Balta1701

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:48 AM) Why do people think Sweeney is a natural CF? He's passable out there, and better than Rob, but he's much better suited for the corners. BECAUSE BRIAN ANDERSON IS THE WORST THING EVER TO HAPPEN TO BASEBALL AND SHOULD NEVER PLAY AGAIN!!!!

QUOTE(WCSox @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:43 AM) I don't think that Gload's upside is high enough to keep him around if it's absolutely necessary to obtain a right-handed backup outfielder. Mackowiak could play 1B if need be. If somebody needs to be dropped to make space for a right-handed 4th OF, I'd rather it be Gload than Mackowiak, Cintron, or Ozuna. Personally, I'd make it one of Cintron/Ozuna if I was dumping someone for a 5th outfielder. Why? First, because Cintron and Ozuna can cover most of the same positions. Second, because Mackowiak can cover some of those same positions (3b, 2b) as well (if he's not locked into CF), thus giving us 3 backups at each of those positions, which is more than I think we need.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:27 AM) So you'd be cool with a prof who was a Nazi? If he was tenured and did not violate any university policies otherwise, yes. Presumably there would be quite a few obstacles for such a man earning tenure however...universities do have the rights to choose who they hire, whether the work being done by people they hire is good work, and whether the people they hire deserve tenure. If a professor earns tenure from a university, he should not be fired for his views no matter what his views become. That is the heart of academic freedom. If he were to violate other university policy, i.e. having covered up parts of his beliefs to get tenure or something like that, then the university might have cause, but that's a specific case.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:19 AM) Then release him. Or would that be a bad move as well? :rolleyes With Jim Thome still on this team...I believe it would be a bad one. Gload gives us a backup plan at 1st base if either Konerko or Thome are hurting...and I don't want Jim Thome playing first to be the backup option when Konerko needs time off.

QUOTE(Goldmember @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:11 AM) so when some of you see a movie that says 'based on a true story,' do you think that is exactly how those events happened? Is "Based on a true story" the same thing as saying "Based on the 9/11 commission report"? I think the latter convey far more weight in terms of saying it follows specific details, because of what it is claiming to be based on. Secondly, do you think that a film about 9/11 should be held to a higher standard than your usual movie of the week? Is 9/11 more important than Scott Peterson, for example? Furthermore, Fox News reported that the producers of the movie told them it was based "solely and completely on the 9/11 Commission Report.”, which is some pretty specific language being peddled by that network.

I don't think I like him being put on suspension for it...but it is a paid suspension...and the university has had trouble with him before. If it were a publically funded university I'd be pretty darn angry. It'd be real disappointing though, and say a lot about that particular university, if it dismissed a professor permanently for holding views that were unpopular...no matter how unpopular those views are.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:10 AM) Given that Pods is pretty much an automatic out against ANYBODY right now and is a below-average left-fielder, platooning lefties who can hit SOMEBODY and play LF competently is a step forward. I'd have no problem sending Gload down and either bringing up or trading for a right-handed backup corner-outfielder. That can be done easily. But I'm not convinced that Sweeney is going to hit major-league pitching right away and it might be better to platoon him with Mackowiak at first. Nobody wants another sub-Mendoza Line rookie in the outfield again next year, especially given that Anderson still has a lot to prove at the plate. Gload is out of options and can not be sent down.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:04 AM) Right now I think Chuckie Haegar has moved quietly ahead of one Sean Tracey on the depth chart. I think the team likes his vercitility and the fact that he gives a great contrast to all of the hard throwers in the pen. Can you imagine trying to hit that knuckleball then trying to hit Mike McDougall, Matt Thornton, and/or Bobby Jenks after that? Brrrr. I can imagine that...but I just can't imagine that a kid throwing a knuckler would be a reliable option out of the bullpen. Nothing against him no matter how good he is, but I just think that with a pitch like that, he's bound to struggle more often than necessary coming out of the pen, solely because it'll take him several batters to get the feel for the pitch, and that could lead to a bunch of walks or him falling behind in counts and having to throw his fastball right when he comes in (and that would be exceptionally bad if there were already runners on base)

QUOTE(WCSox @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:00 AM) Well, I obviously don't have all of the positions covered. The Sox could certainly use a leadoff hitter, but there isn't a guy currently in the organization (besides Pods) who would fit that role. Iguchi would be the closest, IMO. Platooning Sweeney with Mackowiak would ease Sweeney into role and take pressure off of him, although it's not necessary. I don't see the problem with platooning two lefties as long as Gload is still on the bench. Um, Gload is also a lefty. So in other words...all 3 of your players who could back up the outfield are lefties.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 10:56 AM) Frankly, I think alot of people dont realize that the offense doesnt really seem to be the problem. Pitching is our need. If we get rid of FG and insert BMAC, we need some more bullpen help. Do people think Sean Tracey has any chance of taking over BMac's role next year? (We'd still need a righty to replace Riske...but we might be able to pull that off by dealing Cotts)

QUOTE(WCSox @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 10:53 AM) 2. Dump Pods and give Sweeney a shot in LF, possibly platooning with Mackowiak. It's pretty difficult to platoon 2 lefties.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 10:48 AM) Becomes a perfect 4th outfielder who can provide a righty bat off the bench and terrific defense at all three positions. And wastes a ton of talent in the process.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 10:41 AM) How I would react is not the point. Stay on point and quit trying to bring in stray arguments. The point is that the Democrats are trying to extort ABC into changing or nor releasing the movie with the threat of removing thier license. That is just wrong, any way you look at it. So are you suggesting that if they took commercial breaks that it would be ok? It would certianly be better if there were commercial breaks. It would also be better if they were not saying it was "Based on the 9/11 commission report" when it is based on the 9/11 commission report and a bunch of things were inserted that were not part of the 9/11 commission report. It would also be better if there was some means by which the things bashing Democrats and praising Bush in the movie were balanced (hell, they run Fahrenheit 9/11 commercial free also and I shut up). It would certainly be better if they weren't distributing it freely to students through the internet as though it was a 100% factual movie and should be treated as educational material. There's no reason to prevent people from seeing the film. It shouldn't just disappear. The ideal thing would be for it to get the same treatment that "The Reagans" got. It should appear on Cable. Disney is a part owner of A&E...I think that'd be an excellent place for it to run, maybe even a couple times. And put out the DVD's so that people can rent it, buy it, etc. But don't run a one-sided "Mockumentary" on a major network for free right before the election. And especially don't pretend it's educational and historical when its not. And especially don't do so without any balance. And especially don't run it commercial free, to the point where it is literally a campaign contribution.

TN-SEN Rasmussen Sept 7 Corker ® 45%, Ford (D) 44%

QUOTE(TaylorStSox @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 10:03 AM) I'm still not convinced McCarthy will be any better than an average 5th starter next year. We have to find some speed somewhere. The only 2 viable positions are LF and SS. I wouldn't mind seeing Pierre in left. He does get on base, steal bases and cover alot of ground. He's better than Pods. If we fill SS with a speed guy and start Sweeney in left, we might have a shortage of guys who can drive the ball. The top 3 offenses in the AL are the Yankees (#1), the White Sox (#2), and the Indians (#3). The White Sox have 79 stolen bases this year, the Indians 43, the Yankees 119. Here are the offensive rankings of the teams with at least 100 Stolen Bases: New York Yankees (1) NY Mets (5) LA Dodgers (11) Cincinnatti (13) LA Angels (14) Baltimore (17) San Diego (28) Chicago Cubs (29) Tampa Bay D Rays (30) You can build a very successful offense without a ton of speed if you have the players, and a ton of speed clearly does not guarantee a good offense. We don't NEED to find speed somewhere. It would be nice...but it would not justify spending the money on bringing in a guy like Pierre when Sweeney is sitting right there for a lot less green. It could justify bringing in a Carl Crawford if that was possible, but Crawford brings so much more to the table that the speed is just one of hte many reasons to like him.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 09:44 AM) The amount of people who would rather keep Garcia over Vazquez is appalling. The only argument I might see for trading Vaz and keeping Garcia is that Vaz might have higher trade value if he closes out this season well. Well, and Vaz is a little more expensive. With both of them, basically if you keep either of them, you're hoping for the best next season. You're hoping that a longer offseason and it being a contract year gives Garcia reason to find his fastball again, or you're hoping that Vaz has actually turned a corner and can at least give you 6 quality innings in most games next year if you're careful with him. I'm not sure I'm confident in either of those statements. So if someone's willing to throw a top 20 prospect at me for Vazquez but not Garcia, I jump on the deal.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 09:07 AM) I don' thtink I ever really paid any attention to how Daunte looks in the pocket til last nite. I don't know if it was just Pittsburgh, but he looked crappy while dropping back. I didn't watch a ton of the Vikes last year before he got hurt...but that's pretty much a fair description of how he was throwing before he got hurt as well.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 09:36 AM) What? No mention of the fact that the Democrats have issued a vieled threat against ABC's broadcast liscense if they didn't change it? http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/se...-threatens.html And before you get started, yes, Republicans were outraged against CBS for unfair portrayals in “The Reagans” and lobbied to get it quashed. Still, they didn’t use the threat of government sanction against a broadcaster exercising its 1st Amendment rights. If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it. They can organize protests and boycotts, letter-writing campaigns and so on. What they cannot do is to threaten a broadcast license for political differences, regardless of the situation. It violates the spirit of free speech and makes the Democrats look like Big Brother. I'll fire this back at you then...CBS could always run "the Reagans" under the excuse that they were running it not as a part of a public interest, but were doing so for profit. The 9/11 thing on ABC is being broadcast commercial-free. With no sponsor. And given away freely online. That's over $40 million going into a pre-election political statement with almost no means for ABC/Disney to recoup its expenses. How would you react if a major network decided to run Fahrenheit 9/11 commercial free 2 months before an Election, offered to distribute the movie freely online, and billed it as based on the facts surrounding 9/11?

"And the American People are safer."

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 07:08 AM) History is always being rewritten as new information becomes available, there are always multiple points of view. Each part should be looked at within a specific context of when it was produced and by whom. Sorry Bill, the right wingers get to write some history also.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 06:28 AM) Who still watches these award shows? If they have a host I enjoy, I'll watch. Watched Conan hosting the Emmy's, watched Stewart hosting last year. Both were pretty good. Hopefully Ellen bombs this time...the producers get desperate...and next year, they turn, of course, to Stephen Colbert...

QUOTE(loltrain @ Sep 7, 2006 -> 08:02 PM) We have better pitching than Minnesota really, even if Liriano is healthy (big if) they need a 3rd starter. Obviously noone wants to face Santana in the playoffs though In a 5 game series, you can face Santana, Liriano, and Santana (with of course a random guy thrown in the mix) Follow that up with 2 seven game series, and you can face Liriano, Santana, Liriano, Santana, and then you can even try to work it so that you can throw one of them on 3 days rest in game 7 if you have to. 2 pitchers can be enough to win a world series. If they get 1 or 2 good games out of say Silva or Radke, which is always possible but not unbelievably likely...combined wiht the strenght of their bullpen...they would be scary in the playoffs if they got Liriano back. If Liriano was 100% healthy, they might be unbeatable.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 09:07 AM) I will say this about Haeger. I sat right at the end of the bullpen last night where he was warming up. His knuckler does have alot of bite to it. But you can tell that he is still working on his mechanics to a great extent. Even Art had to come over and work with his release during his warmups. I would say another year or two on Charlie. Is it possible that part of the problem there was Haeger warming up as a relief pitcher, and not having a full warmup, with long toss and everything, to start the game? I mean, if McCarthy has struggled with some of his "touch" pitches like the changeup this season coming out of the pen, I can't imagine getting a knuckler into a groove would be any easier.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 09:02 AM) This writer is smoking some messed up s***...... On our Center Fielder...yeah he is. Spending the money on Hunter or Cameron when we have a guy who can do almost exactly the same stuff for $400k is just silly. Any of the other options...I'm open. Sweeney in LF, and hell even leading off (a-la Grady Sizemore) I could live with happily. A trade of Uribe, Podsednik, and a starting pitcher or two, I'm game for. Brandon McCarthy better be in that damn rotation next year. And I wouldn't mind seeing 2 pitchers moved one bit, especially if it brought back enough talent. Doesn't even have to be ML ready talent, IMO...with this offense, I could tolerate giving either Haeger or Broadway a shot in the big leagues as the dreaded sh*tty fifth starter next year.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 08:45 AM) I hope no one thinks there's a realistic chance the Sox sign Zito. The White Sox don't give pitchers more than 3 years. Someone will give Zito at least 4 and if the Yankees and Mets are involved, it may go to 5 or even 6. I hope to God the only reason the White Sox get into any Zito talks is to give Boras another team to use to drive his cost up. I really, really don't want to sign Barry Zito.