Kyyle23

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 12:43 PM) It better not be ridiculous... Im excited. I am a sucker for the classic nintendo games, and the newer versions of the classics. the only Zelda I didnt own was Majoras Mask and thats because my roomate had it.

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 12:18 PM) I heard PS3 would be around $500...of course, that was early speculation. I don't think its ridiculous at all...the previous generation of consoles started at $299. Gamecube was cheaper, but inferior. When nintendo came out, they forced all of the other consoles to lower their prices to compete. It may have been inferior(and i love my Gamecube), but it sold like crazy when it came out a full 100 dollars cheaper buyers noticed. It all comes down to what the manufacturers want to do: 1. Start high, and lower the prices as the market dictates 2. Start low, force the markets to adjust to you(assuming your product can compete) and take away business from the competitors through cheaper pricing. Nintendo went the with #2 when Gamecube came out, and while they havent enjoyed the fanfare of PS2, and the awesome success of Halo + Halo2, they competed the whole time, and hardly showed any signs of slowing down. Pretty good considering many critics said Gamecube was the downfall of Nintendo. im really interested in the upcoming console wars though, this is a extremely different animal than what we are used to. this is going to be 3 top of the line consoles going head to head at the same time. PS1, Dreamcast, Xbox, N64, Gamecube, PS2, they all came out at different times. Its gonna be pretty cool to see the different approaches to marketing.

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 12:06 PM) What's a joke? THe price? 400 dollars is pretty steep, regardless of the package. I know Sony and Nintendo are going to have smaller pricetags than that. Its always bad to come out with your stuff first. Gates has to start realizing the difference in Game Consoles and PCs. People need PCs for work, organization, etc. therefore the pricetags he slaps on his software is somewhat justified. But Gaming Consoles are pure entertainment, and on top of that they are cheaper within a year and out of date in 2 years.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 11:58 AM) http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/schedule...nt_dates_05.jsp Aug 1: Beginning today through the last day of the championship season, players may be assigned between Major League clubs ONLY after ML Waivers have been secured during the current waiver period. Oct 2: Official closing of the 2005 championship season Oct 3: Beginning today, players may be traded between ML clubs without waivers in effect. For certain, they could complete the trade so to speak on Oct 3rd. The question is can they complete it earlier so the Reds could get use of those players in Sept? You have to finalize your post-season roster by Sep 1st. I think that becomes the list of players that still require ML waivers til Oct 2nd. Any one not on that list might be considered an optional assignment. I'm checking on what their status would be. But it's certainly within the rules because it amounts to 2 separate trades in two different periods. But this is a unique trade scenario you are proposing, which isnt covered on those 3 tenets. If a trade is agreed upon during the waiver period, you would think that even if the players are moved at a later date, that they would be subject to a waiver period, because of the date that the trade was agreed upon. I like your idea, and I wish it would happen, but you would think the MLB CBA would prevent teams from doing such a thing.

I wouldnt mind Getting that kind of Smart. I forgot about Barbara Feldon.

QUOTE(mreye @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 11:20 AM) Could that mean injured?

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 11:18 AM) I'm not arguing anything. Just correcting. Petty... don't trip over that kettle next to ya. I would have to step over your two cents to do it. And they seem to be everywhere.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 11:19 AM) $$$. You're essentially agreeing on what BMac, & Anderson would mean in $ values to the Reds & applying that to the KGJ trade. The Reds use that added cost as collateral for the CWS to give them the players they want. It might have happened in the past. You would have to look at the Sep transaction logs to see evidence of it. I just dont think that you would be able to avoid the waiver deadline like that. It just seems that teams like the Yankees would just get who they want, and say "Yeah, after the waiver deadline I will give you the players you are asking for, but we have to wait." To me it makes the waiver deadline worthless. Whats the point of making it difficult to trade a player in August if you could circumvent the system on an agreement? Maybe I am just understanding it wrong.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 10:56 AM) What does that have to do with anything...? Steff this is one of the pettier points you have ever argued. And thats saying alot.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 11:07 AM) There's one other way we can get BMac, Anderson to the Reds for KGJ but it requires the Reds to put their complete trust in the CWS. The two teams could split the one trade into 2 parts: during ML waiver period & after ML waiver period. The CWS would have to agree to pick up more of KGJ's contract as collateral for what they promise to give in return in talent in Sep. Aug: KGJ + $10M for mlers from the CWS that don't have to clear ML waivers Sep: $10M + some mlers from the Reds for a pkg of players the Reds want who are not on the CWS playoff roster I believe, that would allow the CWS to complete a trade involving BMac & Anderson for KGJ. Can you just go around the waiver period like that? From what I am understanding, the Reds will get their players after the waiver period, pretty much negating the waiver period overall. Why wouldnt trades like this happen more often?

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 10:45 AM) Adultry is against the law... And then, of course, there is that little matter of him being a Roman Catholic monsignor... when is the last time you saw someone arrested for adultery?

QUOTE(The Critic @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 10:37 AM) Hey, at least it ain't a kid....... LOL, thats true. At least he didnt break any laws.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 10:24 AM) No it's common sense. This isn't X-Box. It's the real world. There's consequences for the dumb-arse moves you make. riiiiiight. Just get back to me when you find something saying that All other GMS agreed not to pick up a highly touted prospect going through waivers. You see, the X Box statement is funny because it is commonly used when someone around Soxtalk is being incredibly unrealistic with their trades, and you throw it at me when you are inferring that one (possibly two, Anderson and BMac) top prospects are just going to pass through waivers to accomodate a trade, on the theory that noone else is going to claim them because they are worried Kenny wont deal with them years down the road. Pot, meet kettle.

SI.com still has him listed as a Raider. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/players/4745/ No transactions either showing that he was cut.

Also, how could any organization fault another organization for blocking a trade that would add one of the best left-handed hitters of our generation to the team with (currently) the best record in the league? I dont understand how 4 years down the line Kenny would care about what happened this year.

QUOTE(retro1983hat @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 08:14 AM) They are both acting like immature children. Including today's remarks by Mariotti that "Sammy Sosa also cleared waivers, but there's a better chance of Harrelson being invited to my next party, even if Metamucil is served as an appetizer." Grow up guys! Who would go to a party hosted by Mariotti? he is the first one muted on ATH, and noone ever agrees with him there, and he has ripped on pretty much every sports team in Chicago, and even has problems with other columnists at his own paper. Its an even funnier line when I think about it like that.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 10:14 AM) First off you don't just put him on the list. You call the GM's first & get agreement from those teams that can claim before the Reds. A refusal to agree would not only spoil trade relations but it could also come back & haunt that non-contender. Say a few years down the road that team reverses roles with either the CWS or the Reds. The Reds or CWS would then be inclined to return the favor. Secondly if a non-contender did decide to play the spoiler (even after giving their word not to) you can always pull the player back. The only risk is that you get a one shot deal involving that player. For someone who puts so much worth in hard facts, you sure are willing to believe in alot of assumptions.

QUOTE(mreye @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 10:07 AM) Anyone know what happened to him? It looks like he's not in the league anymore. He was on the raiders last year, did he get cut?

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 10:07 AM) It's the same principle. The GM knows very well that the White Sox would be putting these players on the ML waiver list for the SOLE purpose to complete a trade. They know if they put in a claim the CWS will just pull the player back. So TBD has no chance of getting the player & all they accomplish is wrecking trade relations with the two clubs. It would be assenine to do that. That's why I doubt there's much history of it ever happening. Yes, but you are ignoring the point of his argument. Chuck Lamarr could give two s***s about what anyone thinks of him and trading with him. He would block the trade to be ornery, or he would end up with a prospect. No loss for him, either way.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Aug 17, 2005 -> 09:59 AM) It seems pretty simple to you because you're negating the impact that will have on trade negotiations between the CWS & PIT. PIT knows they won't get BMac if they put in a claim because the CWS would just pull him back. But if they want to play the spoiler anyways then they risk good trade relations with the CWS. Considering the history of trades between the two clubs that would be a pretty stupid thing to risk on their part. I doubt very much that non-contenders take an active role in thwarting trades like that. If you have a historical reference suggesting otherwise lay it on us. So you would risk putting some of our best prospects through waivers, just on the assumption that the other GMs wont take them, based on some sort of good faith agreement between GMs? Thats insane Juggs, these prospects are good and cheap, any team would be foolish not to grab them if they are just sitting there, and the Sox would be foolish to put them out there to be scooped up.

I thought that the bullpen as a whole was pretty good last night, outside of Hermanson and Adkins. We could doubt Ozzies management of the bullpen, but he was managing for a win (Marte, Politte combining for 1 IP), and Hermanson blew it. I only wish we could have seen Jenks try and shut it down instead of Hermanson. Its time to figure out whats wrong with Hermanson and sit his ass until its right.

calling all foul mouthed chatters

QUOTE(alexgtp @ Aug 16, 2005 -> 06:47 PM) WHy is JD out? And why is Timo in.. Wha? Whoa? What happened! lol

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Aug 16, 2005 -> 06:38 PM) Hopefully my full blown mono will be good luck! Took a nap and I'm still tired, yeah. my second semester of college provided me with the delightful virus mononucleosis. I cant tell you how great it is to sleep through 2 weeks of your life.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Aug 16, 2005 -> 03:18 PM) Just one more reason why i love college football way more than the NFL. I would agree with you if there wasnt such a thing as the BCS.