Balta1701

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 04:53 PM) Not really. Ozzie delves into his bench a lot anyways. This may require just a little more of that, but it's going to be hardly noticeable if Ozzie plays the cards right. Frankly, this ought to mean we don't see Wise or Kotsay playing anywhere again except Kotsay subbing for Konerko 1-2 times a month.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 04:48 PM) What lifting did he get done? Usually we would be bidding for FAs that are coming off of a good year. We're giving 12 million dollars a year to a guy we HOPE and PRAY can get his OPS back to 860 or so. He hasn't been over 800 in a year and a half. His OPS in the 2nd half last year was .879.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 04:40 PM) I've already predicted his line for us next year. .299/.352/.512 OPS+ of 124 IF he can get that OPS+ back up in to the 120 range, he's back to being an all star and this is a spectacular move. If he can get it back up in to the 110 range, then he's solid and this is a good move. If he's stuck around 95 like he is so far this year, then this move loses some of its luster.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 04:35 PM) Agreed. There's bound to be some ruffled feathers, but JD has to man up. JD's also been ice cold with the bats lately.

Arizona police are investigating an incident of a gun being dropped by an audience member at a Dem. Congresswoman's town hall.

QUOTE (SHIPPS @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 04:14 PM) We just took on a guy that most would have said was just another one of Riccardi's dumbass contracts. This is fun but I cant ignore that. Different teams can have different definitions of dumbass contracts. Is he overpaid as of now for his performance this year? Yes. Is it by a huge amount? No. Is his contract so large that it's going to interfere with us filling other holes in teh future? Likely no. Is he playing a position where, based on our recent history, it makes sense for us to pay a premium price? yes. Do we have more to spend than Toronto right now? Yes.

QUOTE (G&T @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 04:09 PM) Per Cowley on the Score: Lot of confusion in the Sox club house, but coaching staff telling guys that this is another sign that the Sox are going for it. Beckham is being considered as lead off, or possibly Rios. Pods is not being benched. At least not most nights. Thome, Dye, Quentin, Pods, Rios: play 4 each day, that gives each guy 1-2 days of rest per week.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 04:01 PM) well KW apparently thought that Rios is better than what's coming up on the market for the money. Hopefully he's right. Yup. Our OF options this offseason, and we def. needed one; out-bid the Yankees and everyone else on Holliday or Bay and give up a draft pick, spend a good chunk of money on a 32 year old Figgins, or resign Dye and Pods to try to keep the gang together.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 03:45 PM) Woohoo If Rios can play to his potential this could be a major steal for the Sox. We just grabbed a 28 year old, 2 time all star without having to give up anything but money. Didn't even have to lose a draft pick like signing that type of guy as a FA would require.

Going to add this confirmation out of Toronto news.

QUOTE (JohnCangelosi @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 03:41 PM) Where does he bat in the lineup? Do we DH Dye right now and bench Thome?? Against lefties sure. Or give Pods a day off. Or give Quentin extra time off. Treat it like the halos treat their OF for now; someone has to sit every day, do it based on matchups and rest.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 03:41 PM) Time to change that thread title again. Nice work, KW. Dude, I already did that. Just waiting for official, non-twittery confirmation.

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 03:38 PM) Hopefully Rios won't block it... I don't think he will but one never knows. From what we've said, he can't block being claimed on waivers, it's not a trade.

So is it Wise or Kotsay we drop? Don't answer with your head, answer with your gut.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 03:03 PM) Considering they already have more money committed to just 8 players next year than their entire payroll for this season, I wouldn't be shocked to see both Rios AND Halladay gone by next season. My guess though is that Ricciardi will take the opportunity to rid himself of the Rios' contract now, while he can. Frankly, we've heard enough about financial pressures coming from Toronto motivating the Halladay talk (believable or no we heard a ton of it) that it's not unreasonable to think that Toronto would let Rios go and still try to trade Halladay this offseason.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 02:11 PM) Makes sense, he's only been our best, most-consistent hitter and the catalyst for our offense. F*ck him! I still don't understand this line of thinking of benching a guy like Pods. If anything you bench Quentin or Dye. Obviously, if Rios can hit at all, you do some sort of a rotation this season. You don't bench Pods, but everyone gets extra time off.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 02:06 PM) I still think Ricciardi is too stubborn to let Rios go for free, and this only became newsworthy because some GMs were like "holy sh*t he got claimed." I believe you are correct on both parts.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 01:01 PM) Now if at the next trading deadline this team goes south, options with AJ might be explored. There is every reason to believe that this team will be better next year than this year.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 12:41 PM) It just depends of the definition of substantial, doesn't it? Frankly, no. With his contract and performance this year, I wouldn't give up anything that I judge has any shot of helpingmy big league roster any time soon. Pretty simple

QUOTE (beautox @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 12:38 PM) I wouldn't mind seeing AJ back on the south side next year; his contract is very manageable and he only has one year left, but you've got a very good looking catching prospect in flowers down at AAA waiting for his chance and AJ is having the second best year in his career directly behind '03 when he put up this line .312/.360/.464 .824 as a 26 year old, he is now 32 years old, if you can get good value for him you move him, simple as that. Why would AJ not be back next year?

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 12:15 PM) Thanks for the cool info Balta. I never did state that I don't think it happens, but was attempting to get at the thought process that your points go against. I was waiting for you to post on it there. Sorry for the delay, I was at the gym.

Help us out G.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 11:56 AM) You could make a case that you could afford to go with Danks next season and let him further his development at the big league level, but you'd want to make sure you had a veteran around him to help out with the situation. Obviously the better scenario would be leaving Danks down in the minors with the Sox signing a one year stop-gap but I really don't see many major holes in the rest of the lineup (infield is set and Beckham/Getz will have major league experience under there belts which should help them). Alexei will have more experience as well and I expect to see Flowers getting a lot of playing time as well as he continues his progress at the big league level. Basically put, the 2010 Sox with Rios and Quentin could afford to stick with Danks if they really wanted to and let him take some licks at the big league level. The question is though...which is the best way to develop D2? IMO, given that his big problem is strikeouts (at least to my eyes) I'd rather have him in the minors focusing on making contact than coming up to the big leagues and looking like Josh Fields.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 11:27 AM) I'll try to help you understand those beliefs a bit here (without fulling knowing the thoughts of the poster). Now, I'll just say that I have my own weird thoughts that I am hashing my way through still that leave room for evolution, but don't completely follow the mold that we see in the scientific stuff. I know, weird, but it's my own thoughts I'm working through while trying to take in as much information as possible. You can probably even find a discussion I had about it on here a while ago. Anyhow, the flu seems to be a bad example because evolution implies a gain of information of abilities, right? Did the flu gain any new information to become more than a flu? Not really, it is still a flu and still acts like a flu. It always had the ability to transfer between species. So, just because it uses that ability doesn't mean anything new was added and evolution occurred. Also, with the unique traits and absurd characteristics. Again, the thought would be that these creatures had a lot of abilities before, then settled into a certain spot where they gradually lost their abilities and became much more specific to the environment they are in. So, instead of a gain of information for those weird things, it is viewed as them going down a specific branch that they always had the capabilities to do. Another take on that same thing would be the Intelligent Designer philosophy that would say that the creatures were pushed along to develop perfectly into that weird spot and that you are showing an excellent example of why we can believe in an Intelligent Designer. The other stuff, well you'd have to go into specifics, but I may or may not be able to give you some thoughts on those. Hopefully, that gives you some insight. If you want to hear more since I have really looked a lot into this subject from several angles, go ahead and send me a PM since I don't want to see this turn into another discussion on evolution and derail this thread. It is actually fairly easy to produce a gain of information in biology, and I'll give you a specific demonstration of how using 2 mutation mechanisms. A standard mutation mechanism is a duplication of a gene or chromosome. So, start off with a duplication (this is especially common in plants). Now I have twice the amount of genetic material, but it is identical, thus you could conceivably argue that no information has been created. Then, allow for a random mutation on one of the parts that is not precisely duplicated in another part. Now, I have increased the genetic material and increased the variation in that material. By any definition of information available, the information content has increased. Have we seen this happen? Yes. For example, in experiments, Yeast, which typically thrives on sugar, can be placed in low-glucose environments, where there are other potential sources of nutrition. After about 450 generations, the Yeast had adapted to its new food source. Genetic analysis of the yeast found that it had done exactly that process; the yeast had duplication of some of its genetic material, combined with a set of mutations on different sections of the new material, and the Yeast had adapted to move its nutrition around in other ways. This is a very simple example of this process; there are hundreds more in the literature. This is an example of how a "Unique trait" can be developed and adopted within a population within a very short time, especially if the survival advantage to that trait is large. This has happened repeatedly in evolution of just about every species, and in fact can be traced quite well in a number of them. Another argument against statements you give is that "unique traits" come about because the designer created things perfectly to fit in to those niches. This is obviously incorrect, as anyone who has ever suffered a knee injury can attest to. A wide variety of traits are very, very poorly developed, even on people. Knees, hips, digestive system, etc., I could design a better set of systems in my sleep. To paraphrase Stephen Hawking, it makes no sense to both breathe and swallow food through the same pipe because then you can choke on your food and die. You can't digest cellulose. Knees are just godawful. Why do you think people still have wisdom teeth? Evolution by natural selection tends to cause development towards things that provide the largest selective advantage. For people, this has driven us towards walking upright, having large brains, etc. But then you get the byproducts; your brain gets bigger, but it starts pushing in to the back of your mouth, and suddenly you're stuck with 4 teeth that just don't fit. Childbirth is a real bear because human hips weren't set up to send out a large brained baby and at the same time walk upright.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 09:53 AM) So people can just tell bald-faced lies in public, over and over, and go unchecked? I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees.