NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 12:00 PM) Avoiding arbitration with Crede is not the problem. The problem is the years after arbitration. And whether or not Crede has the final say, Boras still gives him advice about what is best for him financially, and that is seen through the Boras lens. I was citing the arbitration record as part of the picture of Crede/Boras - obviously the issue becomes very different after 2007 (or is it after 2008 that he is FA-eligible?).

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 11:47 AM) If fields keeps progressing this year, its more feasible for us to get rid of crede and keep Fields. We need to start securing some funds to re-sign pitching especially MB. Not to mention, it appears Fields is almost as good of a hitter as Crede at this point, and he is still improving. Blakely would be a good player to have on a major league roster some day, if he could learn to hit breaking balls better. The guy flat out rakes fastballs. I see what you are saying. And that is likely the path they will take. But I do think it depends on where we are at going into 2007, and again into 2008: are we looking post-season or re-structuring? How is crede's back? How is Fields' glove? I just don't think Fields is a shoe-in just yet.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 11:34 AM) It doesn't matter if they make him a reasonable contract offer if Scott Boras decides what a reasonable contract offer is. If Crede retains Boras as his agent, Boras will almost certainly advise Crede to not accept any long-term deals past his final year of arbitration eligibility without first testing the FA market to see if his price gets bumped up. That's what he does with everyone. And if they test the FA market once and can't find the big deal they want, they sign a 1 year deal with whoever will take them and try to hit the jackpot the next year (Millwood, Weaver). That's Boras's obvious strategy; get to FA as fast as possible and then try to hit the jackpot then. His people simply don't sign long term deals without hitting the FA market, and they don't sacrifice FA years beforehand. In other words, if we hold onto Crede, he's almost certain to hit the FA market, and it'll take a Konerko-type-miracle for us to keep him then. yeah, but Crede has also made it clear that he dictates the final say with Boras. And thus far, we have avoided arbitration with him. No doubt Crede's price will be high, but I think the Boras factor is not as profound when the player himself is more involved in the process.

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 11:07 PM) so there are three kids from my high school that frequent soxtalk? strange. There does seem to be a plethora of Trevians posting on this board. That includes me (though I think I graduated a wee bit before the rest of you). Strange, for a north suburban school, this being a Sox site.

Worries: -Middle relief -Potential for injuries That's pretty much it. If we stay healthy, we will be very good again. If we stay healthy AND the bullpen fares relatively well, then we have a good shot at repeating. Our offense looks to be significantly better than last year, our starting staff looks better than last year (amazingly), and our defense should be just about as strong. And we have a solid bench.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 10:08 AM) Exactly. Crede is here at most until his arbit years are up. It might be sooner if KW can find a good deal to ship him out. If Fields continues to struggle defensively (likely), and Crede's back holds up (possible), I think the Sox will try to stick with Crede and trade Fields. But payroll is always an issue of course, as is the team situation. If the Sox are losing and looking to restructure a bit, Crede is likely to go. If the Sox keep winning and keep a higher payroll, I'd bet they make him a reasonable contract offer.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 08:44 AM) The Royals last? I had them at 4. But what do i know. I would be willing to bet the Royals will not be in last place in the ALC this year. I think they may finish as high as 3rd, in fact, but will probably end up 4th. And MIN is going to disappoint a lot of people.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 05:15 AM) Fields had a great Spring and I hope he rakes in AAA. Blakely didn't look too bad either. Agreed, though I'd add that Fields still needs a lot of work on defense.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 05:56 PM) It is also very worth noting that several of the claims in that Pipes blog have been proven to be the exact falsehoods which were the problem. Specifically, he cites information from defectors which say that Iraq had WMD. Well, the problem is, as we've all seen in reports since the invasion, the defectors that he and the administration were building their case on were absolute garbage (Curveball), and this was known by the CIA, but ignored by people higher up the chain of command. This was the point I was trying to make about the defectors.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 05:42 PM) Ok, I've reviewed not only Byron York's piece, but I went and actually read the 56 page decision decided by the "Court of Review" in this case (man, the concept of the "Court of Review, now there's an interesting one too), and I think I have a little bit to contribute to this discussion. ... There, I think I've gone through this issue, and man I need a break. Wow. This is great - its like we got free use of a law clerk for this discussion! Thanks for reviewing the full decision. That statement about the 4th amendment gets to the heart of the opinion I expressed on this issue when it first came out, but goes even further in stating that the FISA warrants don't meet Constitutional test. Fascinating. That combined with the failure in keeping branch checks in place (I know, I may be alone on that one), makes it pretty clear to me that this surveillance is not Constitutionally valid. And no, I do not blame Bush for that, at least not entirely. he is using a questionable method, but he didn't create the hole in the first place. Very interesting stuff.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 04:28 PM) I trust him in the outfield more than I do Gload. Watching the games in ST, I disagree. And Gload is the better stick.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 01:16 PM) In addition to Damon, the Sawks lost Mueller, Millar, Bellhorn, Renteria, Olerud, and Mirabelli. They replaced those players with Crisp, Lowell, Snow, Gonzalez, Willie Harris and Pena. I would call that a slightly negative trade off, so the only real upgrades are Beckett and Tavarez. Fixed.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 03:24 PM) The thing is, with the media hounding every time this guy takes a s***, it really does become more difficult to explain things to the "American People" as a whole. Most don't care enough because it's not "hurting them" unless their family is in Iraq, and therefore wouldn't care to do anything over there. This is very true. As I stated before, this Prez is by far the most naked in history. And the next guy/gal will be even more scrutinized at every turn. And further, people are less and less willing to look in depth at political issues. They are slaves to the soundbite. There is a whol discussion there about whether the media did that, or technology, or parenting or who knows what... but the end result is a President and other politicians hamstrung by the need to be concise to an extreme. Of course, that all said, many people in this forum DO read more into things. We read speeches, see them on TV in their entirety, watch debates, research things... and in all that research, I still haven't seen Bush come out and illustrate the real reasons. He could have done that (in addition to the soundbite versions), but his administration has chosen to be (IMHO) condescending toward the American public, and stick to the simplified marketing ploys. That marketing, BTW, is I think a lot more of Rove and the GOP machine than it is Bush himself.

Another pitching duel.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 02:17 PM) That's where he belongs. Yeah I know. Just looks weird to see that. Maybe just me.

QUOTE(OfficerKarkovice @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 12:57 PM) Those "sources" suck. McDermott it is. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2378077 IMO...he is a great hire for Iowa State. News conference scheduled for 6pm Central tonight (3/21) at Hilton Coliseum, Ames, Iowa, to announce new coach (from Alumni news).

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 02:09 PM) DH Mike Piazza Weird.

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 01:37 PM) Well, the thing is that that "out on a ball in play" is exclusive from any "moving over" of the runners. Essentially, it's worse than a strikout because a runner might get got in a pickle from 3rd to home or 2nd to 3rd. That's the only logic I can think of for that. Any other ideas? None. No idea. I wasn't even sure it was referring to if a man was on base or not. Sort of a weird list really, since you don't know the situation (runners, outs) going in.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 01:43 PM) It's been over two hours since this thread has been added to. I really thought there'd be more discussion about this. I was quite enjoying the discussion, actually. But I think many of the main points have been exhausted (without further information to chew on). You, myself and Flaxx seem to have come to differing conclusions on the matter.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 01:28 PM) You know what? Yes. I do. I also think that this was a lot bigger then "Saddam Hussein" and "WMD's"... but that's just me. This is way bigger then any of that, and most people don't want to look at this that way. I know that they look at it that way from the many statements they make that gets ignored because at that point GWB becomes "delusional". You see, I think it's hilarious when everyone that disagrees with GWB thinks he's an "idiot", and then at the same time, gets all pissed off when he "outsmarts" people by coming up with all this stuff. So which is it, is he an "idiot" or is he "that smart"? I'll answer - I think it's a little of both. Hm. Well, I certainly haven't been one to label Bush an idiot, or delusional. And I certainly accept, and agree, that the issue of Iraq is much broader than WMDs or the replacement of Saddam's regime. There is a whole plethora of stuff going on there - long term middle east stability, middle term middle east military strategy, logistics, US-related economics (not just oil), oil and resources, Iran (and a list of other countries), Russia and the middle east, etc. etc. Lots going on. But I still think his answer, and his stance for the war, wasn't proper justification for what horrible events we have brought to that part of the world (talking Iraq here in this case, not Afghanistan).

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 01:23 PM) http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...e-outs-article/ If you're still not convinced, Google "productive outs", there are hours of reading material proving their relative worthlessness to winning baseball. I guess I am in the minority then, but I still believe those productive outs, if taken in the context I described earlier, were key to the Sox' success in 2005. So was speed, not just in stolen bases, but in other aspects of the game. That is why I would probably take Pods over Lee (last year's numbers as basis). Although it all depends on what your team needs - no team can win with all power or all speed in the lineup (yet another fact not present in many of these stats). I do have a question about that list in your post, though - why the heck is a strikeout better than an out on a ball in play for the hitting team? That makes no sense to me.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 01:15 PM) You know, Helen Thomas is parroting what (nearly) every Democrat out there thinks. Kudos. She stood up and spoke her true beliefs. Kudos, though for Bush having a good answer back. You thought his answer was good? The key link he made between his sweeping statements about terror/9-11/Afghanistan/Taliban and the Iraq conflict was the statement "I saw a threat in Iraq". No mention of what threat that was. Seems pretty weak to me. But I will give Bush some credit on something here - he has, lately, finally been allowing for more reality in his press appearances. He is letting people ask unscripted questions, which is a nice thing to see, as YASNY pointed out.

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 01:07 PM) Defense has been widely regarded as a major reason the Sox were so good at preventing runs in 2005, it's been discussed even by the arrogant Baseball Prospectus, which even took the extremely rare step for them of admitting they were wrong. The Sox converted a higher percentage of balls in play into outs then every team except Oakland. That's a good thing. However, the Sox were 20th in "productive outs" http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/productive?tp=team The top 3 teams in "productive outs" were Washington, Colorado, and Pitsburgh. In fact, the winning percentage of the bottom 1/3 in productive outs is much higher than the top 1/3. Productive outs is about the last thing I'd look at to see how well a team performed. It's almost meaningless. Take a look at the description of that measure. Its useless. Runs scored with 1 out specifically (not none, just one) on GB/FB? How ridiculous. Real productive outs should include any out that advances a runner or score a run - effectively, adding a total base. Show me that measure, and that is a start.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) Not in the numbers that they were under Saddam. Ironically, a stable Iraq under Saddam was more of a health risk to the average Iraqi than an unstable Iraq in the middle of a regime change. Now that is just plain untrue. Rates of violent crime of all sorts are many times over what they were under Saddam (with the exception of the Kurdistan region, which is relatively stable). Those numbers are all over the internet, including through reliable channels. I'l go scrape some up if you'd like (they've been posted here before as well). Not that I think that is an argument to leave, by the way. Just want to head that off at the pass. I do not favor getting out of Iraq. To do so would be as irresponsible as the initial war was, if not more so.

Honestly, I don't place much stock in the statements of ANY former Saddam regime personnel. That means this guy, and I felt the same way about Chalabi and others. That intel is and was far too soft to be used as a reliable indicator one way or the other.