Balta1701

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 04:15 PM) Maybe the Sosa/McGwire phenomenon of 1998 triggered it? Maybe wanting to reach the big leagues in the mid-1980's triggered it?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 05:19 PM) Nixon was a scumbag, but he was instrumental in erroding up the Soviet/China alliance and improved our relations with China at the same time. Therefore, I still say that he was strong in the field of foreign relations. I'm going to open up a can of worms here, so I'm just going to say this and shut my mouth...Nixon also extended the Vietnam War for the U.S. by 7 years, and basically his policies wound up in the Fall of Saigon in 1975 as well. Johnson struck an "October Surprise" by getting a peace deal set up with the North in Oct 1968, but Nixon for obvious reasons didn't want the Democrats getting that big of a score, so Kissinger casually sabotaged South Vietnamese support for Johnson's compromise.

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 04:11 PM) Yes, it's Lynn. Sean Astin played Sam in LotR. Sam loves PO-TA-TOS. He likes to boil em, mash em, and stick em in a stew. Did we actually see Lynn wind up in one of the shelters?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 03:06 PM) I must admit, there is part of me that agrees with this. New Orleans' history should be evidence that the area there is not meant to have a large city in it. I'd be ecstatic if some way could be found to let many of those low-lying areas lie foul and revert to the flood plains they once were. Ultimately, it would help much of the rest of the region to have more flood plains and a more natural barrier out there. But see, then you run into a problem...where do you draw the line between a city worth the risk and a city not worth it. San Francisco and Los Angeles both sit right along major fault lines which could do real damage and kill a lot of people. Seattle and Portland, maybe even more so. Should we decide not to rebuild those if they're totally lost? Or should we not decide to spend the money now to retrofit buildings before the big one hits? New York City was struck by 2 hurricanes in the 1800's. The 2nd one killed several hundred people. With the skyscrapers now, even a category 2 would be amplified and would be an absolute disaster. Would you not want New York rebuilt? These are the problems with living on a planet like this. There is significant risk to building almost anywhere that you actually would want to build. Want to be on an ocean? You risk earthquakes, volcanoes, and hurricanes, depending on which waterway you're on. Want to be in the heartland? Drought, lack of drinking water supplies, high cost of transportation. These are not easy questions to answer...how much risk is too much? I think there is fairly significant economic and cultural value to having the city on the delta. It's one of the biggest ports in the world, a major tourist destination, a major historical site, and I think its rebuilding probably justifies the expense just as much as rebuilding any number of other cities would.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 03:06 PM) Anderson needs to lay off the breaking crap low and in the dirt. Otherwise, he will have the same annoying weakness as Rowand. And Crede... And Uribe... And Konerko when he decides to be a "Pull hitter"...

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 02:38 PM) I agree with you it's difficult to accept Bonds didn't cheat before 1998. From the excerpt I read, he noteable physical growth was tied to the 1998 Sosa/McGwire race. But in his defense, there hasn't been any information released about steroid use before '98. I've said th is for a while about Bonds...there are plenty of steroids out there which can give you an advantage without turning you into a muscle-bound freak. The change in his body after 1999 could have been from switching to a new, more intense steroid just as easily as it could have been from starting them in the first place.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 02:35 PM) Anderson is a rookie this year, Rowand was a vet. Of course it is somewhat far off to expect him to out produce his stats this year. Of course expecting him to be good on defense, and improve on his offense all year is not out of the question. He is supposed to have better tools than Rowand, so I would expect him to be a better player eventually. I've heard a couple people around here say that Anderson's best projects somewhere in the Torii Hunter range offensively, and maybe defensively too. If he can do what he's done in the minors, he'll be at that level.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 02:30 PM) I thought that we were talking about 2008? Of course Anderson will struggle in 2006. It's his rookie season afterall. I'm still hoping he wont' struggle too much. If he's really ready to come up...then maybe he can be a very nice spark.

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 02:27 PM) Who cares? I have no problem with performance-enhancing drugs. Especially since they weren't against mlb rules at the time. Yes they were. There was not an adequate testing program in place in MLB, but they were banned by baseball in the early 90's.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 01:19 PM) He was the best player of this generation pre-steriods. Assuming he started steriods in 1998, as per the "proof", he still would have 3 MVP's, 8 Gold Gloves, 7 All Star games, 7 silver sluggers, and 411 homers. No matter what comes out, I still refuse to accept this statement...if a guy is willing to cheat in 1998, why should I assume he wasn't willing to cheat before that?

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 02:14 PM) I agree with you. I just don't think that Ryan Sweeney will be with the Sox until he shows some power in the minors and that could take a couple of seasons. He's only 21 years old afterall. So, like I said...if Sweeney were to hit 20-30 home runs in AAA this year...would you want him on next year's team?

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 02:09 PM) If Podsednik gets injured, does owens or sweeney take his place? Whichever one is having the better year at AAA, regardless of speed. If they're both having equally good years...Owens.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 02:06 PM) There's no reason to trade Dye at this point. He's dirt-cheap ($5 million in 2006, $6 million team option for 2007). You just keep Dye and give Sweeney two full seasons to develop. Podsednik might be a good trade option because Owens could be ready soon. But when is Pods a free agent? But here's the other side of that token...for the same reason we might want to keep Dye...other teams might be willing to give up something of value for him, especially if he has another healthy season this year. Because he's cheap in 07, if Sweeney has a great year at AAA...Dye could bring us something else fairly useful. There are teams who would happily trade for a right handed bat who plays decent outfield defense and hits 30 home runs a year, if he does so again this year. You won't get King Felix, but you can get something useful.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 02:01 PM) I definately think that our 2008 opening day outfield will be: LF Jerry Owens CF Brian Anderson RF Ryan Sweeney And the beautiful thing about it...it will cost somewhere around $1.5 million. Here's the real question. Owens and Sweeney have great years in AAA this year. Do you risk trading Dye or Podsednik and giving them the job in 07? Save some money to resign Buehrle, that's for sure.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 01:55 PM) Ummm, is there a chance Sweeney could make this team? Even if he could...i'd rather have him in AAA for the year...just trying to make sure he's ready to come up. Unless Dye gets hurt. Sweeney should try to be ready to imitate Anderson next year.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 01:29 PM) Something tells me Konerko is gonna have a lot of RBI's this year. 115 - 120 If he just has the exact same numbers as last year...just with Thome hitting in front of him instead of Everett, he'll knock in that many. He gets any better, or avoids that slow start, and watch out.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 01:05 PM) His first pitch draws a reaction from the crowd. So you're saying he's pitching like Rick Vaughn without the glasses?

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 12:54 PM) He swore under oath, without immunity from perjury, that he did not use. If they have proof he used.. he perjured himself, no? According to the San Fran Chronicle leaks...no he did not swear that. He swore that he used but did so unwillingly...that Anderson never told him it was steroids.

So...should i vote for the picture or the name?

QUOTE(SoxRock05 @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 12:21 PM) Is Frank playing? If he is, Oakland is insane. He shouldn't walk up to a real plate until July, IMO.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 12:09 PM) The old philly athletics had the elephant as a masccot. Oakland picked it up as well. Wow. Never knew that one. Thanks.

I'm not sure I'm a huge fan of the concept, but I think it's an upgrade over the "Fund opposition groups and try to arrange the world against them" that we tried in Iraq. It clearly has the disadvantage of giving Iran's mullah's something that they can use as an enemy to direct anger away from their own government..."It's not us, it's the U.S." But on the other hand, I have a bundle of worries about this sort of policy too...First of all, there's no guarantee that even if Iran westernizes some, their government will either change or fall. Look at China...they've westernized significantly, but their government remains just as oppressive as it has been for the last decade, and their added economic clout is making them stronger and stronger on the world stage. Basically, you'd be hoping a number of things would happen here...one, that by removing yourself as a potential enemy for Iran's gov't to demonize, they wouldn't just resume demonizing Israel. You're also gambling that the Army won't stay loyal to the government. And here's the real big one...if Iran's government were to fall...you'd really be gambling on who winds up getting his or her hands on their nuclear program. It's probably better than what we're trying now...but I just don't feel confident in saying that.

The Pirates expect Wells back some time around the All Star Break.

John Flaherty has retired.

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 12:02 PM) ele..... And that has what to do with Oakland?