Balta1701

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 09:58 AM) How sad that this is considered "democrat" news. Well, unlike some of the other ones...he wasn't actually being paid by the Bush Administration, so that is something I guess.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 09:33 AM) Senator Mark Prior??? REALLY???? I didn't know they had simulated votes.

One of the science writers @ Fox News seems to have been being secretly paid as a "consultant" by Altria, the company formerly known as Philip Morris. He's used his column to heap scorn on the reports of health effects due to secondhand smoke while under contract with Fox.

QUOTE(heirdog @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 09:26 AM) I would say that was BMac He only started like 4 games in the 2nd half. Yeah, he shredded everyone he faced in the 2nd half...but it's hard to be our 2nd best pitcher when you only start 4 games.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 09:25 AM) Yeah, cuz he "put a hurt" on the baseball. And was moderately big.

So if this Crisp deal dies, which it looks like it will...what do you do about CF if you're Boston? Personally, if I'm Seattle, I start getting on the phone with Boston and seeing if they'll part with Marte for Reed. Then I turn around and try to ship Beltre to someone who wants to add some potential pop at 3rd, like the Angels. Maybe see if they can't pry Brandon Wood, who's blocked by Cabrera anyway, away from the Angels for Beltre. That would give the Mariners a hell of a left side for the next decade.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 08:07 AM) Kap, the face of the new Democratic Party BTW, I think they should confirm him, but I really want to see and hear a good old filibuster that's entertainment. Sadly...we don't seem to get the real talk-a-bill-to-death filibusters any more...hey just fail to get 60 votes for cloture and move on to something else. The only time we do get anything like that is when it fits perfectly into Brit Hume's TV schedule.

Thank God...Jesus will no longer have it out for that team in Tampa. After this it'll be smooth sailing to the best record in the AL Every year for them. Yup, they've fixed that problem.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 10:40 PM) They're working on making body armor more modular so that soldiers can put it on and take it off depending on the situation. Like anything else, however, it takes time to get it from the drawing board to the battlefield. The interceptor body armor platform has saved a ton of lives and it's just a question now of tweaking it so that it fits more diverse situations. On those points I think we're in pretty good agreement. The political question in these matters, however, is a slightly different one from "which armor should they use under certain circumstances", it is instead "has the civilian leadership at the DOD made it possible for the soldiers to have the armor necessary for each circumstance"? At least early in the war, and possibly now that the newer side-plating has been developed, I think the evidence we have seen suggests that the DOD civilians, the guys writing the budget and running the procurement programs...have in fact caused a lot of delays and probably cost a lot of lives in the process. That is why there were so many stories during the early months of the war about families and communities chipping in to buy the interceptor vests on the public market...because the DOD wasn't doing it's job on that front in adapting to the changing situation.

You know, I have a feeling that whatever negativity there is on Frank's part now will vanish fairly quickly when the phrase "Designated Hitter, Frank Thomas" pipes through the speakers at the Cell this May...and the cheers are heard in Iowa. If I was in his spot...I may very well be bitter too. 15 years in one spot came to an end just like that...and according to Frank they never game him the dignity of a sit-down meeting to discuss their plans...which if he's telling the truth, would have been a nice gesture on the part of the organization. Either way, I doubt he'd have been a part of the ring ceremony anyway...Oakland has a game that day. If he's still too hurt to play, the plane flight won't do him any good and his time would be better spent on the rehab path, and if he can play...you want him in that lineup.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 10:32 PM) The answer to that is yes and no. Often times soldiers patrol on foot through towns and cities and they do, in fact, need the added mobility. I run like a racehorse yet after dashing 100 yards with 50lbs of armor and other gear strapped on my body I was pooped! They also, as you said, take most casualties in convoys. Its a tough call to make but in most circumstances soldiers would probably leave armor behind if they thought it was too much weight. I'm sure it could also be practical to have different varieties of armor available for different purposes...where if a group actually had to do a foot patrol, those units could go for the lighter armor, and the rest of the forces, the ones being hammered during transit, are able to equip with the heavier stuff. I mean, we've had to buy like 3 different sets of armor now just in this war because the armor just hasn't caught up with the IED capabilities, I'm sure they still have some of the stuff they bought a year ago that's usable.

2 points other than the Grossman/Orton/Young junk, which I'm gonna avoid for now: 1. Does anyone think that with Grossman's injury history, trying to save a roster spot by having a wideout who can be your 3rd QB is just not a good idea? Yeah, you save the roster spot, but in the event you need him...you hurt your WR corps and your QB at the same time, and all it takes is an injury to Orton to actually need the guy. 2. Is it that smart for the Bears to telegraph "We're going after this guy"? And then they wind up losing him because someone outmaneuvers the bears?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 09:52 PM) You leftists just love to whine and cry about troops not having body armor but you convieniently leave out the fact that literally thousands of troops who would have died in previous wars are alive thanks to the armor they went to war with. Additionally I laughed like hell when you posted that story about the side plate armor that hasn't been issued yet. Many US soldiers, myself included, have made it clear that too much body armor denies them mobility and makes them more likely to be hurt or killed. Recall your ECON 101 about the law of diminishing returns........it applies here also. In a war of mobility, yes you're right, having too much armor weighs a soldier down to the point that their effectiveness is reduced. However, Iraq has long since passed that point. Iraq right now is a war of surprise guerrilla attacks on either stationary or moving targets. This is not a war where soldiers are marching across a country and need to keep the weight down. In most cases, this is a war where if there is significant movement needed of the troops, its done in vehicles, and the soldiers wind up not needing significant, long-term supplies. In this case...where soldiers are dying not because of lack of mobility but because of lack of protection...yes, the added armor is necessary and is worth the sacrifice of some mobility. When a significant portion of the casualties happen because of improvised, roadside IED's that hit convoys and tear through the sides of the soldiers, mobility is not the concern.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 09:08 PM) What a f***ing tool. If this was going to happen, it needed to happen way before this. John Kerry= total tool. How the Hell can you filibuster something when it's not even out of committee? Hell, how can you filibuster a vote in a committee that you're not even on? Actually...you know, I can picture Kerry walking into the Judiciary committee hearings...dangling something shiny in front of Biden, and then spending the next 76 hours doing a 1-man filibuster. Hell, Biden went almost 9 minutes at one point without a question...I'm sure Kerry could destroy that number.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 09:42 PM) I believe McCarthy learned how to throw a 2-seamer at Charlotte last year. His 4-seamer still seems to be as straight as an arrow though. Obviously, his curveball is great. When the Sox brought him up the first time to face the Cubs, etc., he didn't even use his changeup. When they brought him up the second time, his changeup was awesome towards the end of the season. Don't you remember how nasty it was against the Red Sox and Rangers? And he does throw his pitches for strikes. It's just that his fastball is often hammered because it's so straight. This is why he was so bad when he was called up the first time. Like you already mentioned, he didn't use his changeup at all and his fastball must have made hitters drool when that's all he kept throwing right down the pipe. I've heard he was working on a 2-seamer as well...but it's hardly been mentionned in the past few months except here, and mainly by me. There's a chance that they just decided they didn't want him to screw up his mechanics, but I still think him throwing a 2 seamer would be a good idea. He's got that tall, lanky frame that will let him really get on top of it. Anywho...that change up is absolutely devastating when teamed with his other pitches. That pitch is going to be his key pitch, since it makes it impossible to sit on anything else he throws, and at least thus far, people have had about as much picking it up as they have Santanas. If he can mix just a few sinkers in every game to keep people off balance...there ain't gonna be no one who can hit that kid.

Wow, that's actually a smart move by the Yankees.

I just look at Garland and see: 1. A pitcher approaching his prime age 2. A pitcher with a low-mid 90's fastball 3. A very tall pitcher with an excellent sinker 4. A sinkerball pitcher with a dominating infield defense behind him 5. An excellent young talent who had a very good year last year and got himself playoff experience 6. A pitcher who is very comfortable with his catcher 7. A pitcher who has good confidence in his pitches at long last 8. A pitcher with guts And I think that every sign points to him being a dominant pitcher for a number of years to come. Out of those...the one that sells me the most is #7. When Garland and Buehrle came up in 00, you could see that he was just scared to go after people. It was obvious. Buehrle on the other hand came up and just went right after the guys. Garland finally started doing that last year and it worked. He could backslide, but I personally think he may be even better. He's got the makeup to be one of the best sinkerballers for a long, long time in this league.

QUOTE(forrestg @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 07:19 PM) Jose, will be worth more at trade deadline time. Use him until just before the deadline and then trade him. Remember we kept Konerko during his contract year and then he signed. Actually, what the newspapers and media report aren't always 100% accurate. Did we get Griffey at the deadline last year, I will say as much as a good pitcher is to accquire I can't see a trade for only one unproved highly touted prospect. Several points. 1. Even though we kept Konerko last year...the only reason to keep Contreras after next year is if someone gets hurt...what with BMac sitting there waiting for his shot. 2. If we use him to the deadline...his stock will almost certainly drop, for several reasons. a.) He may either struggle or wind up with some sort of injury during the 1st half, at which point his value plummets. Not likely, but possible. b.) The team trading for him will only have him for 1/2 of a season, and will probably be willing to pay less accordingly, unless they feel fully confident they could resign him to an extension. c.) Once the season starts...the pool of teams willing to trade for him will decline when some teams suffer injuries, poor starts, or unexpected collapses. For example...for all we know, the Cardinals could need pitching to make a run next year. But if Pujols were to get hurt...then they may as well throw in the towel. The Astros, Mets, Angels, etc., could all wind up totally out of the pitching market if their season starts and someone gets hurt or struggles. d.) Once the season starts and we see who's the best in each league...we might not want to deal with them anyway. What happens if the Mets run out to a gigantic start and put the rest of the NL away? Do we want to make them better so that they can beat us in the W.S. once we know that they're already good? e.) Once the season starts...teams may discover that they don't need as much pitching. The Orioles might trade a ton for a pitcher right now...but let's say once the season starts they discover that Mazzone is as good as advertised and somehow their staff turns into a Leo Mazzone staff. Then all of a sudden...they have no interest in pitching, and the market declines. For all of these reasons...the market at the trading deadline may well be less than it is right now. For it to be better, you're counting on a specific set of circumstances...some team, almost certainly in the NL, who starts off the season with a good offense but a struggling pitching staff, and who is willing to sell out their minor leagues for a 1/2 year shot at a title. That is actually a very rare set of events.

QUOTE(Felix @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 05:36 PM) McCarthy was even later than that IIRC, but wasn't he a top prospect in our system? And yes, some top prospects do pan out. Some don't. Thats the way of the game. McCarthy = 17th round pick. This other dude named Mark Buehrle...38th goddamned round.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 05:33 PM) My point is many top prospects don't pan out. Pitching wins championships. There is a far better chance Jose Contreras will outperform Milledge in the major leagues in 2006. BTW, Pujols was a 13th round pick. The White Sox wanted to draft Simeon High School star Jeff Jackson in 1989. The Phillies drafted him before the Sox had a chance to. He turned into a bust. The White Sox took their second choice, Frank Thomas. There's probably a bigger gulf between being drafted highly and performing in the minor leagues than there is between performing in the minor leagues and performing in the Majors.

QUOTE(Felix @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 05:28 PM) Except if Buerhle walks, we get draft picks. If Contreras walks, we get nothing. Mark Buehrle will receive a new contract next offseason giving him Jose Contreras's $8 million or so as additional salary. I hope and pray, at least. The one thing I do like about picking up a couple of prospects, maybe more than anything else, is that if those guys do make it to the big leagues, for 5-7 years, they fill a slot in your lineup at a premium price. You take a Milledge, stick him in where Dye is right now, combined with a Sweeney and an Anderson in the Outfield...and suddenly you have 3 hopefully decent players making less than $1 million a piece until basically 2009 or later. Even compared with what Dye's making right now, that gives you a TON of cash to go out and try to sign someone at another position where you're weak (Can anyone else picture Santana and Buehrle as our #1-#2 starters?)

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 05:25 PM) The funny thing is that this thread proves some of my point. People are LOOKING for faults in our players. SEARCHING for reasons that our players might not be as great as they appeared to be last year. Isn't that something that everyone is doing here though? None of our 6 current starting pitchers have had major injury problems in their pasts that I know about...yet even the people who are advocating holding onto Jose to let him dominate next year will come up with the "What if one of them gets hurt" argument.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 05:22 PM) Even last year where he led the freaking league in receiving and td's, IIRC. Maybe he was 2nd in receiving yards. That's sort of the year I meant. 2 seasons ago now.

Anyone who wants their name supporting Kerry's Filibuster Alito position, the petition is @ that link.