southsider2k5

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 07:55 PM) And that is fine. I don't have a problem trading him as long as we get something of impact in return. I just get a kick out of those who have dislike for him based on his facial expressions or the fact that he lacks overt emotional response that people seem to need for some reason. Ditka is still a god in this town, that is all you need to know.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 07:51 PM) A 27 year old pitcher, making 2.7 million dollars who chewed up innings and had a 4 ERA. That my friends is what a lot of teams want. And something we would be stupid to give up. I guess betting on Jake Peavy and other associated stuff rounding out the rotation is better for people. Remember he was the 3rd best starter on the team last year. I find it humorous that people disliked him based on his lack of emotion. Sometimes I think fans would like a guy with a 5 ERA over Gavin as long as he screamed a bit, and maybe pointed to the sky. Style points only I guess. Its real simple. If you give up Gavin, who is under control and is valuable you better be getting something of impact back. Which is exactly why I think Gavin would be the last of the five starters to get dealt right now.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 04:42 PM) Random spazz thought - does anyone think this possibility crossed Kenny's mind: trade Buehrle (and I generally loathe the idea BTW) for pretty much nothing but a couple useful prospects and salary relief, and use Danks in an Upton deal, and then take the money saved and ... gasp ... throw it at Cliff Lee? Because Danks in arb + Mark is around $20M and Cliff Lee + Upton is only a mil or two above that. And that's about the only scenario where I like trading Mark. I'd only do it to take on a better pitcher. If you get someone to take on MBs salary, you aren't getting decent pieces for him.

Valparaiso Indiana could burn, and I would only be kind of upset.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 03:23 PM) First, I never said no security. I said security up to a point. Second, in the name of security is everything ok? Here's a completely reasonable hypothetical: we go through this new measure without much incident. 6 months, a year, 2 years from now, some crazy quack puts something in his ass or stomach, opts out of the body scan and submits to the pat down, and not-surprisingly gets by security. Hopefully with luck, he's caught before he can do anything like the underwear bomber. TSA implements new measures requiring "suspected passengers" (their term, with their definition) undergo strip searches including cavity searches. That gonna be ok with you? It'll increase security after all. And sorry, i'm not swayed by the dead relative argument. A dead relative of mine could be killed tomorrow by a drunk driver. Yet society still doesn't go to the Nth degree to stop it. You mentioned money, not me. How much money should we be spending? You also are the one who mentioned too much security.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 03:04 PM) Wow i suck delete thread. No way. Thread merged

Quite the contrary it depends.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 03:03 PM) When you go to a major sporting or entertainment event, do you feel less secure knowing that at best a couple of dogs are sniffing around and a womans purse is being searched? Do you demand body scanners or pat downs? When you walk into a downtown skyscraper, where the highest level of security is a sign in sheet, do you feel less secure? Do you demand higher levels of security to feel more safe? Someone else said the phrase - security theater. It's an absolute joke. I was ok with it up to a point, but we've gone over the line of common sense IMO, and in doing so we've absolutely let the terrorists win. We continue to be paranoid and severely alter our way of life because of fear. Edit: and for those people concerned with spending, how many hundreds of billions have been spent on this? Demanding security isn't the same as recognizing as common sense that more security makes things safer. Do you really think if there was zero security on planes that people wouldn't smuggle bombs on all of the time? And out of curiousity, how much is a dead relative worth to you, in terms of dollars?

Opulence would burn as well.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 02:12 PM) Oops, you're right. Fixed. I still think it's unreasonable. I'm fine with taking my shoes off, going through a metal detector, having my bags scanned/searched, etc. But I think its unreasonable to have to choose either a naked body scan or being physically groped. All indications are too that these aren't just basic pat downs you might get at a Sox game. Given the goals of this (to find bombs/other dangerous materials) I don't see how it can be. You can hide those materials in body cavities. No pat down is going to find that. So unless we're willing to go that far, this is a pointless and invasive new measure. And really, I find the whole airport security notion pretty stupid. 9/11 will never happen again simply because people are now aware of what's possible. There are other potential targets with hardly any security that could result in far more damage and/or lives. This idea that we're somehow protecting ourselves by being screened like this is ludicrous. I can't believe that anyone would think that today.

The Sox are always listening.

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 02:16 PM) Looks like Sox asked for Logan Morrison for Ozzie Good for JR.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 01:42 PM) You know what that actually might mean? Brent Morel isn't your starting 3b at Charlotte any more. Bingo. This is all about Charlotte.

It would be interesting to see if they can't get a major leaguer, if they get the pieces to a big time deal, such as an Upton or Fielder.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 12:45 PM) If that's really true, then I'm shocked KW would come out and say anything. How does he benefit from other teams knowing he's after a back of the rotation starter? To be fair, Kenny only talked about the start of the season. Bruce Levine said June. You might only need a fifth starter a few times in April.

Kaput they would become in bingo hall fires.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 12:26 PM) Well yeah, I mean I was still a kid when he was in office, but I didn't get that impression from him. Lots of other impressions, but not that one. I guess I consider lying about people and their reputations pretty mean spirited, especially both under oath and in speeches to the American public.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 11:21 AM) ESPN is saying that Bruce Levin has a source that says Peavy may be out until June. To be fair, Bruce Levine is awful when it comes to the Sox.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 11:42 AM) Yes, but then we wouldn't have Edwin Jackson. What's Freddy Garcia doing these days If June really is true, Garcia will be back, and it will happen soon, I bet.

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 12:17 PM) Besides every baseball writer reporting they're going to sign two big bats this offseason? It's been everywhere. They've already signed Jhonny and Benoit to pretty big deals, and they're considered the leaders for VMart and Dunn. They unloaded a ton of payroll from last season. I know they have a bunch of money coming off of the books, but to assume they will spend it again is a pretty big assumption, especially when their attendance has gone from 3.2 million to 2.4 million in a city with 25% unemployment. With Illitch looking at buying the Pistons and building a new arena, I have seen speculation as low as $75 million payroll next year for the Tigers. Most experts are looking at around $100 million realisitically, with $120 as the absolute highest. The numbers started at $65 million in payroll commitments for 2011 before any signings. Add in Peralta and Benoit, and we are at $75 million already. With the holes they have, signing a couple bats at about $25 million will very possibly end their real spending in the FA market with a disaster of a staff. That isn't enough to do anything in the central next year.

I can only think of the melted tennisballs.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 12:18 PM) Bill Clinton is mean spirited? Is that really a question?

Great balls on fire! ...is what they would say if a fire broke out in a bingo hall.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 08:47 AM) I'm just baffled how seemingly intelligent people can actually defend her and want her to lead our nation. She is a mean spirited person that thrives on negative attacks, polarizes, frowns upon being well read/educated, and seems to lie about things for no particular reason. Sure I'm as liberal as they get but I can at least respect politicians across the aisle that I differ in policy who act civil. Almost all of those sound like Bill Clinton honestly.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 12:11 PM) Well in defense of soxtalk, I don't think anyone on here defends Sarah. As far as my pick goes I think it the Republican nominee will be a white male. Odds of that are good. If I have to pick now I think the nomination goes to Haley Barbour, John Thune, or Rick Perry. Picking the VP is impossible considering how random that choice seems to be most of the time. Who knows. I keep saying Mitch Daniels, and I see no reason to stop saying that now.