Balta1701

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 17, 2010 -> 11:30 AM) You cite two examples that appear political -- both of them should have hundreds of more examples -- and *some* of them should show non political judgments, too. It's really that simple. If every judgment you make agrees with your party, you aren't qualified, IMO, for such a position. Period. And each judge likely does have hundreds more examples. The difference is...those don't get scrutiny because they're not controversial to the side doing the hard questioning during a confirmation hearing. Kagan, for example, has several writings and such on executive power and privacy rights (i.e. the Bush/Obama wiretapping programs) that have been highly controversial on the left. But since things that the left finds controversial don't matter, you're not talking about them.

I loves me some cashews.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 17, 2010 -> 11:13 AM) Making the decision based on current law isn't the same as making the decision based on which party you're affiliated with, now is it? Do the math. If you agree politically with one side on an issue, and you're forced to decide on that issue, even if you're 100% deciding based on the current law, what's going to happen? You're going to make some decisions that agree with your political beliefs. Immediately, that's going to set you up for attack from the other side. For all I know, Kagan may think that Citizens United was 100% the correct decision or even didn't go far enough (God I hope not). But in her role as Solicitor General, it was her job to argue the case in favor of the current law, and she did that. But now, that case is a political ruling, and so her arguments in favor of the campaign restrictions are now considered political arguments. Sotomayor, for example, ruled on the unpopular "Kelo vs. New London" case involving a city trying to forceably take property for commercial development. Her ruling likely followed the law to the letter, but that case became a political case that became a libertarian Cause Celebre, and thus, her ruling, even if 100% technically accurate at her level, was an issue during her confirmation.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 17, 2010 -> 11:04 AM) Supreme court justices should all be *required* to show a prior track record of non political, non empathetical judgments throughout their career in interpreting law in a completely down the middle, non-biased fashion, whether it be for or against any such cause or modern plight. If they cannot show this past track record, they have no business making final rulings on the laws of the land, regardless of how it was done in the past. The very fact that the modern supreme court is "weighted" with 5 "republican leaning" and 4 "democratic leaning" judges is so beyond stupid, it's unfathomable to me that we let this sort of political bulls*** infest our highest court. These judges have no business being affiliated with any party, or letting such affiliations weigh their judgments. I find it funny that just about every vote on the supreme level if 5-4 across the board. Gee, I wonder why that is. Now, really, I understand viewing the growing polarization on the court as a problem, but I'm not exactly sure where you're going to find these candidates you speak of who show this record of non-political decisions on political issues? For example, even if a lower court is doing it's job 100% correctly, it is still ruling on issues that will go upwards to the Supreme Court, and it's doing so based on its reading of the current law and current Supreme Court rulings. So, for example, if an abortion case comes up before a judge, that judge can't just recuse him or herself because its a political issue, that judge has to make a decision based on the current law. And since we have an extremely activist supreme court right now, whatever decision that judge makes is going to be a political one and it's going to have a chance of being overturned. The only way to meet your standard would be to have a pair of dice out get nominated. If a judge is working his or her way up, he or she is issuing rulings that one party or the other will like, he or she is producing writings that one party will like more than the other. The idea that there is this large group of non partisan scholars out there to pull from is silly.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ May 17, 2010 -> 10:56 AM) It's not a matter of if, but when the White Sox release him. 6 runs in only 1.1 innings of work. I say he's cut loose after 1 or 2 more outings. How long will Threets be on the DL?

QUOTE (Tex @ May 17, 2010 -> 10:43 AM) Are you really suggesting they were mistakes? If that is the case, a third of the justices that have ever served are mistakes. It strikes me though that list may be biased by the first 9. Did any of them ever actually serve as judges when there were no official lower courts for them to serve in?

QUOTE (DBAHO @ May 17, 2010 -> 10:44 AM) I wouldn't say support is exactly lacking in Miami, obviously it's not on a level like Boston, Chicago etc. but if Lebron went there, they'd sell-out that building every night I'd say, especially considering the team hasn't been a contender for a few years now. Yeah, but there's a difference between selling out the building every night and owning one of the biggest media markets in the country.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ May 17, 2010 -> 10:45 AM) Why keep around players who are in a contract for 2-3 more years when it is going to be pretty tough to be competitive during those years. Might as well try to get some good young players again. If it's done right, it's entirely possible to be competitive next year, we just have to be intelligent about how its done.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 17, 2010 -> 10:46 AM) What about the worst to first transformation Detroit did a couple years back? Are we that far off? It depends on Beckham and Quentin. If they're 2 all stars, then we're close. If they're 2 busts, then we have a debacle of a lineup.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 17, 2010 -> 10:35 AM) Well, they have a coach. Spoelstra is better by default because the Bulls dont have anyone to compare him with. Someone on ESPN 1000 was saying that Miami is having a hard time getting good players to come to Miami because it is just too much partying, and the fans dont care about the team Yeah, I've heard that a lot of people haven't been too thrilled with Spoelstra either.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 17, 2010 -> 10:30 AM) Excellent point. It just depends on whether the Sox see themselves competitive in 2011. If they don't, I'd think long and hard about moving him now so that you can get the prospects now in the rebuilding process. But again, if we move him to closer and he kicks ass (which he should), than his trade value would definitely increase. I think a team knowing they have him for another year at a bargain makes him a very very very big chip. In fact, I could see the Sox getting 3 of the top 5 prospects out of an organization. Yeah, if you could totally cream another team, then I'd consider moving him, but that's literally what it would take. I don't even think about trading Thor because I have such a hard time seeing another team giving up as much as I'd want in exchange for him. I think it's a lot more likely that a team would meet my price for Rios than for Thornton.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 17, 2010 -> 10:25 AM) Thornton, Putz, and Jenks are all options as well. Thornton has one year left on this team before he gets expensive and at that point, you have to ask yourself whether it is worth it to pay huge money to a reliever. Now Thornton might be the best lefty reliever in the game, but he should command 10M a year and I don't think I'd pay my closer 10M a year. Thornton has an option for 2011 correct? IMO, the only reason to move him is if you're worried about his elbow now. He's not likely to be worth that much less next year than this, you could even get more value out of him by turning him into a closer after moving Jenks, and worst case scenario I'd be happy to offer him arbitration after 2011.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ May 17, 2010 -> 10:18 AM) The only players that need to be traded (in my mind) are A.J., Konerko, and Jones. You might as well shop Putz too, and i can't see Jenks really fetching anything, unless he's a piece in the package. I'd DFA Williams, Vizquel and Kotsay, and just restock the 25-man with younger guys. Note: Not Danks 2 or Viciedo. Not Yet. Jenks, I don't really care if he bring anything back, but if I can get rid of 1/2 of his salary for the season I'd totally do it.

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ May 17, 2010 -> 10:06 AM) I wonder if we start dealing off bigger parts if Peavy won't ask to be dealt as well... he did come here with hopes of competing. Peavy's a much more difficult case to deal than Rios, for a couple reasons. First, he has a larger contract. Second...he hasn't pitched like an all star over the season so far. I don't have all the salary numbers, and without knowing team revenue projections and whether or not they're planning a total salary cut over the next few years or legitimately have room for expansion...but unless I was really fiscally strapped, I wouldn't trade him unless I got what I considered to be fair value for an ace pitcher under contract for a long time. And to me, that value is 2-3 legitimate high level top prospects. You can note quite readily that San Diego did not get that for Peavy, no matter what you think of Richard, he wasn't on anyone's top 25 in baseball list. Ditto the other guys we sent. We got Peavy at a firesale price from a team desperate to unload his salary. Unless we're equally desperate to unload that salary, the only reason to move him is for a king's ransom.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ May 17, 2010 -> 09:39 AM) I don't know... come trading deadline, you just might find a team that's desperate for another bat. KW might get more than you think for Jones. If he keeps hitting...Jones would make an ideal addition for a team needing a bat and some OF defense/DH. We'd be really helped by the fact that his contract is so cheap; a team like hte Rays wouldn't have to give it a 2nd thought.

There appears to have been a possible nuclear negotiations breakthrough regarding Iran overnight.

QUOTE (hawksox13 @ May 17, 2010 -> 09:31 AM) I don't think you trade away guys with years left on their deal that can still give the Sox some production (Floyd, Rios). I do believe that trading guys that have expiring contracts (Konerko, A.J., even Jenks who is set to make a lot at arbitration next year) is a smart move. IMO, a full firesale done correctly has to be done with the idea of maximizing all value possible out of every player you have. If you have a guy signed for a number of years or under your control for a number of years who is underpeforming his contract, unless another team makes you an incredible offer for that player, you don't move him, because his value is likely to go up if he finds a grove. (Floyd, Peavy, Teahen, Beckham, Quentin are in this category). If you have a guy who is likely to be a Free Agent at the end of the year, then you take whatever you can get from them unless you think they'll be a type A Free Agent at the end of the year and you can get picks back that are more useful than the trade offers. (Jones, Pierzynski, Konerko, Putz, Jenks, Kotsay, Vizquel). If you have a guy who is actually performing at or above his pay grade who is also signed for a number of years, then you consider moving him while his value is high. You don't trade him off for nothing, but you get the best possible piece in exchange for him that you can. Rios is the best example in this category. D1 might fit here also if we got a gigantic offer for him.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 17, 2010 -> 09:24 AM) So unload the entire team including top players signed for multiple years for what exactly? A bunch of prospects? Walk back to your living room, pick up your controller and continue your MLB the show league. IN real life, this idea is what we call retarded. Frankly, if I get to firesale mode (and we show every sign of needing to get there) I'd unload everyone who was an upcoming FA this offseason that I could possibly unload for whatever I could get back, including simply salary savings. I'd try to get back a lower level minor leaguer or a reclamation project for the guys who are struggling (Jenks, Putz, Kotsay or Vizquel or AJ if anyone will take htem) and I'd try to get legitimate pieces back for Konerko and Jones. And then, out of the guys remaining, I'd look to move Rios for a top level prospect.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2010 -> 09:13 AM) Of all of the things to believe in this world, Calipari's word isn't high on my list. Hell I'd be inclined to believe the opposite. Larry Brown says he's staying in Charlotte.

QUOTE (hawksox13 @ May 17, 2010 -> 09:19 AM) Rios - Keep him. He is part of the new core of this team. Jones - To keep respectability I'd probably keep him and let him play outfield or DH every day. Jones has already proven this, he needs to be treated like glass. You play him every day and he's on the DL by the end of May. It really is that simple. Rios, to me, remains an expensive luxury that a team with 6-7 likely free agents, commitments for $75-$80 million, and a $95 million payroll can't afford righ tnow.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 17, 2010 -> 01:36 AM) if the negligence parts are true, I agree, time for some massive criminal prosecution to occur. (see, it does happen once in a while) If course...let's also remember that the punitive damages BP could face over that criminal negligence is limited to $75 million.

QUOTE (WilliamTell @ May 17, 2010 -> 12:44 AM) I know you Bulls fans will be excited to have LeBron if he choses Chicago, and I can't blame you. But if LeBron goes to the Bulls, the Bulls might be my most hated NBA team. But I think that's a price you guys are willing to take, haha. Frankly...the Bulls should be the most hated team. They should have been the most hated team in the 90's, and the only thing that is keeping Cleveland from being the most hated team right now is the combination of antics of KG and Rondo, and perhaps Kobe Bryant's hotel room escapades a few years ago.

QUOTE (striker @ May 17, 2010 -> 09:01 AM) As much as I'd like to unload everyone it doesn't make sense since all but like 4 players are absolutely sucking. This very same team could make the playoffs next year if they just get off on the right foot. The reality is...this team won't be together next season. The odds are that at most 1, maybe 2 of these guys would be back next year. And if they are back, it's going to eat up the money it would take to fill other holes. Konerko Pierzynski Jenks Putz Jones Kotsay and Vizquel as well but nobody really cares about them. If we're not prepared to offer Konerko another 2/$20 next offseason and someone else is, or we're not prepared to offer AJ 2/$10 to fill a catching hole, we're not prepared to offer Jenks arbitration and have him score a $10 million deal, we're not prepared to offer Jones an $8 million deal...then it makes zero sense to hold any of them. Especially considering you could save $10 million this year that could be invested into the draft or next year's team.

QUOTE (b-Rye @ May 17, 2010 -> 02:24 AM) 1. Pirates 2. Cubs 3. Royals 4. Orioles 5. Nationals 6. Mets 7. Reds In between decent and frustrating crap every year: 1. Brewers 2. A's 3. Mariners 4. White Sox 5. Rockies I note in your Zeal to go after the Sox that they're the only team on your list that has a recent World Series win, and they have as many recent playoff appearances as any other team on that list.

QUOTE (BamaDoc @ May 16, 2010 -> 11:49 PM) mlb trade rumors now reporting Rangers have asked about AJ A veteran catcher who hits from the LH side with about $5 million remaining on his deal and playoff experience, plus a June 13th trade deadline? I wouldn't be surprised if there were about 5 teams who had asked about him. The Rays, the Yankees, the Rangers, the A's, the Nationals, the Marlins, the Phillies. Lots of them have regular catchers, but there's a lot of nagging injuries out there.