Balta1701

Congressman Sestak is telling supporters that yes, he will run for the PA Senate Seat against Arlen Specter next year.

Can we get Gio back too?

That's Fields's punishment for looking better the last couple games.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 27, 2009 -> 03:09 PM) Neither could Jordan. But Lebron doesn't exactly have the Bad Boy Pistons or the late 80's Celtics or the Showtime Lakers standing in his way right now.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 27, 2009 -> 03:06 PM) Peavy, Halladay, and Haren. Those are the guys you go after if they are available. Don't want to pay Oswalt-type money for the third best pitcher on the staff. If they are in contention and a pitcher short at the deadline, I'd make a play for Bedard. Roy Oswalt is 3 months younger than Roy Halladay.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ May 27, 2009 -> 03:02 PM) i think i have had my fill of Fields playing, and the Sox are just about at that point as well. Im not going to say bust, Im going to say it didnt work out here/needs a change of scenery. COS for Fields already? Seriously? I can understand sending him to AAA and bringing up Beckham because GB's simply doing so well and Fields isn't, but change of scenery level for him already?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 27, 2009 -> 02:56 PM) Seriously though, he's only even in the discussion if Fields departs entirely and Quentin isn't back yet. The only way Josh Kroeger is going to see playing time with the big league squad this year is if it comes down somehow to him versus Anderson for playing time. Beckham, Alexei, Pods, Anderson, Wise, Nix, Getz, Quentin, Fields, are all in front of him for 4-5 spots. You need to wipe out at least 3 more guys, maybe more.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 27, 2009 -> 02:52 PM) That's also a good point. I kind of like Jas's idea - Fields in LF while TCQ heals, Beckham at 3B, Anderson and Ramirez stay in CF and Short. Keep Wise at bay. If Fields is traded before Quentin is healthy, Kroeger for LF. Seriously dude, stop with the Kroeger. He's hitting .258 with a .764 OPS.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ May 27, 2009 -> 02:51 PM) I dont think either of those players figure in with Pods on the team and Wise waiting in the wings. If CQ is out, the job is Pods IMO Pods will take CF and Anderson will return to the Bench.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 27, 2009 -> 02:49 PM) Oh yeah, hadn't thought of that - Fields to LF if it looks like he's putting it together. Not a bad idea. So here is a question... would you rather have Fields or Kroeger in LF to hold CQ's spot? Also, I'm guessing this is the first domino in front of some other minor league moves. Fields.

If nothing else...can we count on a big spike in his HR #'s?

Derek Jeter and his .811 OPS are leading the AL in all star votes.

Gavin...do it again. Seriously, don't piss me off.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 27, 2009 -> 02:19 PM) Not sure if this was accurate, but I heard Weaver's been tougher on the White Sox (1 ER in 4 career starts) than anyone in franchise history. 3-0 in 4 starts with a 0.34 ERA. 14 hits, 5 walks, 25 strikeouts in 26 innings against us.

Darn, team "U.S. taxpayer" lost.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 27, 2009 -> 01:57 PM) I personally thik Richard is about to hit his peak value. I still envision him as a guy who can get through the lineup twice, but not 3 times. If you can bring in a top of the rotation guy with him as a piece, you do it. Depends on what else is included and who the top of the rotation guy is. Richard's been a pleasant surprise so far...its still possible you're right and he can't keep that up, but that's why they play the games.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 27, 2009 -> 01:54 PM) I dont think anyone on this board thought that just Richard and Poreda would bring us Haren, just so you know. I'm not sure he can keep doing it...but if Richard can keep throwing anything like what he's done the last couple starts, I'm not sure I'd want to do that deal either.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 27, 2009 -> 01:50 PM) Are you kidding me? Stephen Drew and Josh Fields don't belong in the same sentence. Drew is an upper echelon athlete who put up a .836 OPS last season (2nd full year) at the shortstop position. Now his first full year was a dissapointment and he's struggled this year, but you don't write a guy off that his type of potential. And if they wanted to I'd gladly trade Josh Fields for Stephen Drew, but unfortunately the Dbacks would laugh at that deal. That said, I wouldn't be shocked if Drew eventually goes elsewhere and excels as the Dbacks have quite a few guys that are just so much better than there numbers. You're totally missing the point of the sarcastic remark, but I'll leave it at that.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 27, 2009 -> 01:35 PM) Beckham isn't a fit in Arizona. They're not ready to give up on Stephen Drew yet? Based on the Josh Fields standard he's well past being a bust. (Edit: Sorry, I know, I shouldn't have dragged that in to another thread)

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 27, 2009 -> 01:19 PM) He has shoulder issues and won't be pitching for a while. At least another month.

QUOTE (BearSox @ May 27, 2009 -> 01:09 PM) Poreda and Richard would definitely be involved for Haren. The Diamondbacks are one team that would actually probably really interested in Allen as they really don't have anyone for 1B now or in the future. Maybe they would be interested in BA as well as Young has been sucking and they lack OF's on the major league team right now. I'd do that deal just to see how many of the posters at this forum have their heads completely short circuit and explode when Chris Young is benched and becomes a backup OF behind .300 hitting Brian Anderson.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 27, 2009 -> 01:00 PM) and She's perfect! Living and breathing, you know. Here's the full quote in context, FWIW. Basically, if you actually read the speech, she's saying the exact opposite of what those opposed to her are trying to suggest she believes using the quote-mining.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 27, 2009 -> 01:08 PM) This to me, is like the independent counsel law. It was GREAT! for Iran-Contra when they were trying to get Reagan (when the law was written). Not so great when the tables were turned and it was used to impeach Clinton. It was then allowed to die, thankfully. A 60 vote (cloture vote) for judicial nominees is pretty black and white unconstitutional but the only way it goes away is to have it used against them. The THREAT of it shot down one latino supreme court nominee... Your legendary saying is "It's always different". My response in this case is that it is different, and I can demonstrate why with this graph. The reality is...the Filibuster was once a rarely used tool that required the person filibustering to actually stay on the floor of the Senate. Gradually over the years, the rules have changed, and now it is the group that wants to stop the filibuster that actually needs to keep its people on the floor of the Senate; in other words, you can filibuster a bill without filibustering it. This has basically changed the requirement for getting a bill out of the Senate from 50 votes to 60 votes...and in the last Congress, starting in 2007, it was essentially applied to everything that didn't involve naming a post office. It's actually different; the use of it has changed.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 27, 2009 -> 01:06 PM) Whatever the Constitution says. Isn't that a majority vote? Yes, there is nothing about the Filibuster in the constitution. No one will possibly question whether or not she would win a majority vote. Not with a 59-40 Senate. The question is the cloture vote...the vote to end the filibuster. That requires 60 votes, and current standard practice now basically has gone to requiring a 60 vote majority to pass anything. That's why the Dems needed 2 Republicans to join with them to pass the Stimulus package; it was up against a cloture vote that required 60 votes.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 27, 2009 -> 01:02 PM) That's pretty much all anyone should ask. A conservative won't like a liberal nominee and vice versa, unless the person is just absurdly unqualified, then the Senate should just vote yes or no and let that be that. All the rest is for show though. Here's the question though. Do you believe the Senate should require a majority vote or a 60% supermajority for all votes?