Balta1701

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 11:14 AM) Of course you agree as should everyone. The next person to make a Carl Everett trade joke should be banned. What if we genuinely believe that Carl Everett will be back in a Sox Uniform before he retires?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 01:23 PM) The government should be made to do with less before it asks the people to pay more. Why should you, me and everyone else subsidize wasteful government spending? Because, to put it simply, right now there is no possible motivation for the government to actually do more with less. Politicians are being elected based on how much money they can bring home to their district or to businesses within their district. Politicians are not being elected based on their willingness to balance the federal budget. We are subsidizing wasteful government spending because we have decided/been told that massive deficit spending is the best thing for our economy right now.

Dale Sveum Terry Leach Mike Huff Jose DeLeon

Just another victory for the Jesus-haters in the war on Christmas

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 12:15 PM) So you are saying the tax cuts did not increase revenues?????? We should not be allowed to keep more of our money. No let the government keep it and spend it on farm subsidies and entitlement programs. They work so well. I could make a number of notes here about which party was in power when the last, massive, gargantuan, ridiculous package of farm subisides was passed, but I believe I'll pass. Oh wait, I think I just did it.

QUOTE(S720 @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 12:35 PM) Furthermore, the news of our President authorized the NSA to spy on citizens within the US WITHOUT a warrant is very intriguing! Let's see how is this thing going to pan out? Without a warrant and seemingly in direct contravention of the laws of the United States, which cannot be overturned by executive order.

So, out of Arizona, Seattle, and Philly, I already know that Philly has an offday on the day of the ring ceremony in Chicago...anyone know about the other 2 teams?

The NFL would certainly not make more money if it went pay per view. Right now, and in fact since Fox stole the NFC, basically every network running the NFL is actually losing money on the NFL in terms of total amount of money they take in from commercials during the games. A lot of money. But the networks keep doing this on the grounds that it brings the network Prestige (i.e. what Fox was looking for when it grabbed the NFC) and more viewers for its other shows. If the NFL went pay per view, I would buy the Super Bowl if that went there too, and that'd be it. Furthermore, in the new Monday Night Football contracts that are coming up, the NFL has taken steps to fix the problem you cite - they're allowing the networks to reschedule a handfull of games and move them between Sunday afternoon and Monday Primetime after the season has started, so that the prime time games can follow interesting storylines or winning teams.

QUOTE(sec159row2 @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 10:59 AM) this story is in a few places... And are all of those places as fair and balanced as Newsmax.com, Fox News, and the column of Robert Novak?

Along with Several Republican Senators, the Democrats in the Senate were able to unite together strongly enough to completlely stop the proposed renewal of the Patriot Act's expiring provisions with a filibuster. The Cloture vote went 52-47, although Bill Frist voted against Cloture as a procedural move (it allows him to call the bill up for a vote again), so you should read it as the Republicans needing 7 more votes. It is also worth noting that there is a bipartisan Senate Agreement on renewing The Patriot Act which has already passed the Senate (unanimously I might add). However, the House was able to authorize the full version of the Act thanks to the larger Republican Majority there, so the bipartisan compromise bill is just sitting around hoping the Republicans will consider it. President Bush and the Republicans could have the Patriot Act renewed today, if they were even willing to consider bipartisanship or compromise at all.

They may be also thinking about moving some of these guys at midseason to a contender. If anyone was desperate for a catcher or a 2nd baseman, they might be able to talk to the Royals & have K.C. get something useful out of it.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 08:41 AM) I think Israel can do something about it, IF the Bush Administration lets the Israelis take their "kid gloves off"! What exactly can the Israeli's do? Launch airstrikes against Iranian nuclear targets? Unlike Iraq, Iran's nuclear program is widely spread out and often in fortified locations, obviously to protect against exactly the sort of attack that the Israelis launched on Iraq in the 80's. It would take several days of bombing to pull off any real damage. Furthermore, the Israeli jets cannot reach Iran and return on normal fuel tanks - the Iraqi government would have to give the Israelis permission to refuel inflight over Iraqi territory, something that will only happen if the U.S. forces the Iraqis to allow it (which would obviously serve as an anti-American rallying point in Iraq.) Furthermore, despite previous successes of the Mossad, it's still an open question whether or not people actually know the full extent of any Iranian nuclear program...they could very well have sites that no one currently knows about. And finally...Iran's military is not pathetic and weak, like Iraq's was before we invaded. They have the capability to launch strikes on Israel in response, possibly including Chemical attacks. Iran doesn't have to get its hands on a bomb to kill millions of Israelis.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 08:29 AM) Negotiations to deny this certifiable lunatic genocidal weapons have been going nowhere. Everyone knows they will go nowhere. And no one will do anything about it. I don't know if the problem is as much no one being willing to do anything about it as it is no one being able to do anything about it even if they were willing.

Ok, in seeing the number drop from $8 million reported to $3 million reported, I'm much less enthusiastic about this trade.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:12 PM) I don't know about that. Young has said as soon as his 6 years are up, he's gone. And with Garland, as soon as his 1 year is up, he's gone.

So, I've seen a couple of White Sox people mention this as a possibility this offseason, and I thought it would make an interesting poll/discussion topic. Right now, the White Sox have 6 starting pitchers. Mark, Freddy, Javier, Jose, Jon, and BMac (in no particular order). Almost every other team in baseball next year will break camp with 5 starters, even if some of them aren't that good. The Sox also have 3 of those starters (Mark, Freddy, and Javier) currently signed up to pitch in the "World Baseball Classic" next spring. This will likely add extra innings to their totals, and 4 of those guys pitched heavy loads last year through a long playoff run. So here's what I'd like to know. Given the WBC and the playoffs last year giving our guys extra work, and the sheer amount of talent we have on our starting staff, should we consider using a 6 man rotation, even if it's just for a limited time during the year. Here's your options: Yes, we should, at least for a time. The extra rest will help people, and it will likely help build trade value for our pitchers once the season starts. Yes we should, but it should be a 2nd option - if we can find someone who will give us a potential all-star in exchange for Jon or Jose (whichever one won't sign) we should pull the trigger on the trade first. The extra rest isn't as important as getting good value. No, we shouldn't...it's insanity to think of giving up a roster spot to an extra starting pitcher when that pitcher could get us something of value in a trade...we should move a starter, preferably someone who's not under contract for 07, to whatever team gives us the best offer, even if it's not fair to us. No we shouldn't - we should either start 1 pitcher off in the bullpen or 1 pitcher (Basically BMac) off at AAA. We could use the long relief, and it will give guys like Vazquez and BMac time to work out any problems they might have. Well, what do you think? 6 man rotation or no?

QUOTE(Sox Hustler @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 02:13 PM) Congrats Neal. I am sure this makes him feel kinda good. Speaking of Cotts do you guys think he will ever be a starter again? It seems like he will be a closer before a starter again. I've actually read in a couple places since the Vazquez trade that the Sox may wind up wiht Neal starting at some point in the future, but that's only if/when we start losing people. If I'm Neal, I look out and see how much money people are spending on quality relief pitching, and think "Maybe I just want to stay right where I am." Anywho...Congrats Neal...wish I could buy you a shot o' whiskey to celebrate.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 10:44 AM) Trading a PROVEN NBA 4 for a HS kid that COULD be a really good 5 will never make sense to me. Ever. Vlade Divac for a draft pick that turned into Kobe Bryant.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 11:58 AM) Mariotti loves this trade... not a good sign. Maybe we're so good now that he doesn't feel like he can afford to doubt us any more without being either laughed at or fired?

QUOTE(Greg Hibbard @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 10:27 AM) I'm asking you to play along with me and peer into the Crystal ball. Would you take Garland or the prospects if you knew you had a pretty good shot at another title with him? If I were convinced that we didn't have a shot at the title without Garland, I'd say keep him and make the run for it. However, we currently have 6 starting pitchers. 5 of them won 10+ games last year, and the 6th may be the best of all of them. If you can still hold onto 5 really good starting pitchers, and still make an LCS run, and at the same time bolster your team in the near-term by trading Garland, I'd say do it. I think we can make a run without him now that we have 5 other pitchers. And I think that a trade may very well help us make that run.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 11:32 AM) Cardinals could be an interesting team. They have lost a pitcher, and not been able to replace him. What kind of prospects do they have? They gave up a couple of their best people in the Mulder deal, I know that much.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 02:43 PM) I can agree with all of that. For the most part, we're on the same page. But the payroll is the difference. Obviously, the White Sox can't afford to trade all their prospects because they don't have the salary. But if they keep winning, that would no longer be an issue. Cotts, Jenks, Buehrle, Garland, McCarthy, Anderson, and Crede were all brought up by the Sox in some way. The Yankee's have Cano and that's it I believe. They also have the advtange in payroll which pretty much nullifies their need for a minor league system. Yes, it is not imperative to a team to have great prospects but it sure doesn't hurt. But see, that's the real amazing thing about what KW has been doing with these deals...he's not only been getting good players in return, but he's been going around the league and pulling in some of the cash to pay people that we normally couldn't. Payroll in the long term is still a concern, but KW has to be thinking that payroll will continue to grow with attendence as long as we keep winning, so if we win in the short term, that will produce larger growth spurts in payroll in the future, which may allow us to fill in these gaps in our minor leagues that we've been creating. On top of that, KW has been trading minor leaguers from positions where we're strong. The only reason we might have needed Gio, for example, is if both Garland and Contreras walked. The only reason we might need Young is if Anderson, Sweeney, Owens, Dye, and Podsednik couldn't cut it over the next few years. That's 5 outfielders for 3 spots. We have 6 starters right now, all of whom can eat innings, and even if we lose 1 of them...we weren't going to have room for Gio. At the worst right now it looks like it'll be at least 2 years before we need to fill in another actual hole in our starting 5. So KW is trading the "extra" people who won't be playing with us in the next few years to both fill in holes and grab cash from other people. Now that strikes me as a brilliant way to run a mid-market franchise.

I was really enjoying the fact that Steve Phillips said on SC that we may have one of the best rotations in history.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 04:16 PM) .962 FP at 3B for Blalock for his career while it is .964 for Crede. I think we all know that fielding percentage simply doesn't tell you enough about fielding to measure a player's true contribution for almost any player.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 11:59 AM) Garland is essentially a one year rental, unless he's traded to some team where he'll sign an extension, or at the least be very willing to consider one. That has the Dodgers written all over it. They could possibly trade for Garland and work out a contract. If the White Sox are able to pull off a Garland/Uribe deal for Miguel Tejada, KW should be executive of the year 2006 in advance. Meaning, Garland's value is as a one year starter as it stands right now. Just look what Beane got for Mulder is all I have to say about that.