iamshack

QUOTE (CyAcosta41 @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 10:05 PM) I think the next move would be to move FLOYD and Quentin. With another quality starter now off the market, solid and durable Gavin, with his two years of affordable control, has real value to a pitching starved contender (or teams like the O's or Nats). Kenny just help make his own leverage -- now be patient dude, and ... use the leverage when you have it. Quentin has some value -- injury issues or not, his right-handed power numbers are not easy to find, he's not that expensive, and a team trading for him is only committing for one year. I like the idea of packaging him with Floyd for a decent package, but he can be traded in a reasonable trade. I'd actually keep Matt for the time being. Baseball is a funny game. Play the game and see what happens. While maybe not likely, it's certainly possible that turnaround years from some of the usual suspects combined with new on-field leadership can inject some sorely needed vitality into this group. It's happened other places. If we're contending, then we benefit from having Matt Thornton's stuff and experience; if we're not, then some contender will absolutely take Thornton for the stretch-run, even if it's purely a salary dump (and it will likely be just that). There are all sorts of things that led to Danks being signed, but kudos to Kenny for having the cajones to do the right thing and change up on his likely plan given our circumstances right this moment. I don't view it as waffling or being contradictory, I view it as having the guts to alter course as the target moves. And truck Keith Law anyway. What a joker. His anti-Sox bias has been obvious for years. I can't understand how anyone could care what he thinks about the Sox, a Sox prospect, or a Sox move. All things considered, I feel better about the Sox today than I did yesterday. Yeah, I almost included Floyd in my original post, but my guess is that if the market for Danks isn't great, it's not going to be much better for Floyd. I don't know how badly we have to dump salary at this point, but Gavin at $7 million this year is one of our more valuable assets. I'd much rather deal Quentin since we have replacements in house than deal Floyd since we'll be trying to plug in Sale and Humber and one other guy (if we move Floyd) and crossing our fingers. Who knows though...this deal might have forced the sacrifice of Floyd...we'll just have to wait and see...

QUOTE (Cali @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 08:41 PM) In a year or two, this is gonna be the one move Kenny makes that we'll look back on to judge the state of the team. It's either gonna be real dumb (unfortunately my guess) or real savvy... The only way it can be dumb is if he has a serious injury.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 08:23 PM) I'm still wondering what the hell Kenny is doing. Are we not rebuilding anymore? Well I, for one, have never really believed in a total rebuild. It makes no sense when you are carrying Dunn and Rios' salaries for the next 3 years. Honestly, I think he's just trying to reduce payroll as much as possible but without dumping salary and without forfeiting assets. He obviously tried to move Danks and wasn't going to get more than 1 solid prospect, so determined it would be better to sign him long term. The next move would be to move Thornton and Quentin.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 08:22 PM) keithlaw keithlaw If you're rebuilding, you trade Danks. If you re-sign Danks, you're not rebuilding. If you re-sign Danks while rebuilding, you're lost. 1 minute ago Favorite Retweet Reply Oh I want to punch this guy in the face.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 08:20 PM) He's suggesting he might be traded still. Yeah, I got that...but Sergio's contract was basically buying out his pre-arb and arb years...this is something else entirely. He's not getting dealt.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 08:18 PM) Incredible value for the White Sox or another team? That's the question. ? What do you mean?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 08:04 PM) I think he has been overlooked for a while and because he isnt a member of the media he isnt scrutinized. That could change rather quickly now that we are trumpeting his accomplishments and Heyman is talking about him breaking the news Rosenthal gave similar credit for the EJax trade.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 07:54 PM) My props go out to this guy... He has a great Sox source My question is how is he able to publicly disclose the information without getting his source in trouble?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 06:48 PM) http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id...for-caleb-hanie In other words, he can't read defenses and is dumb as s***. He is a good athlete and can have success when improvising and allowing his athleticism to take over. That probably explains why he had success when thrown into the mix against GB, had success at the end of the Raiders game, had a little success at the end of the Chiefs game, had a little success in the second half of the Broncos game....it seems like he just isn't particularly good unless he is forced to avoid thinking.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 06:28 PM) And if he's willing to accept this deal, I think he's worried about it as well. Has Danks ever even been on the DL other than the oblique injury this year? I don't worry about injury at all with him. I think he realizes he had a down year, that the Yankees/Red Sox/Angels/Rangers are going to be pretty spent out for the next few years, and would like to stay with the Sox. Yes, he might lose a few million signing a deal like this, but then he'll avoid talking to the Nationals and the Marlins and just stay where he wants to be. I wouldn't be shocked if Mark's experience didn't weigh on Johnny a little bit here.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 04:54 PM) In case you're wanting to guess when we'll get confirmation on this, when k0na posted about the Edwin Jackson trade on Twitter, it was about 10 hours later that the mainstream sources started getting it. It was posted late on a Tuesday night or something and Rosenthal had picked it up in the morning. Someone tweet it to Rosenthal...I'm sure he'll make a few calls and be on it by tonight.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 03:15 AM) Per Grantland on their "The Fabulous and the Flops of the NFL week 15"... Leave it to the Bears to have a historically bad QB, according to this article, Jonathan Quinn>Caleb Hanie lol And now we get to watch McCown on Sunday night!

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 10:20 PM) Which is why being injured blows. Indeed it does, my friend...what's the diagnosis?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 10:05 PM) The stats support that QB play has increased. According to the stats, Dilfer was a bottom half QB, Smith is a top half QB. That is how they match up to their peers. Furthermore, you cant just say its "rule changes", the game has also considerably changed. 10 years ago I cant remember many teams running no huddle hurry up offense throughout the entire game, I dont recall as many receiving TE"s, I dont recall teams using as many 5 wr sets. More offenses were built on a traditional run game, with less teams airing out the ball. Im going to guess that there were significantly less passes thrown in 2000 than in 2011. (goes to check) In 2000 there were 16322 passes attempted (32.9 per game) compared to 13677 rushes (27.6). In 2011 (through 15 games) there have been 15195 passes attempted (33.9 per game) to 12212 rushes (27.3) So based on that, Id say it may not be statistically significant the attempts. Lets look at QB rating by year: 2000- league average was 76.2 2011- league average is 82.4 So all things being considered it appears that there has been roughly a 6 point bump in QB rating since 2000 (this compares favorably to the previous stats of how many Qbs had over 90 rating and over 100.) Which still supports Smith is better this season than Dilfer. That being said, there also has been an increase in Qb rating, while there has not been a drastic increase in passing attempts. Suggests that there are more completions/tds. I'm confused. Where are you getting the assumption that Dilfer and Smith are equal? Smith has a 91 rating while Dilfer had a 76 rating. Of course Smith is in the top half while Dilfer was in the bottom half. What I am arguing is that if Dilfer were to play in 2011 he would probably have a higher rating due to the rule changes, while if Smith played in 2000, he would have a lower rating. You're arguing as though you're beginning with the assumption that they are equal though, which is where you are losing me...

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 08:40 PM) Well lets put it in comparison with other QB stats of the day. In 2000 Dilfer had a Qb rating of 76.6 which was 20th overall. 7 Qbs had a rating above 90, 2 of those 7 had ratings above 100. In 2011 Smith had a Qb rating of 91.1 which was 9th overall. 10 Qbs have a rating above 90, 4 of those 10 had ratings above 100. Trent Dilfer would rate as the 25th overall QB by rating in 2011. So while QB play has gotten better, Smith is still significantly better than Dilfer when compared to his peers. The ratings themselves are useless. When the ratings are based on actual play, that is affected by rule changes, that is exactly what we're talking about. What is a better indicator is how he measures up next to his peers, which, when considering how many rookie QB's are playing this year, is pretty solid evidence that the rule changes have made life as a qb much easier in 2011.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 07:08 PM) It has nothing to do with the offenses or elite quarterbacks. It has everything to do with the constant rule changes to favor the offenses. Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson wouldn't be the"scrubs" as you call them today. If they and their receivers didn't have to worry about being hit like the games today they would look a lot better. Football wants to add HGH testing so they can shrink the players and make it a flag football league. soon they will add rules to make it more like arena football with a bunch of guy running around everywhere on offense and no defense whatsoever. Well, part of this is because retired football players are starting to show massive brain damage from the blows to the head they have absorbed over their careers... But I agree, the rule changes have definitely advanced things for the offenses recently, and that has elevated the play of relatively pedestrian quarterbacks like Alex Smith, who otherwise, would probably look more like Brad Johnson and Trent Dildo. It doesn't hurt that the average fan enjoys high-scoring games more than defensive battles anyway.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 12:36 AM) Daisuke is also 6'0" 185, Darvish is 6'5" 220, he has a real good build, should give him a better shot at staying healthy. Exactly. He's half-Iranian, so he doesn't have the slight build that many Japanese players have...which might help his durability.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 07:58 PM) I think this is something gyms and the fitness industry purposefully blurred the lines between. It is common that people interchange fitness and health, I hear it all the time. And like I said, while they're related, they're NOT the same thing. I know some people that are insanely physically fit...but their health, not so much. Indeed. There are some fat people who can run the s*** out of thin people...that is all you need to see in order to know the distinction. I find that getting fit has inspired me to improve my overall health. Working this hard encourages you to eat better. I also find that my body naturally craves more healthy foods when I work out this often. When I don't, I start craving crap again. I'm also someone that has smoked on and off since I was 17 or so. It's very difficult to do some of the more intense cardio workouts as a smoker, so it's forced me to choose: smoke or workout. I've chosen workout.

The rule changes have really helped the passing attacks as well. I wonder how much the performances we're seeing out of a guy like Alex Smith would be similar to how a quarterback "managing the game" would be performing under this rule structure?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 06:54 PM) First, I knew the RR "I know everything post" was coming, and it'd be a simple short paragraph as to why, in an attempt to refute a very detailed/opinion based post. Second, I never said anything about health. You confuse health and fitness like most people do, and they're not the same in any regard. They're related, but not the same. Workouts, in their base form, have NOT changed much. You're simply performing different moves, or moves you've never seen (but that doesn't mean they didn't previously exist). Bottom line is you're still just performing the same basic function whether you want to admit that or not...and that's expending energy for a specific means. P90X was not revolutionary, it's simply the version of this kind of home workout that became mainstream popular so you credit it as such. It's just another in a long line of these types of workouts that have been happening in small gyms across America for decades. All Horton did was take the idea and put it on video...which was a brilliant move for him, but it wasn't like he came up with it. Also, stop repeating the bolded nonsense above, because going to a gym and working on isolation/single muscles is NOT archaic nor old, nor is it the ONLY kind of workout you can do in a gym. There are MANY compound movements you can use, which is what P90X sold you on inventing. I have some news for you, P90X didn't invent the compound movement/method. Just because "most people" go to a gym and work out incorrectly doesn't mean everyone does. Simply put, what you said in bold is complete and utter nonsense. Again, stop saying "healthy body", because what you actually mean is "fit body", learn the difference between the two. And again, optimum results for you won't = optimum results for someone else. There's not much in my post you don't agree with? What, you don't agree with figuring out what diet/exercise works best for your specific body? If that's the case, then it's because you learned nothing in your 12 years of working out...what you did learn, was simply how to copy someone else. Enjoy. The problem here is that no one in this thread made the statements that you came in here to refute. You were just trying to make a point by trolling in this thread because you accused me of doing it in the technology thread. Point taken. That being said, I am sure some of what you are saying is correct. It's not as if Tony Horton created these maneuvers, nor did he invent this type of training. What he did do, as you mentioned, it put together this kind of training in a package that the home workout crowd would purchase, and then actually do. I know of no home workout routine that has been as effective or motivating in this country as P90X. It is the #1 selling home workout of all time in this country. Now don't get me wrong, this correlates with an explosion in gym memberships and exercise programs, whether it be spin classes or programs you watch at home. And with this explosion came a lot of people that had no clue what they were doing. So when Rock mentions people at the gym working out incorrectly, he's mentioning all these people (like me) who have never been gym rats, but want to get in better shape but have no idea how to do so. It is absolutely a phenomenal thing for people to be doing P90X or P90X2 or other circuit training programs. I do know there have been hundreds or even thousands of home workouts before that were far more gimmicky than P90X. If anything, P90X was the anti-gimmick. They didn't sell results without extreme effort. X is in the damn name for Christ's sakes. And honestly, if you do put in the effort, you will be in better shape than about 95% of Americans. I am sure there are other programs out there that could do the same, whether they came out of gyms, or were created by personal trainers that work in Hollywood or in professional athletics (what does it say about the program when you've got professional athletes doing THIS workout instead of the workouts prescribed by his/her coaches?), or even came out of military training. But none were packaged in a way that the American public was willing to pay to try them on this scale. And in doing that, Horton is a genius. All I am saying is I love the product.

Jesus. I don't really give a s*** why or how it works, honestly...I just like that it works. I was always relatively athletic, but I hated working out. I hated gyms. I hated weights. I hated running. I did, however, love to play sports, and so I was in relatively good shape most of my life and relatively close to a healthy weight. Then I hit my 30's and started working jobs that required me to work at a desk all day. My friends got married and started families, and didn't have the time to play basketball or football or even golf anymore. I realized I was gaining unwanted weight for the first time in my life, and I started having to buy new clothes. I moved to Vegas and we had a corporate discount at a gym franchise. I joined. I started hitting the eliptical for an hour a day, maybe 3-4 times a week. I lost probably 20 pounds, and looked better in clothes, but I still looked really blah. In this town, a major social event is going to the pool. I looked like a lazy thirtysomething white guy, and I wanted to improve. One day on my way into work, I heard the commercial for P90X on espn radio, and thought, "you fat ass, you should give that a try." Then I walk into work that same morning, and my co-worker says he has a burned copy of P90X. So I say hey, can I borrow that? I took it home and tried the first few workouts. I thought I was going to die. I was flopping around like a beached whale and couldn't finish them or do anywhere near as many reps as the people in the video. But I stuck with it, because I am very competitive. After a week I could tell I was already losing weight, because my clothes started fitting even better. I pulled out some shirts that I hadn't worn in 5 years and they fit great. At that point I was hooked. I also went and bought the program from Beachbody at that point, because I was so happy with the product I thought I owed it to them to pay them for it. So I finished the program, and I was honestly very much addicted to it. It's a great feeling to get that kind of a workout in almost every day. It makes you feel better, eat healthier, have a more positive frame of mind, and that's not even getting into how good you start to look. Well that was almost 2 years ago now, and while I still do P90X, I am a bit tired of the same people in the videos, the same routines, the same exercises, the same commentary, etc. I know the exercises so well I could certainly do them without even watching the videos, but I enjoy structure. I enjoy someone telling me "this is what needs to be done" and then doing it. So I ordered P90X2 when it came out, not so much because I think it's going to revolutionize my fitness, or even get me into better shape than P90X did. But because it is different. Different exercises. Different people. Different routines. And that is enough to get me working out consistently for the next few years. If that costs me a couple hundred bucks, so be it. It's worth it X 100. I'll be in better health, both mentally, physically, and even emotionally. I'll feel great, look great, eat well, drink less, etc, etc. So yes, could I have just stuck with the original workout? Sure. But is it worth it to me to buy P90X2? Absolutely. It's one of the easiest purchases I'll ever make, honestly.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 04:58 PM) I don't think so. From what I've read, the meds could produce a positive test. However, he would need to take massive amounts of the drugs to do it. Somewhere in the range of 200 times the presciption amount per day. And if you know that, I don't understand why they don't know that...seems silly to create an excuse if it is obviously silly and impossible.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 04:00 PM) I'm sure there's been discussions. But I don't see anything happening here. Danks and CQ totally contradict what AA has preached and done for the last three years. I dunno J...I'm getting the feeling he's going to make a run for it this year...

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 03:10 PM) Yes, I've done certain aspects of P90X for the last few years, and it's a great work out, I just don't see a new version improving on what should have taught basic moves by now. Prior to that, I was a gym rat for over 12 years, too. 5 years ago I weighed 146 lbs and was able to bench over 265 free weight (I'm only 5'7"). I'd work out over 1 hour a day 6 days a week at that time, going through all the motions throughout that time you could think of. I did all the gimmicks, proteins, vitamins, all the styles of workout, all the machines, free weights, lifestyles, etc. you could think of. I learned over that time what constituted a total gimmick and what actually worked. Oh, and I took ephedrine for a few years when it was legal -- I can tell you with certainty it wasn't a gimmick, it worked...too well, hence why it was so damn dangerous. I didn't know how bad it was for me until years after I had already quit taking it, however. I have about 15 years of experience in this realm now. And over that time, precisely ZERO injuries. Ok...so when you were working out for 6 days a week for years and years, did you enjoy doing the same routines over and over again? Do you believe that science can improve the workouts we do so that we get more out of the time we spend and injure our bodies less? It's been almost 8 years since P90X was released. I think it is perfectly reasonable to design a new program in that timeframe. The new program is A LOT different, from what I can tell thus far...it does not seem to be just a repackaging like P90X Plus was.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 03:59 PM) Fine. How about this. you get a software patent for 9 months. If after 9 months you have not began seriously moving forward your idea into production you lose that patent. I believe there are some sort of rules like this in place already (perhaps Badger or some of the other attorneys here could refresh my memory), but yeah, there needs to be either an entirely different set of rules for software, or they need to just start all over with the entire system.