Balta1701

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 15, 2008 -> 09:41 AM) Of course conflict of interest in the eye of the beholder. Its pretty easy to argue make the same argument for any of the candidates out there, especially when they are getting hundreds of millions of dollars from people. There is usually a reason they are giving you money in the first place. The best defense against that is disclosure.

QUOTE (rangercal @ May 15, 2008 -> 10:43 AM) 8 years-40 Mil DO IT With where he is in relation to FA, I don't think that's a fair amount of $. For 8 years, with a guy who's only 5 years away from FA, you'd have to go to Hanley money. 8 years, $70 million guaranteed, I might see as more fair, that's a hell of a team discount, but that's a hell of a lot of injury insurance also.

A thought that has come to my head lately...Right now, a lot of very intelligent teams operating within a budget are ponying up fairly reasonable amounts of cash to guys with 1-2 years or less of MLB service time, and in return are buying out those players' peak years, and usually a year or two of free agency for them. For example... Evan Longoria, 3b, Tampa Bay, signed 6 year deal with 2 option years, first 6 years worth $17 million, both options together can bring it to $44 million. With basically no MLB Service time. Ryan Braun just yesterday signed an 8 year, $45 million deal with 1 year of MLB Service time. Hanley Ramirez, with 2 years or so of service time, just signed a 6 year, $70 million extension. Right now, we're holding the AL Leader in home runs and OPS out in Left Field. He looks good enough to hold on to that position for years if he's healthy. He's on paper going to only make $400,000 this year and next year and then has 3 arbitration years. Isn't it time to sit down and try to sign CQ to a 6-7 year deal, somewhere in the neighborhood of the money given to those other guys? Buy out a year or two of his FA, give him some money early, gain the Sox some additional cost certainty, and avoid the messes that come with the team forcibly renewing a stud player's contract (i.e. Prince Fielder last offseason) or dragging each other through a nasty arbitration hearing. I think this would be a very rational move. So, do you like the idea? If so, let's hear years and numbers. I think Braun was 1 year behind CQ and Ramirez was 1 year ahead of CQ in terms of where they are in relation to FA, but someone can correct me on that if they can find the service time numbers for other teams.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 14, 2008 -> 11:21 PM) I agree, that was the right call. AJ is a solid contact hitter and regardless the game became a one run game and the best chance at getting out of that inning unscaved is by putting AJ on and getting a force at all bases. Quentin came up and took two close fastballs and than took advantage of Shields having to come in. It was just textbook. Still...if AJ is hitting in front of Pujols, or Manny, etc., do you walk AJ to get to those guys? CQ's about a half season from that treatment at his current pace. I was thrilled they decided to bring him up with them loaded. The wife will testify, I said something along the lines of thank you, God this is stupid, thanks.

My first White Sox game in like 6 years! Woot! Give em Jell, Havy! JG, thanks for 05...but we're still going to crush you!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 15, 2008 -> 08:04 AM) Not my argument... Just pointing out the silliness of this being a point of contention in the first place. At least to my eyes, the reason why the Cindy McCain/Sudan stuff matters isn't that they were invested in places that did business with that area...it's that she has refused to allow any reasonable look at her tax returns by the public, and essentially all of Senator McCain's money, investments, holdings, and even income is shown under her tax returns. In other words, if he were to be elected, and she continued to take that position, it would be impossible for the American people to judge whether or not the President had a financial conflict of interest on any particular issue. The Sudan stuff is just an example of why it's important for a candidate to do this type of disclosure. Especially when you consider that Cindy McCain's assets, including her airplane, has been used to ferry people around for the campaign without billing the campaign. That is something I find highly troublesome. Even Senator Kerry's wife did significantly more disclosure than Cindy McCain has done so far.

So, since neither universities nor businesses are actually allowed to contribute to political campaigns...basically the argument 2k5 is making is that no one who is employed by anyone who does anything controversial whether or not they personally had anything to do with the actions of those groups should be prohibited from contributing to a campaign? Basically, I think this means that anyone who owns stock in any company in the U.S. or is employed by any company in the U.S. should be barred from contributing to a campaign. Because I own a couple shares of BP, Obama should clearly return my contribution, as otherwise that money might have been the dividend I get from BP, and clearly you don't want an oil company funding your campaign right? That's a position I wholeheartedly endorse, because it pretty much requires a public financing system. Yay!

he's also only given up 3 hits and 0 walks in his first 4 innings. Like that even more. We're not nearly as hot or consistent out of the gate, especially with the bats, but this team's starting to take on an 05 type performance level, especially with the starters.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 14, 2008 -> 07:29 PM) 3-0 pop up to right field by Crede?? Seems like it's been forever since he homered. 0 HR for him in May, but he is hitting .294 this month and putting up an .812 OPS.

QUOTE (ROC Sox Fan @ May 14, 2008 -> 07:23 PM) I believe Contreras can get out of these runners on the corners unscathed. The Positive game thread, correct on all counts since 2008.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 14, 2008 -> 07:23 PM) But how many seasons did those guys have in the majors by the time they were 25? Mags had 69 at bats at age 23 and a full 545 at bat season in 1998 at age 24. CLee got 472 at bats in 1999 (The Kids can play!) at age 23 and 574 at bats in 2000 at age 24. So, 1 to 2 full seasons.

At age 25, Ordonez put up an .860 OPS and hit 30 home runs and drove in 117. At age 25, Lee put up an .800 OPS and hit 24 home runs. I'd say Quentin right now is pretty close in performance to where Mags was, and Mags had more playing time before that because he was healthier. CQ may also simply be better in the power department, while Ordonez might have been a slightly better hitter (i.e. Mags batting title last year).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 14, 2008 -> 06:55 PM) His OBP is second highest on the team. Which of course says a lot more about the rest of the team than it does about AJ's ability to be a good leadoff hitter.

So, here is an example of why it's a big deal that John McCain's wife is refusing to release her tax returns. (For reference, I believe that Mrs. Kerry at least released a portion of them, after deserved pressure from the right, back in 2004).

QUOTE (BearSox @ May 14, 2008 -> 04:37 PM) You bring up the point about SS, and we did draft Miranda last year in the first 10 rounds I believe, and we signed a bunch of Latin American who can play SS as well, to go along with Ramirez. While it would be nice to have a toolsy shortstop like Beckham, a bigger need would probably be a bigger bat in the middle of the lineup to replace one of Thome, Konerko, or Dye. While yes, Thome Konerko and Dye are starting to get up there...there is room for a toolsy guy on this team, because of some of KW's dealings. Specifically, Swisher and CQ. Combine Swisher, CQ, Fields, and maybe decent performances out of Anderson or Richar and you still have plenty of pop, OBP, and OPS in the middle of that lineup. IF Swisher ever wakes up that is.

My reaction to this? Half the people were pissed at our leadoff spot the last 2 years because we didn't have any OBP there since Pods was always hurt. Half the people are pissed at our leadoff spot this year because we have no speed there. Therefore, you put AJ, and his low OBP and low speed there, and that should in theory make everyone unhappy!

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ May 14, 2008 -> 02:42 PM) Not worth the time. They could gain a few, maybe several points in Kentucky with Edwards help I guess, but Clinton is still going to win big and Obama is still going to be the nominee in November. Everything Obama does should look towards November, including using Edwards to help gain the support of more male white voters. Honestly though...yes I send Edwards directly to KY, and maybe have him make 1 stop in Oregon otherwise. Even a marginal improvement in the "White" exit polls in a heavily anti-Obama, Appalachian state would be a positive step.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 14, 2008 -> 09:04 AM) I think Edwards and Richardson both offer Obama a boost in communities he has a hard time with. They are also both seasoned, which helps. Edwards also has the advantage of being more charismatic than Richardson. But, Edwards would be seen as a repeat of 2004, and Richardson brings foreign policy and energy experience to the table. I think you might see both in the new administration, somewhere. But Richardson is a better Veep choice, IMO. If you just go geographically, I think a Richardson push makes more sense that way too. He's a western guy. The traditional recent battle lines have been; The Republicans own the south, the Dems own the Northeast and the Pacific Coast, The midwest is sort of state by state, but then there's this mushy set of western states that were Red a decade ago but have trended more towards the Dems lately. As the Republicans have gone further and further right, pushed by the movement of their base in the south, the west has sort of become up for grabs, and Richardson could fit in to that motif better than Edwards. Of course, if the Dems are winning R+15 districts in Mississippi, like we won last night...then it might not matter.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 13, 2008 -> 04:39 PM) some recent OR polls... Portland Trib, 5/8-10: Obama +20 S-USA, 5/9-11: Obama +11 PPP, 5/10-11 (take with grain of salt): Obama +14 I refuse to believe those numbers. The Hard working white people of Oregon won't let Hillrod down!

QUOTE (fathom @ May 13, 2008 -> 03:09 PM) Might as well get rid of game threads then, because on every site for every team, game threads are a roller coaster of emotions. I think there's a difference between "A roller coaster of emotions" and the state of our game threads these days.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 13, 2008 -> 02:32 PM) Posts in game threads. Its like having a hundred drama queen girlfriends fret over a broken nail. As a regular in game threads...I totally agree.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 13, 2008 -> 02:24 PM) The speed of his fastball has zero to do with his effectiveness. I disagree with that. I think back when he struggled in 06, the fact that his fastball seemed a little slow was certainly a part of it. The less difference there is between his 4 seamer and his other pitches, the weaker his secondary stuff is. But yeah, the difference between 88 and 91 for him is no where near as big as the difference between nailing a spot and just missing it.

Oh yeah, I've got to add...Hawk's explosion on Crede's walk off against Riske.

I see where all of y'all are coming from in demanding a position player...but I will add one more piece to the puzzle. Coming in to last fall, it looked like we needed a position player like nothing else, because we didn't seem to have any young position players anywhere except for Fields and Richar. But, after KW's wheelings and dealings in the offseason, suddenly we're in a much better place for position players. We've added Quentin who we control basically forever as far as we're concerned now, Swisher who is under contract for 4 more years or so, had a recovery by Anderson, and found a potential piece in Ramirez. And on top of that, we had good, early big league career development type performances from Fields and Richar in the majors last year, ditto for Owens even though he's still limited in what he can bring. We still don't have depth at C, so if there's a top C available that's an obvious pick. But suddenly we've gone from having an outfield with aging crappy guys like Erstad and Podsednik to one loaded with young, high OPS guys who are cheap and under our control for a long time, and we've added a guy or two to our middle infield that we might be able to develop. 1B is still a potential issue in the mid-term, but Konerko, Thome, and Dye should in some fashion take care of that role and the DH role for at least a couple more years, or Swisher could also play it if we felt the urge to work Owens in more as a leadoff hitter. In other words, if KW looks at his draft board and sees a pitcher he can't resist who is a better option than the position players around him, I wouldn't be opposed any more.

Here's a quality summary of why the auction/giveaway concept that I noted above is so important in getting a system that works well. More info @ link.