WCSox

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 07:23 PM) Look at the poverty in Venezuela and tell me that Americans are more needy. If Chavez gave a damn about helping the poor, he'd sell the fuel on the world market and use the profits to help the poor in his own country. He's an asshole and a demagogue, and I'm not disappointed that Chicago public services are not putting themselves in debt to him. QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 11:03 PM) There's less poverty in Venezuela since Chavez took power in 1999. Yippie! :rolly

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 08:16 PM) I loved watching Olbermann when he was doing Sportscenter. He was the best sportscaster Ive ever watched. However, Ive lost all respect for him now that he's a shill for the Democratic left. Olbermann's a talking head who doesn't know anything about politics. He's Jon Stewart trying to do a serious news show. While Chris Matthews is a giant douchebag, at least he has a basic understanding of the field. QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 30, 2005 -> 06:10 AM) other people making bucks is against liberal principals. It's ok to make 100 mil a year as long as you pretend to hate rich people and love poor people. :coughHillarycough:

QUOTE(Balance @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 03:24 PM) Spending $200 per month on bus fare is just plain dumb. That's probably why she only earns $560/month. Chavez doesn't care about helping people. He just wants to make the Bush administration look bad and to make his communist regime look like a better alternative... It's unfortunate that a scumbag like Chavez is the only source from which people can get reasonably-priced oil right now. Didn't the Carter or Ford Aministrations put a cap on oil and gas prices back in the '70s? I hate to say it, but it might be time for that again.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 03:32 PM) So much of what was known as the Arkansas Project (run by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife...kinda the Soros of the right) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Project David Brock released a lot of the secrets that a whole lot of the Project was exaggerated and essentially just throwing anything at the wall to see what stuck, even if they were making stuff up/using very questionable sources (see his book "Blinded by the Right") Due to that sort of stuff, I found a lot of the stuff really questionable...and when it got to "Clinton murdered Vince Foster", it was insane. I never believed that Clinton had anything to do with Foster's suicide, but it should be dead-obvious to just about everyone that the Clintons are underhanded. We know that Bill had several (perhaps over 20) affairs and lied about it under oath. I'd strongly suggest reading Dick Morris' "Rewriting History." Morris is a much more credible source than Scaife. I'm not sure I believe everything that he says, but there's ample evidence of tax evasion, hiring "hitmen" to intimidate witnesses, and other events that one would expect from a couple that tried to steal furniture from the White House. There are a lot Democrats who are great human beings, but the Clintons are not among them.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 02:41 PM) http://www.ishipress.com/janedoe5.htm -- Sworn affidavit from Jane Doe 5 (aka Juanita Broaddrick) that the rape allegations were false. I wonder if she was intimidated and threatened by "random" thugs like many of the females who were going to testify against Bill in the Paula Jones case.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 02:41 PM) Yes. The loan has been repaid by the way, and the person responsible for the loan on the AAR side is no longer with the company. Yeah, I heard. It was the right thing to do.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 01:40 PM) I'm still waiting for someone to bring up the million dollar Boys and Girls Club loan that was the big thing for the Freepers this time last year. Yep, and the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club is under criminal investigation and has had their NYC-supported funding suspended. The Boys and Girls Club of America has also disowned them. Apparently the unethical government funding of liberal media isn't confined to PBS and NPR anymore.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 01:29 PM) I'm still missing 1 point...where do you get the data saying that they're "Far in the red"? And as far as I know, they give away bumper stickers, tote bags, and on-air mentions in return for donations...signup page right there says it clearly. If they're asking for donatins, they're short on money. IIRC, they've been dumped from several stations already because of dismal ratings. They're also under investigation for using misappropriated government funds. But it's nice to know that they're actually giving something in returns for donations now. It's my understanding that they weren't doing this a couple months ago.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 12:55 PM) 2. There have been a couple of attempts. For example, Thom Hartmann I believe attempted to launch a national show about a decade ago, but well, I for one still am not a big fan of him, and he wasn't that successful. That's what I thought. A local station where I used to live aired Alan Colmes right after (in reverse order) Laura Ingraham, Hannity, Rush, and Neil Bortz. The fact that they'd even broadcast Colmes speak volumes. Even radio stations that have an almost completely-conservative audience are giving liberals a shot. Blaming it on Rush and his listeners is just flat-out silly. Liberal talk radio is a lot like the NHL in America: it has a very supportive "cult" following, but this following isn't large enough to make it a dominant force. IMO, this limited success is due to the fact that most people who listen to talk radio don't want to listen to liberals. This also carries over into cable news channels, as evidenced by Fox News' dominance over MSNBC.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 12:51 PM) I think its smart. You're selling psychological ownership. Building a loyal following and making money at the same time isn't desperate, it's frankly brilliant. I'd agree ifthey would've asked for donations right off the bat, rather than after they were far in the red. It's my understanding that isn't the case. Also, they'd be wise to offer people something in return for their donation... at least a calendar or a coffee mug. Geez, even PBS does better than that.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 12:36 PM) Given that, once again, Air America is only on in some 80 markets in the country, while Limbaugh and Hannity are on in something like 500 a piece, I'll let you know once we have time to actually get the network fully developed, integrated, and launched everywhere. Seriously, are you still trying to argue that liberal talk radio cannot work when there is a network out there right now proving that statement wrong? (1) I'm not saying that it can't work. I'm just saying that most people who listen to talk radio are closer to conservative than liberal. (2) Why is liberal talk radio 15 years behind conservative talk radio? Have they not tried before? I'm sure they've had to... they're not stupid. Or do the demographics in point (1) just not support them?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 12:33 PM) Actually I'd say that I didn't know that myself, I just grabbed that from a press release. Nice to know that you're so well-informed. :rolly I don't think so, but at least he's giving members articles and on-demand streaming radio for $50. That's more than I can say for Air America and their cyber-panhandling. Then again, it's the typical liberal ask-for-a-handout-and-offer-nothing-in-return philosophy, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 11:22 AM) You noticed how the fact that all profits from "Factor Gear" goes to charity was skipped over, even though the price list was verbatum? Odd isn't it? No, actually, it's pretty typical of liberals.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 12:07 PM) Especially because your scenario could theoretically happen to anyone... What's to say Garcia, Buehrle, Garland, Contreras, or Vazquez couldn't have the same huge injury? If you want to justify something like that with a history of injury, that is one thing, but to just say "well he could..." doesn't do much for me. Garcia, Buehrle, Garland, and Vazquez have all proven to be very (1) effective and (2) durable over several seasons. McCarthy, through no fault of his own, hasn't proven to be either. Like all young pitchers, he's a question mark. The point of my post is that if KW decides that this team needs another bat in its lineup in July, he needs to keep the proven pitching talent around. The only vet that I'd be comfortable with him parting with would be Contreras. Unfortunately, his age, contract, and inconsistency drag down his value. If I'm KW and I determine that the Sox are in desperate need of another bat in July and the O's offer me Tejada for B-Mac and Uribe, I say "to hell with the future" and pull the trigger. (This is after my counter-offer of Contreras and Uribe gets shot down, of course.)

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 09:55 AM) He hasn't shown as much as say, a Johan Santana has, but given that he's only pitched 67 innings, he's probably proven as much as any pitcher could. See: Dominating performances against Boston, Texas, Minnesota, Cleveland coming down the stretch. Well, that's nice, but he has to do it over the course of a full season to convince me that he's more valuable that Buehrle, Garcia, Garland, or Vasquez. Mark Prior had a good half-year in '02, a great year in '03, and then was bitten hard by the injury bug in consecutive seasons. Who's to say that the same won't happen to McCarthy? And who's to say that McCarthy's going to be able to pitch at the same level that he did this year over the course of a full season and stay healthy. B-Mac may be the next Tim Hudson... or he may be the next Jason Bere. We won't know for another year or two. When you've just won a WS and have a stud rotation, you can afford to trade your young, promising #6 pitcher for an All Star-caliber hitter. I'm not saying that KW should trade McCarthy, but he damn well better consider the idea if there's a need for more offense on this team in July. This team is in a position to win NOW and needs to do what's necessary to accomplish that. If KW agressively pursues that goal, I won't hold it against him if he has to hold a firesale two or three years down the road.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 10:05 AM) Rush, O'Reilly, and Hannity all draw in enough advertising revenue to exist in just about all major (and most small) markets. They don't need additional revenue from newletters, e-mail updates, etc. And all of O'Reilly's profits from "Factor Gear" go towards Habitat For Humanity. So, why does Air America need to beg its listeners for money? The aforementioned talk-show hosts simply have items for sale... that's a hell of a lot different than begging. Why can't they simply offer to sell something to their listeners? Is it because they're so broke that they can't afford the manufacturing/printing costs? Oh, and Kudos to Al Franken and Randi Rhodes for out-drawing O'Reilly's mediocre radio show in ultra-liberal New York City. How are they doing against Rush and Hannity in more moderate parts of the country? :rolly

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 08:39 AM) I'll just go on record with my official stance on the issue right now: Keep Jose Contreras for the entire 2006 season and give it an honest go with all six starting pitchers on the roster. What it comes down to is this: if the Sox are looking for a repeat World Championship, a roster with all six starting pitchers--one in which McCarthy once again fills a sixth/spot-starter/long-man role--gives us the best chance. I completely agree.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 03:57 PM) Why? We're going to have McCarthy for the next five-six years at a minimal salary, and the Sox are going to need that somewhere on the team -- good production for little price. We're not the Yankees just yet -- we can't afford to be paying each guy in the rotation eight figures... you just can't do that. Your Kip Wells comparison, BTW, sucks. B-Mac reached the big leauges a full years sooner than Wells, averaged about a full three more K's/9 than Wells in the minors, walked two less guys than Wells per nine, and had an ERA a half a run lower than Wells'. Apples and oranges, really... I'm sorry that you don't like my comparison, but I don't really give a crap. McCarthy has a hell of a lot of promise, but he hasn't proven jack in the majors. He's pitched a whole 67 major league innings. Wooooo! :rolly If KW wanted to make a deal for Tejada (and I'd prefer that he didn't), B-Mac would be the guy to get rid of. Why would the O's (who clearly aren't contenders right now) want Contreras, who'll cost them $8 million this year, hasn't been consistent in the majors, and is in the twilight of his career? Or would you prefer that the Sox trade Beuhrle? I don't want to see McCarthy go either, but I'd trade him before most of our other starters who've actually been successful over the course of a 200-inning season (except for Contreras, who's old and is a FA next year). If I were KW, I'd stand pat and see how things unfold. If we're not getting good production at the plate, I'd dangle Contreras as trade bait in July. If the O's were willing to part with Tejada for, say, B-Mac and Uribe, I'd probably go for it. We're trying to win NOW, not two years down the road.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 07:20 AM) He will only be 40 when that contract is over. No kidding. I like Jose and hope that he's here in '06, but I think that re-signing him would be a mistake. Use that money on Buehrle instead.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 04:07 PM) First of all, Air America is actually closing in on Limbaugh's ratings in several markets already, and is holding steady at about/above the level of O'Reilly in NY. But here's the real question...is it fair to judge the entire spectrum of liberal opinion based on a comparison between a year and a half old network only available in about 90 cities nationwide and shows that have been on the air for years, have massive TV exposure, and are on 500-1000 or more channels nationwide? Given that said network was losing so much money that they accepted misappropriated funds to get themselves out of the red, the answer appears to be "yes." IIRC, they're now soliciting donations on their website. Why didn't liberal talk radio take off back in the early '90s? And, for that matter, why is Fox News kicking the crap out of MSNBC in the ratings? My feeling is that it's because most people who listen to political commentary tend to be older and older people tend to be more conservative. Also, LOL at the fact that Air America is closing in on Rush in San Fran and Oregon. I think that my neighbor and I are the only conservatives in the entire state.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 03:27 PM) BMac has much more experience than most rookie SP's. He's proved he can adapt after getting knocked around. And he's proven he can handle disappointments and adversity [not being on the playoff roster though he was one of the top pitchers in Sept] with major league class Sure, but he's only piched 67 major-league innings. I'm pleased with the results thus far, but I think it's premature to say that he's "proven" anything. Remember when Kip Wells first came up in September of '99 and went 4-1/4.04? That turned into 6-9/6.02 the following year. If the Sox decided to trade any of their starting pitchers, McCarthy should be the one to go. And unless they could get someone like Tejada in the deal, I wouldn't be terribly happy about it.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 03:19 PM) In general, "You are correct sir!" But, players like Tejada don't come along too often...you gotta get them if/when you get a chance. Players like A-Rod don't come along too often, either. And how many rings did the Rangers and Yankees win after they took on his bloated contract? Tejada won't cost $20+ million/year, but he will be somewhere in the range of $12-$15 million/year over the next few seasons. Sure, it'd be exciting to see a lineup of Thome/Paulie/Tejada/Dye, but I don't see how this organization is going to support his salary, along with Paulie, Thome, Dye, Burhle, Garland, Vasquez, and Crede when he's a free agent. Uribe is as good as they come defensively, isn't a liability at the plate, and is relatively cheap. If I were KW, I'd be willing to part ways with McCarthy, Uribe, and a couple prospects for him. But I don't think the O's would go for that. Most of the low-to-medium-salary guys aren't readily replaceable. That includes Crede, Tad, Pods, A.J., Cotts, and Jenks. A Tejada trade for anything other than one of our starters would just create a gaping hole (or two, or three) on the team.

Am I the only one who thinks that Kenny should wait until July before considering more trades? Why trade one of your accomplished, seasoned vets and throw the relatively inexperienced McCarthy in the #5 spot? Can't we wait until next winter (or at least July) before dumping Contreras? While an experienced CF would be nice, I don't really want a high-priced player like Tejada sucking up a ton of payroll. Sure, his bat would be nice, but it would be at the expense of pitching... and you can never have enough quality starting pitchers. We'll do fine offensively with our current group.

QUOTE(AndytheClown1 @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 11:15 AM) Kenny, NOW BRING US TEJADA! No way. Keep the horses in Chi-town. You can NEVER have enough pitching.

QUOTE(spataro51 @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 10:45 AM) i don;t get how he can say that the sox should of traded podsednik instead of rowand......... Because the author is an idiot.