Balta1701

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:28 AM) I can't believe I am taking this side of this argument, but, I am. I don't think the market should be manipulated to the point where it always gives the result most beneficial to the country. I think regulation of business is there to keep elements of the economy from derailing horribly, but that is a different hurdle. And believe me, I do agree that ultimately this is something that will benefit the country as a whole. But then, so would banning alcohol. Or putting regulators on cars so they can't go more than 75 mph. Or mandating that all people get annual checkups at the Doctor. Do you want to do any of that? There is a line there. I think this crosses it, though just by a bit. We live in a country where we get more freedom than most, and we live with some negative consequences for that. Of course there's a line there. But I for one consider the slippery slope argument to be one that doesn't work, simply because you elect people for the express purpose of being able to draw that line. I'll turn around one of your examples with this. Right now, it clearly makes no sense to have a mandatory doctor's visit during a year. But it's easy for me to imagine a scenario where that would make sense. Imagine some sort of extreme viral outbreak hitting the country, where if people catch a disease and go untreated, they die and they take out everyone they run into after a certain point in the virus's progression. In that case, where the lives of potentially millions of people could be saved by ordering people to visit a doctor, I think that'd be a very appropriate response. The current energy and climate change crises aren't yet at that level of intensity, but then again, it's a much smaller step to mandate people purchase a specific variety of light bulb than it is to order them to visit a doctor.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:16 AM) Not sure I agree. I mean, I guess you could say 2001, or 2002, or 2003, or 2004 are all pretty close. But 2004 he won re-election, after everything that went on. That was HUGE on all sorts of fronts. 2003 the Iraq War started, I know, that's even bigger in some ways. But 2004, that was the culminating moment for his policies, I think. He won that reelection by one of the narrowest margins in history 1.5 years after starting a war and 3 years after the biggest attack on U.S. soil in decades, maybe centuries. IMO, Karl Rove was the correct choice in 2004. And 2001, IMO, was the biggest cop-out of them all. By far. That year, by the award's definition, the winner was Bin Laden. He literally changed the course of world history that year. And the Magazine caved to all the people calling them saying they'd cancel their subscriptions if they named him the person of the year.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:00 AM) Believe it or not, I agree with you. There is a difference between the government incentivizing people (via tax breaks or credits, etc.) to move in a desired direction, and outright killing off something. I don't think I like that provision - even though it will probably benefit all of us down the line. I for one don't mind it one bit. This is a simple case where the market isn't necessarily going to produce the result that is most beneficial to the country. There is a gigantic benefit in economic and national security to the energy drop that would be created by this shift, and there appears to be almost no downside other than the initial startup cost of purchasing the newer bulb, which would still drive some nubmer of people onto the older ones. It makes perfect sense for the government to mandate these things.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:12 AM) It was Bush - in 2004. Which was his biggest influential year, I think. Well, maybe 2001. But 2004 was a solid choice. No. By far his most influential year was 2003. That was the year he made the decision that defined his presidency and probably the next 20 years of American foreign policy.

This is a much, much, much better choice than the copout after copout after copout that has made up the last 6 years.

I'm going to counter this argument with one simple line of thought. Just because other people do something or did something doesn't mean it's ok.

QUOTE(jenks45monster @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 06:28 PM) The thing that stands out to me here is that "their bullpen is of the worst in baseball. How do you figure that? Joel Zumaya, 23 and already has proven to be top talent throwing over 100MPH quite often. Todd Jones, 39, their closer, a member of the 300 save club, and yes I realize he is aging and has had an up and down career but you can't really call this guy "bad" compared to some relievers we have. Fransisco Rodney, 30, set-up man, yes he had Tommy John surgery after the 03' campaign, but with a mid-90's fastball and a devastating change-up, this guy is able to dazzle hitters. So really you cannot call this bullpen bad, at all compared to ours. We have 1 trusty bullpen guy in closer Bobby Jenks. They have 3 proven guys. You do know Zumaya is out for 1/2 the season right?

QUOTE(Elgin Slim @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 05:23 PM) If that is the case, then by all means they should keep Masset on the 25 man roster in case Contreras doesn't have it. Nick has awesome stuff, the same thing I said about Floyd can be said for him. BTW, when we got Floyd in the trade, I said that Philly gave up on him too early in the seasons, and didn't let him take his lumps in the majors. He only had 57 IP over a 2 year span, with about 24 each year and a few as a September callup in 2004. Even Verlander had a 7.00 ERA his first goaround in the majors. If Philly would have stuck with him when they weren't going anywhere, then maybe he would have lived up to the #4 draft position for them. On another note, the Sox should go around finding players, both position and pitchers, that are at the 23-26 age range who are blocked by in the depth chart or that organizations have just soured on that have good speed/OBP/power potential for the position guys and great stuff for pitchers. These are the guys that KW should be going after through our minor league system.(sans DLS/Gio/Danks)I want to see more Carlos Quentin like deals. If we get enough of them, then 4 or 5 will turn out to be keepers. IMO a GM should be looking for Carlos Quentin type deals every year. I think Masset will likely be penciled in as the 12th man in the bullpen, the long man to go along with having Floyd/Danks/Contreras in the rotation. Whether or not he'll earn the spot who knows, but I doubt they're going to let him walk.

QUOTE(Elgin Slim @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 01:50 PM) Unfortunately for the Sox, I may be just looking at these guys with rose colored glasses. Well, IMO, you're looking at them the right way, because they're exactly the kind of guys we need right now. Guys who other teams might have some questions about, guys who aren't looked at as top 10 in baseball prospects, but guys who still have some stuff and who can be had cheaply. Why? Because these are the kind of guys we can get without giving up too much, and if we could coach them to their potential, their return could be really high. They're the definition of low risk, high reward. If they flop, then all we do is get another top 10 draft pick next year and find someone to replace them. So, let's go ahead and look at them with the rose colored glasses. The only harm in that is that we'd have another losing season, which is what would happen if we tried to fix the pitching staff issues by spending $100 million to sign Silva and Lohse and rebuild the Twins Rotation by signing all the crappy guys at the bottom of it.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 12:51 PM) He looks like he had a chin strap implanted. Was he playing for the Bears last nght? Starting at QB next week.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 11:55 AM) John McCain picking up an interesting endorsement... http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/17...n.endorsements/ .....

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 10:49 AM) I really think Gavin can be something special... I kind of like him more than Danks almost. Each one has their own positives and their own potential pitfalls. 2 years ago we were worshiping Cooper because he managed to take a couple guys who were essentially castoffs and build a world series winning rotation around them by getting them to use their talent. These 2 are basically his next chance to do it again.

Ron Paul 1, guy who is Steve Doocy, Zero.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 10:25 AM) Seems to be others around here that need to listen to the sermon. They've been mad at Gavin ever since he kinda ran over their dog. "Really?" Yes, well, replace the word "Kinda" with the word "Repeatedly" and the word "dog" with son.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 10:07 AM) I don't expect 20+ QS from Floyd next year. But there comes a time when you have to give these young guys a chance. Garland to a few years to become a decent pitcher. It's part of the equation. The have to get ML experience to become quality ML'ers. You're preaching to the choir on that one.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 09:49 AM) Exactly. It's smart, but when all these players are going to start saying the same thing, no ones going to believe it. Enough people will. People will still want their teams to win baseball games, so enough people will turn a blind eye and accept those explanations. If the Cubs traded for Roberts tomorrow, do you think that there'd be an outcry from their fans who think he's lying?

Because I have no power in this forum, so I can only defer to others' decisions or alert others when things get testy.

Cool it everyone. Now.

Catholic League President Bill Donahue slams Huckabee for appearing to use a cross in his Christmas ad.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 09:20 AM) But who believes them when they say this? You would have to be pretty naive. I think it is the wrong way to get people to believe in you. There are still people who believe in Mr. Bonds. Half of Americans in 2006 believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction when we invaded in 2003. Dennis Kucinich believes he saw a UFO. And his pockets are the doors to another dimension. If something is remotely believable, you can get half this country to buy into your story without really trying hard. And for Brian Roberts, who's gradually approaching Free Agency or being traded to a money team...getting people to believe you aren't one of the bad guys, that you only tried it once...is probably worth tens of millions of dollars.

ABC Catches Romney clearly lying about whether or not he's ever supported the evil folks at Planned Parenthood.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 09:12 AM) Exactly. This thing is going to go on like this. We all know that the steroid era was out-of-control, yet all these guys use it just once, for two days, or just to get over an injury. My ass. No one uses steroids for one injection. Perhaps by once, Roberts meant one cycle. That's the only thing that makes sense. If I was named in that report but I wanted people to still believe in me, perhaps the best possible thing I could do would be to claim I just used it once or twice, like all of them are doing now. That way, I could still claim that the numbers were my own, I could still claim to be a decent human being, and I could take advantage of the fact that people will forgive you if you admit a mistake. Even if I'd used as much as Bonds, I might still say "Yes, I just used it one time" if they didn't have the laundry list of checks on me, and I might be able to get away without a suspension or without too many boos.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 07:48 AM) So the drop-off from Garland to Floyd won't be that big. Even I'll step up and say that it's a possibility, but it's certainly a stretch to expect 20+ quality starts from Floyd next year. It'd be dynamite if he could.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 01:22 PM) There's always someone on this site discrediting good players. 3 years ago he was a good player. Now? He needs to recover a lot of form for us to call him that. He's played in 110 and 117 games the last 2 years respectively, and over the last 4 he's seen his OPS decline from 1.070 to .728 last year. Going to Petco could knock that down even more, and he'll be expected to cover a lot of ground out in CF. Assuming his numbers aren't declining for chemical reasons, it's certainly possible he could just get lucky and be healthy for a year or two and actually have his numbers improve rather than go down. But if his current trends continue, he might put up numbers that look worse than Jerry Owens without the steals.