Texsox

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 25, 2005 -> 01:02 PM) Didn't you not like any of the moves last year either?? Kenny knows what he's doing. Also..no we're not getting away from smallball but we needed another middle of the order bat. I felt that without a .300 hitter, someone to get on base, the team would have a hard time scoring runs. Small ball is nice, but someone has to get on. I think I was correct, they did struggle to score runs. I'm not saying I dislike this move. I think it is the best Kenny could do because I have almost no hope that Konerko will be resigned. It will be a huge steal *if* Thome returns healthy and *if* his body is holding up and *if* he adjusts to AL pitching. I am saying this is vintage Sox baseball. See above where Kenny said he couldn't get Pods or Uribe *if* they hadn't come off less than average seasons. Buy low and sell high is how SS described it. AJ, a move I liked, was coming off a season where he was labeled a clubhouse cancer, so *if* that was wrong, it would be a great signing. Another *if* came through. We are almost always signing cheaper players with *ifs* over proven guys in or near their prime.

A bigger question mark with Crede is his agent. Boras and the Sox do not have a smooth working relationship. Regardless of Crede's success, he will be hard to sign to another contract. The team should start planning now for his replacement.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Nov 25, 2005 -> 10:48 AM) You make it sound much easier than it is. Konerko will not cost only $10 million plus. He will likely receive $13 million a year for 4-5 years. That's a guaranteed $52-$65 million dollars. Thome, when healthy, is a better hitter than Konerko. I think people are forgetting this fact. Thome for 3 years, $24 million >>>>> Konerko for 4-5 years, $52-$65 million If we are able to re-sign Konerko, we are even better. I'm not making it sound easier, I am trying to point out this is a typical Sox move. I should have been clearer Konerko will cost more than $10 mil, I agree. That is why I wrote $10 mil plus, choose the plus you want, plus $2 mil plus $3 mil plus $4 mil whatever. And look how often Thome and *if* are in the same sentance. *If* he returns to form, *if* his shoulder rehab works. This is classic Sox moves. Grab a guy with "ifs" for less and let the guy without "ifs" go. That is why my position is the World Series changed nothing. Konerko will not be signed, Thomas will. And people will write Thomas for 2 years $8 mil + incentives >>>>>> Konerko for 4-5 years, $52-$65 *IF* Frank is healthy and produces his regular numbers. This has been a fact of White Sox baseball for what seems like forever. Kenny has played the *if* game with an almost perfect record. Does this also mean we are getting away from small ball?

Thome - coming off an injury, and a terrible season by his standards, with many ???? for $7 mil Konerko - coming off an All-Star, LCS MVP, season. No ???? for $10 mil plus Which do we sign? Things have not changed as much as y'all are thinking. I will cheerfully retract my statement of Konerko is signed, until then, it's vintage WS. This trade provides cover for not signing him. There is far less pressure not to sign him.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 25, 2005 -> 10:09 AM) After reading SL&P, I usually need to listen to Rush for an hour to deprogram myself. or vice versa The only other character in history that was right more than Rush to their followers was Jesus. Rush has created the most successful character ever.

I didn't deep fry this year. So I had little to do except watch the That 70s Show marathon. Brining the turkey didn't seem to make much of a difference. Brian was born in early December, I did enjoy that first Christmas. I don't think I saw him for two days, except to change diapers.

Mapping software, 5 states. Talk about a full time job. I like guys that put a little effort into the deal. Think the boys in cell block L will enjoy playing Leg-O with him?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 25, 2005 -> 10:00 AM) Edited for accuracy. No I was 5 at the time If I'm going to lie, I damn sure will make it a biggie. How was babies 1st Thansgiving?

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Nov 25, 2005 -> 09:48 AM) 1. I'm not I4E! 2. Both he and I love the US...we just don't like our Prez. 3. Every country in the world has "spies" in the US, and the US has "Spies" in every country in the world. Don't be so naive as to think otherwise. 1. I'm guessing he borrowed your login for a day. It was fun. 2. OK. 3. I agree. But just because that is a fact, doesn't mean we have to accept it. People will commit crimes, we prosecute them for it. When we are supporting a country with all this aid, it is an insult that they would in turn commit a crime against the United States. If you invite me to your home, pay for my airfare, rent me a car, prepare a nice dinner, and in return I rip off the family sterling silver place settings, you might feel a little betrayed. I feel betrayed by every ally that sends spies to the US, whose diplomats use privilege to circumvent US laws, who in general do not act responsibly in this country. When any country is successful in stealing US government secrets it potentially puts us at risk. Now we are in the position of trusting that country does not use that against us. The same country that supposedly is our ally. In this case I can hear your brother claiming "Israel would never harm us" but then why spy in the first case?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 25, 2005 -> 08:12 AM) Now that I agree with. On any political front. And Tex, Rush is an asshole, pretty much just like the "mainstream media". Rush's character he portrays on the radio and on TV is that of a pompous ass. I am fairly certain he is not like that in real life. But I would rather listen to you everyday than him.

Some reporters have waaaaay to much time on their hands, or one of his rivals spent some time working the arvhives. As I was reading it, I was thinking what a coincidence I was drafted with the A's in 1966. As a 5-year old catching prospect.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Nov 24, 2005 -> 07:13 PM) No FZ quote on this topic, Flaxx?! If not, I gotta represent... "I detest 'love lyrics'. I think one of the causes of bad mental health in the United States is that people have been raised on 'love lyrics'. You're a young kid and you hear all those 'love lyrics', right? Your parents aren't telling you the truth about love and you can't really learn about it in school. You're getting the bulk of your behavior norms mapped out for you in the lyrics to some dumb f***ing love song. It's a subconscious training that creates a desire for an imaginary situation which will never exist for you. People who buy into that mythology go through life feeling that they got cheated out of something." That was just so beautiful. Love Hurts Somebody done somebody wrong song He stopped loving her today Your cheatin' heart Plenty of balance out there. But your point is very accurate.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Nov 24, 2005 -> 05:12 PM) I wonder if I can remember how to gut a deer? Last year, for a Boy Scout Order of the Arrow Pow Wow, one of the leaders shot a deer early that morning, at first light, and we showed the boys how to field dress and process the deer. I was standing there and noticed the entry and exit holes and started walking away quickly before the first cut. A couple of my Scouts started laughing at me, thinking I was too squeamish to watch. Instead they got to learn about gut shot deer. Edward was under time pressure to have a deer and took a less than ideal shot.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 24, 2005 -> 03:02 PM) Since you are such the know it all, maybe you should run for President. And you could take over Rush's show . . .Then all would be perfect in the universe

http://www.thisislondon.com/showbiz/articl...?source=PA&ct=5 Nice to see a celebrity that isn't trying for publicity points during their wedding.

There is no "extra" Thome money. He was traded for based on the net value of his contract, not the gross. They would not have taken him at full price, probably no one would.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Nov 24, 2005 -> 10:54 AM) Only a trace? Must be having an off day. not to worry, others around here will pick up the slack . . .

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Nov 24, 2005 -> 10:08 AM) I don't think there is ANY way a law or court ruling of any kind can take the gray out of some similar situations. great thought, you are so correct.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 24, 2005 -> 08:08 AM) Let's just totally get rid of the CIA then. Seriously. WTF are we spending money on it for if "we can't believe any of it anymore"? I guess we could just make the same mistake again. Or we could take a more critical thought process, and not just accept whatever they are saying. There could be a middle ground between dismantling and considering them infallible. Especially before we begin a course that will kill thousands of people. But hey, that's just me. I get squeemish about killing people.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthoma...681/detail.html

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle....HOLE.xml&rpc=22 Plus side: Tightens the border. Places the rest of South America on the same field as Mexico, quickens the process, will reduce the undocumented worker population, Minuses: Expensive. Detaining and providing transportation is expensive. Illegals will try riskier and riskier routes, increasing their deaths and possibly for the Border Patrol Agents. It will be a nightmare for legals caught up in this. People with legitimate fears in their homeland could end up in peril. The Statue of Liberty will ave to be changed to give us some, well maybe a few, or possibly non of your huddled masses yearning to be free.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 07:43 PM) And what kind of liberal would you be if you couldn't be kept at your word? a conservative one?

Jeckle mentioned something that always troubled me and I do not see the fairness. Two people are drunk, equally intoxicated, they hook up. The guy is held responsible as a sexual predator and the woman is a victim. She cannot give consent because she is drunk and therefor not responsible for her actions. Yet the guy is also drunk and held responsible. That doesn't make sense. She could even be the aggressor, but the male can never claim it was he who was raped. But, it is equally unsettling to think it was open season on drunk females. I see the predator side of the male being, and can't imagine the horror of being a woman and waking up after a night of celebrating and find out you passed out and some guy has raped you and you could not hold him responsible. No easy answer here in my mind. One side feels wrong, unequal, and unfair. The other side creates an opportunity for a most reprehensible situation.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1888035,00.html

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 01:41 PM) Been pheasant hunting for years. We have partial membership to a hunting club up in Wisconsin and also have some working relationships with some farmers. We have a nine year old Springer Spaniel that is a fantastic bird-dog--and an even better family dog--and usually hunt with another 5 year old Brittney. I'm not really familiar with a hunting club up on 12, but the town you might be thinking of is Richmond, IL. I still take issue with the non-outdoorsman Chicagoans. Although we're far from outdoorsman in the truest sense--don't camp, hunt deer, hunt other game, etc.--I have a lot of friends and family that are pretty serious hunter/fishermen. http://www.richmond-huntclub.com/ Yes, it was Richmond and the club is there.