Balta1701

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 03:09 PM) I'm not sure I'd give up Hudson in a Dunn deal since it's a rental, but at this point I have to disagree with the bolded point. I made my case in the Dunn thread. Care to give a response?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 02:56 PM) Viciedo and Hudson for Dunn. Would you do it today? I bet the Nats would. That's our only hope for a significant trade IMO and I wouldn't do it. Viciedo would be a nice bat the rest of this season if given the chance IMO. Really, I'd hesitate an awful lot unless I had another option for both this year and long-term as my 5th starter. I still think you lose more wins replacing Hudson with Torres than you gain by replacing Kotsay with Dunn.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 02:58 PM) It's only a good plan if you have capable offensive players, which we really don't have in Kotsay and Jones. Jones has an OPS+ of 98 on the season and a .753 OPS. Against LH pitchers in particular, he has an .853 OPS. Furthermore, he's been a plus fielder in both CF and RF, despite limited time there (he's been a negative fielder in LF, but he's played a total of 10 games there, as opposed to 35 in RF). Yes, he's all or nothing, but he's pretty much been exactly the kind of guy you'd want on your bench and rotating through the DH as the right-handed partner. Strong on defense, and especially against LHP, not a liability with the bats.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 02:42 PM) Mets fans should immediately boycott all games if their GM acquires Linebrink. It's hard to imagine a worse pitcher than he. Except Randy Williams, of course. I think you're underestimating the awfulness of the back end of most team's bullpens.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 02:32 PM) Doesn't really mean his talent is declining. He was just really good last year and it would have been easier to sell that to a GM. He's been really good for the last 2 months in AAA this year as well.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 02:25 PM) Probably just a little rest. He hasn't had anything extra in terms of rest since the AS break and went 0/yesterday. Can't hurt to rest his legs a bit more today. That's what the rotating DH was supposed to do.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 02:13 PM) I honestly think Hudson was more valuable last year than he is this year. If that's true then other GM's are quite silly indeed.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 27, 2010 -> 11:49 PM) Why do you hate "freedom of speech"? Think about that before you answer... at least a little... After some time Kap...I've found an answer...I'll let Toles take this one.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 11:02 AM) My original complaint was the lack of coverage and outrage over Oliver Stone's comments. Someone else brought up Mel Gibson. Thank you. I missed that. At least some of this makes more sense now.

1. Bundling is done exactly how you describe you want it to be done. The individuals give their gifts themselves and record it on their own taxes. They're not allowed to be coerced into it in any way. However, if it just so happens that I arrange a party for 300 of my wealthiest friends and that party just happens to include a dinner with the President...well, that's convenient. If you're allowing direct contributions, there's no way around this problem, because you can't ban me from encouraging other people to financially support a candidate I support, even if the reason happens to be "we'll all make a fortune if this guy gets elected" and that is all that "Bundling" is. 2. I think you're being nitpicky with your discussion of what is and is not a gift. If there's room for improvement on those rules then it can be done, but that misses 99.99% of the problem of how money corrupts politics. 3. I'm not sure how I could make that rule practical. I can give a couple examples. First, let's say that Congress right now decided that the government would assume all liabilities related to oil spills. That's not giving anything directly to any company, but it's a hell of a bailout for BP. Let's say Congress decides to offer a giant subsidy on oil drilling in the Gulf (they do). That's a hell of a contribution for any company drilling in the gulf. What happens if Congress funds the F-35? Only 1 manufacturer is building those planes. Beyond that, there's really no reason to assume that the executive branch isn't just as corruptible, since the executive officer of the nation also needs to run for office. If that executive officer decided that every contract the executive branch handed out would be a no-bid contract to one of his political supporters, or to a company that just happened to employ a friendly union, it's the same deal. The problem you and I are going to have, I feel, is that you're trying to design a system that is incorruptible without going after the heart of the matter...the fact that once private money gets in, people are going to sit in a room, either at a corporation or union, and say "if our guy gets elected, we're going to have a lot more money". Once that is true...no matter how high you build the walls regarding gifts, collaboration, earmarks, whatever...then there is every reason for a politician to support policies which will bring him or her the most money possible by transferring large sums of government money to his or her supporters.

Hi Jackie! (whisked away by airport police who listened only to the first 2 syllables)

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 01:17 PM) I think it will be a pitcher. The chemistry in my mind is working and I think Dayan goes down when Teahen comes back until Sept 1st then I think you get a Teahen/Dayan platoon at DH for the rest of the year. Mark Kotsay will not lose his at bats.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 12:02 PM) And AJ's making around $6.5 million this season...right? And I doubt they would try to cut his salary closer to $5 million...it could be one of those times where they ask AJ if he will take less in order to come back (where he'd obviously prefer to be), but he's not one of those guys making $10 million plus per year, not sure how he would take that. Probably not so well. Between his "reputation" around the league and the fact that he's been way, way, way down with the bats this year, I think AJ will wind up shocked at how little he'll get offered on the open market. Teams that actually need a catcher are just instinctively not going to want to deal with him.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 11:09 AM) Salary cap relief is a benefit to this team, it helps when forming the team next season and opens a spot on the 40 man roster which can be useful once the non-waiver deadline passes. (Small note...baseball has no salary cap. And I believe the Sox already have an open 40 man spot...and they could come up with another one by moving Peavy to the 60 day DL.).

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 11:06 AM) Why give our players away for nothing? Doesn't seem like we have to move anyone unless it benefits us as well as the otehr team If you can clear Linebrink's salary for next season...you do so without hesitating. That money is enough to pay for a good setup man.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 10:56 AM) No, not at all. I agree with some ASPECTS of the current system, but if read my posts instead of just pulling out certain parts, you will see I think there are other things that should be different. The rest of it, the parts about not allowing things to be coordinated with a campaign and that corporations can't directly fund campaigns...are already on the books. They're hard to enforce, but they already exist. Laws against gifts from lobbyists already exist (ask Charlie Rangel). Laws against direct contributions from corporations to candidates already exist at least at the national level (some states do have different laws). You've said you want lobbying to be legal, and you've said you want private and private bundled contributions to be legal...both of which are already the case. You've said you don't want anything resembling a gift in exchange for support, which is already the case. Every other thing you've asked for is in the current system. The only thing you've asked for in this thread which is not already on the books is disclosure of corporate and private PAC contributions, which is the essence of the DISCLOSE act.

No seriously, I'm quite confused here. From what I read of this conversation, it's been arguing that we're not getting mad enough at Mel Gibson's crazy remarks, and this is the liberal media's fault because they only get mad when a Conservative makes a crazy statement. I can't figure out how in the world you can possibly call Mel Gibson a liberal, and I can't figure out how Mel Gibson not getting enough press coverage for being a crazy holocaust denier is the fault of the liberals. I frankly don't care one bit about Mel Gibson, I'm just totally lost as to how this is my fault. I always thought of him as a Conservative, but in this case, I'm not trying to say that fans of his movies are all anti-semites. Should I be? I'm serious, I'm totally lost here, the argument I'm getting is: Mel Gibson isn't getting enough coverage, this is the fault of the liberals trying to cover for one of their own. What have I misread?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 10:45 AM) I don't care for labeling any group due to one members' views. I'm just pointing out the double standard that liberals don't get as upset (as in not at all) when it's a crazy liberal who says the stupid thing. Is Mel Gibson a crazy liberal?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 10:44 AM) I think it is a classic case of people judging his stuff over his results. The guy still can get it up there, and he threw a (imperfect) no hitter this year. There is always a team out there that thinks they can catch lightning in a bottle There are also cases where teams think a guy would perform particularly well in their ballpark or working with their pitching coach, or that he'd be a particularly good match for the other guys on their staff.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 10:40 AM) The other problem you have with Dunn is finding a position for him. He has said many times that he does not want to DH so it doesnt make sense to go trade for a guy who doesnt want to be here. He is not as good defensively at any position as the players we have now. The other question is if the Sox make the trade will they offer arbitration or will they be afraid of getting stuck with a ~$13M contract for next season that they dont have budget room for? Unless he gets hurt, there's no reason to think he isn't eminently tradeable the moment he signs his arbitration deal, if he decides to go that route (there is also zero chance he'd accept arbitration unless he gets majorly hurt before the end of this year).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 10:29 AM) I have no issue with that at all (bolded). Each person has a choice - they can listen to BP's request, and then do what they want with their $3000. Then basically, you're arguing in favor of the current system except with the DISCLOSE act passed.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 10:18 AM) I'm saying change the rules for PAC's, and require disclosure. No mixing of funds, ever, for any purpose, between parties/candidates and corporations. Well, first of all, the bill in question here, the DISCLOSE act, does the first part (at least it's supposed to, until we figure out where the loopholes are). The 2nd part is the complicated part, because as you've noted, BP can't give $10 million to Joe Barton, but BP's CEO can sit down in a room with his 500 rich friends, all of whom happen to be big investors in BP, and tell them that if Joe Barton becomes chair of the House Energy committee it'll be worth millions to the value of their stock, so each of them should max out and give $3000 to Joe Barton's campaign this year, and another $3000 to any other Republican they can find to try to help them win the majority. That's the same argument we get for why Obama's been so lenient on BP, because of all of the individual donations coming from employees and friends of that firm. Really, the only way you're going to stop that is to outright ban political contributions, because there's no way you can ban me from trying to convince my friend to support a cause that I support.

Mark!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 10:05 AM) Tossed out by a court under current law. I believe the law can be made such that it wouldn't run afoul of that ruling. Also, no, they can do a lot more than that now, including donate directly to parties, candidates and PAC's. This is why its so important to re-write the laws on this. Its a complex issue, but some simple solutions CAN give us a lot of progress. A simple solution like say, making it so that a company or a union can't give large sums of money to a PAC to fund an ad campaign without acknowledging in the ad that they were the donor?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 28, 2010 -> 09:55 AM) That wasn't directed to you specifically. I just keep hearing all this bulls*** about how a tea partier says something about a minority and they're deemed racist, which of course means conservatives are all racist, which means fox news is racist (Dean). It starts with one person saying something stupid and people run with it. I was just making the comparison that there should be the same reaction here, but there's not. So, would you like it if I said Mel Gibson was an anti-semite borderline neo-Nazi, and people who associate with him and support him should be lumped into the same category?