Balta1701

A second basket! We're shooting 20% from the floor! Hip-hip-Hooray! Give Davis another 5 years!

IU is 1 for its first 9 from the floor. Editing this post is getting less and less amusing.

Well, at least it's no longer a shutout.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 02:40 PM) I think that if Joe turns last September/October into an entire season, he will be asking for a whole hell of alot more than a million or two more. Mostly because Boras will be chirping in his ear pretty loudly by then. The problem with that is...for the next 2 years, he can't. Joe is still arbitration-eligible, and arbitration-eligible players simply do not get paid that much before they hit the FA Market. We in fact just got a good example yesterday. D-Train signed a $4 mil+ deal with the Marlins for 06, and that was a record amount for a newly arb-eligible starting pitcher. Teixeira is only going to be paid $6 million next season, and that's after putting up those massive numbers, and he's also not a FA until after 08.

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 02:21 PM) I still contend that the best (and very simple) measure of a team's defense is their defensive efficiency. That is, the number of hit balls they turn into outs. By this metric, the Sox were number 2 in all of baseball behind only the A's by a couple of hundreths of a percent. That metric does have the advantage of being simple, but to say it's the best overall...I disagree, because there are several things that can affect that metric other than the quality of the fielders. Most notably, the pitching comes to mind - a bunch of ground-ball pitchers will have different results from a bunch of fly ball pitchers or a bunch of strikeout pitchers. Furthermore, the field is going to play a role...size of the foul territory or the way the grass is cut...larger foul territory = more easy foul outs, different grass turns different balls into outs or infield hits, etc. Who you play would have an effect as well. Power, speed, etc. It's probably a pretty good statistic, but on its own it's still not perfect.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 01:46 PM) I think that Bush (via the NSA) is pretty clearly trampling the 4th amendment, and it's generally accepted interperetation regarding due process of law. Prior to FISA...were things like the wiretappings done by the Hoover FBI and the Nixon admin explicity illegal? The text of amendment IV says: I can see how that could be construed to apply to electronic assets, but prior to FISA, was that ever really established? Did anyone go to prison for wiretapping King, Lennon, et al. without warrants before FISA?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 01:24 PM) Apparently, Kentucky's Gov. Fletcher forgot he's a republican. No, he just realized that someone is going to have to pay those medical bills, and if the options are Wal-Mart or the Taxpayers, he's going to pick Wal-Mart every time.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 01:28 PM) That's funny, I could have sworn that the constitution was "the supreme law of the land". How can subsequent legislation make it any more illegal? The Constitution doesn't speak directly about a right to privacy. This is one of those many cases where the Constitution can only provide the framework around which a system of laws can be constructed. Therefore, the wiretaps themselves do not violate any explicit clause of the constitution, given that there is no right to privacy. However, those rights were granted to the people by the FISA Law which was passed by Congress, and that law, well, should have the force of law unless some portion of it were ruled unconstitutional, which has not happened.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 07:44 AM) This is what everyone keeps forgetting....Carolina only sent out 2 WR on most plays... so they had 7 or 8 guys blocking. Then if the Bears' defense was as good as advertised, they shouldn't have had a problem stopping 2 wide receivers and keeping them covered. It should be a trade-off on both sides - they want to keep 7-8 men on the line to block for the QB and RB...they should be able to get some yards running, but they shouldn't be able to find an open receiver all day.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 01:22 PM) If you can't get socialized medicine one way, you legislate business to do it for you. BTW, I've heard Kentucky is talking about following in Maryland's footsteps on this one. I believe I read that multiple states are considering similar bills. If memory serves, the nubmers were in the dozens.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 12:37 PM) I may be overlooking something, but can someone tell me what Amendment state a person's right to healthcare. Just asking. (yes, I know it's not an amendment...but anywho...)

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 01:15 PM) Actually, I think he's on the DC city council. I believe I saw something mentioned about that during the stadium negotiations with MLB. I'll say here though, that I could totally wrong about this. Wikipedia on him...

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 12:07 PM) Oh, yes, indeed, Clinton "tramples all over the Constitution" (which Bush is accused of here), but there was no law, so that makes it "ok"? Well, guess what? There's no law on the specific instances Bush did it, either. It's the same damn thing when all is said and done. Bush is not trampling over the constitution by any sort of invasion of privacy. There is, as far as I know, no detailed explanation of a right to privacy in the constitution as of now (I would support that amendment if it were offered). Therefore, simply infringing on people's rights to privacy is not a violation of the constitution. It wasn't right when Clinton did it, which is why FISA was amended a few years later by the Republican Congress, but it wasn't illegal. If there is any trampling of the Constitution, it is against this clause: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Given that there is a law which specifically prohibits those wiretaps without a court warrant, his actions seem to be in conflict with that statement. This is why they point to the post-9/11 resolution authorizing force as justification, because without that language (flimsy as their defense may be), then the WH would be openly in violation of the law and would clearly not be faithfully executing the law. And yes, FISA is a law, and it specifically covers electronic surveillance involving U.S. citizens. Here is the Text of the act.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 10:48 AM) is marion berry on this guy's staff by any chance? I'm pretty sure he's in jail.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 01:08 PM) Good point. Now, for the counterpoint. If his back goes out, they aren't locked into a long term deal. So...the question that raises is this: does that mean Crede's back is as bad as some people have feared? Even if his back goes out in 06...if he can still play in 07, his salary will be roughly what it is this year because of the arbitration system, so the only way that avoiding a long-term deal with Crede makes sense is if there's a chance his back will go out to the point that he won't be able to recover even with surgery.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 11:26 AM) Yes, this is good news. Not really unexpected. Boras was not going let Crede sign for anything beyond 2008 so Joe could Fee agent eligble asap. The Sox had no incentive to sign for more than one year unless it was stretched to '09 or '10. Well, I would have said that the Sox probably did have an incentive to sign him for something like 2-3 years. Since he's still arbitration eligible...if we want to keep him after next year, we'll either have to sign him again or offer him Arb. again. From what I understand, it's very unusual to see a person's salary decline in arbitration from year to year, even if the player is hurt or has his numbers go down (how far can Crede's actually go down?). However, if Joe somehow turns last September into a season, all of a sudden he'll be in a place to ask for another million or two in arbitration next fall, and the Sox will probably have to pay it. If we signed him to a 2-3 year deal now, it could have kept his price at that $2.3 million for each of the next 2-3 years, maybe saving the team a mil or so.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 12:54 PM) I have a question about Pods defensively. Obviously, I'm not able to see Sox games consistently...but those that did, did it seem like Podsednik was getting better as the year went on defensively in LF? I think I've heard people say that, but I can't seem to recall it exactly. Hard to judge because of his injuries, which would have made him slow down even if his jumps were improving.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 10:32 PM) I just do not understand why Torii Hunter gets manlove up the ass around here and everywhere in general, and Mike Cameron gets relatively unnoticed. They're very similar players all-around, with the exceptions of average and plate discipline, where Hunter's a better hitter with not much of an eye at the plate, and Cameron is a worse hitter with a better eye. Well, with Cameron in NY and in the NL the last few years, and now in SD, and Hunter playing in Minny, Hunter faces the Sox 19 times per year, and we might see Cameron for a 3 game set every few years if he stays in one place. Plus, Hunter has probably leveled more White Sox Catchers than Cameron. Anywho...I can't complain about Cameron...I believe his trade brought us Konerko.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 11:24 AM) They may go after Derrek Lee after 2006 if the Cubs don't lock him up soon. I think they'll do both. Giambi will be in the last year of his albatross in 08.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 08:38 AM) Well, he kinda did. Since Tex is arb eligible for two more years, I think he did well to get his client some money (probably more than he would've gotten in arbitration) for the two years and then can get the big money in '08. Now Tex doesn't have to worry, Boras gets his client to free agency and Texas has their 1b for two more years. And the Yankees get theirs in 08.

Somewhat disappointing that we couldn't find a way to make it a 2 year deal. Now if he does ever have a breakout season, he'll be in a position to demand even more the next year. Anywho...glad he's back. Makes for better signs.

1 more interesting thing...isn't it odd how the anti-judicial-activists are willing to step in and try to overturn the decision of a state's voters in this case?

So in other words...at least on this case, Roberts has taken up Rhenquist's old position ideologically, as expected.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 09:35 AM) Ames is different because it was Clinton doing it. No outcry from MSM, just praise and adulation. Do you think the Gorelick wall had anything to do with the gov't. not being able to look into Moussauis' computer files? Clinton was the best. :puke :puke No, Again, Ames was different, as was said above, because FISA was amended in 1995 to specifically make illegal searches like the Ames search. At the time there was no law on the matter. And on Moussaoui's computer files...it was the FBI which decided that there wasn't sufficient evidence against him to apply for a FISA warrant to search his computer files. However, a bi-partisan investigation by the Senate found that in fact the FBI agents were clearly wrong and that their evidence certainly met the standards required by a FISA warrant. Via a letter from Colleen Rowley...