Balta1701

QUOTE(Mr. Showtime @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 05:00 PM) It should already be underway. I think it'll be mid July before it starts. There's no reason to rush things unless you get a can't miss deal. There's also no reason to not pick up the phone.

And all but one of his personalties are really good hitters...

QUOTE(winninguglyin83 @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 03:45 PM) hey, pods has done big-time work for Charlotte. He hasn't stolen a base all week.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 01:51 PM) I wish that we would take more of a leadership role to allow the players involved in this find an agreement. We did take something of a leadership role. The problem is that this is pretty much what we arranged to have happen. We were the ones who pushed hard for the 2006 elections which brought Hamas to power, we were some of the ones who pushed Fatah to hold onto power despite the elections, and we're a part of the group arming and training the Fatah forces that Hamas is blasting (at a cost of something like $40 mil or so I think).

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 01:44 PM) Anderson's OPS this year: .387In 17 at bats. No, it's not. .632. And only 51 of those at bats were outside of 2006.

QUOTE(WHITESOXRANDY @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 01:33 PM) We should also trade for AROD and extend his contract SINCE BILL GATES IS NOW THE OWNER OF THE WHITE SOX. I wish people would inform me of these things. You know, if we bought a new stadium for the Marlins, paid for the whole thing for them, they might be willing to give us Cabrera in return for that.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) Erstad's only costing $750k and Anderson was a complete disaster at the plate last season (.225 BA, .290 OBP, 90 K, 30 BB). He was more of an automatic out than many of the pitchers in the NL. No matter how good his glove is, nobody with Anderson's bat is going to start on a team that's supposed to be competitive. Brian Anderson's OPS over all last year: .649. Darin Erstad's OPS over all this year: .652.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 12:46 PM) That's why the Dodgers have a good chance to be compete year in and year out. They have a good management that isn't scared to make a big move, to go along with a good scouting department. Wish we had that. I don't know, I just can't see how anyone could have expected the Dodgers to do anything other than struggle to score runs this year. They scored a ton of runs with very little power last year, and their big additions were Juan Pierre and Luis Gonzalez, two players who were only going to make that problem worse. I mean, it looked to me like JD and the Dodgers were a good match before the season even started, because they were going to be so desperate for a few home runs at some point.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 12:07 PM) Can't argue with that. Then again, this organization's young, healthy players are overwhelmingly mediocre. I'd rather see an injury-prone-but-productive Erstad in our lineup than Anderson. I think I'd love to see an injury-prone-but-productive Erstad in the lineup also. But that .652 OPS he's put up this year makes me sort of wonder when exactly people think this productive Erstad will appear?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 12:30 PM) Gore is a hypocrite on almost every issue. Bush may be wrong, but he certainly doesn't waiver on this issue. 2 cars driving off a cliff. Al Gore: "Hmm, at one point, I thought it was a good idea to continue driving in this direction. Based on the approaching cliff, I now think it would be an appropriate move to stop and turn around this vehicle." George W. Bush: "WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

LA TImes.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 12:00 PM) Just a thought to throw out there on this. Could it be that Freddy's arm was actually ok when he was traded with the only problem being that it was tired from being overworked? Since it was tired, he may have changed something mechanically that eventually led to this injury. We all know that he was a different pitcher and doing different things last year. Maybe that just caught up to him this year. I don't know, I'm just throwing something out there and seeing if it will stick. He also did add that pretty good split finger pitch at the end of last year. New pitch=new problem?

That civil war may well have been inevitable since the elections a couple years ago that Hamas won.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 09:57 AM) Who wasn't healthy....Pods? Crede was also not healthy to start the season. I'm not sure what to say about Dye.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 09:44 AM) Would the Sox be eight games under .500 if everyone was healthy? Perhaps a more important question...would the Sox be 8 games over .500 if everyone was healthy?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 09:34 AM) According to SS2k's comments in the other thread, Thome would only waive his no-trade clause back in '05 to go to the Indians, Cubs, or Sox. Being home in Illinois or at his former home in Cleveland seems pretty important to him. I'm sure that he'd love to go back to Cleveland if they remain in contention, but unless he's drastically changed his mind, I don't see him going anywhere else. Plus, I don't see the point in trading a future HOFer who we're getting at a bargain... especially when we're losing Dye and Crede at the end of the year. This lineup is going to be absolutely desperate for power next season. Well, I think the whole point of the concept of this discussion is that maybe Jim would consider doing something other than playing @ home if it helped him get a ring. Yes, he wouldn't be on his way to the Cubs or to the Tribe, but there are several teams, notably Seattle, LAA, and probably a few others, who might really be happy to get their hands on a bat like his, and those teams may have a much bigger chance of getting Jim a ring in the next year or two than we do. The question is Jim's priorities; does he want to stay in Chicago, or does he want a ring? And the whole point of trading Mr. Thome would be to try to fill in those holes for a few years down the road. If we suck next year, Thome is the difference between 60 and 70 wins maybe. In that case, well, screw it, give me whatever talent Jim could bring back in a trade, let him have one last shot at a ring, and maybe we find ourselves in a better spot in 09.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 08:19 AM) plus, it just contributes to Edwards 'two-Americas" but on a grander scale. Those with money can just pay a little extra to offset thier excess, while those just getting by cannot. For the lower to middle class to be carbon neutral, or even to simply reduce, they would have to actually change thier lifestyle and consumption habits, whereas the rich can simply write a check to feel better about themselves. Well, if these things were set up to work correctly, that would actually be an ideal way to do things, because the money that the wealthy would be pumping into the market would be used to develop and activate renewable sources. For example, if a wealthy person is buying carbon offsets, and that money is used to fund the construction of a wind power station, then that benefits everyone because the wealthy person has paid some of the money to offset the additional cost of building that new windmill. If I want to build a wind farm, and 1/2 the cost of it is paid for through money raised by carbon offsets, then that windfarm is a much more practical thing for me to build. There are an awful lot of scenarios where things start off being a product that only the rich can afford, but then with time, the fact that rich people buy items leads to more money being put into the system and the price of that item dropping at the same time as it becomes more effective. Here, of course, I think the problem is likely the way the market was set up originally. It was set up as being too friendly to business. The ideal situation would be to have an organizing body selling off the carbon offsets to business who generate a lot. The way the Europeans did it, if I understand things, they handed out the carbon offsets to businesses for free who were already polluting, so that they could then move to sell them. So it became a method of making more money for polluters rather than a method of reigning in polluters.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 05:37 AM) The Serbia bombings should not have been done IMO. You thought they were OK? It just seems like the "outrage against war" is very selective. Depends more on if your party won or lost the election preceding a conflict . So really, are dems any better then the people you quoted in your post? is that the new dem platform "we're only as bad as the GOP, not worse"? I thought at the time it was very hard to defend the concept behind the bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, especially the Kosovo campaign. I really have trouble with the concept of fighting a war for humanitarian reasons, because war is the ultimate act of inhumanity. It's really hard to find situations so bad that killing a lot of people will improve them. There are, obviously, exceptions. In hindsight, Rwanda would have been a possible place where such an action could have been useful, but only because of the sheer magnitude of the carnage there. It's a rough line to draw, and each situation needs to be evaluated independently, but I think I'm of the belief that the gains that happened in Yugoslavia probably could have been accomplished without all the killing there.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 07:08 PM) And you aren't going to get him for MacDougal. At the very least, it's going to cost Broadway, and even considering Broadway has been thought of as a likely 4th or 5th starter, he has more value as a small piece of a trade than he does in trading for Dukes, because I see it as a near impossibility that Dukes stays in the majors long term. At least some of the rumors I've read recently seem to suggest that there's a good chance Tampa Bay may just outright release him after all of this garbage, and the reason no teams are offering anything useful for him is that they think the DRays may well do that. You may well actually get him right now if you offer up MMac, because the D-Rays could well be happy to just dump their problem on someone else.

Selig may consider suspending the out-for-the-season Jason Giambi if he does not cooperate with George Mitchell's steroid investigation

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 06:52 AM) Speculation in Pitt that Pirates SS Jack Wilson could be available LINK Don't shoot the messager, but we do have a nice history of making trades with these guys. I'm not a particularly big fan of his contract given his numbers. Yes, he's an offensive and defensive upgrade from Uribe, but he also costs more. It could be worth it though if we get some success out of some of our kiddies next year to plug that hole @ SS for 2 years.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 07:43 AM) 3) $7M a year for real good numbers - Thome There is absolutely nothing written anywhere which would require the Sox to send along any of that $20 million they got from the Phillies in any deal sending out Jim. He's paid $14 mil total per year, it's just that 1/2 of that is covered by the money from the Phils. But since Jim proved he could come back from that injury, his value has gone right back up.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 07:45 PM) just for fun....how would this lineup look right now Ringless

If we are rebuilding, and I mean really rebuilding, Kids can play mode, then it makes no sense at all to hold onto Jim Thome for 2 more years, especially with what he could bring back. But the big question would be...would Jim do it?