Balta1701

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 03:07 PM) Granderson, Renteria, Cabrera, Ordonez, Sheffield, Guillen, Rodriguez, Jones, Polanco = oh my god Because that's so much better and more intimidating than the lineups the Yankees have trotted out the past 5 years.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 03:04 PM) We've been hearing the Cabrera to Tigers reports all day and they have yet to happen. 6-7 player deals can take a while to work out.

Well, it actually took longer to be put out there than I thought it would be, but perhaps the hardest potential attack on the Huckabees is finally being pushed; the case of Wayne Dumond.

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 02:06 PM) Yes it is. That's 2/3rds, right? The framers wanted to make it hard for any party to steamroll any legislation thru, protecting the minority. No, 2/3 of 100 is 66.6666666666666667 to a good approximation. To a worse approximation, it's 67. And secondly, the Filibuster is actually not referred to anywhere in the Constitution. It's sort of a debate artifact created by the Rules of the Senate which appeared well after the Constitution. Stealing from Wikipedia:

ESPN Link

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 11:46 AM) Jones is falling like a brick if he is asking for Hunter type money. Just because he isn't there yet doesn't mean he won't be later. My memory comes back to the Ordonez signing, where it seemed like no one had an interest in him other than the Cubs on a 2 year deal for most of the winter, then sometime in January they find that the Tigers have some interest, and suddenly he's got 5/$75 out of no where. It might not work that way, but just because he's asking for Hunter money now and there isn't anyone giving it to him certainly doesn't mean it won't be there by Feb 1.

QUOTE(quickman @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 09:59 AM) No because owens will play left field. If they sign Rowand who is your leadoff guy? Because Owens will start over Quentin?

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 09:50 AM) Why would they need Uribe AND Burke on the same roster? Hopefully they're smart enough to realize that...they don't. If they pick up Burke, it removes any reason for holding onto Uribe.

QUOTE(quickman @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 09:51 AM) i too feel they will get Rowand, and if they do, then owens is your leadoff guy. Because Owens is going to start at DH over Thome?

QUOTE(Hatchetman @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 09:20 AM) Why would you come out and say you are definitely going to trade someone? That hurts your bargaining power. If no one offers anything decent for Crede, keep him. Worst case scenario he plays out the year and we get draft picks. More than likely he'll get healthy and some other team will find themselves in a bind and will pay what he's worth. No, worst case scenario is he plays out the year, never recovers, takes $5 million from us, and walks without us getting draft picks. He'd have to have a very good season to get us a pick.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 09:15 AM) There's not a single indication we're going after him. He's asking for the world, and Boras is his agent. It will likely either be Rowand, Crisp, or Owens. And out of those, I really don't want to go for anyone but the cheap one.

On that...we will see.

QUOTE(quickman @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 08:45 AM) As it stands today we are no better than last years club. Which is last place. I offer significant disagreement with this statement. Just look at the 5 major changes we've made this offseason. Only 1 of them can be regarded as a step backwards. Quentin >>> Podsednik Owens > Erstad Cabrera >>> Uribe Linebrink > Masset Garland > Floyd The only place we've taken a step back is downgrading from Garland to Floyd, and with Garland's inconsistency, who knows how that will change things. On the other hand, we've added a vet to the bullpen, fixed the gaping hole at SS, and replaced 2 of the worst OF's in baseball with 1 incredibly talented guy and another with what is at least a non-terrible leadoff hitter type guy. We may still be a last place team, that depends on guys like Danks, Floyd, and Contreras...but we're at least better on paper than we were going in last year with Podsednik and Erstad and Uribe all starting.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 08:56 PM) I had no idea Cabrera and Ozzie were as close as that article makes it seem. God, get this done Kenny. God kenny, wait 2 years and sign him as a FA for the same contract but without having to give up so many other players as to screw us over completely.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 08:23 PM) The only thing I heard today is that Fields is not being talked about at the meetings, as he'll be the Sox 3rd baseman next year. I consider that to be excellent news.

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 07:55 PM) Everything I've seen is Guillen is not in love with Owens ... not at all. He specifically made a comment about being fast meaning nothing as far as a leadoff hitter is concerned. He badly wants an OBP guy up top and right now he doesn't have one. That sounds nothing at all like the Ozzie Guillen we've come to know, in terms of not being in love with the speedy guy. Ozzie made the OBP comment, and honestly, the 2 deals we've seen have helped with that. But I still think Ozzie will focus on having a speedy guy at the top of his lineup, and unless someone here wants Podsednik in CF next year, Owens looks like the default.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 07:50 PM) Balta, you'd probably be just as good as anyone else when it comes to this. Do the Dodgers bite on Loney or Kemp plus Broxton for Konerko? I think they would do it. The Sox would be getting one front line stud position prospect (both of whom have already produced at the major league level) as well as a projectable young reliever (they obviously could go for other Dodger prospects, but it seems like Kenny would like another good arm for the pen and Broxton would definitely be that). I'd obviously prefer Billingsley but that may not be realistic. Honestly, I kinda doubt it. The feeling I've gotten from the Dodgers over the last 2 years is that they're just too hesitant to commit to anything. They won't commit to playing their young guys, so they go into FA and sign guys like Pierre and Gonzalez and Garciaparra and Kent, but when they do that, they also won't commit to trading their young guys for veterans who could fit in alongside their FA signings. They sort of seem like they're in limbo; they won't give up Kent, Loney, etc., but they won't give them the starting job either. I get the feeling that if they make a move, they're making a move in the FA market for Jones/Rowand, because that fits exactly their pattern over the last 2 years; sign a guy for a fairly unreasonable contract to block one of your kids. They're sorta like Anaheim in that they just seem to hype these young guys to the moon, and won't give them up in deals, except Anaheim on occasion moves a veteran or lets a guy walk to give their young guys a chance to play.

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 07:48 PM) Agree on Rowand, I have always felt they will get him back. If so, you still need a leadoff hitter. Don't forget they can still do an upgrade at 2B. God, I can't put into words how stupid it would be for this team to give up Cunningham, while in a position of needing more OF's, for Richar, and then give up on Richar after 2 months of surprisingly rapid growth, in order to pick up Loretta or Iguchi because they've decided those 2 guys are their only leadoff options.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 07:44 PM) I'd say that about a lot of GM's but not Kenny. If he was willing to deal Aaron Rowand coming off a world series championship he'll be willing to deal Paul Konerko if it makes the team better. Kenny could give two craps about the fans opinion of things because he knows deep down the only guaranteed way is to ensure a packed house is by winning (not just winning over half your games, but by competing for the playoffs and consistently having a shot to and hopefully win the series). Bottom line if Kenny has a move that makes the team better he will do it (whether it means giving up Paul Konerko or Mark Buehrle or whoever the hell else). Well, MB does have a full NTC this year. And anyway, if KW got an overwhelming offer for Konerko, I bet he'd make the deal. But no matter how much value people think he'd have on the open market, I just don't see teams offering up the silver platter of talent that some folks seem to think we'll get if he's moved. THat's my sole point.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 07:40 PM) I think PK would have a ton of value on the market. I'm not saying he wouldn't have a ton of value...it's just that the definition of "A ton" might be somewhat less than what people think we'd get for him. He's not going to draw the same amount that Santana, Bedard, Haren are talking about no matter how much we might think so.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 07:37 PM) I agree 100%. I think they may be trying to move Pauly prior to deciding where they want to go with the CF situation. Although I must add that I truly won't believe KW has the stones to deal Pauly until i see it. Am I the only one who thinks that the reason for not dealing Konerko might not be that KW doesn't have the balls, but that no one offers the King's ransom you guys want for him?

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 07:37 PM) As in 8M per season or 2 years at 16M per year. I assume it is the latter? The report is 2 years, $16 million per. Somehow, I think this is out there entirely to stimulate further bidding.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 07:29 PM) If you can get Harden for a package surrounded by Egbert and prospects or Broadway and prospects you do it. But if it costs Danks/Gio/DLS than I think you pass. Heck, with Harden's injury problems, I'm not sure I'd like to give up either of those guys. Haeger or Masset might work for me.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 06:53 PM) However, I still think we should make a push for Haren. Danks and Fields could get it down... perhaps another player thrown in there such as Anderson or Getz. Am I the only one who thinks that trading Danks and Fields for Haren makes us worse next year?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 06:28 PM) And I simply do not see that as true. And IMO, the biggest problem with thinking that its representative of all of Islam is that it winds up being a self-fullfilling prophecy. Because people determine that it's representative, they decide that they're all hostile to us, and so it's not worth doing anything to try to improve that or listening to any concerns of those people. And the next thing you know, bombs and bullets are flying and more and more people are radicalized.