nvxplorer

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jun 19, 2005 -> 08:00 PM) Watching Frank draw the walk was vintage 1993. Even today is scares the s*** out of pitchers. Amazing. Yeah, it took me a second to understand why Ozzie had him leading off, but after ball one, it was crystal clear.

Amazing! Here's my question. Can Cliff win 20 this year? (green optional)

The Twins are two outs away from being two games ahead of Cleveland. I would enjoy nothing more than to see Minnesota fall into third place.

The most exciting game in recent memory (which is admittedly short).

QUOTE(Capn12 @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 09:15 PM) Please use common sense when choosing title names of threads. Don't make it sound like it is already a done deal. Title fixed What was the original title?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 08:48 PM) Let me clarify something here. I was endorsing Carl's theories in any way, shape or form. All I was trying to say is that what is accepted as fact today may not be accepted as such tomorrow. My comments about the earth being perceived as the center of the universe are a graphic, though dated, example. The science world has always taken the approach that what they say is fact. History has taught us that science, and scientists, are not infallible. Those that look at things from outside the proverbial box have historically been labeled as nut-cases, yet from time to time these nut-cases are proven to be correct. I don't think it's correct, or smart, to label somebody as being ignorant just because they don't accept everything at face value. I understand what you were saying, Yas. No clarification needed. Geocentrism is borne out of religious belief, not scientific observation. (Though it's perfectly reasonable to assume the sun is moving around the earth, as we see it rise and set every day. This is how early man viewed the universe.) Science simply attempts to explain natural phenomena. It does this using the scientific method, which begins with observation. Science does not proclaim to know everything. It is anti-science religious zealots who make that claim, not the scientists themselves. Revolutionary ideas are one thing. Newton and later Einstein were perhaps viewed as nutcases by some. But Carl isn't forming an opinion on gravity, particle physics or string theory. He thinks dinosaurs didn't exist. You have to admit that is a little screwy. I'm not saying Carl is screwy, but saying dinosaurs didn't exist because they aren't mentioned in the Bible is a bit over the top, and it doesn't make one bit of sense. The Bible is a religious text, not the "List of Everything that once Existed." There's no mention of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout in the Bible either, but I can guarantee you they exist. I've seen them in mountain streams. If people want to deny evidence and facts because they conflict with their religious beliefs, that is their right. However, such denial is indeed naive.

QUOTE(sayitaintso @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 08:51 PM) And some coulmnists said that we should trade him. Do you think they still think that now? Columnists get paid to write, not think. I don't put much stock in their opinions.

Frank is now 2 behind Kingman for 29th all time. He's 12 behind Yaz for 27th, but Bagwell is tied or above Yaz right now. Canseco is 26th with 462, Winfield has 465. It's entirely possible that Frank will hit 25 more homers this year, tying him with Winfield, but more likely he will end up right behind Canseco (above or below Bagwell, depending on what he does this year.)

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 01:54 PM) i've wondered about that too i saw some thing on the history channel about the moon landing... there was some compelling evidence as to never landing on the moon. i'm not saying we didn't land on the moon, just sayin we might not have mr_genius = crazier than carl I wouldn't put too much faith in conpiracy theories. First of all, we landed on the moon several times. If it was going to be faked, why would we fake it over and over? It doesn't make sense. If they were going to fake it, they would have done so once, and be done with it. Secondly, where did the capsule/module go? It obviously went TO the moon. Every advanced nation at the time was capable of tracking the capsule. The radio transmissions are trackable. If there were no transmissions coming from the moon, but we were pretending there were, the Soviet Union would have called us on that immediately. Therefore, if we did go to the moon, why would we not have landed? That also makes no sense.

QUOTE(sayitanitso @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 01:49 PM) I don't mean to sound like Crazy Carl at all, but did it look like they actually went to the moon. For some reason I just don't believe that we ever went to the moon. I don't know why I think that, I just do. Yes, it looked like the moon to me. Of course, never having seen the moon, I didn't know what the moon should look like up close. The earth in the distance was a definite clincher, though. Also, the idea that it would be faked doesn't make sense. The USA was in a race with the USSR at the time, and the Soviets would have discredited the mission if they could prove it. If the Soviet Union had no evidence to do so, there's no reason to believe the various conspiracy theorists do. It's impossible to judge by the quality of video. On top of that, it was obvious that there was much less gravity. I would have to conclude that the government had the ability to alter the earth's gravity, and chose to do so rather than actually go to the moon, a technology which everyone knows existed. It just doesn't make sense that it was fake.

QUOTE(sayitanitso @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 01:43 PM) Did anybody in here watch the first time the US went to the moon with Buzz Aldrin? Yeah, I remember it. I also liked the previous mission when they just orbited the moon and came back.

QUOTE(sayitanitso @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 01:38 PM) Has that happened? I would think accidents like this happen on a carrier, but it's probably rare. Getting hit by a landing plane at an airport would be very dumb.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 01:14 PM) My point is simple. Scientific fact is not the be all, end all that it's cracked up to be. Those "facts" change over time. Agreed, but the existence of dinosaurs is not only a scientific fact; it's a fact. Scientific knowledge changes when new information is found, or when accepted theories are shown to be innacurate. Saying that dinosaurs are a conspiracy is no different than saying the sky is a giant movie screen, and the moon is a trick perpetrated by hollywood. Such claims exhibit a complete lack of understanding of science. The earth does revolve around the sun. This will never be disproven because it is fact. The reason people once believed otherwise had nothing to do with science. It was science that disproved that belief. Gravity exists. The theories which explain its existence are incomplete, ever changing, and we may never fully understand how it works. That doesn't mean gravity is caused by angels. Facts are facts. Facts do not change. Scientific theories change, but the facts remain. Carl can believe whatever he wants, but I stand by my statement that it's naive/ignorant to claim entire scientific fields are fraudulent.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 12:52 PM) Why is that? Because it's not the accepted norm? Because it varies from what the majority of society believe is fact? What if the majority of socierty believed that abortion was wrong? Would that make anyone that believed otherwise "ignorant"? Once upon a time, the majority of society believed the earth was the center of the universe. They believed that sun and stars revolved around the earth. The ones that observed the movement of the stars and planets and calculated that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, were they ignorant? I'm not sure what you're asking, or whether you understood my post. Yes, people used to believe the sun revolved around the earth. This has been proven false for centuries. Anyone who still believed this would indeed be ignorant. Belief is one thing. Scientific evidence another. Carl is choosing to ignore the most convincing form of evidence - existence. Fossils exist. Dinosaurs existed. We have the bones to prove they did. Since the fossil record cannot be denied, Carl chooses to invent a conspiracy theory in order to validate his religious belief. The accepted norm is irrelevant. Facts are not dependent on opinion. Some things are simply not open for debate. I am right handed regardless of what anyone else says, thinks or believes. Fossils have been found all over the world, by hundreds of scientists, for over a century. The findings have been meticulously documented and verified by hundreds of other scientists. Claiming it's all a giant conspiracy is beyond ignorance; it's childlike. Abortion is irrelevant as well. Abortion is an action, a procedure. Any action is open to debate - from wearing seatbelts to alcohol use to abortion. Evidence is subject to interpretation, but it cannot be denied. Carl is manipulating his own mind by saying an entire field of science is fraudulant. Perhaps naive is a better word than ignorant, but Carl is obviously ignorant of the field of paleontology, or he wouldn't make the statements he does.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 09:28 AM) Why would anyone be against this move? If it works out and he returns to form last year, we've solved an issue on our team without giving up any talent. Seems like a pretty darn good idea to me... That's a big if. Any trade is a risk, regardless of the type of season a player is having. Rarely is talent acquired for nothing. When it does happen, it's almost always unexpected. Taking risks are part of being a GM, but the successful ones know how to minimize those risks. JR didn't build his fortune by playing the lottery, and KW isn't going to build the team by gambling on a player who may or may not turn it around.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 12:37 PM) I believe most fans are ignorant of the game. I really don't think there is any question about that. Have you listened to sports radio lately? There are some really ignorant fans out there. I believe fans that do know what they are talking about are not in the majority. He thinks that all those bones are fake and that it is all a bunch of propaganda. I agree many or most fans are plenty ignorant. I just find it ironic that Carl, obviously ignorant of science, has the nerve to call anyone ignorant. Saying fossils are fake/propaganda is laughable. He's entitled to his beliefs, but such "thinking" is...well...the epitome of ignorance.

The only pickup I'd like to see is Minnie Minoso. Let him get one AB. Of course, the league has already denied him that privilege (1990?), but I think he could get wood on the ball.

It's ironic that Carl calls fans ignorant of the game, talking about a subject they know nothing about. How does he explain the fossil record? Does anyone know what he's said about those huge skeletons in the Field Museum (assuming they're still there)?

QUOTE(Leonard Zelig @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 02:48 PM) I think he said he was going to play Frank to get people out to the park. The joke sounded like an afterthought. Ozzie was asked if he'd play Frank, and Ozzie said, "Yes, I'm going to play him tomorrow." Then he paused and said, "So if you want to see him, you have to come to the ballpark." He was mocking a previous question on attendance. I think Ozzie was just deflecting the question, and I don't blame him. It's possible he didn't know at that point whether Frank would play, but even if he did, he doesn't want to give the media any reason to blow things out of proportion.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 01:52 PM) PS I believe the Rowand lead-off experiment is officially over. When Scotty Pods is not in the lineup, I'm all for leading off with Pablo. Agreed, but it seemed like a good idea with last night's lineup. I wonder how Iguchi would do when Pods and Ozuna aren't playing.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 02:13 PM) Currently, we have no players that the casual fan can get behind other than what, Frank Thomas? Agreed, but many players go unnoticed until they appear in the World Series. Just going on a poor memory here, but the Diamondbacks and Marlins had many no-names before their WS appearances.

QUOTE(sox-r-us @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 01:27 PM) There is some basis in reality here nv. Go read my 1st post again. The trade deadline is coming up soon and we have enough data from our team to recognize where our flaws are where we should upgrade. You know all of the other contenders will do the same. The Giants will be selling soon (Tim Kurkijan reported he was confident this would happen based on some of the talks he has had with execs around the league and with the GIants). It does not take a genius to figure that out. We do need an upgrade at 3B primarily and maybe SS secondarily. Look at our O #s compared to rest of league. Also, if Kenny can figure out a way to bench Crede and make Uribe play 3B he will do it. Then look at the #s Omar has against righty pitching and Uribe's # agaiunst lefty pitching. Then look at how Uribe sucks against righty pitching. And how Crede sucks against any (pop warner) pitching. Kenny did love Omar. Yes they had some fall out based on where he landed, but professionals do not let personal feelings get in the way of doing what their job is. Kenny's job is to get us to the Series and win it. Omar does mitigate a lot of the chemistry concerns a team like ours has making a trade when we have the best record in the league. Omar also brings a veteran, play off tested resume to the dug out, which can only help when the pressure builds in Sept and Oct. ===================== Now if all that you are looking for is for people to only post based off someone reporting this is close to happening then what is the point of a message board. If that is your definition of posting off reality, you can get that info at any sports website (ESPN, CNNSI etc). Just because we are not GMs or reporters does not mean we cannot throw ideas out there to discuss. Read my 1st post again....I said this is something Kenny should consider. What part of "consider" do you not understand? I read your first post, and it was pure conjecture. Don't take my words personally. They're not meant that way. You're free to discuss anything you want. I said the threads are harmless, and they are probably fun for some. I just don't see the point in dissecting the team's needs and proposing possible solutions, but that's just me. It's not a slam on you. Saying the Sox need a better 3rd baseman is one thing. Trying to predict what KW may do, if anything, is something else entirely. You're right; we're not GMs. That's why I don't attempt to predict what KW may be doing. There are many teams willing to deal, and dozens of players that may be dealt. There is no way to know what may or may not happen. Like I said, it's fine to speculate and discuss, but I don't see the point in it. I read a statement by KW that he's not looking to make any major moves. Sure, many claim he's not being honest about that, but I have no reason not to believe him. My original question was the influence of fantasy baseball on this type of thinking. Look at it from my standpoint. I don't play fantasy baseball, and I don't think about trades until they are completed or are in process. If I played fantasy baseball, I might think about making trades. Yes, you make a good case in your posts, but I'm saying that a good case can be made for any number of deals. That's what I don't understand. Why is your proposition any more realistic than others?

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 01:43 PM) i disagree with the notion that no would watch a White Sox world series... The ratings would not be that bad. There would be huge ratings in chicago (3rd largest market) , so high ratings would depend on what NL team we would play. Exactly. The fact that the Sox haven't won in so long would be a huge draw. Does this idiot Boers think fans enjoy seeing the Yankees and Braves every year? I doubt they do. Having the Sox in the WS would be beneficial to baseball. How many "national" teams does Boers think are out there? Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox. Maybe Atlanta and St. Louis. Having the Sox in the WS is no different than having any of the other non-national teams.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 07:23 AM) I didnt even know he had a splitter. Farmer says it's a true forkball. I'm no expert, but I believe the forkball is jammed farther back between the fingers than a splitter.

Let's assume Terry Boers is correct. So f***ing what? Is there a point to be found that I'm missing? Last I checked, The White Sox played in and for the city of Chicago, not the entire nation. That said, I don't believe a word of it anyway. He's talking out of his ass, and who the hell is Terry Boers? (Don't answer that. I don't care who he is.)