Balta1701

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 9, 2007 -> 01:25 AM) Someone said he "broke the greatest American sports record". True? Before 2 days ago...yes, it was the single greatest record in American sports.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 08:26 PM) Sox killer Michaels up in an inning that should be over. Gee...wonder how this is going to end. Surprisingly well. Do we have anyone left in our bullpen after MMac? Just Wasserman correct?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 08:05 PM) Jim Thome needs to be used this inning, preferably in place of prancer. Haven't you heard? Thome sucks in the clutch.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 04:12 PM) As well as Dan Wright, Brandon McCarthy, Rocky Biddle, Kip Wells, Aaron Myette, Matt Ginter, Neal Cotts, Carlos Castillo (called up from high A ball) and Jesus Pena. That's since 1999 Didn't Danksy also skip AAA?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 04:19 PM) Will Danny Richar ever get a shot at a tough veteran lefty? Brian Anderson can not hit right handers! Danny Richar can not hit left handers!

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 01:37 PM) The reason Bonds gets the criticism is because his suppliers got busted (Balco) and others have publicly spoken about him (Sheffield) and he's grown so much. It isn't just because he was chasing the records. Nobody's on Miguel Cabrera yet, fair or unfair, because he doesn't look like he's juiced, nobody's said that he's juiced and he hasn't much changed except for getting fat, and I doubt anybody truly does unless there's something there. And because he admitted he juiced to a grand jury...he just said he didn't do so intentionally (thus making the perjury case much harder to prove).

No idea yet what the reality is, and I'm not a fan of even trying to defend TNR, but what the heck, here's the current overall story as far as I can tell:

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 12:24 PM) So much for Jose to the bullpen. Jose will be a starter on this team to start the season next year. Book that. We may as well let him try to work out his problems now if he can do so...just as long as we're also giving starts to Floyd.

I love this guy.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 11:46 AM) That's assuming that they never, ever made anymore from when the original stockpiles were "counted". Totally correct. Which was 100% why we needed to get in there with an active inspections regime. When Saddam caved on that demand, which I believe was Sept. 13, 02, the day after the President dropped by the U.N., the need for the war disappeared unless Saddam resisted the UNMOVIC team even harder than he did the UNSCOM team. But when the UNMOVIC team went in, they visited the sites the US said were weapons factories and found jack. They visited the sites sealed off by the UNSCOM team and found the equipment covered with 4 years of dust. Had Saddam refused to admit those inspectors, I'd grant you'd have had a causus belli even if he was disarmed, because you shouldn't just trust him. But the inspectors went in. And since we were going to war no matter what, the fact that the inspectors referred to the U.S. supplied intelligence as "Garbage" was taken as evidence that the inspections didn't work, so we invaded anyway.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 11:17 PM) The aluminum tube myth wasn't debunked by the IAEA until Januar Jy 03. The first time Zarqawi was referenced by the President was in October of 2002. As for the other stuff, Senator Nelson of Florida in 2004 says it best - as quoted in the Congressional Record. If you're being told this in a secure intelligence briefing, and you are John Q Senator - why would you not believe it? It's not coming from the President's speech, it's coming from a secured intelligence briefing. My biggest thing was that I used a little bit of logic. The UAV thing was simply a joke. Seriously, think about it...what exactly would Iraq have to do to get a UAV to the U.S.? Develop stealth technology, develop a plane capable of flying the entire way around the world without being spotted, or come up with some way of mid-air refueling it, load it with a weaponized material that could be dispersed in an aerosol fashion, get close enough to a major U.S. area to use the thing without the device being intercepted or shot down, actually disperse the stuff, and then have it return safely back to Iraq without leaving any trace behind of who pulled off the stunt. Either that, or it would have had to be loaded onto a naval vessel, which would be even trickier given our presence in the Gulf. The entire concept was simply insane whether or not the CIA believed it, and it was made even more insane by the fact that the UNMOVIC team and media members were allowed to inspect Iraq's threatening "UAV's" and found them held together by duct tape and barely able to carry a camera. The aluminum tubes were the same way. I didn't even need to wait for the CIA estimate...when they were first mentionned, there were reports from actual scientists and the people who manufacture those things which said basically that the only use for those tubes was missiles, that the way they were designed it was impossible for them to be used in centrifuges, and even on top they wouldn't fit into Iraq's old centrifuge setups. So literally, they would have had to be basically melted down and reforged in order to be useful. All this information was out there at the time for people who bothered to look. Even deeper than that, you could tell Mr. Bush had something up his sleeve just by the way he talked. I'll give you my favorite example; the units he used. Saddam produced an enormous amount of chemical and biological weaponry in the 80's. But, the UNSCOM teams in the 90's were able to confirm the destruction of over 95% of the stuff. And given how heavily the U.S. bombed that country, confirming 95% of it was gone was a hell of an accomplishment. But when Mr. Bush spoke, he never gave percentages, he always spoke in volumes. 30,000 liters of anthrax precursers, or whatever you wanted. What he wasn't telling you was that he was talking about like 2% of what was originally there, and that 2% was probably hit by a 2000 lb. bomb in GW1. You should only trust people so far, especially on something like this. The information was out there. I was able to find it. Congressmen and Senators could have found the information to contradict the reports they were giving. It was in the UNSCOM reports, it was in the public domain. It just didn't get hyped on the news, it didn't make the front page of the NY Times, it wound up on page 17 or something like that. If you paid attention, the facts were out there, and virtually every complaint Mr. Bush brought up had a counterpoint publically available which was not given the attention it deserved. If people paid attention, or wanted to find the facts and not just follow the polls, the info was out there.

Terry Ryan smart smart smart, smart smart smart smart smart....

QUOTE(beck72 @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 06:50 AM) The sox aren't going to have 2 rookies starting 2008 at both 2B and SS. Esp. if Richar looks like he's a keeper at 2B. Richar probably won't be considered a rookie if he keeps getting at bats. Anyway, right now, I wouldn't rule out seeing Richar, Fields, Owens, and at least 1 other "Rookie" starting for us next year. Maybe even 2. And at this point, I'd rather have 2 rookies up the middle than 1 Uribe.

Fields/Owens/Sanchez. 08.

QUOTE(Wanne @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 12:18 AM) They have some serious young talent on that team. Which might be why they want to spend the money to hold onto one or two of their popular, veteran, ballplayers who seem to both be good people and who are putting up good numbers. Especially if they give the team a discount.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 09:18 AM) Too bad this sad moment had to happen. I agree with Balta on that. Baseball is worse off for it. The sooner someone else breaks that number, the better. Go get em ARod, Albert.

I don't know if this is a comment on Bonds, Selig, the game itself, or what...but here's my thoughts. Last night, during the Colbert Report, I tuned in to ESPN2 during a commercial break and saw Bonds up to bat. I decided I'd rather not see it if anything happened. I literally turned the TV away from the Giants game during the at bat where he broke the record. I grew up a fan of baseball. Loved it when ESPN used to show the replays of the old black & white home run derby's from the 60's. Knew the record books quite well. Saw the clip of Aaron more times than I can count. And yet, I had absolutely no urge to either watch the greatest record in the sport be broken or to hear anything about it afterwards. I hate this. All of it. This should be something I would enjoy. Love. Etc. F***ing cheaters and their enablers.

QUOTE(Wanne @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 05:02 PM) If we go into next season with Cintron as our everyday SS...there's gonna be a lot of broken s*** in my house!!!!!!!!!!!! The only potential starting SS within the White Sox organization right now is Juan Uribe. Which is why I think SS is the #1 position needing fixed this offseason.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 06:23 PM) massett is out of options? he's been in the big leagues only two years... he's still got 1 left. THis was in the Trib.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 04:05 PM) Because what honorable people do who are in office is not hide the truth to get into war. Did our President hide the truth about the inevitability of this war? Absolutely. Did he lie about the reasons to get into this war? That's less clear, but IMHO, appears to be the case. But in 2002, Senators weren't operating under the CW that the Bush administration is hiding its objectives, acting incompetently and recklessly, or that there was a nefarious purpose in the intent of the President. This drum beat to war concerned a lot of people, but I do think that most of mainstream America didn't feel that there was poor intent. And that it was the will of these elected officials' constituency to follow what is American tradition and give the President the necessary tools to responsibly execute foreign policy in the name of this country. The lack of debate over why this was happening is what stunned me about 2002. The fact that the oversight of our Congress was so not there for six years stunned me. But given the climate of 2002, and given the Presidential assurances (which most members of Congress should but sadly can no longer take as honest) I wouldn't fault any senator or congressman for their vote. However, playing it on both sides, like a lot of Senators have - to give themselves wiggle room - is awful. And not too forgivable. It's why Hillary's vote stunk, because she stayed hawkish til it wouldn't work for her future anymore. Again I'll say this, the main thing I have against Kerry, Clinton, Edwards...all of them...is that whether or not their decisions were based on politics, polling, etc., the best defense they have offered for their vote is that they made the mistake of believing Mr. Bush. So...given that by September of 02 I had personally decided that I couldn't believe a word coming out of Mr. Bush's mouth, and that every time he brought up things like the aluminum tubes, or the Ansar al Islam camp with Zarqawi that we were protecting with the no-fly zones, or the UAV's Iraq supposedly had (I think my personal favorite was the UAV's that were held together by duct tape that were somehow supposed to fly round the world) he was lying, why should I trust the judgement of someone who couldn't figure it out as well as me? How do I know they won't look into Putin's soul and proclaim him to not be a liar, when they looked into Mr. Bush's soul and decided to trust him? I have to hold their vote against them...because I am not supposed to be better at their jobs than they are.

QUOTE(VAfan @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 02:42 PM) Any trade of Jon Garland would have to bring back a starting pitcher who at least has a chance of pitching as well as Garland. There is no way a rotation of Buehrle, Vazquez, Danks, Floyd, fill-in-the-blank can compete for a playoff spot. I'm for trying to re-sign Garland. If he wants $15 million/year for more than 3 years, well then he'll have to go, but we aren't there yet. The mystery player here is Jose. Unless he rediscovers his form he's untradeable. But what if he rediscovers his form? Then he could be a bargain at $10 million/year. Because of his contract, at the very worst, Jose Contreras is going to be starting for this team for a month or two next year just to see if he could regain some form.

Yes, there is a chance Jose could refind his form. I really don't have a clue what the percentage is, because I don't have a clue what exactly is wrong with him. Unfortunately, because of his contract, we have zero chance of moving him right now unless we pay a ton of it. Therefore, all we can hope is that we can get some good out of him the next year+. We do need to move at least one pitcher right now, either to clear salary or to open up a space that hopefully Gavin will earn, but it won't be Jose. Maybe we'll get lucky somehow and he'll turn out surprisingly good out of the bullpen or something like that. That splitter would be murder out of that pen.

QUOTE(Wanne @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 02:34 PM) Haven't the Sox usually gone on nice stretches at the end of the year when they're out of it? I'll take it. One thing...and let me preface this by saying I couldn't give a s*** less about the Cubs...but I do have a C-note riding on overall records...and up to this point been having to hear this putz gloat...until I nicely said for all your crap talkin' and gloating...there's only a six game difference right now (and no Alfie....). Well, in both 05-06, the Sox struggled and faded in August and Sept, although in 05 we finished the year on fire. In 04 we went 12-17 in August and 17-12 in September. 03 was 16-12 in August and 13 and 12 in September, best month was July (17-9). 02 we were better 2nd half, 01 better first half. So last 6-7 years it's almost been split between better 1st half and better 2nd half.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 11:24 AM) I see your point, and it's a valid one, but it's usually because the ultra extremes of the parties like to rip on people because of the so-called "political fodder" I'm mentioning. It drives me crazy. To expand a bit, though, Mrs. Bill Clinton's vote on Iraq was pretty clear. At one point, she was claiming she didn't know what she was voting for (read: giving the president authorization for going into Iraq)... which is either a bald face lie, or she's too f***ing stupid to be president. Either one is not acceptable. Now, that type of "rethinking" one's stance is for political purposes and nothing more. Of course, if one believed the very words coming out of Mr. Bush's mouth, voting for the war resolution by no means made the war inevitable; it was supposed to give the President the authority he needed. That's what Mrs. Clinton said when she voted for the thing, just like Mr. Kerry. Or, from President Bush's own words: Of course, I read that speech thinking he was baldly lying, that no matter what Iraq actually did, if the resolution passed, the war was inevitable, and it turned out that my judgement was better than that of Hillary et al. Which is the single greatest reason I will not vote for her in the primary; if my judgement of GWB was more accurate than hers, why should I trust her judgement with others?

Cheaper than I thought he'd be.