Balta1701

QUOTE (Elgin Slim @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 05:42 PM) Is the WCIU gun juiced again, or is it accurate this time around? Gameday has Danks's fastball sitting from 92-94, hitting 94 regularly.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 04:02 PM) Which he still needs to qualify for. In order to qualify he'd have to average 3.1 PA for every game the Sox play this year (162). 3.1 PA per game comes out to 501 total PA over a 162 game season. Alexei currently sits at 331 PA, with 45 team games remaining (not counting the makeup game) Alexei will have to average 3.8 PA per game and play everyday the rest of the way. Yup. 2 challenges. Enough Plate appearances and getting a few more hits to push that average up above Bradley's. If he's sitting there with the batting title, Longoria misses a little time with this injury, and nothing else wierd happens, he's got more than a shot.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 04:41 PM) Even with the injury to Longoria, the 2 will probably finish the year with a similar number of plate appearances seeing as how Alexei didn't play much for the first 2 months of the season and he bats at the bottom of the order. Longoria is sporting an .885 OPS and 22 HRs, he's also an All-Star and a GG candidate, good luck beating that. It's fairly simple actually...Alexei needs something sexy to spice up his line. In other words, he needs the batting title.

QUOTE (WilliamTell @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 03:44 PM) That sucks for them, but it could be good for us if we need to rely on the Wild Card to get into the playoffs even though they're 5.5 games above us. But...I'm pretty sure they also have games upcoming with the Twins right?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 02:50 PM) If you mean "sanction" in the UN sense, that's impossible by default. Now, if Russia starts blatantly violating international law and takes over all these soverign countries again (simply on the grounds that they want to) I think the international community would probably consider that an open act of war. Russia's making a strategic move here that looks bold, but I don't think they're crazy. They didn't like the Cold War any more than we did. Let's take it back one step then. They don't conquer or station troops in Georgia's capital, but the war brings down the government and brings a pro-Russian government to power. And Russian troops reach and take control of those pipelines across the country we're so interested in, thus giving them total control of the Caspian energy supplies. That's a totally reasonable set of goals for the Russians in this conflict...remove a pro-Western, anti-Russian government and strengthen their energy controls. What do we do then?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 03:34 PM) And this is why Russia doesn't like it. I see where you're going with this. I actually don't get why we feel the need to do things that burn Russia's ass and we act like however they feel about it is no big deal. I read Russian news translations (as I do a lot of things) and they seemed content with the status quo for a while, which was "the US can't do anything to us, and we can't do anything to them either, so we're good, nobody's attacking anybody and no reason to escalate it." But for some reason we insist on the ABM shield in former Eastern bloc countries. Ok, all well and good, the U.S. isn't really that concerned with Russia as a national security threat, but they basically see it as a direct threat to their national security (to them, we are still the biggest threat, that never changed except we're just friendlier now) and a reason to escalate the arms race all over. Except that now, they can actually do it again. I wonder how they'd act if we scrapped the whole thing (which would probably happen if any Democrat gets elected and it's no guarantee to keep going with a Republican in office either). I'd imagine a lot of their anxiety over our intentions would go away. Here's another interesting way of looking at this situation. We've made it very clear that there's interest on both sides in having Georgia and the Ukraine join NATO. Russia completely opposes that move because they want both countries within their sphere of influence. Russia has other interests there, specifically energy interests, and having that happen would dramatically weaken their power as it would undercut their ability to use oil and gas as a weapon as they have done repeatedly in recent years. Now that they've made this conflict happen and smashed a good chunk of Georgia...what are the odds of Georgia actually being allowed in to NATO? I'd say they've dropped considerably over the last few days. Which at least suggests to me that Russia may well have made this strong of a move as a means of preventing countries within its sphere from joining NATO.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 02:24 PM) Well, PTBL usually arent show stoppers. Wasn't Gio the PTBNL in the original Thome trade? I believe they did that solely for roster spot purposes to enable the phils to avoid losing him in the rule 5 draft.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 02:17 PM) Cabrera isn't exactly helping matters either with his .269/.327/.352/.679 on the year and .620 OPS since the start of July. It's just not fair, Hamilton gets Kinsler and Young and Quentin gets Cabrera and Pierzynski. Ouch. Problem is, except for about 40 points of slugging, those are right on Cabrera's career numbers. His OBP is actually slightly higher this season that it is in his career. This is just who he is...he's a below average player with the bat.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 12:04 PM) Also, they don't like having former Soviet republics in NATO but there is really nothing they can do about it. At the same time, they're not going to just come out and attack a NATO country unprovoked, that would be craziness. So...let me fire the counterpoint back at you. Should NATO really be expanding to areas that are far-flung from its base countries, and which are therefore hard to support, and which on top of that fact aren't totally in control of their own territory and the minorities in it? While Russia is certainly playing the aggressor now and they certainly baited Georgia in to acting, let's not forget that it was Georgia itself which launched this campaign in the first place by sending troops in to these restive regions. How much blood and treasure can America afford to spend on issues like this? I'm reminded of the situation before the first world war on this...wide-spread, intertangling alliances, which culminated in having a person of Bosnian nationality kill an Austrian leader in the middle of a Serbian city followed by Germany marching on France and Russia. If it turned out that Russia was willing to risk war with the rest over an issue like the treatment of a minority along its borders...would you be prepared to fight the Russians over the South Ossetians?

With the conflict currently going on between Georgia and Russia, we actually have an interesting opportunity to look at genuine foreign policy differences between the 2 major Presidential candidates. I'll try to keep this as a straight up summary of the positions, and hope that y'all find some interest in debating them, because there's a fairly big difference here. If you want a lot of detail on the local backgrounds, I recommend this NYT piece. The backstory of how this involves the U.S. is that, for various reasons, parties within the U.S. have long been pushing for NATO expansion in to former Soviet territories. Specifically, the Ukraine and Georgia, which have had the most democratic, pro-western governments out of the region. John McCain is firmly within this camp, as are a fair number of others (Cheney, Bolton, etc.) The U.S. policy under President Bush has pushed this path, although perhaps somewhat less than what Senator McCain's camp would have wanted. They've helped build pipeline through Georgia to carry oil around Russia and Iran, a pipeline that weakens Russia strategically compared to where they would be if they controlled all the oil flow out of the Caspian region. The U.S. backed an initiative to fast-track Georgia's membership in to NATO, along with the Ukraine, an initiative that was blocked by France and Germany. This is a key point, because the NATO charter says that an attack on one member state is an attack on all, and Georgian troops never entered Russian territory before the Russians responded. John McCain has come out strongly anti-Russia in this campaign, more strongly than even the White House. His top foreign policy adviser was a registered lobbyist on behalf of the nation of Georgia only a few months ago. He is pushing an anti-Russia UN resolution which Russia is sure to veto, and renewed his call to bring Georgia in to NATO this morning. While he's on vacation, Senator Obama has not spoken nearly as much on the matter as Senator McCain, but he has issued a condemnation of Russia's aggression, spoken to leaders from both sides, and called for a ceasefire. So, here we have an interesting dynamic with Russia. John McCain's camp has made it clear they view Russia as an enemy for all practical purposes and has said so for months, saying that Russia should be removed from the G-8 and making an issue of the NATO memberships. Senator McCain is also equally forceful on the U.S. missile defense system, saying he doesn't care what Putin thinks about it. Senator Obama has said that Russia is neither an enemy nor an ally, and has expressed a willingness to try to work with Russia diplomatically on territorial issues and on dismantling and securing its former nuclear programs. So, here's a policy difference. Which side do you like? Do you think the U.S. should be expanding NATO in to areas like the Ukraine and Georgia? If NATO had done so, would we be on the verge of a shooting war with Russia now, or would NATO's presence in the region have forced Russia to back off of its posture before it moved troops in to those breakaway regions and thus provided a stabilizing force? Does the U.S. want to risk getting caught up in things like this conflict or Russia's long-standing dealings with natural gas regarding the Ukraine, or is this an important strategic area for us? If Russia tries to control those pipelines running through Georgia, should we step in? And how should we view Russia these days, as an enemy or as something else?

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 11:37 AM) And America could do some diplomatic / economic retaliation possibly, but as you said, the price of oil is such a huge issue right now, and I don't think it would look good to the American Public for Bush if the price went up just because they took some action against another major powerhouse in the world. And similarly, no nation in Europe is willing to have its people freeze in the winter because Russia cut off its natural gas supplies over a country a thousand kilometers away.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 11:38 AM) Is Russia still self-sufficient with oil like it used to be back in the day? I think it's a net exporter is it not? Yes, it is a net exporter of both oil and gas, which is of course part of the reason why all this is happening. They export most of their oil and gas to the Eurozone, and they've really begun using that energy club to beat people up there if they don't listen to them. Georgia is a key part of maneuvering for oil supplies for that part of the world outside of Russia, thanks to that new pipeline, which is one of the reasons there was talk of moving Georgia and the Ukraine in to NATO. Russia's energy exports have also brought it the money it needs to be able to finance these sorts of actions.

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 11:25 AM) They probably think that's America's job to do. You guys haven't answered my question. What exactly do you folks mean by "Grow some nuts"? Are you actually advocating a military response against Russia by the Eurozone?

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 10:53 AM) So unbelievable that we're seeing this thread for a guy who originally was slated to not make the team. In a sense was behind Owens, Anderson and Alexei for outfield time. Quentin was never behind Anderson.

QUOTE (joesaiditstrue @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 10:51 AM) mine didnt go through ;( it was in regards to game-tying/go-ahead RBI's (i.e. Clutch). Isn't quentin leading the league in those categories? If you use the "Close and late" split on ESPN, he's in a 4 way MLB-wide tie for 3rd, notably with Carlos Pena, in RBI in those cases He's at 19. Hamilton is at 15, but Quentin actually has 6 more AB's in those spots than JH.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 09:49 AM) Europ eneeds to step up now. Stop being pansies. Grow some nuts. Fine. What can they do? Although they don't care nearly as much as us about using Russia against Iran, they're in the same boat. Georgia is still far away, and they're roped even more tightly than we are to Russia for their energy needs.

Thanks for pointing out the chat, I just got a question in.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 10, 2008 -> 10:03 PM) I've decided to flip flop on this. We need to help this country out. They are a pretty good ally and have even sent 2,000 troops to help in iraq. So, here's my question in reply...what can we do? We've already done one anti-Russian act in helping the Georgians extract their troops from one conflict and move them to the one near their home. What further steps should we take? Economic actions against Russia? Who's going to be up for that in this energy price environment, when their biggest product right now is energy exports? What diplomatic leverage do we have over the Russians when we need their help to try to deal with Iran already? Beyond that there's the direct military assistance options...and do we really want to be pushing that? When you say we need to "help this country out", the motivation is understandable...but what exactly are our options?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 08:10 AM) If Hillary Clinton didn't run such a sloppy campaign, if she didn't ignore caucus states, and if she had taken the Obama campaign seriously sooner, maybe she is the nominee now. However, in related news, if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle. How about if she hadn't voted for Bush's war?

3 hours. Yikes.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 9, 2008 -> 04:47 PM) They did for David Wells' contract in 2001. I know that for a fact. I'm pretty sure it is standard operating procedure with older MLB pitchers. I don't know the exact amount of "compensation/subsidy" we would get back if Jose doesn't play next year...I'm thinking it's around 50-60%. If they were smart enough to do that it could have been huge. That money could be the difference between a bargain guy like Mulder/Garcia and being able to make a push for a top guy like Sheets or captain cheeseburger.

Damn. This throws everything totally off. Jose's contract is now unmovable this offseason (any chance they had insurance on his deal of any sort?). That makes it much more difficult to clear the salary space to go after anyone big...and to top it off, now we absolutely need to plan to have another starter next season...which means we're going to have to look to spend some money this offseason since we traded away our best candidate to take a rotation spot last offseason (Gio), unless we're really going to rush Poreda. That means it's much harder to upgrade the infield if we're on a constant budget. Not to mention how much this hurts this year's chances. Richard and Poreda both had solid games last night at least.

Frankly if Jose is out I don't see how you can avoid giving Garcia a tryout if he's got anything on his fastball.

QUOTE (Chopper2Hopper @ Aug 9, 2008 -> 03:40 PM) How's that waiver wire look, Kenny? I'll bet Washburn will get through, but some other team (Yankees) might try a claim/trade before we get a shot at him.

QUOTE (Cerbaho-WG @ Aug 9, 2008 -> 04:39 PM) Welp, Richard or Poreda might want to get ready. Both of them pitched last night.