southsider2k5

Aha, so I should be afraid?

You went back to before you even joined to research my 27th post? Do I need a restraining order?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors/post/Ma...?urn=mlb-288803

Which post of mine make you think I like the sounds of silence?

I'm trying to make sense of his options status, it looks like he should be out of options, correct? It is strange because he is missing an entire year (2006) http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/J/W...s-Joaquin.shtml

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Nov 24, 2010 -> 10:37 AM) RH Matt Thornton? I'll take him. Sounds more like MacDougal to me, but it is worth taking a $400,000 chance on for sure.

Unnerving lack of posts in this thread!

I know it is wrong, but I lol'd when I read Barney Frank use the term "A pain in the ass". I laughed harder when I imagined him saying it, in his voice.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Nov 24, 2010 -> 10:05 AM) or Manny Ramirez or Ken Griffey Jr or Sandy Alomar or Jim Thome(the outcry for Rowand was ridiculous). Manny and Griffey (the 08 trade) were deadline deals for expiring contracts. Alomar was a FA the first time and an expiring contract the second time. Thome was the only real relevant example, and I don't think there is much of an argument that we got our moneys worth out of him.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Nov 24, 2010 -> 09:56 AM) Except you're taking a chance on an older player who probably is starting to breakdown and you're pissing off the White Sox fanbase who believes we should never have gone after the guy as he's past his prime. I know in this specific case that Martinez is being talked about, but really the explanation is for a very general purpose.

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Nov 24, 2010 -> 09:51 AM) Yep I was at a party that night and that was when the godlike misconception of Rowand began. There was that group and the folks that thought Gio should not have been included. Rowand as a god started in that Yankee's series where he tracked down everything in CF over the last couple of games.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 24, 2010 -> 06:50 AM) Yes, but the Sox haven't given another team's FA more than $20 million since December 1996. This is such a silly factoid. It implies that the Sox don't go after high priced free agents, which they do. (Remember offering Torii Hunter $75 million?) It also ignores that they have brought in plenty of high priced contracts from other teams (Peavy and Rios being the two most recent), and they also give big contracts internally. (Buehrle and Konerko being the two big ones recently. Basically it means the Sox won't over pay in free agency. At the end of the day, they will just wait a year or two on the same player, but with a shorter term contract. It really is a smarter idea if you think about it

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 10:52 PM) Broken link. If that's the thread I think you're talking about which says a couple of players were caught roiding in the playoffs, I don't remember it specifically stating Roger as one of them. If that is the article, I would probably discount it. Its pretty easy to find. The article was called Anatomy of Rumor and was in Sports Illustrated. It was all about how rumors get spread quickly in the internet age, and talked about a report that Roger Clemens and Johnny Damon were caught juicing long before Clemens was exposed.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 10:38 PM) Which story? The roids or the pedo part? Or something else? http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38687

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 10:33 PM) Do something about Shannon Brown in three point land, please. Rose just gets lost in a good screen. Under, over, or through.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 10:22 PM) PK to the Angels for Agon? Caaamon. Let's let the pride ship sail a bit. The only people who know what's goin on for sure are in KW's war room, not out leaking stories up and down Wentworth. Where else does his under the radar reputation come from? The participating parties will let the world know when something happens; give me 1 reason why I would wanna listen to anything else? Speculation is always just that, speculation. You joined in 2009. Soxtalk was created in 2002. It was also featured in Sports Illustrated for breaking the Roger Clemens story years before the press actually got a hold of it. That is the biggest one. There have been plenty of others. There are plenty of people who give "speculation" on here. If you were to actually pay attention and learn that there are a few people on here who know a little extra, instead of just blasting everything, you might learn something.

QUICK!

Jesus, the first three minutes of the Bulls/Lakers game reminds me of why I hate the NBA. They iso Kobe on Bogans. Kobe twice gives Bogans the full arm clear out, which gets ignored, but they call Bogans for a tick-tack foul on Kobes hand, which didn't affect anything.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 09:45 PM) It seems like we get shunned actually. There was some rumor here that wouldn't get posted on MLBTR. IIRC that was the AGon rumor last year. To this day the brightest SoxTalk inside info moment I've seen is the poster who revealed the Dave Wilder scandal well before anything came out on it. I still miss that guy He should come back. I guess no one reads Sports Illustrated anymore?

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 09:19 PM) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. National Exposure HAHAHAHA. You're killing me, trying to make this board sound important. Sources outed ahahahahahahah. Sources like the best man at the wedding? Even if KW himself logged on here and told us about a trade it would still be meaningless. It's a public league, absolutely nothing about a message board would ever have any tangible relevance. We're just fans, not Watergate investigators. Nothing personal man, but cmon, you can't act like this board has street cred or that it's above the common fan; it's not, this is the common fan. Go White Sox. With all due respect... You have no idea what you are talking about. None. Hell less than none. Do a little bit of research, then get back to me.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 07:43 PM) So you would penalize an innocent child for the crime of their parents? You would create a class of people that potentially would have no country to call home. I refuse to penalize an innocent child just because their parents walked across a fictitious border that was created to try and preserve entitlement for others. In my opinion we should accept all who seek a better life in our country. I feel that the least I can do is try and provide the same opportunity to others that was provided to me. Listen, if you are willing to give away to anyone who asks. I will tell you my name and address, and you can send everything that you want straight to me. The point is, yes that is the ideal, but you have to have it be controlled and reflective of the current conditions in the country. To cite the 50's and early 20th centuries of examples as why this works gets cause and effect backwards. We had jobs for people, and we didn't have an overwhelming social cost structure in both of those instances. That has changed now. It is the equivalent of buying bulks of typewriters because that is what they had in the 50s when we had full employment.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 04:57 PM) And if we destroy our country enough, eventually we wont have an immigration problem! Which is exactly what I am worried about. We are watching economies all over the world self-destruct because of debt. How people can ignore it here and now is beyond me.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 04:54 PM) The incentive to come here is to live in a better country and have a job to feed your family. I should have said the illegal incentives. The system works best when immigrants fill jobs not able to be filled by Americans. The problem is we have 10% unemployment now, and jobs are being underpriced by people who don't have to compete on a legal basis. All this does is artificially hold down the people's wages who actually financially support this country.

Oh who cares... FIRE!

My god that is a GREAT idea!