Balta1701

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 04:04 PM) I don't think what happened with Gonzales is this HUGE deal that needs this much attention. What happened is standard... firing of attorney's for politcal reasons. The other stuff? I don't think any of it has been proven, not sure though because I'm really tired of this level of political bickering and have pretty much been ignoring political news lately. Oh, I'm sure the Dems will eventually get their "trophy kill", but I don't think it'll be Gonzales. I'm also sure they'll keep at it until they can get someone. It hasn't been proven because the administration is refusing to release the key documents that could prove whether or not it actually happened and is preventing key people from testifying. In any other situation other than a claim of executive priveledge, that would be known as obstruction of justice.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 26, 2007 -> 09:21 AM) The Supreme Court told the Fla. Supreme Court that they had to interpret the laws at the time, not what they "should have been". That's a gross oversimplification, but that's the bottom line. The problem I have with that decision is that the Supreme Ct. clearly didn't believe enough in what they were saying to actually have it as settled law, because they attempted to include that clause in their own verdict saying that this decision could not be used as precedent. If the court itself thought it was issuing a sound legal opinion, then that clause makes no sense. I take that as an admission that the majority on the court knew full well they were deciding that based entirely on the 5-4 lead the Republicans had in appointments to the court, and that they felt it was a political decision and not a legal one.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 26, 2007 -> 09:22 AM) Crede played 47 games this year and put up a .575 OPS, unless he's insanely productive next season the Sox won't be getting any sort of compensation picks for him. Joe's still an IF, and the numbers for Infielders don't have to be dominant. Joe could put up numbers somewhere between his 05 and 06 campaigns and probably at least earn B level compensation next year (and some times, in the case of injuries, I'm convinced that MLB does look at the previous healthy year when deciding how to slot people. See: Eric Gagne, going as an A level FA)

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jul 26, 2007 -> 08:35 AM) We also get the comp pick and right now those two things are better than other teams are offering, but that doesn't mean we can't move Iguchi, Contreras (for anything) and others. I still think Iguchi will draw at least B level compensation at 2nd base. They do organize those things by position and look across 2 years, and IMO, there's not going to be a lot of 2nd baseman on the market better than Tad. Here's the list of infielders from last year organized by FA level: And the one thing I still think the Sox need to do is move a pitcher. Somehow. If for no other reason than to free up the $10 million and give Gavin Floyd 2 more months to try to adapt to the big leagues.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 10:51 PM) If Poreda eventually made it as a 2006 version of Matt Thorton -- I'm talking dominant lefty setup man -- would people really be that pissed? I mean, I know Porcello was taken immediately afterwords, but I'd have to think that getting a great reliever with the 25th (?) overall pick is better than the 'expected value' of that pick. Honestly, yes, I'd be somewhat annoyed, if not pissed. To me, with a first round draft pick, you have to pick a guy who you think will end up as a starter or a closer. Middle Relief is just so iffy overall, there's so much of it available, and the performance of it so inconsistent (see, 2005-2007 white Sox) that you can't spend first round picks on guys who only project there. If they think he'll take over for Bobby in 3 years, ok, that's a different story, but Middle Relief in the first round has to be viewed as a disappointment.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 02:57 PM) Thats fine, and probably a good idea. However, this "outrage" over these US Attorney's being fired is completely manufactured. This has been going on for a long time. Is it really fair to make an example out of Gonzales? Wouldn't it be better to change the how the process works rather than just go after this guy for doing (albeit later than most) what many of his Predecessors had done? Let's make a couple other things clear. 1. There is no crime in the firing of the U.S. attorneys. The way the law was written at the time, the Bush administration was fully within their rights to replace them for whatever reason they wanted without Congressional approval. In addition, Congress was fully justified in dragging members of the Justice Dept., including those involved in making the firing decisions, up to Congress to have them testify about how the law was being used, since the law was just changed by the Patriot Act. Congress is further justified in obtaining documents and similar information about that case for that reason alone, given that it is the body which created, funds, and oversees the Justice Department. 2. During this investigation, several potential crimes actually have cropped up. First of all, the Attorney General and others on his team felt that whether illegal or not, firing U.S. attorneys during the middle of an administration for political and not performance reasons reasons, which really is unprecedented despite what you claim (the Bush admin fired attorneys both at the beginning of its term, a-la Clinton, and then removed their own replacements mid-term for not being partisan enough), and then using newly and secretly acquired powers to appoint replacements without Senate approval, was embarrassing enough that he had to lie about it under oath. Repeatedly. 3. Furthermore, during this investigation, it has come out that the administration appears to have completely defied the Presidential Records act, by having a huge portion of its emails sent out through RNC servers, when that Act requires that all presidential records are the property of the public and must be treated and preserved as such. 4. And beyond that, there is yet another more serious issue which has been covered up for the most part by the debate over the hearings; the voter suppression issue. The attempts to force attorneys to prosecute bogus Voter Fraud charges in the hopes of suppressing the vote in key districts, and the refusal of several attorneys to do so before the 2006 election is, based on the documents we already have, directly linked to the firings. While the White House would break no law in firing these folks for refusing to file trumped up charges, the attempts to influence the vote themselves may well have broken the line. Furthermore, other evidence has been uncovered of potential "caging lists", essentially lists of voters who the Republicans were planning to challenge if they went to the polls because the postal service could not deliver mail to them, due to the fact that they were forwarded to a George W. Bush parody site (the files were actually called "Caging list 1 and 2"). Both parties are prohibited from using these techniques under most circumstances. 5. And even beyond that, there is one other potential law broken; violations of the Hatch Act, which requires employees of the Executive Branch to perform their jobs in a non-partisan manner. Thanks to documents released by the DOJ, we've learned that over a dozen different parts of the executive branch, over the past few years, have received briefings about how they could help the Republicans to win elections through their positions, which appears to be a direct violation of that Act. The U.S. attorney firings were only the issue that got the investigation going and gave the Congress cause to start asking questions. When those questions were asked, possible violations of a variety of laws came to light, and Congress is fully within its rights to investigate those actions. If no charges come of it, then it really doesn't matter; Congress has the authority, as established by judicial precedent back in teh 80's, to break through Executive Priveledge on most issues if they are investigating even potential violations of the law.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 02:40 PM) Who is going to play 2B next year? Are they going to offer Cintron a one-year arbitration deal and platoon him with Ozuna? (Sorry, I haven't been keeping up on the rumor mill lately.) Danny Richar, my 2nd AAP, was acquired from the D-Backs a month or so ago for Cunningham I believe. He projects as a 2nd baseman and has been tearing the cover off the ball at AAA since moving to Charlotte. He's one of those guys we really ought to have up in the big leagues next week.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 02:43 PM) A process which should begin within the next week. Williams has to know how vital to our future any forthcoming trades will be. I know I won't be the only one furious if he f***s it up. I wonder though if people are going to continue having huge expectations for what we'd get if we moved a Dye, Contreras, or Iguchi. They're just not going to bring us back top-of-the-league level talent, unfortunately.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 02:17 PM) Now that contempt citations have been issued, Bush will tell prosecutors not to persue them. This basically puts his administration above the law. It has to pass the full house first, and the indications are that this vote won't happen until after the August recess.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 02:16 PM) I haven't seen much of Sweeney, but I take it that his arm strength is better than the average LF? I'd still like to see KW sign another vet and work Sweeney in slowly. Sweeney supposedly has a very good arm. Unfortunately, the Sox have enough other holes that if we want to spend more money on the OF, we're going to have to tolerate holes in the bullpen or Uribe returning at short. If Owens and Sweeney are both in the OF next year, we still need 1 more OF, and I doubt it's going to be handed to Anderson. And we still need a Shortstop. And our bullpen is still a disaster.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 02:07 PM) I was kidding. But like I've said, I would not be surprised if Dye stayed in town after this season. Like the Podsednik situation last year. IMO, the only way that happens is if JD accepts arbitration this offseason and takes the 1 year deal associated with it. Which, if he's really wanting to stay, might not be out of the question.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 02:12 PM) I actually think he could be a better base stealer, right now his only weakness is his jump and read, something you gain with major league experience. Seeing him take a bag off of I-roid was pretty impressive. And while Podsednik doesn't give much phsyically right now, there may well be few better teachers of stolen base technique available these days. He became such a good base stealer not because he was the fastest player in the big leagues, but because he had the technique down pat. So that is one potential benefit of having those 2 on the same team for the next month or two (can we bring Pods back next year as our 1st base coach?).

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 01:53 PM) If we don't trade Dye who else will play RF for us in 2008?!?!?! I think Ryan Sweeney is going to be there almost no matter what happens, unless he gets hurt.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 01:36 PM) If he signs with the Rangers or Orioles the Sox would receive a sandwich (~30-50) and 2nd round pick (~50-70 [depending on how many sandwich pick there are]), there's top 15 protection. So the question of course is...is any offer for JD worth more than a sandwich pick and a high 2nd rounder?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 01:34 PM) I'd give 5-4 odds against that happening. That wasn't an electoral college issue, that was an issue with the disaster that was Florida's voting system. And the Dems are going to have to learn a lot better how to take advantage of the gaping holes in the voting system security as well as the opponents have before that becomes an issue.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 01:16 PM) Well, he looks at too many pitches right there for strike three. He needs to attack to those pitches instead of hoping the umpire will call it a ball. Give him some time. He's been in the big leagues for what, 1/5 of a season so far? I keep trying to say, about all of these guys, Floyd, Fields, Owens, etc., there is a big jump even from AAA to the big leagues, and a steep learning curve. It takes almost everyone, even sometimes the most talented players anywhere, to adapt and learn. Look at a guy like Jose Reyes. When he came up, he swung at everything. Now, he's learned how to be more patient, and he's turned himself into a monster of a player. It takes guys time to turn into what they project to be, and hopefully our organization is good enough to harness the talent in teh guys we've got.

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 12:56 PM) Gore won that 2000 election. Do we want that debacle to happen again? Well, the odds say that as long as the system sits around as badly broken as it currently is, its probably only a matter of time before a Repub. wins the popular vote and a Dem winds up in office too, so...

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 12:47 PM) Good thing they didnt use the nuclear option. The filibuster is a useful tool...as long as the media actually pays attention when its used, and thus makes sure that if a party overuses it, they actually suffer for it. But since it's only worth hours and hours of coverage when the Dems are filibustering a handful of judges, but not when the Repubs are filibustering, you know, everything...

TIFWIW:

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 10:08 AM) It has been for a long time. Was completely politicized under B.Clinton too. Well, the question of course is whether or not the letter of the law was actually violated. I think it's expected to be politicized to some extent (which is an unfortunate circumstance that based on the abuse of the DOJ in this case I think we should try to correct by increasing the independence of U.S. Attorneys from the White House by making their terms a fixed length and not having them serve at the President's discretion), but there are legit questions here about whether things crossed a line which had not been crossed before. Of course, when people refuse to testify, it's hard to find out whether or not that line was crossed.

QUOTE(SoxFan77 @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 10:04 AM) Balta.. IMO he was brought here to him us win a title. It doesn't look like that is going to happen then why is he here? If they could unload him to another team and give him a shot at winning..Why not do it? hate to say this.. But, Besides the Angles.. Could not the Evil Empire use a DH who hits for power off riods? I think the Evil Empire probably has more DH's than it can use, given the average age of folks on that team, and the evil empire would not be helped by a bat; they need pitching, pitching, pitching, just like they have the last 3 years or so. They have the #2 offense in baseball right now. And somehow, I doubt they'd meet the price I'd ask for Thome, which would be Hughes +1. And at some point next year, Thome would wind up competing with Giambi for playing time, and that would just be a mess. I think the Angels are a much more likely candidate, as they've needed a bat, a power bat to hit behind Vlad, in the worst way, for like 3 years now, and they have probably an opening at the DH spot, which they've used to give people days off. The Angels offense has been middle of the road, #6 in the AL. And the Angels do have more than enough guys to make such a swap work; it's all a question of whether or not they want to do it.

QUOTE(DonnyDevito @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 09:54 AM) Then how did we get him? He said he was willing to waive his NTC to go to 2 cities; either Chicago, where his family was, or Cleveland, where his career started. It is worth questionning though, if you could get a good deal and simultaneously give Jim a chance to make a run at a world series this year, whether he might be willing to move given what looks to be a couple-year rebuilding process starting in Chicago.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 09:43 AM) Here's my impression of Floyd: He makes usually 2-3 good pitches per at bat. He then throws an absolute cookie over the plate. If the hitter is patient enough he gets a good pitch to hit. If they arent patient, Gavin strikes them out. In other words, give him a little bit of time to adapt to the league to the point where he's better at not throwing that cookie, and he could be really tough.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Jul 24, 2007 -> 05:16 PM) im not so sure about free agency....i mean whats gonna be out there that will sign in chicago for KWs three years? maybe a guy like paul byrd, but that would only be a stop gap...i think its more likely a guy like haeger, floyd, gio or someone traded for dye/contreras or something would be a much more realistic option This team will not win unless it can plug in youth to fill some of these holes. We simply do not have the money to buy our way out of every problem that appears within our lineup. It would be pretty darn silly IMO to spend $45 mil on your starting 5 next year, with 1 of them in their walk year, when you have so many other holes on your roster where you don't even have a potential young guy to step in (SS).

AP.