Balta1701

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 03:38 PM) Paulie would still be here. Oh, gotcha. Ok, that would work better.

Is it also worth pointing out that Shields put up horrendous numbers in the 2nd half? .300 batting average against him, 7.36 ERA.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 03:34 PM) How about Garland, Crede and Broadway for Figgins, Shields and Santana.. Then you can put Figgins out in LF, still have room to sign Rowand or Hunter and still have Konerko on the team. Not to mention finally having a decent setup man to get to Jenks... I doubt Pauly would be involved with any deal this offseason but you never know... Any Konerko-Garland package better bring back much more than that. No. Add in another top player from the Angels' side and then it's better, but this is just as slanted as the first onje. And it leaves us without a first baseman at all.

QUOTE(danman31 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 02:01 PM) Tampa Bay had Hamilton. So did the Cubs. The Cubs grabbed him with their rule 5 draft slot and then dealt him to Cinci for some potatoes or something like that.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 01:48 PM) Actually, I think they could have had Frank for less money. Once they paid his buyout ($3 mil?), they could have signed him as a free agent just like anybody else. I, however, am definitely in the camp that says getting Thome was a good move. You couldn't count on Thomas being healthy. Thome was an immediate huge upgrade for a mediocre offense with a bad OBP. I do recall saying at the time of the Oakland signing, "thank god Minnesota is too stupid to make the move that Beane did." Actually, I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't work that way, at least not very well. The White Sox had basically less than a month after 2005 to sign Frank. The decision on his option had to be made within 10 days of the celebration on the field in Houston, as contractually required. If the Sox did decline his option, they could potentially have immediately resigned him if they were 100% confident that they wanted him back the next year and he was going to be healthy. But if the team wanted to wait at all to see the results of his recent surgery, or if he wanted to wait to see if some team would offer him more money...things wouldn't work. If the Sox offered Frank arbitration, and he accepted, he'd get paid $10 mil in 06. If the Sox didn't offer arbitration, the White Sox were not able to sign frank at any point between the Arbitration deadline and I believe either April or May 1. The timeline is important here; there is about 5 months where the Sox simply would not have had any way to sign him after failing to offer him arbitration.

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 02:52 PM) That would be an awful trade. You need to get some younger players, and adding only one of them in a trade for 2 of your biggest players just wouldn't be beneficial. When you take into account the rumored players in the Teixiera trade to the Angels, we should be able to get a better package. There's no doubt in my mind that any trade to the Angels would bring back Ervin Santana. Agreed. As written this is an awful trade. It needs at least 1 more high level player coming to us.

QUOTE(DaGame2584 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 11:49 AM) Back to Boone Logan, listen I'm bias against him. I'm not his biggest fan at all. He let LH hit .296 against him. To me your sole purpose as a LOGGY is to not allow LH on that much. Just like Myers allowing LH to hit .379 when he was with Yankees & .353 with us. THAT'S BAD! But you know what? Bullpens are crazy. One year someone like Myers or Logan gets lit up, next year they are lights out. GMs throwing money at bullpen arms are just as crazy. I think a bullpen should be build through the minors with a touch of veterans to help the young guys out. With that in mind I wouldn't mind seeing Boone back out there at all. Now if we had to throw Iwase a 5 mil per year deal I wouldn't do that. I'm sure some team will though. You are I are looking @ totally different stat sheets sir. From the numbers I'm seeing, lefties hit .221 against Boone, and had an Andy-Gonzalez-like .584 OPS against him.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 11:16 AM) I link to an article, you question the article, I clarify, and you tell me you didn't read the article? And you wonder why he's a big Delay supporter...

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 10:30 AM) The amount of mercury in those things is super-tiny. From what I read, its such a small amount that it pales in comparison to other things in your house. But I do not recall now where I read that. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this can shed some more light. Just grabbing from the Wikipedia entry:

Tigers exercise $13 million option on IRod, Pudge will be back with them next year.

Some other details on that family you're going after (yes, of course, taken from a blog).

Interestingly, the WaPo is running with the same story but with seemingly a totally different timeline (and, if you pay attention, the 2 are actually incompatible; one says that ABC news leaked the file in the morning, the other says it did not begin downloading until about midday).

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 10:09 AM) It's interesting that three people came up with the exact same phrasing. So the question was a plant. I wonder which of your opponents planted it, and what questions have your campaign planted at the other candidate's appearances? What makes you think she is stupid? I think she is far from stupid, in fact it seems she is rather intelligent and nimble of thought. It's also worth thinking about the fact that, with the dark dungeons of the internets out there, it wouldn't be that hard for 100,000 people to read a comment on Daily Kos, think "Hey, that makes sense" and decide that's what they want to ask without it having been a plant at all.

QUOTE(Chombi and the Fungi @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 10:05 AM) Maybe thats just my thinking but thats how I see it. I totally agree and didn't mean to lead everyone on to thinking he wasn;t a good manager. I think he is a great manager, just not the end all be all of coaching. On top of that, I might add...there are some teams that his style might work better with than others. Torre has always struck me as something of a laid back manager. Maybe not at the Manuel level, but he's certainly no fire-breather like Ozzie. When we were looking for managers in 03, the list came down to guys like Ozzie and Gaston, because the team felt it needed someone to kick the arse of these guys and put a little emotion into them. I still think that with the mix of guys we have, that's the right answer for out group; someone who kicks their tails every now and then. Heck, even with the Yankees, it seems like each of the last 3 years we've heard a story around the middle of the season about how adding some new player to that team, like Abreu or Joba, has suddenly woken up all of those old stars who were starting to get so complacent and relaxed, and how it made that team look suddenly like they were playing much harder.

Pablo's alive!!!

Posada and Rivera will still be Yankees next year. That team is both too loyal and too smart to let those guys walk.

QUOTE(Beastly @ Oct 8, 2007 -> 03:21 PM) Not only does he not have any interest of coming back into baseball, I'm sure he wouldn't want to come back here after how we treated him when we released him. I believe the way that his statue was handled was viewed at least in part as a burying of the hatchet.

Despite heavy courting by all the candidates and a lot of rumors that they were leaning towards Edwards, SEIU will not endorse a candidate at the national level.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 8, 2007 -> 01:59 PM) No, they're trying to say that every organization that is a 501©(3) is political in nature. And yes, that's true. Edit: Holy s***, I just re-read Balta's response closer. You know what? You're right. And that says it all. I believe the point I was trying to make was that Media Matters, like many 501©3 organizations, is an organization that is political in nature, but is political in the same way as a huge number of those same organizations, one which doesn't have nearly the clout or the impact of the other ones. They are clearly a politically oriented organization, but along with the letter of the law, they don't endorse candidates any more than the Heritage foundation does, even though the entire staff of 20-somethings from Heritage were the people the Admin. selected to turn Iraq into a conservative Utopia in 03. It all sort of depends on whether or not you use the "Letter of the law" definition of political; which basically, I think, means endorsing specific candidates.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 8, 2007 -> 01:11 PM) So where is the 100th anniversary party going to be? On a bunch of golf courses in the South.

QUOTE(BigEdWalsh @ Oct 8, 2007 -> 12:18 PM) Isn't his September always good? Problem is April, May, June, July and August. Career Splits: April/Mar. .294 .342 .453 .795 May .231 .277 .348 .625 June .246 .283 .408 .691 July .205 .256 .351 .607 August .249 .282 .417 .699 Sept./Oct. .295 .332 .560 .892 Clearly, we have to keep Uribe. He's the only guy we have who can hit in the cold!

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 8, 2007 -> 11:45 AM) BoSox have better pitching than every team left in the playoffs. And Verlander, Bonderman, Pine Tar, and Robertson >> Carpenter, Weaver, Reyes, and Suppan also. No matter who is better, it's still a 7 game series. That said...it's not like the Bosox are playing bad ball now. I think that the ball Manny hit off of K-Rod just flew past my building.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Oct 8, 2007 -> 11:29 AM) Balta, that's all fine. but if you are only going to target 'conservative' commentators, then how can you claim that you are non-political? Simply by choosing to do only one side you have made a political statement. Just grabbing from the Wikipedia entry on the 501©3 rules: MMFA and the MRC would fall under the exact same classification as those other think tanks. They spend money doing research supporting their political position without taking lobbying positions on specific bills. They're allowed to clearly advocate for one side or another of a policy, but that does not violate the law as currently written. Heritage, for example, is a multi-million dollar think tank who's mission statement says their goal is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." and yet they are able to be treated under the law as a non-political entity because of the way in which they conduct their business. Oh, and in response to your edit; the MRC is also a 501© under the law, and is therefore also required to list itself the same way as MMFA. And in 1 more edit, under MMFA's "About us" description, the same button you pushed under the MRC: I'd say they say pretty well exactly what they do there. Progressive = good, conservative = bad.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 8, 2007 -> 11:04 AM) Because most of it is contextual and solely meant to smear people. It's hardly ever the facts. Do you even visit the site? In virtually every case, they wind up posting the transcript of the entire discussion they're pointing out and the audio file of that part. I'll give you a prime example; the recent Limbaugh phony soldiers comment. Here's their original post. They have the entire call on audio and in text. When Mr. Limbaugh, for example, tried to claim that MMFA hadn't posted the context, he tried to sell that by purporting to air the same audio clip on his show, and then aired a version with 1:35 edited out.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 8, 2007 -> 10:15 AM) Yeah, but Happy 11th BirthdayHto them anyway. On a more serious note...whenever someone labels MMFA with that name, I always wonder...how exactly is it smearing a person to post their own words and actions? And I think it's entirely fair game for both sides; the right wing has had the Media Research Center doing exactly the same kind of work for 20 years and building up the entire "liberal media" storyline since 1987. Seriously though, what exactly is so wrong with listening to these guys and simply posting it in an archive somewhere when they say something incredibly stupid or offensive? These folks, on both sides (Although an awful lot of it is born of talk radio) make a living by saying things that are totally off the wall and quite often simply outrageous. You guys always lament all of the partisanship today...you want some way to improve that? Then why not actually pay attention to the guys out there who pump out the garbage that MMFA and the MRC are highlighting.