NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Oct 1, 2006 -> 09:29 PM) if he was cheap yeah, but do you guys really think the dodgers are going to give him up without asking for probably Uribe, a top prospect, a middle prospect and prob wont eat much if at all of his contract. Or, we give them one of the SP's and a prospect (or two). If its that sweet from our side, I bet they'd pay a few million off Furcal's contract. That was kind of my point. Use Uribe and/or Pods for bait for a left fielder seperately, or go internal with Sweeney or Gload or Fields or Owens in LF.

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 1, 2006 -> 08:41 PM) I've heard rumblings that the Dodgers have been less than thrilled with his attitude so far. Also, he's expecting 8 mil a year, and the Blue Jays are said to be very interested. I see. Well, if Lugo and LAD aren't a good fit, then forget what I said. But if they like Lugo, and can get him plus a mid-rotation starter and a couple potentially MLB-quality prospects for the same 13M they'd have to pay Furcal, then I think they might do it.

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 1, 2006 -> 08:35 PM) I wish we could have a banner that says: LUGO IS A FREE AGENT Indeed. That would have helped me... So what do you know of Lugo's intentions? Does he want to stay LAD if they will start him? Because he'd be a lot cheaper than 13M.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Oct 1, 2006 -> 08:28 PM) i can only hope to god that dont happen... if we wanted Furcal we could of signed him. And your reason for not wanting him is what? High OBP shortstop with speed and some power, defense is decent... the only downfall is his salary. But that is exactly why they will consider moving him. It jumps from 7M to 13M for 2007 and 2008. But the Dodgers next year will want pitching, and they already have Lugo in the wings for cheap. This just has Kenny-deal written all over it - prospects and an SP for Furcal and cash offset.

Rafael Furcal. Acquired in a deal for one of our current SP's, an offensive prospect or two like Fields or Sweeney, and the Sox get a few mil back in cash consideration.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Oct 1, 2006 -> 06:14 PM) This has happened before,with a Democrat, and he didn't get jail time either. In fact, he was re-elected 5 more times after the deed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds KInda ironic that Crane apologized for his deeds, and lost his election, while Studds did not, and was reelected again and again. Don't misread this, I think he should get jail time, especially considering his position in trying to stop this sort of thing, just wanted to share this with you all that strange things happen in politics. Hey look - slime comes in both blue and red. I'm shocked.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 1, 2006 -> 05:18 PM) i don't think so. they've have done just that on many occasions in the past. large portions of CBS news had to be let go due to blatant pro-democrat bias. Clinton and the Dems are just pissed because he didn't get his ususal 'slow pitch softball' questions he would get from ABC, CBS or CNN. the MSM is obviously pro-democrat. FOX is blatantly pro GOP. both FOX and the MSM have a bias towards "sensationalism and the almighty dollar". see, you pretty much agree with the democrats on most issues, therefore when you see biased news casts which ignore stories that put the GOP in a favorable light and show those which make the Dems look good you see a fair newscast. The newscast helped reinforce your world view, therefore you see no problem with them. On the other hand, FOX presents news stories and points of view you usually disagree with thus creating, in your mind, a strong GOP bias presented by FOX news. Show me one instance of the MSM labeling anyone, even the head honcho Bush, so absurdly as "getting crazed". The only way that isn't bias is that its just plain unprofessional. Fine. Either way, they are a joke. Yes, I should have noted that both the MSM and Fox are after the dollar. They just go about that in different fashion. The MSM was there doing news a long time ago, attempting to provide unbiased news. They have been marginally successful. Then along comes Fox, on the obvious far right, and tries to basically say "we're on the right because the MSM is on the left". Its the classic make it us and them scenario that the GOP loves. You are either with us or against us. The very idea that they may be trying to be unbiased doesn't even occur to them as being possible. As for my world view, go look at my posts. Honestly, in your case, I'd say I agree with you as often as I disagree. And when I disagree, see what the reason is or what I suggest instead. It won't be simple left/right stuff. I'd put my views as all across the spectrum on different issues, but on net, I'm pretty close to center. Kind of like the MSM.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 1, 2006 -> 10:40 AM) Well, here's the thing. If the insurgency is indeed fueled by our presence, reducing our visible presence should weaken the insurgency. If it's a civil war, it's a civil war. And our presence will ultimately make no difference. I'm hanging on to the belief that if the current administration (Prez, Congress and military) can just keep things on the brink like this... it can be fixed soon. Congress will become either very close or even split in November, Bush becomes a lame duck, and by 2008 we have recycled the leadership. Since pretty much everyone in both parties (except for Bush's groupies) dislikes the current scenario, someone will change the way we are doing things. That is what I am holding out hope for. The current situation sucks... civil war (which would erupt if we left) is even worse... the only possible good news is a new direction and NOT abandoning ship. Whatever the new direction is, if its different than the current one or withdrawal, it must be an improvement.

We can't pull out troops right now. If anything, we need more (too bad we've worn most of them down). The war was a lie from the beginning - WMD was always a secondary motivation, as was removing Saddam for the sake of Iraq. The strategy was something different, that was never, ever stated publically. And furthermore, regardless of the motivation, its clear that Rummy and the rest of the inner circle were pretty clueless as to what they would face in Iraq. One more thing. Bush saying "mistakes were made" is not even close to enough. Notice how he doesn't even acknowledge HIS mistakes. For a guy who plays so hard to the "straight-shooter" role, he sure does like to avoid responsibility. I have no sympathy on this for Rumsfeld or Bush. But that is no reason to pull out troops and leave all of Iraq and those remaining soldiers to live in an unholy hell.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 30, 2006 -> 09:38 AM) So if this was a priest, would it be acceptable for a bishop to have just been "working on it" six months later? In three days, from the first revealed contact, other pages have come out and cited IM conversations with him where he was sexually explicit with teenage boys. Wouldn't you at least ask him to step down as the chair of the caucus overseeing missing and exploited children? If Hastert was working on it, he was only working on hiding it. Have to agree here. Plus, it seems pretty stupid politically for the GOP. If they saw something like that before the primaries (was it?), you think they'd move quick to get a new candidate.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 29, 2006 -> 03:28 PM) From ABC News http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/0..._resigns_o.html He was the Chair of the House Caucus for Missing and Exploited Children. Put him in the stocks. That is just embarrassing.

So what are the rules on this for the election? Can the GOP nominate a new runner, or is Foley on the ballot?

If the Sox picked up Barry Bonds, I would get a refund for my season ticket money and simply not go to any games. I joke not.

I wasn't sure where to put this... http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&...q_congress_dc_1 So, Congress says yes to Iraq war funding, but puts clauses in there such that the U.S. cannot have permanent military bases in Iraq, and also places restrictions on US control of the Iraqi oil industry. Its funny how in the last month or so, Congress has actually done a number of things I was pretty happy about. Its election time, and suddenly they all remember what's important. Gotta love politics.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Sep 29, 2006 -> 12:06 PM) I think Global Warming exists, but it's not as extreme as people think and won't have that much of an effect as some people are prediciting? Weren't there scientists back in the 1970's saying global warming would lead to an ice age? But now global warming wll lead us to burning to death? The basic science at play there is that an increase in temperatures will in fact lead to an ice age. Counterintuitive as it may be, its what has happened prior to other ice ages.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 29, 2006 -> 11:09 AM) "We must legalize torture and suspend Habeus Corpus before it's too late." So...just on the book...I think it is probably worth noting that this is the same Bob Woodward who wrote the at least much more balanced, if not somewhat pro-Bush book "Bush at War" a few years ago. If he's become this much more shrill...then his analysis of this administration has really, really changed. I posted that earlier... about his previous books. I don't think he is any more shrill - its being publicized by the newspaper he works for, and who therefore can pretty much publicize his work any way they want to. His books are just that much more of a big deal now. If anyone is being shrill, I'll point at the Washington Post. Then again, maybe he'll go Clancy and walk off the ledge because he got so full of himself.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 29, 2006 -> 10:32 AM) So lets see, a book attacking Bush, acusations of price fixing at the pump, Clinton/Gore on the warpath... Yup it must be election time. Absolutely. I think I said the same thing a couple weeks ago when BushCo ratcheted up the war drums.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 29, 2006 -> 09:34 AM) Nobody has thought of it, but maybe we should think of moving Iguchi at some point. He has high value. He is still pretty cheap for 2007 if I recall. Plus I am not sure who you replace him with (I am sure some will say Soriano). Do we have any MLB-material secondbasemen in the wings in the minors?

Having read Bush at War and Plan of Attack, I'll definitely be curious to read this one. Woodward seems to have a gift for relaying events and images on the political hot stove without much bias, but still makes it fascinating.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 29, 2006 -> 12:20 AM) I agree with you on this. /so ashamed

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 28, 2006 -> 02:52 PM) 1. Clinton is an ex-president with just as much exposure, hence the reaction he got... 2. So? It was still a valid question and it was still a gross overreaction. So they used a poor word as a headline, what's the big deal? And are you kidding me? Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and Lou Dobbs bash Bush DAILY. The rest I don't watch, and PBS doesn't count as they are supposed to be neutral by law. I'm not arguing Fox doesn't lean to the right or even that Fox doesn't have an agenda (to put down liberal views). Anyone with a brain can see that. However you're full of sh*t if you don't think CNN is the exact same way for the left. In college as my senior seminar for my political science degree I really wanted to analyze both FOX and CNN treatment of news stories over a one month period. I ended up not doing it because it would have been too difficult to measure the difference (what is 'negative' connotation, what is 'positive' etc). However I did try for a week and it was amazing how each website (the base of my attempt at the study) had such differing headlines for the same story. Those people you mention, and others in the MSM, would be (and will be) doing the exact same thing to a Dem Prez. Fox, on the other hand, is clearly much more biased in their approach. MSM's bias is towards sensationalism and the almighty dollar. Fox's is towards the GOP. And yet, I do not consider myself "full of sh*t". Nor do I refer to others on this board is such a way.

Heh. Launder your karma by laundering your money... with God!

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Sep 28, 2006 -> 02:15 PM) Second hand smoke doesn't kill. You're not serious, right? I personally don't like the smoking bans, for a variety of reasons. But even so, there is no denying that second hand smoke causes health problems, and those problems can include deadly conditions. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 28, 2006 -> 02:16 PM) Neither does global warming... yet.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 28, 2006 -> 01:49 PM) Actually the Furcal idea isn't a bad one. If he only has two more years left, even if it is a bad contract, its not like your tied down for the next 4 or 5 years. Not sure I like giving Gload the nod in LF. Reminds me of the Jason Micheals situation this season with the Tribe. Michaels put up great numbers in a limited roles through out his career, but when he get a starting job, like many predicted, he put up average numbers. Also im not sure how much $$ you really need for the pen. The pen needs work, no doubt, but im not sure if it will cost us alot to fix... You could be right about Gload. On the other hand, his career and 2006 numbers against lefties are just as good as against righties (higher OPS in fact), and that is the extra exposure he'd get offensively. My only concern with Gload is defense - but then, he's replacing Podsednik.

People here want to spend a ton on both LF and SS, and trade BMac. But money-wise, that ain't happenin'. More realistically, think like you have a financial stake in the business, and that you have a budget to work with. Better to move one of the expensive starting 5 than BMac. And you probably won't be able to spend HUGE money on both LF and SS. So, with that in mind... Trade Contreras or Garcia. Also send off Pods and Uribe. Consider moving Fields as well. In trying to acquire new LF and SS, spend big money on one of those, for someone with a high OBP and who plays solid D. The other, go cheap... SS: Best available on the market, use some of the above as trade bait. LF: Ross Gload If you lose the 9M per year from Garcia/Contreras (replaced by BMac), and a few more million from Uribe and Pods (replaced by ??? and Gload)... That leaves you with 14M or so to play with per year for a SS and some bullpen help. Sounds pretty good to me. The SS? Furcal. Yeah, he's owed 13M next two years. But guess what? That is just KW's type, like Thome - negotiate LAD out of some cash. Pay maybe 9 or the 13M, and throw in Fields. So... Your lineup would be: Furcal, SS Gload, LF Dye, RF Thome, DH PK, 1B AJ, C Crede, 3B Iguchi, 2B Anderson, CF You just increased OBP by a lot (and added speed), maybe lost a bit at SS on defense (about even in LF), and freed up money for the bullpen. So since you are all so good at it... tell me what's wrong with my idea! EDIT: If Gload struggles in LF next season, that gives a chance for Owens or Sweeney.