Balta1701

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 23, 2008 -> 08:45 PM) I think this is a bit of a myth. He started pretty consistently the first few months of the season and at one point the Sox finally had to make an adjustment and started running Mack out there a bit more, but even at that point you were still getting 4 starts or so out of Brian in every 8 games which is nothing too bad (given how much he played the first couple months of the season). So the reality is he had quite a bit of playing time that first year. Last year was essentially wasted due to injuries and this year it is hard for him to truly develop and improve his swing since he's had limited AB's (the thing is, he's definately made strides/progress with it, but he's never going to master it in-season as there is only so much cage work you can do and at one point you got to refine and complete it facing live competition). Frankly, I don't think the numbers back you up here. If you're claiming 4 starts out of 8 games is ok then that's you're argument, but I'm looking at the game logs from 06, looking at the splits from 05, and there's certainly no sign that Brian was considered the regular as of April 15th on. Mack started in CF on day 2 of the season, April 4, then on April 9, April 15, April 16, April 19th, April 22nd, April 30th. Had a total of 62 at bats in April with was sort of tolerable, but then by May he was getting fewer at bats than Mackowiak was by a long shot (64 for Mack and 48 for BA, June was 46 for Mack and 51 for BA despite BA making that brilliant catch against Hafner that led Ozzie to declare him as the starting CF officially). He had quite a bit of playing time, but he was still essentially treated as a platoon player from day 1. You can argue that his bat deserved that, I'd respond that Mack's defense in CF was costing us more games than the difference between the 2 bats, but I just don't think the numbers argue that the Sox made an adjustment eventually when the Adjustment happened on April 15th.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Jun 23, 2008 -> 08:42 PM) AJ belongs there also. Plus this voting process is a joke anyway. Navarro has a higher batting average and OPS than AJ, and has 1 fewer HR and 1 fewer RBI in 186 at bats compared to AJ's 254. There's something to be said for reliability, but just on pure numbers, well, AJ has the same OPS as Miguel Olivo.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 23, 2008 -> 06:24 PM) And yet they didn't slam the residents who were living BELOW SEA LEVEL for say, actually living below sea level after Katrina, now did they Actually, I could have swore I read a ton of people saying that the residents shouldn't have been living there, they should have known better, the city should be dismantled, etc.

Imus claims he was misunderstood.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 23, 2008 -> 06:45 PM) It's pure numbers for me. I actually dont know which ones would be "Obama friendly". I am just looking at who was accurate during the primaries and who wasn't. I have Rasmussen so low because they just were not very reliable and Quinnipiac is #2 because they were probably the second most reliable. Suffolk was good, but they only had 10 polls in the primaries. That is compared to 25+ for all the others. There's a potential issue though...polling for primaries and polling for the general are not exactly the same thing. You have different pools of voters, different responses to questions, and perhaps most importantly, different likely voter screens.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jun 23, 2008 -> 03:22 PM) I just want to ask whatever happened to Richar? They had so much expectation for that guy, now he's almost non-existent because of that rib injury, Alexei Ramirez, and Gordon Beckham. Richar still may well have a place on this team next year, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he wound up starting at 2nd base next April. His injury set him back quite a while, he's only hitting .235 on the season, but in his last 10 games he's hitting .303 and showing some gradual improvement. He's been known as a streaky hitter, he catches fire for a few weeks and his numbers could look a lot more respectable. His first month for all we know was probably just spring training for him.

QUOTE (Wanne @ Jun 23, 2008 -> 03:16 PM) I guess that leaves me to ask...what happens if Silverio is absolutely tearing it up in a few. It's not a given that Beckham will be annointed because he was the #1. Alexei is signed for 3 years after this. Let's say 2 years from now we're sitting there with an abundance of guys who can play SS. One of several things will happen: 1. One of them will be moved, either to CF (Swisher might well be a full time 1b by then and no one knows what Anderson will be doing), 2nd base, or perhaps some other crazy position. 2. One or more of them will be traded (we are talking about trader KW here).

A SS can be moved if needbe. There's nothing at all wrong with taking a SS or signing extra SS, they're typically some of the best athletes coming out. I still think Alexei moves to SS next year after the OC walks.

QUOTE (the People's Champ @ Jun 23, 2008 -> 02:15 PM) Ramirez is a dead pull hitter as well, that's not stopping him from hovering around .300. Plus the dude has never his ML pitching before this year. So your logic is that we shouldn't play Brian Anderson because Alexei has learned how to hit major league pitching faster than him?

QUOTE (Jake @ Jun 23, 2008 -> 08:39 AM) Well, the guy pitched more innings than anyone for a while there and at a young age. Might have just emptied the tank, we humans weren't made to throw that ball, let alone that much. Or, frankly, there could have been other things going on that enhanced his performance for some time.

Saluting a great one...

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jun 22, 2008 -> 03:58 PM) Normally I have no quarrel with what you say, so let me check my reading comprehension level here . You just said the Orioles wouldn't give up Roberts for any cominbination of the 6 players you mentioned ? You don't think the Orioles would part with Roberts for an offer of Danks and Floyd ? For that matter either one of them + Quentin ? I don't normally overrate the Sox talentpool but Floyd , Danks and Quentin are good young players with a lot of potential and I can't see the Orioles saying no to any 2 of those players ( not that I'd make that trade). So please tell me you didn't say what I think you said. No, that's not what I said. My point was...no combination right now of anyone in our minor leagues is going to be enough to pry Roberts away from Baltimore. You will not get him with Fields, Poreda, Owens, Richar, or Broadway. Maybe if you gave them all 5. If you want Roberts, the only guys in our organization who have enough value to get our hands on him are on the big league squad. I don't think it's practical to expect the Orioles to give him up without getting one of Danks, Quentin or Floyd.

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Jun 21, 2008 -> 03:16 PM) It's interesting that we're having this discussion in two different threads. I don't think Figgins will come any cheaper in the off-season after the Angels have acquired a 3B. Roberts might be work forking some cash over to if he's not traded and resigned. Roberts is not a Free Agent until after 2009 though.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jun 21, 2008 -> 03:10 PM) That's because Baltimore is stupid. They're not getting anything like that from anyone. What, a top young player? If they don't get that then they have no reason to trade Roberts. a year and a half from now he walks as a FA and they get 2 draft picks that have good value because he's a guaranteed type A person, they like him on their team anyway, etc. If they don't get something of real solid value then they'd be stupid to deal him. From our system, that means Danks, Floyd, or Quentin. Poreda, Fields, Broadway, Richar, you name the person, or even a combination of them, just isnt' enough to get him.

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Jun 21, 2008 -> 04:02 PM) Jerry Owens might not be a bad idea. By the way, anyone know the status on him? Is he still hurt? I'm actually confused why they brought in Dewayne Wise when Konerko went to the DL if they could have brought up Owens. Could the Sox live with him as the every day CF in the 9 spot? Maybe move Swisher over to 1B and platoon Konerko and Thome at DH (damn, that's an expensive platoon... and at DH, haha) and guarantee that Thome isn't back next year? I'm just trying to think outside the box here. Charlotte doesn't list Owens as on the DL right now on their website, but he hasn't played in several days and isn't in the lineup tonight. Presumably he's actually hurt and not ready to come up.

Actually, this is an interesting issue and it's reflecting some real strains in the armed forces. During the Cold War, the air force had a specific goal...it needed to be prepared to fight an air superiority campaign against the Soviet Union, and it needed to be able to hold its ground in a nuclear contest. Now though, in this war, the Air Force sort of doesn't have a specific goal. Compared to the army, the stuff it wants just isn't that useful. The F-22 is almost useless in the war on terror. The Air force almost never has to fight an actual air superiority campaign any more, and even if they did, they could win over anyone else in the world with 25 year old technology. And on top of that...when the Air Force is employed in the battles we're fighting right now, it tends to make things worse, because even these precision guided munitions still kill a hell of a lot of civilians. The Air Force really started to put itself in a bind with its behavior. They still want all their expensive toys, but the toys they want aren't useful in these type of wars. The B-52 has almost been the most effective weapon they've used in these wars, and it's 50 years old. So the Air Force pushed the boundaries of the laws by starting an ad campaign to "educate people about the air force and its mission", which they ran using government funds but which really looked like a lobbying campaign. Because the air force was so static on what it wanted, it wound up getting its leaders sacked a couple weeks ago. And now the Army is trying to turn its back on the force and say "you're not helping us and you're not serving our needs any more so we're going to do this on our own." This is a symptom of a larger problem. Without a genuine air superiority fight on its hand the Air Force is a ground assistance force, and frankly that ought to be under the control of the army, as this is. But we do have an air force, so in order for the air force to keep its funds, they start looking for people that they might need to fight in the future, and that is the sort of thing that sets up hostilities with countries like Iran or China. It's an interesting dilemma. The air force has gone in 10 years from perhaps the most important force the U.S. has to a sideshow in the wars the Bush Administration has tangled us up in, and the air force and the military structure hasn't adapted yet.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jun 21, 2008 -> 02:37 PM) I'd like DeJesus (who wouldn't? He's a good player) but I don't think the Royals are serious about moving him. Grudz is always a nice fit but I think the Sox are either going to go in-house or will make a play at a younger player in his prime, like Mark Ellis or Hudson, or try to put together a package for Roberts or Figgins. You want Roberts or Figgins? It doesn't happen without talking about one of Danks, Quentin, and Floyd.

QUOTE (WilliamTell @ Jun 20, 2008 -> 07:50 PM) I haven't been impressed with either candidate being from Iowa. As far as I know, I haven't heard either candidate say anything or visit Iowa. I didn't expect McCain to visit since he seemed to blow off Iowa in 2000 and 2008, but I thought Obama would've come with all the campaigning he had in Iowa. Plus Iowa voted for him. Well, I'm trying not to dump too much politics in this thread this time, but according to news reports yesterday, there's actually a reason why the candidates didn't slam through Iowa on the flooded areas...The state of Iowa asked them not to come, because their resources were tied up trying to deal with the flooding. Here's an article from yesterday where some of the governor's aides complained to the Press about how they asked the McCain camp to stay away for a few more days and the Senator visited anyway. Senator Obama did visit and do some sandbagging work in Quincy, IL, for an hour or so just over a week ago, and today went after Senator McCain for his vote against a budget omnibus bill that included money for things like infrastructure/levee repair.

So here you go. That's Senator Obama's statement. So Republicans, either he's selling out our side, or he's more than happy to take the power the Bush Administration is trying to give to him. Take your pick, but either way, he gets your phone calls and emails.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 20, 2008 -> 06:59 PM) I miss 7 of 9. Something so HOT about her militant style, but sexy body. mmmm... Why do you think I started watching Shark?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jun 20, 2008 -> 07:24 PM) meh, the MSM on TV was still 90% democrat. So any fairness doctrine that was accurately applied would cost the Democrats 40% of their market share. They would have to take big cuts of time on ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. Wouldn't be worth it. But thing is, you would completely disagree with that assessment, and that is where this whole fairness doctrine falls apart. If we think supreme court nominations are big, just imagine the fight to see who gets to decide what the government run media gets to show. It would be a massive political war that would never end. The post of "media fairness person" would be a huge appointment (and a total bs appointment, I may add). And frankly, outside of the early 2003 environment, which turned so completely insane that it's caused the deaths of a few hundred thousand people, no one ought to support measures like that.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 20, 2008 -> 06:15 PM) You know, all this talk about various Obama 'gotchas' supposedly out there got me thinking. They should stop worrying about wheter Michells hates whitey or not, or if Obama is really an American. Instead, they should look for who really catapulted Obama into the political world, and why. Who leaked the sex info about Jack Ryan? Info from a sealed court case comes out, conveniently after the primaries when there really isn't time to get a serious challenger (C'mon, really. Alan keyes? Yeah, right.) so that Obama just walks right into the Senate without a challenge. And once there, the talks about 'President' start almost immediately. Then he gets tapped to give a speech, and the liberal white-guilt establishment goes gaga. The rest may be history. So, who leaked that info, and what, if any, reasoning was behind it? Hmmmm.... (Sorry guys, my tinfoil is a bit tight today, but that question has lingered on for me for a while now. It's been a long day.) That would be an interesting thing to know. But if you're going to piss off the Borg...you're going to have trouble I don't care who you are.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jun 20, 2008 -> 04:44 PM) It was only a matter of time. Too bad they had to do it today, Ted Lilly probably got giddy. Maybe that's why he had a QS today. No, that's because we couldn't hit jack with RISP.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jun 20, 2008 -> 05:24 PM) Feinstein is saying she is looking into bringing it back. But I hope you're right There will always be a few Democrats that want to go that route. But you know what? The fact that Air America, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, and hopefully soon Rachael Maddow's show's exist prove that it's really not needed. I can understand keeping it as they have now, where some cable networks that don't provide news have to follow it (i.e. Franken, Governor Ass-Grabber can't take advantage of free marketing of their shows they've made in the past) but the reality is...the fairness doctrine only is necessary in a 2003 like environment, when the liberals on TV are getting canceled for being liberals despite their ratings (Donahue, Malloy, etc.) But now we're slowly approaching a point where media people realize "Hey, there's a market for the liberal version of O'Reilly just as much as there is for O'Reilly himself". MSNBC needs 1 or 2 more left-leaning shows to pull it off, and there's still nothing that comes close to balancing Fox News's regular hard right daily news coverage, but the fairness doctrine just isn't that necessary right now.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jun 20, 2008 -> 05:03 PM) I see the Dems are going for this 'fairness doctrine' again. so much for free speech. So, as far as I can tell, this is backed up by essentially nothing. There's no bill before Congress to do so, there's nothing written in committee nor does there seem to be anything out there except for some conservatives who whip up the Fairness doctrine every time they need a feel good issue. Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana has a bill put forward that wouldn't just get rid of the fairness doctrine, which currently isn't active, it'd sort of double-get-rid of it by preventing it from coming back unless, you know, Congress decides to bring it back. Just over a year ago, over 300 members of the House, including 113 Democrats, supported keeping the system as it is now, with no fairness doctrine.