iamshack

QUOTE(NUKE @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 04:29 AM) Is that supposed to be sarcastic? No, that's not sarcastic. You've got one guy proposing this theory that absolutely no one is agreeing with or backing. This article gets released 2 weeks ago and basically no major news outlets say a damn thing about it? This guy has been accused of spreading "junk science" theories before, from what I understand, and he is talking about "verifying" sunspot activity from 6000 years ago? No it, was not sarcastic.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 07:19 PM) Of regular 3rd basemen, his OBP was 20th out of 22. The only AL guy that made outs at a greater rate was Brandon Inge. A-Rod was better offensively in 2006, and he plays third base. There was something to be said about Crede's BA with RISP though...pretty amazing that year...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 02:43 PM) Thrown a baseball and hired Scott Boras. This is what I keep pointing out...mediocre pitchers are getting $10 million a year on this market. The only way to compete with this market is to develop your own pitching. You will not build a team by trying to sign FA pitchers right now. Gavin Floyd, John Danks, Andrew Sisco, Jack Egbert, and Lance Broadway are our best chances right now. Because the other option is to throw money at guys like Lohse. Or, you could try and NOT develop your own pitching. With the crapshoot that is drafting pitching, what would happen if you simply focused entirely on drafting position players, and used the excess to trade for other team's pitching, or used the money you save from having young, cheap position players on paying for FA pitching (or a combination of both). Would be interesting to see how that would play out...

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 01:11 PM) He is right it was about economics. However the slave part was the issue at hand, because of the economics of it. The southern states had an economy based on the cotton trade. Their built in labor source of slaves was the issue. Imagine the impact to their economy if all of a sudden all of their free laborers had to get paid fair wages. Some tall thin guy from Illinois who sure wasn't a saint, but ran and had some anti-slavery people tied to him. The southern states were so worried about slavery being repealed that when he was elected South Carolina and 6 other states immediately succeeded. What he kind of glosses over is the fact that the slavery issue was something that was at a boiling point. They had tried before to split the country on this issue on a live and let live with the Missouri Compromise of 1820, however the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 was the powder keg of the Civil War. It threw out the Missouri Compromise and started a small civil war. The rest was politicians on both sides aligning themselves with each side. Does anyone believe that Lincoln had the morals in his heart when he ran on this, probably not. But if you think that the civil war was not based on the slavery issue I suggest he should read the succession papers from the states. Thats where the reason for succession is laid out. This is a little better. And not to nitpick, but it is secession, not succession. I'm not sure I agree with your economics argument. England and other European nations were very much straddling the fence on which side to take at the outset of the War. Had the Union simply allowed the Confederacy to secede, there is a very reasonable chance that the Confederacy's economy could have sustained itself on exports of cotton and other cash crops to Europe, at least for some period of decades. And had that occurred, no one can really speculate what the United States would be today...

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 01:09 PM) Listen guys, I'm done with this subject. You need to do your homework on it to be able to understand it & until then I'm just wasting my time and energy preaching to those who A) already do understand this, and B ) don't understand it because they don't understand how economics work. That is my entire argument. I agree fully with Ron Paul's economic policies. Do your homework and you will come to the exact same conclusion as I have and as anyone else with a true and intelligent view of how economics, monetary policies, and fiscal policies intertwine and operate. Until I am convinced you KNOW (which you don't with any intelligent certainty) this stuff, my argument is on hold. Your argument is extremely simplistic and filled with arrogance.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 01:00 PM) If you can truly read what I wrote and not understand that what OTHER candidates are doing - and what we are doing as a country WILL bankrupt our nation, crush OUR economy, and make the dollar next to worthless - then you my friend need to go take about 10 economy courses to truly understand what you are talking about because it is heavily apparent that you do not. If you think that Ron Paul's policies would do anything but lead to the dollar prospering again, then again, you need to take about 10 economy courses to understand why - and that does not simply entail reading what others (who have very little idea themselves) have stated various places online, thru wikipedia, etc. Take all the courses, read the 30-50 books that go along with it, and you will have some semblance of a clue of what you are speaking of. Until then, comment on other things, but do not comment on a subject that you clearly do not understand. As I stated in my 3 page long post above - the main reason I am with Ron Paul - is that he has a true understanding of economies and how they work. No other candidate has a CLUE. They don't even care. They are much like any other lay-person. They assume that the money must come from somewhere & that all will be well and fine in the end. And that is a very dangerous position. The fact of the matter is that IF Ron Paul was elected, he could only do a FEW things anyway. And the FEW things he could do would TREMENDOUSLY help. He could solely remove the troops from Iraq and stop the funding that is sent there - that would help the economy BEYOND belief. He could also veto any budget that was not balanced. That would be another HUGE step in the right direction. And truly, that is about all he would be able to get done. But after 4 years of that, the economy would get back on its feet and be thriving within a decade because of those 4 years & the American citizens would start to elect more and more people in the same mantra and the economy and dollar would strengthen incredibly & that would lead to a more prosperous nation. Sometimes - you have to look at what the president actually WILL be able to do. Those the two things Ron Paul WOULD be able to do. Bring the troops out of Iraq and from around the world in needless military bases & veto any unbalanced budget bills that would curtail the out of control spending - therefore CURB inflation & get the dollar and economy back to prosperity. Everything else would be a moot point. All anyone else will do is try to pass a bill on taxes that will get stifled in congress, try to pass healthcare which may pass, and throw more troops around the world - which the president has full power to do via the Patriot Act. What is the reason for this crap?

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 12, 2008 -> 08:04 PM) What does it matter? In truth, the Southern States that the RIGHT to secede. It is a state's right to secede if they don't agree with the federal government's rulings. The thing is - the states would have HAD to come back and unite for economic reasons. And even if they hadn't (which, economically they would have had to), it was the states' right to secede since they felt they were being treated improperly by the Union. And please, as the moron in that video said "We'd still have slavery" - please don't try to tell me you really, actually believe Lincoln fought to "Free the Slaves" as you learned in 4th grade. In fact - this is a Lincoln quote: Abraham Lincoln: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." The Civil War was not fought (for the most part) over slavery. It was fought because the Confederate States did not want their lives dictated by the Federal Government. In that regard, the Confederates were right - in that the Federal Government should not be able to tell "all" states and all citizens how to live their lives. The Civil War was ridiculous to enter by the Union, as both the Confederate States would have HAD to return for economic reasons, and slavery would have come to an end soon afterward & without killing 600,000 people along the way. Read some books on it. Very interesting stuff. That is up to the states to decide - which is what the Ron Paul movement is about. It is about citizens having the power to choose how to live their own lives - as long as they don't hurt other people in doing so. You seriously don't think the American Civil War can be distilled down to this, do you?

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 12:27 PM) If you cannot read my post above and comprehend the economic meltdown that is coming to our dollar and our economy, well, I suppose that is your problem and not mine. To speak of a candidate based on "letters" written by someone is not the "real" issue. The real issue here is the future of my life, yours of your life, the people of America's lives. I simply don't think you're overly educated on economics and don't have a firm understanding of how economics work in the different systems of government and that is fine by me - none of the candidates are at all educated on the matter, either. They're not the "most intelligent men" in the country - they are simply people who "can" and have the ability to run for office. If you can read that entire post that I wrote - and not understand that the real issue, the only not talked about because it doesn't benefit the media, is monetary & economic policy - then you will have it your way eventually. Continuing down the socialist path to universal care of everyone & thing will bankrupt the country - much like the USSR. And look at the USSR now. Our empires are not "so" different now. They were communist, but we are straying from the Republic, Free Market to becoming Socialist. When Socialism is intertwined with a police state, the fiscal & economic problems become too heavy and they break drown - much like communism over time. If you can not understand that - just because I have a feeling you have never actually read anything about economics outside of your standard classes in HS or college - then that is why you do not understand the magnitude of the problem. When universal care passes, along with the welfare/warfare state continues - the boom will be lowered & the rug will be pulled out from my feet, your feet, your neighbors feet, your towns, your counties, your cities feet. Knowledge of the brimming problem does not save you - so I will not be able to 'right' my life when it occurs - I can only hopefully look to educate some one the how and why the universal/welfare/warfare state is going to shred the economy & dollar to pieces. As I said - it is clearly apparent that you have not anything more than simple standard issues on economics - and thats not necessarily a bad thing as the actual candidates for president also have not & that is VERY evident. These candidates are not the "god of men", they're just men like anyone else who happened to stumble into power, or be in the right place at the right time, or parlay life events into new, government ones. Ron Paul is no different than that, either. The only difference is, he understands the sheer magnitude of the economic issues that are starting to rear their head. You make Ron Paul sound like the anti-christ. I also think you are underestimating the other candidates' understanding of economic issues drastically. I'm not buying the Harvard economics degree. And stop preaching so much.

So this is saying that in the next 5-7 years, we should have warmer than average temperatures, followed by a longer period of extremely below-average temperatures, peaking around 2022? This guys is a quack, right?

QUOTE(almagest @ Jan 12, 2008 -> 09:51 PM) Yep. As I've said in other threads, though, I don't think its any of our concern as fans to care what the White Sox payroll is, or how much they "save" by not signing a player. That being said, if the Sox are going to give a pitcher close to 10 mil/year, it'd better not be someone like Kyle Lohse. I don't want to go to the Cell next year and pay close to $100 to see him consistently give up 4+ runs over 5 innings. I'd rather go see players who at least have the chance to have an upside. I'm not sure I understand your post....on one hand, you say you don't think it's any of our concern "as fans" what the White Sox payroll is. Then, just one sentence later, you say you don't want to go to the Cell and pay close to $100 to see crappy players. Don't you think the two are intertwined? At least indirectly? Obviously the White Sox are not spending "my" money on the payroll directly, but I know a few things which lead me to take an interest in what that payroll is. 1) I know they have a finite payroll- and it's probably going to be between $100-110 million. Therefore, spending large chunks of that allotment on players that have never shown the ability to perform at an average or above-average level does concern me. 2) There is at least an indirect correlation between the White Sox payroll and ticket prices, concession prices, merchandise prices, etc., which trickles down to me. And don't get me wrong- I am happy to do my part- but like you, I too don't want my hard-earned money being spent on the likes of overpaid, underperforming players. Therefore, I am concerned with the money the White Sox spend or don't spend on players.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Jan 12, 2008 -> 02:31 PM) When healthy, Scott Rolen is the much better third baseman. How often has that been the case recently?

I'm not sure why the Blue Jays would do this...perhaps it's because they view Rolen's deal has a bargain? He is set to earn $12 million for 08'-10'. I guess that is a fair price if he stays healthy, but he hasn't stayed healthy in years. I don't quite understand this. Meanwhile, the Cardinals get a player who is set to receive $12.75 million in 08' and has a player option for $11.25 million for 09', which he will certainly decline if he is healthy this season and puts up career average numbers. Seems that the Blue Jays are the team the Cardinals have been looking for to let them off the hook for quite a while now regarding Rolen...

QUOTE(3E8 @ Jan 12, 2008 -> 12:04 PM) Shouldn't the people who fired the West Coast scouts over this pick be somewhat responsible as well? Did the organization blindly take the Poreda recommendation and that's it? Seems like the top 50-100 potential draftees should be combed over carefully by most/all members of the scouting/managing departments so we can red flag pitchers with concerning flaws such as 'horrible mechanics' and 'no breaking ball'. The first draft pick is too important to waste. I have to agree. This is a Major League Baseball organization. Are you telling me there are guys on this forum who know more about the top 100 potential draftees than everyone else in the organization except the local scouts who happen to be covering their group of kids? That makes me feel a lot better....*gulp*

QUOTE(Markbilliards @ Jan 12, 2008 -> 02:46 AM) The White Sox director of scouting was fired over the Poreda pick so obviously not everyone is on the same page. I'm guessing the people who love Poreda scout the fact that he threw down a 1.17 ERA with a 9+ k/9 ratio and therefore love him, but don't recognize the same things a professional scout sees when they have the player in their own system and realize his limitations. Well, back up a second...do we really believe that no one other than the director of scouting has a say in who the organization's #1 draft pick is? I have to believe there are other parties involved in that determination. Secondly, I don't think Shaeffer was fired over the Poreda pick, but rather, the general state of the farm system combined with the building pressure for someone to be "the fall guy." Third, as I said earlier, I've been given a completely opposite scouting report by what I consider a pretty solid source- one that I know has constant contact with major league scouts, including some from the Angels organization, which is one of the top systems in baseball. Just asking if there is room for differences of opinion here...

Let me ask you something Bureau....your opinion...and those of other scouts...I assume that there is room for differences of opinion? I'm just guessing that the majority of White Sox scouts disagree with your assessment given where they drafted Poreda? Now I am in no position personally to question your opinion, but I've heard from a pretty solid source that there are plenty of scouts that "love" Poreda. You see absolutely no room for that opinion/optimism?

QUOTE(scenario @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 02:20 PM) Two of the 2007 annointed starters for the Tribe (Lee and Sowers) pitched much worse than Contreras. And who bailed them out when those guys failed? (1) A pitcher who had a 1-10 record, a 5.42 ERA, and a 1.59 WHIP in 2006 and wasn't even a candidate for the rotation in spring training. (Carmona) (2) A pitcher who just turned 37 and has had 2 consecutive years of .300+ BAA, high WHIP, and about a 4.70 ERA and really has no 'stuff' to speak of (Byrd) Sorry... outside of CC, I'm really not that impressed with the Tribe's rotation. If Carmona comes back and has another Cy Young - type year, I'll be very surprised. And the other guys... nothing special. IMO, the gap between these two staffs is ALOT smaller than people who only look at last summer think. I agree. And actually, after looking at the rotations throughout the division 1-5, I think we match up a lot better than most people are giving us credit for...

Free-agent center fielder Mike Cameron has reached preliminary agreement with the Brewers on a one-year contract with a club option for 2009, according to major-league sources. The deal is pending a physical. The Yankees had aggressively pursued Cameron, but their decision to pass on him indicates that they are still considering a trade for Twins left-hander Johan Santana. They were not willing to absorb the salaries of both Cameron and Santana, sources say. The addition of Cameron likely will result in the Brewers moving Bill Hall to third base and Ryan Braun to left field. Cameron, 35, will miss the first 25 games next season while serving a suspension for testing positive for a banned stimulant. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7663966

This from Ken Rosenthal today: The Angels' front office is divided about how aggressively they should pursue White Sox first baseman Paul Konerko, because their greater need is at third. Kotchman had a nearly identical OPS to Konerko last season, and Kendry Morales, a switch-hitter, also should figure into the first-base/DH mix. Figgins, the Angels' best leadoff man, needs to be in the lineup, but the addition of a third baseman would enable manager Mike Scioscia to move Figgins around, which was the plan if the Angels acquired Miguel Cabrera. Rather than pursue Konerko — and possibly give up Kendrick, a future batting champion — the Angels should revisit the trade market at third base. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7662484 Rosenthal is probably the guy I trust most when reporting on FO situations and trades, and follows Olney in commenting on Kenny's activity with Reagins. Something is definitely being discussed here...

QUOTE(ChWRoCk2 @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 01:35 PM) If your gonna be looking at Bartolo Colon you mind as well shift your interest to Jason Jennings who really is know better and is younger plus his arm isnt 'shot', hes probably just as cheap and more serviceable than Bartolo. From what I have read Jennings is close to signing with Texas...

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 03:26 PM) 1. Jack Egbert 2. Lance Broadway 3. John Shelby 4. Aaron Poreda 5. Jose Martinez That is disgustingly bad for a teams top 5 prospects. I'd look for Poreda to really jump in the next 12 months. The early returns from scouts (from people I've spoken with) are extremely good (he's starting to garner a few Randy Johnson comparisons).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 12:26 PM) The Angels are still not giving up Mr. Kendrick. Nothing like the Forum Moderator coming in to stimulate great discussion!

QUOTE(JorgeFabregas @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 12:51 PM) You know his arm must be in lousy shape if the METS backed off. They love broken down, once-great pitchers. I read the other day he's throwing like 85....

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 12:59 PM) Melky Cabrera posted a .751 OPS as a 22 year-old. At 23 he posted a .... .718 OPS. Young players aren't locks to improve, as you say. Cabrera is interesting -- he's a bad comp in that he and Fields are very different hitters, except that Cabrera has a rep as a good breaking ball hitter. Sort of like Fields. I've never understood the hype of Melky though....he looks like a decent player, but nothing spectacular. I think, at least in terms of hitting potential, Fields' far exceeds that of Cabrera.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 11:49 AM) Konerko would be an upgrade to their DH (Morales? GMJr?). But I still doubt that they'd trade Kendrick. I think their DH is going to be a combo of Vlad/Anderson/GMJ. They've got Hunter in CF, and then Anderson/Vlad/Matthews Jr/Willits to play the other two OF spots. So I imagine their DH will be coming out of the other two OF's that aren't playing that particular day. Which makes it a bit difficult to see them taking on Konerko without moving one of those 4 guys back in the deal...

QUOTE(103 mph screwball @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 11:38 AM) 1. Swisher/Kendrick/GMJr should outproduce Konerko/Swish/Richar 2. I thought GMJr was better defensively. That is a good point 3. The money spent on GMJr would be offset by the savings on the young stud Kendrick. Kendrick is key. GMJr could decline. Konerko will also likely decline. Kendrick will be 25 in July. In his first 160 games played in 06/07, he hit .306. In his 88 games in 07 when he contended with and then recovered from a broken bone in his hand, he hit .322. In his short MLB career he's had identical OPS (.767) vs lefties and righties. This is not a fluke. In A ball he hit .384, AA .342, and AAA .369. Major and Minor league stats for Kendrick This guy could mature into a serious #3 hitting all-star. As Hawk would say, he's a good looking young ballplayer. The Sox have enough slow, inconsistent, sluggers. It would be nice to have a .320 hitter that can stretch a double into a triple or swipe a bag every now and then. Oh, I don't think anyone is disputing Kendrick is going to be a great player. The question is more like would Tony Reagins trade him for a somewhat marginal upgrade (one could argue that there is no upgrade at all) in Konerko over Kotchman just to get Matthews' contract off the books?