WCSox

QUOTE(Balance @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 10:44 AM) The "liberal media" mantra is a Republican cop-out. Don't blame the media for reporting things that actually happen. Like when Walter Cronkite reported that the Americans lost the Tet Offensive? Or when Dan Rather reported that Bush didn't fulfill his military service requirement with the Texas Air National Guard? :rolly

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 10:39 AM) YAS, I'm going to disagree here. I don't think that showcasing violence in Iraq - of which there is plenty - is done to push a liberal agenda. The fact is that when people get killed, its news. When people are attacked, its news. Especially when it happens as often as it does in a place where we are supposed to control the security of this country. That makes it news. No agenda necessary. When people are attacked and killed in a war, it's not news. Unfortunately, it's expected.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 07:14 AM) Here's my thinking on this. The media shows violence in Iraq to push their liberal agenda and undermine Bush. After so many hours of watching violence in the name of Allah, the American public naturally starts to get a jaded view of Islam. Yep... QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 09:03 AM) It might have a little to do, in addition to the War in Iraq, with the spurts of violence in the name of Censorship-Against-the-Danish and God-Knows-What-The-f***-in-France. Burning embassies to protest freaking cartoons had to be the breaking point for many people. It's a shame that this small sect of fantatic idiots is turning the "Religion of Peace" into a criminal organization. QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 08:09 AM) Sorry man. I've been watching network news for 30+ years and I am convinced the media has a liberal agenda. So, no, I won't just drop the liberal media thing. It's my opinion and I have the privilege of expressing it here on Soxtalk and I'll continue to do so whenever I feel it's appropriate. As for your 'Tangent' ... I listen to Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity to offset the liberal indoctrination I have received over the past 30+ years. In addition to ~ 25 years of liberal media exposure, I live in Oregon and have worked in academia all of my life. I need a dose of either Hannity or Rush in the afternoon, followed by a dose of Fox News at night to maintain my sanity. It's unfortunate that my medical insurance doesn't cover my cable bill.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 02:36 AM) You can't compare 2005-2006 to 1983-1984. The Sox lost the ALCS in 1983, they didn't go 11-1 in the postseason. Seaver was the main offseason acquisition compared to (Thome, Vazquez, Mackowiak, Cintron). Big difference. 1984 Starting Rotation: Hoyt Bannister Seaver Dotson Burns 2006 Starting Rotaion: Buehrle Contreras Garcia Garland Vazquez And Seaver was a much better acquisition than Vazquez. Also remember that Thome's acquisition was also accompanied by the departure of Frank and Everett. The '84 and '06 Sox are very comparable. While this year's team has a slightly better rotation, I'd take Kittle, Luzinski, Fisk, Baines, and Walker over our current lineup.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 8, 2006 -> 01:27 PM) Well, can we at least point out that in this case, according to the press reports, the deceased was no stranger to the man who was told to stop the CPR, but in fact they were friends at some level? Fair enough. But why didn't the victim's friend tell the police chief that he was wrong about the HIV?

While it's always nice to see a positive article on the Sox, this is (unfortunately) typical Peter King analysis.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 8, 2006 -> 12:18 PM) but more in a 'way the content is presented' sense Their web site certainly is horrible.

No wonder Fox is the #1 cable news network. Women reporting from the Oscars in dresses is significantly less risque' than the content of Nip-Tuck or Desperate Housewives, so I don't see what MM's point is (other than that they don't like conservative news channels).

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 05:00 PM) Yeah, you're also at risk for contracting Hepatitis and a whole host of other diseases, like Mono. I'll take Hepatitis or Mononucleosis over HIV any day. Better yet, I'll avoid all three of them by not exchanging saliva with complete strangers. Call me selfish, but I'm not going to risk destroying my health and my family's well-being because somebody's having a heart attack. I would certainly think twice before performing mouth-to-mouth on a stranger.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 05:10 PM) The arms race had less to do with the Soviet Union falling apart than having the rest of the developed world developing as quickly as possible and the Soviet Union unable to do the same. I agree. Reagan's two-tiered economic and military approach arguably had minimal effect. I just found irony of liberal criticism of Reagan's methods back in the '80s and your criticism of Nixon's detente. Nixon was a scumbag, but he was instrumental in erroding up the Soviet/China alliance and improved our relations with China at the same time. Therefore, I still say that he was strong in the field of foreign relations.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 04:59 PM) Actually, Nixon was not an effective foreign policy president. It was Nixon who helped create a detente with the Soviet Union that basically gave it another 15 years of life before coming crashing down around its economic weight. Funny, liberals bashed Reagan relentlessly for starting an arms race with the Soviets to more rapidly erode their enemy. :rolly You can't have it both ways. Nixon made great strides in improving our relationship with China, which marginalized Soviet power. Like I said, he was an authoritarian scumbag.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 01:16 PM) ok, since i started all this s*** by saying carter was the worst in the history of the country, let me be more specific: easily the worst of the 20th century, worst five of all time. I'm not sure about that. Gerald Ford was worthless (although not in office long enough to do much damage). Nixon was an authoritarian scumbag, yet an effective foreign policy president. Carter was an ineffective president, but I think that he did more damage to the country after he served.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 03:09 PM) Also, unless both parties have open sores in their mouths, there is no way to get HIV from giving CPR. Just FYI. If you are confident you have no open sores in or on your mouth, they you have nothing to worry about. It still wouldn't be worth the risk, IMO. If your gums ar irritated and bleeding slightly, you would be in danger of contracting it.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) That, to me, is the difference between Bonds and somebody like Sammy Sosa. I think Sosa literally needed to cheat to be good. Bonds was already good. It's a shame that his career will be forever tarnished. And I know everybody hates Bonds. He's an asshole, jerk, ect. But as a true fan of the game, I think this is sad. I agree completely. Good post.

It's a shame that Barry even began using. He was a lock for Cooperstown prior to that. It's even more of a shame that Barry's a jerk and a racist, so I'm glad that he's being exposed as a heavy steroid-user now as well. Rot in scandal hell, Barry. You have nobody to blame but yourself.

QUOTE(Drew @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 11:28 AM) theme from "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" "AEI-AEI-AEI! Wah, wah, wah."

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 06:16 PM) The World Series DVD is so much better than this one. The WS DVD is great if you're only interested in watching the playoffs. I recommend both of them.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 08:25 PM) I don't believe the second sentence at all. Had you said Red Sox, then I would agree. RJ was running out of gas towards the end, and that was fairly apparent, but that doesn't stop him from being able to be dominant like he has shown in the past. Mussina has been in the same boat as Johnson over the past couple years, but he too can be, at the very least, a very solid pitcher for a team and will win games. Chacon had been throwing the hell out of the ball as well, and threw a very good game in the most important game of the series at that point for New York in game 4. This is not mentioning Small, who had been very solid all year for the Yanks, as well as the Gordon-Rivera punch at the end of the pen. Had the Sox taken their pitching staff lightly, they would have lost. I looked at the matchups prior to the ALCS, both with the Yanks and the Angels - it was quite apparent to me that the Sox had a deeper and better rotation and bullpen than Anaheim, and the offenses were pretty much equal. The Sox rotation and pen were in even better shape against the Yanks, but their offense is explosive enough that they can put up 5 runs at any given time and not look back. With Garcia and Buehrle, two pitchers prone to giving up the longball, I thought that looked a little unfavorable. Garland too has a tendency to give up the long ball from time to time, and so you could have been playing with fire had the Yanks advanced. I didn't like the Yankees matchup at all going in, and I personally am happy that the Sox did not have to face New York. Johnson and Mussina combined for three miserable performances in the ALDS, which pretty much sealed NY's fate. Even solid performances by their younger pitchers (Ming, Small, Chacon) would've had minimal impact, given that Torre would've gone with his veterans first. Unless Gordon could've pitched three innings of mop-up duty per night (along with an inning from Rivera), Yankees pitching wouldn't have stood a chance against the Sox, who were offensively-superior to the slumping Angels squad that tatooed Johnson and Mussina. I respect what the Yankees can do at the plate, but I seriously doubt that they would've done a significant amount of damage against Buehrle, Garcia, Garland, etc. And even if they did some damage, Randy, Moose, or one of their sub-par middle-relievers would've coughed up the lead. I also disagree that the Sox had more depth in their 'pen than Anaheim. IMO, Anaheim's squad of Shields, Donnelly, Escobar, Peralta, and K-Rod was superior to our 'pen of Cotts, Politte, El Duque, Marte, an injured an ineffective Hermanson, and an inexperienced Jenks. Hell, we didn't even have an established closer going into the playoffs! The difference, of course, was that our bullpen played better when it counted. I truly believe that the two best teams in the league played in the ALCS, with the Angels perhaps being the favorites because they'd pretty much owned us for the past three or four years. One could argue that with a healthy Colon, they may have even beat us. But, again, the Sox played better when it counted. I respect what the Yankees have done in the playoffs in recent years, but pitching is what matters in the postseason. Nobody with the '05 Yankees rotation and bullpen was going to win a pennant. I agree that the Sox had the deeper rotation than Anaheim, though. Even with Colon, I still liked our starters over theirs.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 05:48 AM) carter = worst prez in american history. Not sure about that, but he certainly wasn't a very effective president. And since Reagan's tenure ended, he's gone out of his way to undermine the authority of other sitting presidents. So, he's certianly the worst ex-president in American history.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 5, 2006 -> 04:06 PM) I'd rather give CPR to the gayest man alive than someone with HIV. If a police chief told me to stop administering CPR on someone because he's HIV-positive, I'd stop as well. I'm not going to contract HIV to save some stranger's life. The police chief should be brought up on charges, though.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 03:52 PM) Colon couldn't have won them 3 more games. And the Sox lost Ervin Santana's start in place of Colon, IIRC. The Sox lost to Byrd in Game 1. And they were damn lucky to escape with a "W" in Game 2. A healthy Colon could've pitched two additional games in that series.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Mar 5, 2006 -> 06:47 PM) The Sox matched up much better with the Angels, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. I wouldn't say that. Just about anybody matches up well against Yankees pitching and I'm sure that the Sox would've hit them VERY hard in the ALCS. On the other hand, Anaheim's (or LA's or wherever they claim residence now) pitching was rock-solid last season. If Colon hadn't gone down, the Sox very well may have not made it to the WS.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Mar 5, 2006 -> 10:17 PM) Unless George Brett, Danny Tartabull and pre-hip problem Bo Jackson are coming back to KC this year, no way in hell they finish above the Tigers. Kenny Rogers, Jeremy Bonderman, Mike Maroth, Nate Robertson and Justin Verlander is CONSIDERABLY better than whatever crap the Royals are gonna march out to the mound. The Royals were 56-106 last year, easily the worst team in MLB. Even TB, COL, and PIT (all 67-95) were considerably better. And KC's done almost nothing to improve. I'd be shocked if they could do better than 5th place. Fearless predictions... Sox: 95-67 Injuns: 88-74 Twinkies: 87-75 Tigers: 77-85 Royals: 65-97

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 11:47 AM) I agree, and I don't think I've said anything to the contrary. I'm just saying that, for the most part in the postseason (and in the regular season, for that matter), the Sox offense was built off of the homerun. That's true... ALDS Game 1 - 5 HRs Game 2 - 1 HR Game 3 - 2 HRs ALCS Game 1 - 1 HR Game 2 - (none) Game 3 - 1 HR Game 4 - 2 HRs (one a three-run shot) Game 5 - 1 HR WS Game 1 - 2 HRs Game 2 - 2 HRs (one a GS) Game 3 - 2 HRs Game 4 - (none) Sox starting pitching was bad in Game 2 of the ALDS and Games 2 and 3 of the WS. Outside of that, the starting pitching ranged from good to spectacular.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 11:02 AM) Why not? Isn't that pretty much what the Sox did? Get some guys on base and wait/hope for the longball? Other than the clinching game of the World Series, I think the Sox were aided by a homer in all of the playoff games. They were this season, but that was only part of the equation. They were also able to manufacture runs. On the other hand, they relied on nothing but extra-base hits in 2000, which is one reason why they did jack offensively.