southsider2k5

QUOTE(heirdog @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 11:20 AM) Buehrle is an anomoly. You don't normally take young pitchers that have shown to be ready in the majors in the few starts they have gotten and throw them in the bullpen. Then next year when Contreras/ Garland leave, you try to plug the guy back into the rotation after he is used to pitching a couple innings every so often (maybe 75 total innings) and ask him to go out and pitch 200 innings. You do that for either untested players (Buehrle) or players that have struggled as starters (Cotts). Garland is another bad example... He worked out of the pen too. Its hard to say Neal struggled as a starter with as few starts as he had. Give the kid a real chance before calling him a failed starter. The Sox have talked in the past about starting kids out in the pen to give them good match ups to build their confidence and pitches. This should come as no surprise.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 11:22 AM) I guaren-damn-tee Garland has a bigger contract that Javier Vazquez. Unless Garland breaks his neck, I'd put money on it.

I said it in August and got laughed at, but I will say it again... $90-100 million.

Call me McDonalds, because I'm lovin it.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 10:00 AM) We're becoming the Yankees... Look at our pitching staff and say that again with a straight face. We've always know Kenny was aggresive, now after winning the WS he has a few more dollars to play with. None of this should come as any surprise.

QUOTE(Sox1422 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 10:07 AM) I'm just happy to see ther eare others who realize how huge this would be. ^ I am with you guys.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 09:59 AM) Prediction: This will be one of the most active days, in terms of posts, ever on this board. lol, I was just thinking 1000 post thread, easy.

Yeah, Joey has dibs, and I think I owe the Zooks a favor anyways 40 days old and Mads already has suiters fighting over here... Yup, that's my girl

QUOTE(heirdog @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 09:27 AM) BMac is a starter and a major-league ready 5th starter now. There is no way we move him to the pen for a season and hinder his progress. He is plugged in as your 5th starter with Buerhle at 1, It is ironic that you went from saying that starting in the pen would hinder Bmacs development, straight to talking about Buehrle as the number one starter. For those who do not remember, MB got broke into the Sox, out of the bullpen as a long reliever... It seemed to workout OK for him.

No big surprise here... this is a continuation of the pissing contest that started the day Katrina hit land. The locals don't want the trailers because they are afraid they will become permanent to semi-permanent, and the feds want the trailers to give them sometime for the private sector to be able to rebuild. So the locals drag their feet giving the feds places to put the trailers and nothing gets done. Once again net loser is the people stuck in the middle. Just once I wish something could get done without the crap.

Thank God. Keep passing on our prayers and well wishes to everyone!!!! Madison still needs the arranged marriage

Just a few thoughts here after reading all 59 pages... #1 Vazquez+Cooper=Contreras. There is something they see in Vazquez they think they can fix. They obvious told Ozzie to feel the kid out and check out his mental state. Obviously Ozzie likes what he said, because he is a White Sox now. #2 I get the feeling one of the starters has some kind of an injury, and I get the feeling it is Garcia. I have no real evidence, just Kenny worrynig about Garcia being tired, and then aquiring another starter. #3 Maybe a little bit of thinking outside the box might be necesary here... If Jenks fails as a closer, remember that the Sox originally were looking at aquiring Contreras to be a closer. That would slide Bmac into the rotation to be the #5, and no bullpen arm is needed. #4 I love Kenny Williams. Not only is he looking at 2006, he is looking at 2007 and 2008 and what inflation has done to the pitching market. He is buying the guys in rookie ball and A ball two years to get ready for the majors instead of forcing them quicker than they need to go. He just dealt a starting pitcher we didn't want, the last reliever out of our pen, and a prospect in a position where we feel we have two other major league ready players at for a top of the rotation starter... AND got Arizona to pick up some contract. KW for Exec of the year 2006.

QUOTE(WinninUgly @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 05:07 PM) He signed a $32 million, four-year contract (2003, 04, 05, 06). So salary arbitration in 2006. Good point, the Sox still own his rights for two years after the contract is up. In other words I don't think Contreras is going anywhere... kiss Jon Garland good bye.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 05:53 PM) So, yeah, we're discussing pedophilia these days. I miss baseball. The really scary thing is how many experts there seem to be

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 07:01 PM) uhhh, yes. believe it or not, the vast majority of people would rather not be in prison. I would also guess that a majority of murderers in states like Texas would rather not be executed either...

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 04:31 PM) I see. So are there any other ways to get my computer to work faster? There are some solid suggestions here... also make sure you are clean on adware/spyware/viruses. Also you could go through and delete any games/programs that you haven't used for a year or so.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 04:13 PM) EDIT: f*** RUMORS..f*** RUMORS..f*** RUMORS.f*** RUMORS..f*** RUMORS... :sleep Awww he learned how to use cut and paste... isn't it cute.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 04:00 PM) There are plenty of examples of the albatross contracts also. The point being, you can't just assume it will be a bad deal, simply because of how long it is.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 03:47 PM) True but they were 3 year deals. Those aren't what I would consider the long term deals. Guaranteed 4-5 year deals are where I think KW will draw the line. JG will get that from someone else. Not here. How much better would they have looked if they had the last years money for two more years? Buehrle through say 2009 at $10 million a year would be a HUGE steal, same for Garcia at $8 million. Heck the first few years Contreras deal was horrible, now he would be looking at $10 million a year for the finish he had.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 03:23 PM) If this deal is done I think this is the key. I don't think KW would have a problem with offering JG going rate for dollars such as 12 mil. I think the problem is doing it for 4-5 years. Other teams will offer it but most of the time those deals look bad in the later years. If JV comes here for 2 guaranteed years hopefully a minor leaguer will step up and be read y at that time. The risk/benefit analysis of the longer contracts for pitchers is usually not worth it. It all depends... How great does Mark Buehrle look right now at the $9.5 million he would get in 2007, or Freddy Garcia for $8 million in 2006 and 2007? Some long term deals are damned smart when you look back on how much they get run up in the short term.

All I ask is no pictures from PA... Or else

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 03:12 PM) hey douche, don't put a period at the end of a quote where there isn't one. that's what the quote said. You've got a point, but leave the namecalling out of it.

I think the Cheat and I are on the same page when it comes to Garland. http://southsidesox.com/story/2005/12/7/03514/0519 Unless the marketplace changes drastically, he is going to get a lot of money, and a lot of years.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 01:42 PM) But this is a state to state relationship. I find it unlikely that Iran would give its nuclear weaponry away to a non-state actor that they can not control. The risks are too high. If Iran is the only other nuclear power besides Israel, they know that a nuclear detonation in Israel means the end of Iran. Because A+B will equal close enough to C that so many people will rain fire down upon Iran that not even China would dare to step in. States have no problem giving away guns and small bombs to terrorist organizations because they know that they can always top them. But to give them your best firepower would be stupid - because what if they turn on you? As awful as a nuclear Iran would be for the region, it may lead to some stabilization. Iran wouldn't have to fear a US attack as much and could focus on either pressuring its neighbors to sway the way of Iran or focus on fixing the problems within its own society. The US doesn't want Iran to go nuclear - not because it fears an attack on Israel but more likely because it fears what would happen when/if that government falls apart. Will it be controlled like in the Soviet Union? Or will it be chaos like Iraq? The Soviet Union would be a not-so-good but best available option. Iraq would be a nightmare. The US would then actually have a vested interest in keeping some degree of military order and status quo in Iran and that does not taste well to any American government. If there is one thing that unites the Muslims of the world, it is ridding Palestine of the Jews. I have no doubt that even if Iran didn't attack Israel outwardly, they would have no problem with Hamas or the like "finding" a nuke somehow. Plus if you believe what the Koran saids, and the Imams have preached, it is their DUTY to rid the Jews from there. Death is a good thing in this case, as it means you are in paradise and you have pleased Allah. You have to take off your death is bad, Christian blinders and put yourself in Islams shoes. Even if the Irani President is full of s*** when he talks about destroying Israel, it only takes one underling to leak this to a desparate Palestinian group and bye-bye Holy Land, with the reward of eternal paradise. A nuclear Iran is a worst case scenario IMO.

Any details on how this works??? I want to go Friday to the downtown one.