Balta1701

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) I'd suggest that the problem here lies more with the parties and their black-or-white perspective, than with Mr. Lieberman. He isn't my fave politician by a long shot, but, the reality is that in the current decade, being a moderate or having views that don't align perfectly with one party or the other tends to get you shot to bits. And that pisses me off. Here's my problem with that statement...it's the definition of Moderate. I struggle to see how it fits with people like say, McCain or Lieberman. There are plenty of Moderates in the Democratic party, and I'm sure you can find a few within the Republicans although I know their membership less. But Lieberman usually has a pretty normal democratic voting record on a fair number of issues. Environmental issues, abortion, etc., he tends to vote the Democratic party line. But he's bat sh*t crazy, just like McCain, on anything that has to do with war in the Middle east. Never met a war or bomb he didn't like out there. When I think of a moderate, I think of someone like Ben Nelson or Lincoln Chafee, someone who votes with his party a fair amount of the time but also tries to remove some of the most 1-sided parts of bills, maybe one of the ones who says "No, I don't want you cutting raising taxes by $1 trillion, make it $600 billion", or something like that. But I see a person who's on one side on most issues and then totally on the other side on one specific set of issues, I struggle to understand why we should use the same word to describe those 2 types of people.

QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 11:10 AM) Massett would start a game before Broadway or Egbert. Egbert yes because he's hurt, but depending on what situation the team is in, there's certainly reason to think that Broadway could work himself into the first backup option role. If, for example, you need another starter because someone gets hurt in the 2nd inning of a game, Masset comes in to save the pen, you might well want to keep Nick out there in the pen and call up another guy if your pitcher is going on the DL. Especially if Broadway keeps performing. Another aspect of this of course would be...if Broadway could have a very good year at AAA, and maybe put together a good outing or two in a September callup again, that might give the team enough confidence to move Mr. Contreras this offseason and give Lance the #5 spot next year, thus saving salary and making the team substantially younger.

I'm personally a fan of how he says that the question "Is Barack Obama a Marxist" is a valid one that he should have to answer.

QUOTE (thedoctor @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 10:05 AM) if crede keeps up his current pace, no way kw deals him this year, nor should he. with the division suddenly looking more winnable today than it did two weeks ago, you need a guy like crede if for no other reason than his defense saves runs. i think many would agree this team's greatest question marks lie in its starting rotation, and with that in mind it pays to have a defensively superb team, which we have right now. fields, who is an outstanding prospect, is not great defensively. not horrid, but not near crede's level of play in the field. few are. i do think he is our starting third baseman on opening day next year, regardless of what happens with crede this year. but in the interim, particularly if we remain in the race (i expect this) i don't see a scenario where crede is dealt this season. that would run contrary to the win-now approach williams has taken. And this is the right path. If the team stays in contention, Crede stays healthy, and keeps performing at a reasonable rate, there's really nothing lost to this team to give Josh another year in the minors at 3rd base. The team should then make an effort to sign Joe to a reasonable deal this offseason, but shouldn't push it too much given Crede's injury concerns, and should take him back only at a number that works for the team. If Joe walks, then we've got Josh ready to step in, if somehow Joe signs for a reasonable deal, then we can deal or move Josh and be perfectly happy with a reasonably signed Crede.

Go get em Jose. Just a QS. You did it last time, do it again this time.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 08:17 PM) Man a Fields/Thome platoon sounds pretty intriguing. Unfortunately, a DH platoon, while it might work for offense, isn't the greatest thing in the world for usage of roster spots. Even if it covers 1 additional position. Moving Dye or Konerko to DH against lefies and using Anderson or Alexei or Pablo by moving Swishy around is, IMO, a much better method, because it keeps versatility on the bench, and more importantly, gives Dye and Konerko extra rest as well.

QUOTE (Jake @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 07:10 PM) What am I missing here? Doesn't he always bat third? With us he has. In his career he's hit all over the middle part of orders.

Eric Bedard put on the 15 day DL retroactive to April 9th. "inflammation in his left hip".

QUOTE (Friend of Nordhagen @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 06:58 PM) If he puts up the numbers noted earlier in this thread (.270-.280, 25-30 HRs), I could see Boras looking for no less than 5 years at $14-15 million per. That's basically the 2005 Konerko contract ($12 m/5 yrs), with the market mark-up. Time marches; contracts get bigger. Konerko's a better hitter, with more power; Crede plays a tougher position. I also think they'd have a decent shot of getting it, too. I can certainly see a team like the Phillies or if the Angels get desperate or someone like that giving Joe that kind of contract if he put up his 2006 numbers again this season.d

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 06:37 PM) totally for it. is that part of Obama's plan? it's the best way to lower cost. Except for when you do the math. Via the Non-Partisan CBO.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 06:34 PM) I'm watching this and so far it's been very one sided, and simplistic. It almost completely ignores issues such as high taxes, the fact that malpractice is limited in these countries, ect. It's a pretty bad frontline special. I thought you guys were all about limiting malpractice settlements?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 04:51 PM) Yeah, that has been a very bright point from our pitching thus far....although we are giving up WAY to many walks... We're in the middle of the pack right now on walks given up. 8/14 in the AL, 16/30 in MLB.

QUOTE (southsidehawkeye @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 05:21 PM) Im curious... What do you guys think it would cost to keep Crede on the south side after this year, and what do you think he would demand on the FA market (it may be the same... or maybe he'd take a home town discount, seems to me like he probably would). Im asking this assuming that he stays healthy and hits in the ballpark of .270-.280 with 30ish HRs. If he doesn't do that, I don't think the question will even be an issue. I think he'll get Rowand money or more next offseason on the open market. I think he might take $1-2 million less per year to stay in Chicago if he could get the Boras folks to give up some control. A contract like Konerko's for example.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 04:55 PM) Why are you so intent on dealing Fields if Crede is re-signed? He'll be cheap for a long time, he has 30+ HR power, and he can play all four of the corner positions. That's the kind of guy that you want to keep around for a while. IMO, 30+ home run power is more valuable at 3rd base than it is at either 1b, LF, or RF. In other words, if Josh Fields can play adequate defense at 3rd base, then he's more valuable there than at any other position on the diamond. Trading a 30+ home run 3rd baseman should earn you something more valuable than a 30 home run player at 1b, LF, or RF, unless that person also has great speed, great defense, etc.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 04:50 PM) If you somehow could lock up Crede during the season, then you could start to take offers for Fields. However, you are playing with fire. There is no guarantee Joe and his surgically repaired back hold up, and if it doesn't, you then are looking at Ozuna or Uribe being the starting 3b. Ouch. And if Scott Boras's team is determined to take every one of his players out on the open market and not sign a deal beforehand, which is his M.O. and which is an idea that would only be reinforced by Crede having a solid season...then we're not locking Crede up unless we're the highest bidder in late November.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 04:41 PM) Why not explore scenarios whereby Fields could be traded for a similar player at a position of need, for instance second base, first base, perhaps right field, rather than assuming he has to become unblocked at third base with the trade or non-signing of Joe Crede? Well, the other side of that token is that you have to have a position available where you can get something for Fields. The ones you mention, 2nd base we have 2 young guys there, 1b we have 2 guys who can play there, we have 4 OF's right now not counting Dye. The only 2 spots I see where we might have an opening are catcher after AJ (Fields for Salty might work if the Rangers didn't have a 3rd baseman, which they do), and 5th starter if we're able to move Contreras, but that assumes no one from our system will develop enough to take that spot.

Frontline on PBS tonight is doing what you might consider "Sicko for Smarties", an intelligent comparison and look at the pros and cons of the various national health care systems out there. Not just a look at the positives, it also looks at the negatives of each system and tries to come up with an idea of how they come out on balance.

QUOTE (AddisonStSox @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 03:30 PM) In any event, I am a fan of Williams, Crede, and Fields. It's a good problem to have right now and if I were Williams, I would enjoy having it. Also, I think it would be rather wise to start working Fields at both the hot corner and 1B. If the worry with Fields is his defense, IMO it makes little sense to have Fields spending time working at any position right now other than 1b. If Crede resigns at some point, then you move him. By far the safest way to play it is to keep Fields at 3rd in the minors until either Crede is signed or until Josh takes over.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 04:33 PM) McCain, by himself, has never really struck me as a dirty politician, and it seems like he's run a pretty clean campaign so far. Have you noted the controversy over McCain's acceptance and then departure from the public financing system over the primaries?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 03:21 PM) If you saw an 150 lb cougar in front of you in the street, I would say the odds of you crapping your pants are at least 60 percent. Those things could tear you up quickly and move on to the next kill. I saw people were really upset that the cops shot the animal. Honestly, an animal like that in a residential area should be shot on sight. well, if the option were easily available, tranquilizing it an moving it somewhere far away from people wouldn't be a bad thing. But if you didn't happen to have a dart readily available, and your options are to either wait for a dart or do something, you have to do something.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 02:34 PM) Well, let's just do away with the ENTIRE SENATE if we need to vote by "popular vote". That's why in some of the parliamentary systems, we see prime ministers win with 20% of the vote. No thank you, I like our system just fine. Don't forget the Senate angle when you're talking about doing away with the electoral college system, because that's where the balance is in this whole argument. So, I understand the motivation for keeping the Senate in that it certainly does even out the power of the states. But I would like to hear you make the case about why that's a useful thing in the Presidential race, where his job is to represent the country, not necessarily the sates? Why should some states have more power over deciding the President than others, and perhaps more importantly, why should winning the electoral college with weighted states count more than the popular vote?

QUOTE (the People's Champ @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 02:18 PM) If he got the surgery when the Sox wanted him to, chances are he doesn't sign the 1 yr. contract for '08 and he's hitting grand slams and making dazzling plays for another team already. If he'd gotten the surgery when the Sox wanted him to, he'd probably have wound up playing in the latter part of the 2007 season at the latest, and he was still arbitration-eligible coming in to this season, so I see no reason why the Sox would have cut him lose. He might well have been traded, but he'd have been traded for a much better return than what we were offered in the spring.

The people at the National Center for Science Education have slapped together a good looking webpage in response to the movie, giving detailed and understandable rebuttals to the claims made in the movie and going through some of the dishonesty that abounded in the process of creating the film. Expelled Exposed.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 03:09 PM) All signs point to Crede slowing down. Even if it made sense for the Sox to sign him, now is not the time. I don't know if "All signs" do. His performance between late 05, 2006, and 2008, when his back wasn't hurting, has been exemplary. Eventually, he has to slow down, but I haven't seen the sign that says that process has begun yet. Although, logically, it is going to happen and probably within a few years at the most.

Brewers signed Jeff Weaver.