Balta1701

QUOTE (fathom @ May 16, 2008 -> 08:19 PM) Another hbp to lead the inning by Gavin. Why in the world would AJ call for inside fastballs to Rowand, as he knows he gets hit by a lot of pitches? Revenge.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 16, 2008 -> 06:34 PM) Any idea what type of hitter Gavin is? 2/42 in his career with the bat, 22 k's. Micah Owings he is not.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 16, 2008 -> 06:13 PM) so we have him for 5 years in theory before he makes really big money. If he plays well this entire season injury free, the offseason is maybe when you want to have that thought, but not before. Depends on how you define "big money". Lately, your first arbitration year for a guy like Howard, they're talking in the $10 million territory. Which is why I'm pushing this now. Is it a gamble signing him early? Yes. But if the team wants to save money long term, then that's the best way to do it.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 16, 2008 -> 06:18 PM) Dont you have to have something like 2.14 years of service time to qualify? I believe we have 2 more cheap years of him. According to Kap's contract sheet, he's pre-Arb this year and next year and then has 3 arbitration years...so if we want to buy him out cheaply by guaranteeing him a contract early, it's pretty much this year or nothing I'd say, because next year, he's a few months away from solid money even if he gets hurt. (I.e. he gets hurt next June, the team isn't cutting him, they'll offer him Arb and he'll still make a couple million)

QUOTE (Heads22 @ May 16, 2008 -> 05:59 PM) Usual lineup, save for Alexei. Why did Uribe come out last night?

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ May 16, 2008 -> 04:53 PM) $40 for the 2005 White Sox. What should it say? JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE CREDE!

Well, I know that every time I'm in a national park, I keep thinking "Man, if only the air wasn't so clean". Thankfully, we're finally doing something about that.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ May 16, 2008 -> 09:15 AM) Well, no, not really. If the testing is done to ensure that the prosthetics have no net advantage, and done accurately, then runners with prosthetics would have...no net advantage. The percentage of runners with prosthetics would be just the percentage of good athletes who have prosthetics, which would be a very small number. For the record, I actually voted no, but I'm willing to do the Devil's advocate thing because I think there are good args on both sides. So then you're essentially saying that the line should be drawn where a prosthetic is designed such that it equals the performance of the best human being, but not better? I think no matter what it winds up being such a grey area that it's almost impossible to draw that line. How do you tell if a prosthetic enables performance of one person versus another?

Go Get em Gavin!

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ May 16, 2008 -> 09:01 AM) Well, I don't think he's denying that there are some advantages. He seems to be saying there is no net advantage. Which seems plausible to me (I don't know, I'm just saying it may be true). Wouldn't there also be some competing disadvantages (like the propulsion provided by your calf muscles)? So the question then becomes, at what point in the development of these prosthetics do you draw the line and say "No more"? Presumably these will just get better and stronger with time, and eventually it's entirely plausible that you could have your olympics competed in solely by people with prosthetic legs because they've reached a point where no human legs can keep up.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ May 15, 2008 -> 02:05 PM) How about we wait for awhile since he can't be a FA for a few years The longer you wait, the more expensive his contract is when you do extend him.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 15, 2008 -> 02:48 PM) Of all the networks, why would White House aides confide ANYTHING to CNN. If they can't name them, they are just rumors. That is bad as newspapers using 'Some say....' or 'Many feel...'. It just advances whatever position they feel like writing about. Sorry, forgot which thread I was in.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 15, 2008 -> 01:21 PM) I'd like to see the evidence that Polar Bears are actually exploding in population - that's new to me. If its true, then one thing to ask is, why is that happening? There may be something else occurring in the balance of things that is causing that temporary increase. Sometimes that can happen for complex reasons, then the population plummets. Or, it could be they are actually beating out some other predator for prey. Or, it could be that there is no danger to them at all. I don't know. But it seems really unlikely to me that they'd be protected, if they are doing well. Compared to the 1960's and 1970's there has, from the stuff I'm reading, been a non-trivial recovery in the Polar Bear population, because its hides were traded by native peoples and because hunting polar bears from aircraft or on the ground was considered quite a sport at some times. The problem is, it's not easy to estimate their total population in any area, because it's essentially a needle in an ice-stack problem, you can't trap all of them and tag them, but without doing so you're left trying to account for the ones you've missed. Techniques naturally have improved as tracking capabilities have improved in the last decade or so (GPS). In 1973, there was a treaty signed banning the hunting of Polar Bears. At the time, their population had probably dwindled to below 10,000. Today it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000. There are some complex looks at their populations in studies here and here if you want to know more. What I will add is that the thing that is really expected to hurt the Polar Bear didn't really seem like it was starting to cascade out of hand until last year, where there was a gigantic and dramatic decrease in the amount and thickness of arctic sea ice beyond anything predicted by models or seen before, so given the 2 competing effects (population recovery after a period of heavy hunting) and degradation of their environment, it's reasonable to assume that the 2 effects will push in opposite directions with varying strength until one wins out.

Basically every network I've read the story at has some version of this clause in it.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 15, 2008 -> 02:06 PM) He had that option. I guess loyalty played a role. And that is how history should judge him and the work he did. We have the Iraq war in no small part because Colin Powell valued loyalty to his superiors over loyalty to America and its people.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 15, 2008 -> 01:54 PM) He's a career soldier. As long as he is employed by the gov't he does what his boss wants him to do. However, also like a soldier, if you no longer believe in your leadership, you leave service when your time is up. Or you leave service when they demand something from you that you know is wrong and you should not do.

QUOTE (Reddy @ May 15, 2008 -> 01:30 PM) ps just an interesting tidbit, my dad is an Edwards delegate from Iowa... i'm not sure yet where he's decided to go or if he'll stay with Edwards. Too bad Edwards endorsed because he was looking forward to that call from Obama and Hillary and was planning on asking them for a jetski.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ May 15, 2008 -> 12:59 PM) Well, we probably haven't had a good, young power hitter come up and make an immediate impact like this for us since Paulie (and to a lesser extent, Carlos Lee) in 1999, and neither started anywhere near as on fire as Q has been. So, to be fair, this is a new thing for us. And just in terms of contract issues, like why I opened this thread...the market right now is pretty darn different from what it was 8 years ago, and so one should certainly take that in to account when managing the money. We saw a couple solid examples of what happens with players who you don't lock up early with Mags and CLee. One walked out of here for nothing after burning every bridge possible, one was traded for well below his value in order to clear salary space and then signed somewhere else for 6/$100.

Nature this week is publishing what seems to be a fairly important and very detailed study of the actual effect of humanity on the Earth through humanity's impact on the climate. I'll give you the bullet point summary here, and link to the actual article in Nature here if you have subscription access. If someone really wanted to read it they could maybe let someone at a university know and it could be sent to them in PDF form.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 15, 2008 -> 12:49 PM) I think i heard he tried to talk bush out of the Iraq war. And then he tried to talk the world in to it.

So is Dr. Pepper not considered a "Cola"?

QUOTE (WCSox @ May 15, 2008 -> 12:05 PM) Agreed. They would be nuts to sign a guy to a $40+ million deal based on six weeks of baseball. Especially somebody with his injury history. Also agreed that the middle of next year is when I'd consider it. The thing pushing the other way though is...every year you wait, the total cost of the deal and the cost per year are going to go up. CQ is Pre-arb for this year and next year. If he went through arbitration every year, here's sort of what I think his max might be: $400k $400k $8 mil $12 mil $15 mil (Assume he keeps up this sort of 40 home run, 120 RBI, dominating the league pace). That's $36 million or so counting this year. The longer you wait for him to prove to you he's healthy, the closer he gets to that payday and the less reason he has to sign for anything less than big time money.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 15, 2008 -> 12:15 PM) I thought I heard on the radio that the is a bill in congress (not sure about where it was) that is saying that the Iraqi government MUST pay $1 for every $2 we spend on reconstruction. The basic premises was, we are paying to rebuild, you need to step up and help. I'm sure the Dems have introduced something like that, and I'm sure it either won't pass or it would be cited as a reason for a veto by this President.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 15, 2008 -> 11:48 AM) He was taken out of context on the 100 years, but that isn't what I was talking about either. I mean this most recent quote, that you pointed out. In that case, the context of the quote was everything. I think the best, perfectly accurate summary of the 100 years remark was one I posted in the Dem thread a couple weeks ago. It's basically...McCain wants to Stay in Iraq until the country is rebuilt, the fighting stops, and no more American soldiers have to die. And after that...we'll stay another 100 years. If people want to have a discussion over whether or not it's a good idea to have American soldiers on the ground in the middle of an Islamic Country for 100 years even without violence, that's one I'm happy to have. Whether you want to talk about the effects on the local population (it didn't go so well when we had troops on the Ground in Saudi Arabia for 10 years), the expense of keepign them there, or the potential risks of having those soliders become targets in the future, I think most of the end results are still negatives.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 15, 2008 -> 11:48 AM) One thing to keep in mind when considering an American long-term presence there is that in other countries like that, our presence is basically integrated into the host nation's economy. So we are not footing the bill and spending billions of dollars every year for an indefinite period of time. So we would need Iraq to start opening their wallets... and we would have to think about if that's even possible. It's certainly possible for the government to spend more money, with the price of oil they're raking in as much as any of the other nations out there when their pipelines aren't blown up. But there's frankly no reason for them to do so, especially for the people in power. The more Iraqi money they spend, the less American money comes in to the country and the less money winds up being there in total.