Texsox

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:48 PM) If you're going to be late to the party, call next time so we don't worry. http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=55130 Read warning and watch video Police are warning all men who frequent clubs, parties and local pubs to be alert and stay cautious when offered a drink from any woman. Many females use a date rape drug on the market called "Beer." The drug is found in liquid form and is available anywhere. It comes in bottles, cans, or from taps and in large "kegs". Beer is used by female sexual predators at parties and bars to persuade their male victims to go home and sleep with them. A woman needs only to get a guy to consume a few units of Beer and then simply ask him home for no strings attached sex. Men are rendered helpless against this approach. After several beers, men will often succumb to the desires to sleep with horrific looking women whom they would never normally be attracted. After drinking beer, men often awaken with only hazy memories of exactly what happened to them the night before, often with just a vague feeling that "something bad" occurred. At other times these unfortunate men are swindled out of their life's savings, in a familiar scam known as "a relationship." In extreme cases, the female may even be shrewd enough to entrap the unsuspecting male into a longer term form of servitude and punishment referred to as "marriage." Men are much more susceptible to this scam after beer is administered and sex is offered by the predatory females. Please! Forward this warning to every male you know. If you fall victim to this "Beer" scam and the women administering it, there are male support groups where you can discuss the details of your shocking encounter with similarly victimized men. For the support group nearest you, just look up "Golf Courses" in the phone book. For a video to see how beer works click here: Beer Demo QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:48 PM) If you're going to be late to the party, call next time so we don't worry. http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=55130 Read warning and watch video Police are warning all men who frequent clubs, parties and local pubs to be alert and stay cautious when offered a drink from any woman. Many females use a date rape drug on the market called "Beer." The drug is found in liquid form and is available anywhere. It comes in bottles, cans, or from taps and in large "kegs". Beer is used by female sexual predators at parties and bars to persuade their male victims to go home and sleep with them. A woman needs only to get a guy to consume a few units of Beer and then simply ask him home for no strings attached sex. Men are rendered helpless against this approach. After several beers, men will often succumb to the desires to sleep with horrific looking women whom they would never normally be attracted. After drinking beer, men often awaken with only hazy memories of exactly what happened to them the night before, often with just a vague feeling that "something bad" occurred. At other times these unfortunate men are swindled out of their life's savings, in a familiar scam known as "a relationship." In extreme cases, the female may even be shrewd enough to entrap the unsuspecting male into a longer term form of servitude and punishment referred to as "marriage." Men are much more susceptible to this scam after beer is administered and sex is offered by the predatory females. Please! Forward this warning to every male you know. If you fall victim to this "Beer" scam and the women administering it, there are male support groups where you can discuss the details of your shocking encounter with similarly victimized men. For the support group nearest you, just look up "Golf Courses" in the phone book. For a video to see how beer works click here: Beer Demo

Sheff, you look like an ass. Cashman, talk to your player so he knows what you are doing. He's costing you value.

Sometimes George Thorogood is necessary. One Bourobon, One Scotch . . .

Gee, how did Barack get my email addy?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 04:57 PM) There's no better way to sour me on someone's talent and creativity than actually coming in contact with their crappy personality. I guess that's why we haven't met in person?

Nice view of men as immoral pigs.

REI especially if I get to keep the gear.

OMG LMAO

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 09:15 PM) This has been stated several times by assbags in the media and such but I just don't get it. How in the hell can one be a "selfish player" in baseball? It's not like he's Jamal Crawford and jacking the ball up the second he gets his mits on it or anything. The only thing Alex Rodriguez ever did that was remotely "selfish" was accepting a 10 year $252M contract and who here could say with a straight face that they would not accept such a contract if one were offered to them? If ARod is so damn selfish why did he move to 3B and allow Jeter to keep his spot at SS even though Rodriguez is the superior defensive player at short? I also think about AJ and the crap that followed him. So far no one on the Sox has claimed he isn't a good team player.

The other route, btw, is to eliminate any benefits of marriage and treat everyone as individuals. I'm not certain that is any better, but could offer some interesting possibilities.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 06:10 PM) Go read every post I've made in this thread. It's crystal clear. Of course by not giving a direct answer, you can change it to anything you like. Great technique. It must be the money that the Rangers would never pay the Yankees if the Yanks trade him. It's the money that you believe the Rangers owe to A-Rod and that the Yankees can not change in any trades. OK, then allow me to be crystal clear. I ASSume* that the Rangers owe the Yankees as their part of the trade and must pay based on their deal, no changes. I ASSume the Yankees owe A-Rod his full contract, again no changes unless A-Rod and everyone (Union, A-Rod, MLB, Teams, etc) agrees. A-Rod made concessions to get the Yankee deal done. I ASSume he could make more, although I doubt he would. I ASSume that A-Rod doesn't have contracts with both the Rangers and the Yankees. I ASSume that any team taking on A-Rod picks up his contract and also owes A-Rod the remaining amount. He will not have three contracts. His contract is his contract and MLB and the players union has made it very clear that they will not tolerate anything that would lower the pay that A-Rod receives. I ASSUme the Yankees are free to send as much money as both teams agree on. Based on the players and their contracts, the third team may receive more or less money than what the Rangers are sending the Yankees. I ASSume that all parties must agree on this new trade just like they did the previous. That the trade must be in the best interest of baseball, etc. Of course you will nit pick and find something here that you disagree with. I patiently await. However, I'm going out for the evening and won't have an opportunity to play tonight. Have a nice evening.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 05:34 PM) As long as it's clearly stated that any two people can enter into a civil union, then I don't have a problem with civil unions. If its human rights, then it should be any two consenting adults. I mention the brother/sister thing because insurance benefits, under the current system, would not cover each other. i understand the next of kin thing from a tax/legal stand point, but it's not as inclusive as husband/wife. I do have a problem with Faith-base gay marriage, but I don't want to discuss that online. I'll bet we agree down the line. I don't think every faith has to marry anyone that wants to be married in their Church. I too would disagree if the law prevented Churches from deciding their own membership standards. If the government allowed a civil union there would be no pressure on the Churches. I think "marriage" or whatever name makes y'all happy should be thought of in two areas. The legal aspects and realities of our legal system and the religious covenant.

And how trusting some people are with our government. Iraq gets tough on crime and executes people for not following their laws and we have to invest billions of dollars and thousands of lives. The US executes people and that's a good thing

PA, I was thinking somewhat along your lines, and thought of this, If a couple isn't having sex, is their union/marriage invalid? The brother/sister thing is only true if they are having sex and possibly reproducing. It would seem, and perhaps I am ASSuming* here, that at their heart, all marriage debates assume that the couple would be having sex. If a company hires you, they must ASSume at some time, they would have to pay spousal benefits. Why should they care who those are going to? Their costs are the same and should have been budgeted. If they would claim, we thought he was gay/ugly/shy/celibate and would never marry, that's why we hired him, that would be an interesting debate. *I love that spelling

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 04:22 PM) Mainly because you kept stating that 1. the monetary amount could be changed if he was traded and 2. that the money did not follow him because it was paid to the Yanks, so I wanted to be sure that you were aware that you were wrong. I don't feel silly at all. Why would I. Exactly what I stated is exactly what is being done. Which money amount are you talking about? In a new trade with the Yankees, the amount that the third team receives to cover any of A-Rod's contract could be changed. They might receive Yankee money sooner or later than what the Yankees are getting. I still have not seen anything that would contradict that. What would not change is the money A-Rod gets and the money the Yankees receive from the Rangers as part of that trade. The Rangers will continue to pay as they agreed. I never disputed that. That is the cornerstone of my opinion. The money the Rangers owes to the Yankees can not change. But just because Soriano and Boone for A-Rod, Wilson, and 67 million passed all parties a couple years ago, doesn't mean A-Rod plus the remaining $$ will pass the same tests regardless of who he is being traded for. It may take more money, it may take less money. BTW, kudos for the ASSume earlier, I'm still chuckling. I remember that episode of the Odd Couple when Felix wrote that on the blackboard in court. The next day it seemed like everyone in my third grade class was doing the same thing, Great memory and added much needed humor in this thread. Another point, the deal was Soriano and Boone, for A-Rod, Wilson, and $67 mil. Would the $67mil stay the same if different players were involved? What if the Yankees sent two AA players? What if they sent Jeter and Giambi? Still $67mil? If not, then why would it be the same today before we even know what players are involved? Today, Trading for Dye would be one thing (great team contract) Trading for Park would be another (bad team contract)

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:55 PM) Boy.. you sure are a piece of work. Just because it says they are paying it doesn't mean they write an actual check and mail it to his house. Men who owe child support pay the state and they forward it on... doesn't mean they don't owe it or pay it to their ex's does it. Lame example but the only one I can think of at this moment. Is it hard to breath from so high up there on that horse... :rolleyes. Then why, with all that fan fare and bold red letters post that quote? It was already linked over and over again that the Rangers have to pay. No one disputed that. red and bold. You must really feel silly now.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:52 PM) and honestly, do you know of 2 straight guys that would pretend to be gay

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:50 PM) seriously though, aside from the social implications, what's to stop two guys, two girls, or two people in general from "getting married" simply to enjoy the benefits of employers, etc....? is this something that happens? ghre It happens for heterosexual couples, so a person should assume (or as one poster prefers ASSume , it would happen in this case as well. But if an employer is willing to hire you and offer these benefits, why should they care who you extend them to? Could you imagine an employer making a statement I don't approve of your spouse and thusly will not extend benefits?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:25 PM) In 47 states in the United States gay people do not have the same inheritance rights, do not have the same equal rights for custody and adoption of children, do not have the same spousal benefit rights, do not have the same testimonial privilege rights that heterosexual people have. Homosexuals are not allowed to serve in the military. We are a state that believes in equal opportunity for equal people. Just as how you can't fire someone for a physiological attribute (i.e. MS, pregnancy, cancer, race or skin color), and how you can't fire someone for a religious conviction, you shouldn't be allowed to fire someone based on their sexuality, especially given the massive amounts of evidence showing that, in many many cases, sexuality is a trait and not a behavior. Well said my friend.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 02:10 PM) Ta-friggin-da!!!! http://www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper...www.thebatt.com Texas will pay $67 million of the $179 million left on Rodriguez's $252 million, 10-year contract, the most cash included in a trade in major league history. The Rangers get All-Star second baseman Alfonso Soriano and a player to be named - but they also will pay Rodriguez through 2025. All the deferred money owed by Texas - $36 million, including salaries from 2001-03 - will be converted to an assignment bonus, which makes the money guaranteed against a strike or lockout. The payout schedule will be pushed back to 2016-25 from 2011-20. QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:18 PM) A big waste of time, and of no relevance, since the Rangers compensation to Alex has nothing to do with a deal the Yanks may or may not try to make to move him. This was posted several times in response to SS'er asking about it. Yes, apparently some things can't be explained. Not one link I have found states that payment is made directly to Alex by the Rangers. OK Steff, you win. This and every other debate we may have in the future. LOL you are priceless and I love you for it.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 02:21 PM) I post the facts as I research them and not bulls*** I think may or may not happen, be true, or make no sense whatsoever but am too bullheaded to back off without a shred of evidence. Don't be surprised. I'm every bit about being sure to provide as accurate information as I can find. You should try it sometime. Ya know.. rather than just ASSuming. And FTR, in none of the articles, including the one I linked above, does it specify that the Rangers are cutting a check to Alex or that they are paying the Yanks who are then passing the funds on. As I stated earlier I have no idea how the compensation payment structure works. What have you proved? That Alex will continue to get his money and the Rangers will continue to pay? I've agreed to that hours ago. There is a difference in posting facts and the conclusions that are drawn from those facts. Gee Steff, I just read the links you originally gave and posted a link from Sports Illustrated. I am glad you had the time to research and find that site. It isn't one I normally read, but I am certain it is credible. If they write the Rangers are paying A-Rod and not the Yankees that portion, I'll believe it. I wasn't assuming, I was pointing out that nowhere did it say the Yankees are obligated to offer the exact same compensation package to the third team that they received from the Rangers. Seemingly, and with great fanfare, you found a link that reads the Rangers are paying A-Rod and not the Yankees that portion of the contract. In that case the Yankees wouldn't have to send any money in any new deal since they never receive any. At least that was the part in bold and red. I wonder then why Alex's full contract was added to the Yankee payroll. If the Yankees never receive any of the compensation, and it is paid directly by the Rangers to Alex, as this link proves, wouldn't it be part of their payroll? I guess some things just can't be explained.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 01:46 PM) As to whether it could be renegotiated -- yes, of course, but it is VERY doubtful that MLB would accept any renegotiation that reduced the value of the money passed along. So if the team wanted more up front money, MLB would presumably insist that the total payments up front must have at least the same present value as the deferred payments would have. Because MLB must approve all trades, there would be no reason to include that language. If A-Rod was imjured and on his way to Vienna for surgery, that money would be too low. If ARod was wearing 5 MVP and World Series wings after winning a couple Triple Crowns, the average mlb salary rose to $12,000,000, then it would be too high. MLB will judge the trade on today's economic conditions, not a few years ago. Using the theory "The Rangers Pay The Team Alex Plays For" there would be no possibility of changing any of the money unless the Ranger's agree. Making your statement above incorrect. The Yankees traded Boone and Soriano to the Rangers for A-Rod, Wilson, and $67 million. That trade was agreed to by mlb. If A-Rod is traded again, it will have to pass all the same hurdles. All the same checks by the Union, MLB, etc. There seems to be an assumption here that the more cash that trades hands makes the deal easier to get passed by mlb. I'm not certain of that. I know it will be pretty damn tough to trade him, and if the Ranger money has to pass through unchanged, it will be made even more difficult, perhaps impossible. That money was based in part on the player's involved and their current stats. Now if the Yankees are forced to trade A-Rod and that exact amout of money sent in that exact manner for X. Good luck. QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 02:10 PM) Ta-friggin-da!!!! http://www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper...www.thebatt.com Texas will pay $67 million of the $179 million left on Rodriguez's $252 million, 10-year contract, the most cash included in a trade in major league history. The Rangers get All-Star second baseman Alfonso Soriano and a player to be named - but they also will pay Rodriguez through 2025. The reports that say the Rangers will pay the Yankees are all wrong. thebatt.com is the only one to get the story correct. Thanks for finding that quote and being big enough to quote something that contradicted all your previous links that showed the Yankees getting paid. I must say I am surprised.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 12:06 PM) Its already been agreed upon. A portion of Arod's contract is paid by the Rangers each season. So now when the White Sox negotiate, they are basically talking about roughly 16 mill per year and at that point they can try and negotiate with the Yanks to include some more cash towards the deal. But the Rangers will be paying a few mill per year (whatever was originally agreed upon when the first trade was made) of Arod's contract with the Sox/Yanks or whoever picking up the 16 mill. The Rangers agreed to send money to the Yankees. We all agree on that. Some of that was deferred as was Alex's compensation. IYHO Is there any room for the next team to take the Ranger money under different terms than already agreed to between the Rangers and Yankees? For example, the next team may wish to have the money today to pay Alex's current contract. Could the Yankees agree to send a lower amount, sooner, to the new team. Or does the new team have to accept the Ranger's money the same way the Yankees are? Could the Yankees agree to send the same amount, only spread out over a longer period? Under the "Ranger's pay the team that Alex plays for" theory, unless the Ranger's would be willing to renegotiate, that would be impossible. I believe if the Union and MLB believe the new trade is fair, it could be done. Another reason I believe it could be more or less, is market conditions change and the deal should be evaluated based on today's market. Imagine of ARod lived to the hype and at a future date was now a 60/60 .375 guy with five MVP and World Series rings. He would be worth more than the $16 mil the Yankees are paying. In keeping with the fair trade theory, wouldn't it be unfair to include all the cash? When we see trades where a player plus cash is traded to another team, when is that money considered to be the new teams? Since the cash follows the money, if the Sox traded Crede for a Player plus $5 million, every subsequent trade would have to include cash with that player? They couldn't swap two players for that one and keep the money? However, there is an easy way around this even if the team has to accept the Ranger money as agreed. The Yankees send Alex to team 3, the Rangers send money to team 3 (why would the Rangers send money to the Yankees if Alex isn't playing there), and team 3 sends players and money to the Yankees. Or if the Rangers send money to the Yankees (again I guess that would be stupid), then team 3 could just send money back to the Yankees. Seems like a strange way to do it, but if the Ranger money has to go with the player, this would be a work around.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:56 AM) Clean your glasses because your view is obstructed. I said nothing about another team having to accept anything, stated the opposite several times actually. I said the money follows Alex. Regardless of how it gets there, it follows him. How it gets there is the entire debate here. You've said the Rangers pay the team Alex is playing for. So would there be new negotiations between the Rangers and that new team, or would the new team have to accept the terms that the Yankees and Rangers agreed to?

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:22 AM) The Yankees and Rangers don't have anything more to agree on. Why do you keep saying they do? The deal for the $67 million was done. There is approx $22 million of that $67 million left to go. If ARod moves, the $22 million goes with him. Why on earth would the Rangers CONTINUE to pay the Yankees money that they agreed to compensate Alex for..? Yes, Alex will get paid regardless. And a TOTAL of $67 million of his pay will come from the Texas Rangers. It doesn't restrict the Yankees. It has nothing to do with the Yankees. It makes sense that the Rangers continue to pay the Yankees funds to compensate a contract for a player that no longer plays there. I wouldn't be laughing about making that claim if you are indeed serious. Here is the practical difference. In your view, whatever team takes ARod, has to accept the compensation that the Yankees and Rangers agreed on. Whatever term and conditions, deferrals, etc. would be required to stay the same. The Yankees and whomever they are negotiating with could not accept anything different. In my view, the Yankees continue to receive the compensation that they agreed on with the Rangers and can negotiate the terms and amounts of any cash included with the next team. The Rangers are writing the same check, yet for some reason, in your view, they insisted as part of the negotiations, that they only pay the team Alex is playing for. I can't see a single reason why. I can't imagine the Yankees insisting on it. QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:47 AM) Wha...??? No refund...???? Sorry. Couldn't resist. What is so funny is my argument states the Rangers would still owe the Yankees, your argument would be that since he is no longer playing for the Yankees the Rangers wouldn't have to pay if he isn't playing.