Balta1701

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 06:32 PM) Are you really going to argue that having a high OBP-player like Swish in the lineup wouldn't change our offensive output. Keep in mind that Swish isn't only going to drive in 85 Runs, but he's also going to set the table for all the other big bats in the lineup. As opposed to Wise who is going to K or ground out. Of course when you compare him to Wise he's going to improve our offense. That doesn't mean that he's even a good fit.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 06:00 PM) The TB beat writer says there's very little chance they trade Crawford and most likely won't trade Upton either because of his low value but high potential. Holding on to both of them, blocking the ready prospect, and winding up only with 2 draft picks when Crawford walks next offseason is silly. That's how the Rays go from being a really good team to being an average team.

So, I see that everything bad that happens in Chicago is now the President's fault, since he's agreed to go speak on behalf of the olympics.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 05:56 PM) what trades do you think the Hawk was talking about when he was talking about how Cleveland had some bad ones? The biggest bad moves I could think of were Thome and Manny leaving in FA Andy Marte hasn't worked out too well for them. Extending Hafner hasn't worked out too well for them. The strategy of slowly letting people walk away lately hasn't worked too well, if for no other reason than they can't get a burst of guys all ready together at the same time.

Presently plenty of post-count preening perchance.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 02:13 PM) And related JUST to the anti-Hillary movie...I'm guessing that's because there wasn't equal time? No, it's because it was paid for by a corporation.

QUOTE (striker62704 @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 02:39 PM) If you look at it from the perspective of the batting lineup and not the fielding lineup, we are missing a solid #3 of #4 hitter. Those two spots killed us (IMO) this year. Disagree. We have those guys. Beckham is a prototypical #3 hitter. Ton of doubles, good (20-30 HR pop), should hit for a very high average, above .300, starting next year. TCQ is a prototypical number 4 hitter; huge power, huge RBI potential. What we're missing is the #5 guy...the lefty RBI guy that you stick in behind them to give your lineup some balance. And maybe the #2 guy, although Alexei and Rios could fill that role if either of them has a good year next year. Or Getz if another leadoff hitter appears.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 02:32 PM) Then, Balta, I ask you: What teams would consider acquiring Rios? A lot of people on here have a high opinion of him. If we could deal Rios we'd be better equipped to acquire some other guys. Do you see any team that might have an interest in acquiring Rios for scraps? Frankly, after the way he's finished this season, I'd be really surprised if anyone would give up anything for Rios period, without asking the Sox to chip in part of his contract. I'd bet he could clear waivers right now; it seemed a lot of GM's were shocked when someoen claimed him from Toronto. Anyway...the Sox don't get better by moving Rios for nothing and then by using the talent they have to fill the hole created by moving Rios. That leaves holes at the positions where the Sox trade away people. The sox will get better by rebuilding Rios, getting a good season from him, and then using the resources they have to fill the other extant holes on their roster. We've had a gaping hole in CF for 3 seasons now, and we've got a guy whose career numbers suggest he can fill it. Let's at least give him a shot.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 02:29 PM) Agree on all fronts. Is it just me or do the Sox have more marginal value or possible MLB talent MiLB free agent/Rule V eligible guys than normal? It always seems to be this way, we always seem to lose a guy or two to waivers or to the rule 5 that it would be nice to keep around.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 02:24 PM) Would the Yankees or Mets go for Rios for scraps? Then we could make a significant trade for Granderson. I want Grandy. Any way we could trade for Bartlett and move Lexi to second? What an offensive infield that'd be with Gordon, Bartlett, Lexi and Mr. Scoop, Paulie. Yeah, neither of those are happening.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 02:06 PM) He isn't the most popular person anywhere after his UN antics. I know there are plenty of crazies out there...but politicians usually aren't the ones you have to worry about. It's a no win situation for all governments involved...the question is always...Why now? That's an easy one to answer. The Iranian government has been working on this facility for a number of months, perhaps years. The U.S. and others have known about that for a while, but have kept it a secret for whatever reason. Last week, the Iranian government found out that the U.S. and others knew about the facility somehow (I don't think that we fully know how they found out). They immediately confessed the facility's presence to the IAEA, as they should have done before construction began on it, as soon as they found out that the jig was up.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 01:58 PM) With all the money they are pouring into nuclear research, do you think they didn't consult a geologist, or at least a geological map of some kind? Because I'm pretty confident they wouldn't build a complex like that right on top of a fault. Although, now that I think of it, maybe the US isn't so smart about this either. Los Alamos is not exactly in a geologically calm area, being near the Rio Grande Rift as well as the Jemez Caldera. But that was also the 1940's - the stuff is now built mostly at the Pantex facility outside Amarillo, which is geologically as low-risk as you can get. I don't know, but I'd think in the current age, they'd have thought to do some geological study first. What's more likely to happen...the earthquake (within probably a couple hundred years I'd guess) or the U.S./Israel bombing the crap out of the place? I'd say the latter. And anyway, some faults are more active than others even in active ranges...if you're careful you can pull it off, where you build in an active zone but in a place that won't be totally destroyed (We're trying to do this with Yucca Mountain, for example). Although, Iran isn't the smartest about its seismic hazard analysis. The hospital in Tehran that they just built in the worst possible location is the best example I can give. Anyway, the seismic issues aren't what should be noted here. What we should be thinking of is the intimate relationship between the cities and the mountains, and how that can be used as easy protection for any military facilities.

Chad Pennington done for the year.

Christ LAD, talk about stumbling ass-backwards in to the playoffs...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 10:08 AM) It would be an enormous casualty rate only if they nuke it. I am sure the facility is not within the city, so convetional weapons shouldn't cause an issue. Here's where some of that geology knowledge comes in to play. Most of the cities in the Middle east have grown up around 1 resource; water. Since it's so dry, you can only build a city where you have easy access to water. This means either you need a legit river (Baghdad) or you need access to the aquifer. The water tables tend to sit pretty low in the ground, below where you'd conveniently dig most wells at, because there's not a lot of rain. Therefore, you need a place where the aquifer moves vertically along some path. The only vertical paths through those strata are fault lines. Where you have a fault, you wind up with several benefits; you're sitting next to a mountain range, which can sometimes cause extra orographic rain, or you can dig in to the mountain range and hit the aquifer where water travels upwards along the faults. This is exactly what happens in Iran, most of the major cities, including Tehran, grew up right next to mountain ranges because the faults lifting up the mountains are where the water comes in. In Tehran, they're literally building hospitals with great views on top of the active fault scarp. This type of fault and setup was what destroyed Bam, Iran, about a decade ago. It's going to destroy Tehran and most of the other cities in Iran eventually. But this also means you literally have a city that has grown up surrounding and on top of growing mountains. You can only tell so much from the Google Earth image resolution, but there certainly appears to be active ranges that cut right through the heart of the city, at both the SE, NE, and NW parts of the map. Now, I'm not in the goverment there, but if I were going to decide to put a hidden uranium enrichment facility somewhere in Iran, it'd be right in the heart of their holiest city buried underground inside one of those mountain ranges, so that it wasn't obvious from satellites that unusual construction was taking place, and so that you'd have to pound the Hell out of the area to legitimately hit the facility. The geology here is to their benefit; the mountains are the city, and the city is there because of the mountains. I'd bet this is exactly why their missile and satellite facilities are located in Qom, as well.

QUOTE (knightni @ Sep 26, 2009 -> 08:04 AM) Would you trade Jenks, Retherford and Hudson for Crawford? Would Tampa accept it? I wouldn't do it, solely because of the single year remaining on Crawford's deal. Any pitcher in our system other than Hudson and I say yes. Tampa might, depending on their salary constraints.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 27, 2009 -> 09:26 AM) Yeah, I can't really blame Ford here anyway. GM and Chrysler got some serious competitive advantages via bankruptcy and the bailouts, while Ford managed to avoid that and are penalized essentially. Not a surprise they need to find an edge somewhere else. On the other hand...Ford (and others, including Toyota) who weren't bailed out lobbied the government hard for the bailouts of GM and Chrysler...because they use the same monopolized parts suppliers and the lsoss of those 2 would have hammered Ford as well.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 07:07 AM) I'm fairly anti-death penalty, but I do believe it should be retained for some, albeit very few, crimes and actions at the Federal level. I've always been uncertain about where to come down on the death penalty fro one reason...I find it hard for me to tell a victim family what they should want. But, given how we implement the system in this country and how much of a mess it is, I can't currently defend it even for that reason. Does a victim's family no good to put the wrong person to death.

Probably also worth noting that the new Iranian facility is supposedly under construction within a mountain next to the city of Qom, a holy city for the Shi'a. I'm sure that's no accident. You want to hit that facility militarily...I'll bet the civilian toll will be enormous.

18? Cigarettes, porn, and a visit from a military recruiter.

I don't know if I've seen a pitcher with a season like this in the past several years, and I really wasn't paying attention when Pedro did his thing.

Hester too.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Sep 27, 2009 -> 04:25 PM) I think the bigger problems were the totally inept arson "experts" and the all the safeguards like the governor's office who didn't even bother reading the report which showed the fire was an accident. In other words...the system doesn't work right now. There might be a way to make it work, but we haven't found it yet.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 27, 2009 -> 04:43 PM) I wrote the same thing elsewhere but I doubt Orton throws 4 interceptions in that first week vs. GB... still not a given they would've won, the way they were playing. Yeah, I thought about that...but with the fact that Forte hasn't helped much so far this season, there just wouldn't have been points on the board for the Bears in that game without him either.

Congrats Huddy. I like how this stat sheet looks. Power and RBI for Rios and Quentin. Get those 2 guys back to normal next season and all of our problems except the bullpen go away.