WCSox

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 03:41 PM) Al Gore isn't the President. The administration which would have a hand in federal grants has an evironmental perview that's closer to the Coal industry commercials than Al Gore's movie. Given the administration's history of dealing with contrarians, legitimizing the viewpoints of Mr. Gore would be the last thing in their self interest with this scenario. So, the Bush administration is going to throw environmental science professors in Gitmo for being "contrarian"? Nice try, but Gore's movie has the ability to sway public opinion, which will ultimately affect who moves into the Oval Office in January of 2009. Researchers who rely on federal grant money have every motive under the sun to legitimize Gore's movie.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 03:17 PM) I cannot agree with that statement more. And if people think a scientist won't lie to protect his grant, they have their heads up their asses. They are as bad as politicians and earmarks. maybe worse. A few scientists are and most academic scientists are liberals, but the vast majority of them don't mix their research with politics.

I'm not sure how Churchill even got a tenured position at CU in the first place. Unlike the vast majority of professors, he doesn't have a Ph.D. (he has an M.A. from Sangamon State University... not exactly Harvard). Yet, he not only became a fully-tenured professor at a Big 12 university, but he was also a department head. He must've had incriminating photos of the dean or chancellor, because there's almost no way in hell that somebody of his laughable educational background should've even been given a tenure-track position.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 12:46 PM) Everyone knows scientists are a bunch of pinko liberal commies anyway. Keep in mind that many of these "100 top climate researchers" are vying for federal grants to keep their research programs alive. They obviously have a vested interest in legitimizing his movie. I agree with Gore in principle, although his apocalyptic imagry of the Atlantic swallowing Manhattan takes away from his argument, IMO.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 12:31 PM) Nope, I am saying if you tar one, you should tar them all. The LA Times and the NYT story broke at the same time, on Friday. Im not actually sure that the NY Times story made it in print on Friday, but rather on the web instead about mid morning. So, the LAT and the WSJ are just as much to blame as the NYT, even when the NYT were the ones who originally obtained the illegally-leaked information and told the White House to go f*** themselves when asked to not print the classified information? I don't believe that. Somebody wrote a column in the Washington Post the other day comparing the NYT to (paraphrasing) "obnoxious adolescents kicking the shins of their parents while living comforably under their roof." I couldn't agree more.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 11:06 AM) What about the reporters at the Wall Street Journal and LA Times that put the story to bed at the same time? What about the people reporting on the report? What about us for talking about it? It's my understanding that the NYT journalists were the ones who obtained the classified information from the informant(s). They were the ones who decided to use this information. The fact that the (liberal) LA Times and (conservative) WSJ got ahold of the information (via the NYT) and published stories to keep up with their competitior is a moot point. Your last two questions are so ridiculous that I won't bother answering them. QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 11:24 AM) My only post is, Whatever you want for the NYT, you better want the same for the Wall Street Journal. So if you want to put the death blow on basically the preeminent financial newspaper in the US, go ahead. What seems to be getting lost in this discussion is the fact that the Times were THE FIRST to obtain the (illegal) information and THE FIRST to decide to print it, despite several weeks of pleas from the White Houst not to. For all we know, the NYT may have intentionally leaked it to the WSJ and LAT.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 10:58 AM) I hope they are building bomb shelters in Tehran. Because the big nasty is going to come down, suck the paint off all of their houses, and give them a permanent green hairdo. I thought it was a permanent orange afro? I hope that the UN will get involved, rather than Israel. Israel attacking Iran (even when justified) would create a HUGE mess in the Middle East.

I was optmistic that they might just be using their nuke program as a bargaining chip, but that looks less likely now. :headshake If military action is imposed, I really, really hope that the UN is heavily involved. If not, it very well may be the end of our relationship with them.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 10:04 AM) Actually I think that is exactly where the outrage comes from. There was everything under the sun looking for investigations, calling for resignations, looking for indictments to be handed out etc when the CIA stuff happened from the democratic side of the aisle, yet when the NYT does something similar seemingly the opposite happens. I think that is why the conservative media is so quick to grab onto this and point out the apparent hypocracy of it all. ^^^ The calls for treason charges are a bit out of line, IMO, but it's very clear that the NYT is doing everything it can to undermine the Bush administration. There is no compelling "public interest" to dislcose the federal government's tracking of the financial records of terrorists, given that the action is perfectly legal (financial transactions are not priviliged) and that Congress is well-aware of it. Subpoena the authors at the Times and force them to disclose the scumbags who leaked the info - that's pretty much all you can do. It's unfortunate that the far-left cares more about undermining the current administration than protecting American lives. :headshake

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 08:54 PM) Hasn't it already been mentioned 100 times that Freddy is intentionally taking speed off his fastball for more movement? Not only that, but for control as well. From what I've seen, Freddy's four-seamer tends to be in the low '90s and his two-seamer is in the upper 80s. Not dominating stuff, but when he's locating that 75 mph hook, he's effective. When he can't locate, he gets hammered. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, if all three of these guys (Freddy, Jon, Javy) are still struggling in August and September, I'd stand pat this winter and have B-Mac compete with them in ST for the 5th spot in the rotation. The loser would get demoted to long relief and, assuming it's not B-Mac, traded by next year's deadline. I understand that KW wants to get Brandon into the rotation next season, but there's just so much uncertainty right now that it's be counter-productive to trade away one of the current starters in the offseason.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 05:12 AM) FWIW The non-waiver tradeing deadline is July 31, and with us most likely being one of the best records in baseball, odds are many teams will try to block deals for us, to try to prevent us from repeating. Yes, I meant this winter. Obviously, KW isn't going to deal Javy after the deadline... or even before.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 04:42 PM) I would think the rankings of most likely to go would be Garcia, Garland, then Vazquez. My reasons: 1) We just got Vazquez, and Kenny has wanted him for some time. He is very similar to Contreras when we got him: great stuff, high salary, and a history of sucess (going back to Cuba for Contreras) despite recent struggles. I just doubt that we give up after one year. 2) Garland just signed an extension this year, and is the youngest of the group. However, he is also the worst in terms of performance thus far, and it isn't really that close. He could be the one to go if we can get more talent for him. 3) Garcia only has one year left on his deal, which makes him more of an unknown in terms of salary. He also seems to have lost some of his stuff and doesn't appear dependable anymore. I agree about Vazquez. He has much better stuff than the other two and a year under Coop could make a huge difference. It's almost a toss-up between Garland and Garcia, though. Garland has very pedestrian stuff (good sinker and two-seamer, but his offspeed stuff is weak and he doesn't locate his hook) and has to have good command to be effective. He's young and durable, though, and will eat a ton of innings at the back of the rotation. Garcia doesn't throw 95-96 mph like he used to, but his offspeed stuff (75 mph) still makes that 90-93 mph fastball effective. Like Jon, he gets hit hard when he doesn't locate because his stuff isn't overpowering. Freddy's the better pitcher (by far, IMO), but he's already peaked and is only under contract through next season. It's doubtful that he'll be re-signed uneless it's for a lot less. Further complicating matters are Freddy's relationship with Ozzie and Jon's relationshp with Mark. Despite what KW has said about B-Mac definitely being in the rotation next season, it wouldn't surprise me if he went back on that statement. I get the feeling that he's going to want to see another year out of Freddy and Jon before making a decision.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 01:25 PM) How do you figure? B-Mac still hasnt really proven himself in the bigs and everybody in our starting rotation is still locked up for next season. True, but all of our current starters cost a lot of money and at least a couple of them haven't been putting up the numbers to justify those salaries. And they're all tradeable. B-Mac has incredible stuff (looks like a young Mussina) and will be dirt-cheap for the foreseeable future. There's no way you trade a guy like that away... unless it's for Pujols or some other insanely-good stud in his prime.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 02:01 PM) Well, I can understand that, but it's more why he's the target and not the others. Because it happened last night on national TV. You know how Soxtalkers like to take the "what have you done for me lately" stance.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 01:42 PM) I'm just saying McCarthy would have equal or better numbers than Vazquez right now, I'm certainly not saying I'd rather not have Javy. My mistake. In that case, I agree with you. QUOTE(Damen @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 01:44 PM) I hope you're right and Vazquez turns it around in the second half and proves he can do more in the AL than post ERA's around 5.00. As of now, I remain unconvinced. If I'm not right and Javy is still pitching like crap in August and September, I'll be the first to call for a trade. QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 01:47 PM) Not even until a few weeks ago, until LAST NIGHT. His ERA before that was 4.43. I don't think B-Mac would have been better than that total. I don't understand why Vazquez is suddenly coming under fire. His numbers weren't a problem until he laid an egg last night. Freddy and Jon have had ERA's over 5 for most of the year, and the latter is still well over that total, yet somehow Javy is the one that has to go. The others have been just as inconsistent, in fact probably moreso. Last night was the third time in 10 starts that Javy has given up more than 5 ERs. As of a month ago, his ERA was 3.86. He's been maddingly inconsistent and his overall numbers don't really justify his contract or his reputation. I'm sure that has a lot to do with the criticism, and rightfully so.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 01:33 PM) Considering what I've seen from McCarthy since he came up last year especially in September when he and Contreras carried this team, there's no doubt in my mind he could have started the year in the rotation and put up an ERA around 5 as Vazquez has done thus far. I'm sure that he could initially. But what about August and September? Young arms that aren't conditioned for 200+ innings tend to wear down in that period. Maybe B-Mac would've done as well as you think, but I'd rather Vazquez be out there. He's the better bet over the long run. It's laughable how one really bad start from Javy on national TV has turned into a "McCarthy would've been better" thread. Vazquez threw a few gems earlier this season and was pitching relatively well up until a few weeks ago, but apparently that doesn't matter anymore. :rolly

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 01:11 PM) His dominance in the starting role last season and his above average pitching ability. Kind of like Kip Wells' "dominance" in a limited number of starts in 1999? And speaking of "above-average pitching ability", Vazquez has pretty damn good stuff as well. I fully expect that B-Mac will be a very good starter one of these days, but I find it odd that some people point to a few good starts last season as "evidence" that he would've done better than Vazquez had he been given his spot this season.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 12:53 PM) I believe if Brandon McCarthy spent the entire season in Vazquez's spot, he'd have more wins and better numbers. Based on what? His relative lack of experience and mediocre numbers out of the 'pen? :rolly

QUOTE(zoomzoomK @ Jun 25, 2006 -> 10:03 PM) May the best team win, and may the second best team whip up on the AL East in the first round of the playoffs. I'd much rather see the Tigers in the playoffs than the Red Sawks or the Yank-me's. It's also nice to see a storied franchise finally drag their asses out of the gutter after what has seemed like eternity.

Agreed. The Iraqis should be in a position to protect their nation soon.

QUOTE(Soxfest @ Jun 25, 2006 -> 10:21 PM) :finger Oregon Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 08:29 AM) Why because he actually pronounces the names of the Spanish speaking players correctly? To me its refreshing and sad all at the sametime. It shows he actually does his research on the players and pronounciations. I haven't taken Spanish since high school, but it's my understanding that one automatically emphasizes the second-to-last syllable unless otherwise designated by an accent mark. I've never seen an accent mark over the "O" in Cintron's name. Therefore, I'd expect his name to be pronounced more like: SEEN-trone. Perhaps I'm wrong and that's the way that Alex's family pronounces their last name, but I've never heard anyone in the Sox organization pronounce it like Miller does.

Wow, that's the best loss I've ever seen. Outside of Vazquez having absolutely no command last night, there were few negatives on the Sox's side last night. They did exactly what one needs to do when facing an ace: try to make him throw a lot of pitches and get to the bullpen. And, boy, did they ever get to that 'pen. On the other hand, our 'pen was outstanding. We got two bad starts from Vazquez and Garland, yet still managed to take 2/3... and came damn close to winning the third. THREE grand slams in three consecutive days... wow. I love the way that these guys pick each other up. QUOTE(SoxAce @ Jun 25, 2006 -> 11:08 PM) Jon Miller, for once, made a great call on that homer. You mean the one from TA-DA Iguchi? How about the defense from Alex Cin-TRONE? :rolly I can't stand Miller.

QUOTE(robinventura23 @ Jun 24, 2006 -> 01:57 PM) I love these Fox Saturday games. Everyone of them so far have been exciting. As for Garland..... :headshake From what I heard on the radio cast, it didn't sound like he got much help from his defense today. That said, he still has to pitch better. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the offseason.

QUOTE(PlunketChris @ Jun 24, 2006 -> 01:51 PM) This team has somethin, that's for damn sure. ^^^