported a 4.27 ERA and a 1.408 WHIP. So color me pretty skeptical. Then we give him three years on top of it? Did we not learn a thing from the Linebrink Debacle? And I've never been crazy about Loogy's. Guys that you MIGHT get 35 innings tops from? You SHOULD be able to produce guys like that from the system. But that's just me. I've raved about the Dunn signing. Not sure what else you expect me to say. I know it's fun to compare the Crain signing to the Linebrink signing, but at least in my eyes, there was additional reason to be skeptical about Linebrink when he was signed than about Crain. Linebrink's last great season was 2005. In 2006 and 2007, his number started marching upwards. He was, by the time the Padres traded him, just about an average pitcher; his last year in Petco, he put up a 3.80 ERA in that ballpark as a setup man for Hoffman. He was then traded to Milwaukee, where his ERA improved, but his WHIP with Milwaukee was 1.5, so he was really struggling there. I think there really was a general feeling when we signed Linebrink that he was on his way downwards, but that he was at best a needed-stopgap. Crain, on the other hand, is coming off of his best year since he was a 23 year old. Crain is 2 years younger than Linebrink was when we signed him. Crain has a longer injury history...that's his downside, and both of his bad seasons have been associated with injuries. On the other hand, one thing our pitching coach is pretty good at is keeping his guys healthy if its remotely possible.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 04:06 PM) Smoltz also had a couple thousand innings worth of conditioning on his arm at that time. Sale doesn't. Meh, I consider him to basically have had his arm "reset" after the surgery to some extent. No matter how many miles he had on his arm, he had to re-condition it almost from square one.

The Person of Interest in this case has been cleared. It was a cab driver who accompanied the shooter into the Safeway so that he could get exact change.

QUOTE (WilliamTell @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 03:20 PM) This KC team was never as good as their record. They had an easy schedule. Out of the 6 AFC teams they didn't play, 4 of them made the playoffs (Patriots, Jets, Steelers, Ravens) and the other (Colts) beat them. I had them going 8-8 this year, instead they went 10-6. 2-4 AFC West (Actual: 2-4) 1-3 AFC South (Actual: 2-2) 2-0 Bills/Browns (Actual: 2-0) 3-1 NFC West (Actual: 4-0) Still, despite today's results, this Chiefs team looks like a team that is on their way up. They have holes which showed up today, but they're going to be a team to contend with out West for the next couple years.

I'm trying to figure out how to say this correctly, and I think that I've pretty much decided that there's no way I can say it respectfully. I disagree vehemently with the idea that there's anything to the "No Labels!" movement other than a handful of very wealthy narcissists who believe that their policies obviously sit right at the point where everyone in America should naturally agree with them. We see this all the time, especially from the media. A group of people declare that they obviously are able to speak for America, and that America wants the policies they happen to line up with perfectly. If you read their issues statements...they use waste words like "Americans should celebrate global trade". Their energy policy page recommendations are pretty much "Business as usual" and don't even mention climate change. Their page on the deficit was written by the Peter G. Petersen foundation, which is dedicated to massive cuts in Social Security in Medicare in the name of balancing the budget (you got to see what their plan looked like in the Deficit commission report...massive upper class tax cuts combined with stripping back Social Security and magically assuming Medicare will shrink). It's a cute name and the name does fit the times...but it's the same as a Bloomberg candidacy. It's the wealthy and influential people advocating for policies that benefit them hugely...but they're 100% convinced everyone really believes in them and they're the best thing for everyone.

That was totally the right call, but how often do you ever see a WR get called for offensive pass interference for blocking downfield (and just getting started too early?)

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 03:25 PM) Ok Bears. Take note of this, please. At least to me, that would be a luxury signing...but the Bears might legitimately have room to do it, esp. if they get good revenue out of ticket sales in the playoffs. Would certainly make the Bears better, but that's one of those positions where we've seen some stupid contracts given out.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 03:11 PM) He's had two really good years in his career in which he pitched a legitimate amount of innings. 2005 and last year. Now I didn't realize he pitched only 16.1 innings in 2007. So that's my bad. How bad was he hurt in 2009? He still appeared in 56 games. Either way he's been sporadic at best and is exactly the type of reliever you don't hand out 3-year deals to. His splits in 2009 are ridiculous. He had 3 months, June July and August, where he gave up OPS's of 1.084, 1.035, and .935, bracketed by april with an OPS of .458 against him, August and Sept. of .642 adn .462 against him. Basically, he had a stretch where he was abjectly awful, bracketed by stretches where he was great. And that stretch in May where he was bad began with him missing time at the end of april/beginning of May with a shoulder injury of some sort. They sent him down to AAA in July, and he came back up and was right back to being lights-out.

ON another topic, Raiders CB Nnamdi Asomugha has used an opt-out clause in his contract to become a free agent, and the team will not be able to use the franchise tag on him because of how the clause was structured. Should there ever be a free agency period, he will be one of the top names.

I found it fascinating that a Senior Republican Senator was willing to say this, but not on the record.

A 20 year old who University of Arizona student who had been an intern in the Congresswoman's office for 5 days probably saved her life.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 02:59 PM) I thought a B- was a solid grade myself. But anything less than an A+ around these parts and you're the Grinch that stole White Sox Christmas or something. I agree with everything you said in your post except the part about Crain. We need him to do what he did last year. Not what he's always done. Because what he's always done hasn't been real good. Actually, what he's always done has been pretty good. Not very good...everyone has to note that 2009 season. It's been pretty good... every year that he's been healthy other than 2009 he's been very good.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 02:54 PM) Exactly, which is why you cannot say that putting Sale in the bullpen will hurt him in the future as a starter. He excelled in the bullpen last season. It was a small sample size and most of the games didn't matter, but the object is to win in 2011. It behoves the Sox to put Sale in the spot they think makes them the better team, not worry about his draft value, because pitching is pitching. It makes no sense that one year in the bullpen is going to cause anyone to fail as a starter. Most top of the line relievers were failed starters at some point. Another guy who went starter, reliever, starter was Derek Lowe. He made a lot of money. It's not about his draft value as much as it is about his value to the Sox. His pitching value to the Sox is greatest if he can have 6+ seasons with the Sox with the maximum amount of successful innings. If you're cutting back on the number of innings...you have to get something back in return. This could be improved performance in the shorter number of innings, improved health, or perhaps a playoff run. The equation is complicated though, especially if there is a chance that pitching fewer innings could also increase his chance of injury or reduce his chance of long-term success as a starter.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 02:41 PM) You're refusing to acknowledge that putting him in the bullpen can be anything but bad. You're so concerned with first round draft pick "value." Please give me examples of pitchers who would have been stars, but were ruined because teams decided to put them in the bullpen. You would have a hard time proving that was the reason. Oh come on man, that's an impossible task, because you're asking me to prove a hypothetical. I can say people like Joba Chamberlain, Brandon McCarthy, Jonathan Papelbon, all of whom started out in the pen and never caught on as starters, but I can't prove that putting them in the bullpen was the single thing that hurt them. Putting him in the bullpen this season might win us a division this season, and it might not. Putting him in the bullpen this season might harm his career or it might not. I think the safest bet is to try to get him as many innings as possible.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 02:36 PM) Have studies ever determined whether starters develop more injuries than relievers? I would think the strain of back-to-back days might be greater than the higher inning load/pitch count. The problem is...how do you ask the question? If you ask...do starters get injured more per outing than relievers...the answer is yes...because starters have fewer outings. If you ask...do starters get injured more per inning than relievers, the answer is no, because starters pitch more innings. Beyond that...there's no real good answer. Some guys handle 1 type, some guys handle the other.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 02:36 PM) My point wasn't necessarily protecting Sale. My point was Sale in the bullpen makes the Sox a better team. Smoltz relieved 4 or 5 years, and he came back into the rotation and was fine. 1 year in the bullpen won't kill Sale. If the Braves had had the choice of where to put Smoltz, they'd have put him in the rotation. And you don't know that 1 year in the bullpen won't be a major setback, just like I don't know that it will be. I just feel like you're absolutely refusing to acknowledge that there is any risk inherent to his career by using him this way

This is the 2nd person being sought by police.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 02:19 PM) Smoltz was able to do it. Its not always for protection, but one thing Ozzie is pretty good at is not overusing his bullpen. Pitchers get hurt and sit out seasons and come back and throw a lot of innings all the time. A year in the bullpen isn't going to ruin him. If he fails, he would have failed anyway. You know why Smoltz was able to do it? Because right after his first surgery, his doctor told him that it would be less tough on his arm to limit his innings, so they moved him to the bullpen. But then, a couple years later, they told him that things had reversed, and with the condition of his arm, warming up 60+ times a year would be more likely to re-injure it, so that's when he reverted back to starting. Smoltz did it because he had to in order to follow doctor's advice.

QUOTE (joeynach @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 02:16 PM) Im fine with him as a long term reliever, if he turns out to be the next Matt Thornton that would still be one hell of a draft pick. Honestly...for a pick in the first half of the first round...that'd be at best an adequate pick, and somewhat disappointing.

Xerxes deserves a movie.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 01:40 PM) It's more concerning to me that he's 6-6, 175 lbs. He needs to get stronger. It'd be encouraging to see him at 190 before the season starts. it's worth noting that he had a bout of food poisioning in the spring last year that cost him about 10 lbs at the time.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 02:04 PM) What's it about Sale, who is accustumed to being a starter, but did quite well in a limited time in the bullpen, that is going to kill him if he spends 2011 in the bullpen? It what makes the 2011 White Sox best IMO. And even if he ultimately became a lockdown bullpen guy instead of a #4 or #5 starter, because I doubt ace type guys are ruined spending one year in the bullpen, I don't see where that ultimately kills the Sox first round "value" for him, another argument a lot of people make around here for why he has to be a starter. Considering their history of first round picks, anyone who actually contributes to winning, is better than most. Well...I certainly can give reasons...having a guy like Sale warm up and pitch 60-70 times in short bursts, where he's coming out and throwing all fastballs every time, could easily be harder on his arm than long innings. It just works differently for some people. Moving them to the bullpen isn't necessarily "protection". The one thing I just don't want to do, long-term, is sacrifice the fact that his arm is already accustomed to throwing a good number of innings per year, because then if you try to move his innings back up, you need to re-adjust his arm. Bouncing around like that can be another bad thing for an arm.

Very few recently though.