Texsox

Breaking my heart

Sues town for not acting on protection order

Here is what the San Jose Mercury News thinks about Buerhle as an Ace. They must have been reading our boards

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Mar 20, 2005 -> 08:04 PM) My parents have made each other and the three of us promise to not leave them on life supports if there is no chance for any improvement. To be honest, they don't want it at all for any reason. For my mom, it had to do with what happened with her parents. This is a great time to clarify what life support means. Some consider a ventilator "life support" this is a feeding tube. I would not disagree with anyone who calls this "life support" but I could see some people not necessarily meaning a feeding tube as life support.

I think we are different, not better. We will need a couple breaks, pitching stays healthy, Frank returns quickly and at 100%, balls bounce the right way, etc. I could write a prediction finishing 1-3 possibly even 4. The problem I have with a 3 or 4th place finish is it presupposes that Cleveland and Detroit have leapfrogged us. I do not see it. I think we easily kept pace with Cleveland and Detroit had a longer way to go. Spring Training is too damn long. Let's count them.

Reminds me of a Farside Cartoon Shark: hmmm, soft and chewy on the outside, crunchy in the middle.

QUOTE(winodj @ Mar 20, 2005 -> 03:44 PM) But you can't pass a law to retroactively change a ruling. This bill would do just that. It would erase six years of legal proceedings and start with no history. It's as if the last six or seven years of legal wrangling to get this point would have never existed. If they'll do it in this situation, when else would they do this? But don't new laws always do that? They just enacted legislature to allow drilling in ANWR. That's been kicking around forever and with court rulings. Whenever a law is ruled unconstitutional the legislative branch has an opportunity to review and change the law to fit. This wouldn't change the ruling, it would require a new ruling. Some want her to die, some to live. If they replace the feeding tube, both sides will eventually get what they want. One side will keep her alive and under the care of her parents, the pro-death crowd will eventually get their wish also.

QUOTE(winodj @ Mar 20, 2005 -> 02:11 PM) From todays Washington Post article on the Schiavo thing. Another side question: Is it appropriate to obviate the constitution and erase a judicial decision because the Congress doesn't agree with it? Yes, that is our system. The legislature enacts laws, the judicial branch interprets them. When judges rule against a certain situation, enacting a new law is exactly what they should do. But only after screaming about activist judges for several days.

QUOTE(winodj @ Mar 20, 2005 -> 11:50 AM) Tex: I didn't make this judgment. Doctor after doctor did. Court after court did. I wish that the parties involved in this fight could get into a reasonable solution in either case instead of enlisting politicians to wrap themselves up in her sickbed for political gain. I agree 100% with you. It is very unfortunate that we have to make this judgement. I hope we elected the types of people we would want making this decision for us. I can not fathom standing by and watching a human being dehydrate and not give them water? We wouldn't kill a convicted mass murderer that way. Yet that is the fate that this poor woman is going through. Miracles happen. Some doctors believe with continues therapy, there is hope. Keeping things as they were keeps her alive. Killing her helps no one except the person that wants her dead. But, hey that's just the conservative in me.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 20, 2005 -> 11:46 AM) I've decided to be completely fair about this so I'm compiling a list. I'm taking the top 30 in NPERA amongst starters & assigning reverse pt values. If you ranked #1 = 30 pts, & ranked #30 = 1 pt. Then it's simply a matter of totaling the pts for each player over the past 4 yrs. That will give you an ACE ranking so to speak. IMHO, trying to put a numerical score on "ace", is like trying to define a beautiful sunset. In the end, it is in the opinion of the speaker. If you need numerical justification to call or not call someone an ace, go for it. Like pornography, most people know it when they see it.

Jugg I agree with most everything, except the same league requirement. Randy Johnson is an Ace in either league. I cannot fathom a list of aces that wouldn't include him. For that matter, Roger Clemens was an Ace last year, even though he switched leagues. But this is really all about semantics. There is no written criteria, and each person will draw the line in a different place. If we are going to place a linquistic label without a set criteria, then the answer is probably more linquistic than mathematical. When I think of ace, the pitcher must be the guy you want in Game 7. The guy you want on the mound to stop a three or four game team skid. The guy who the other pitchers look to and emulate. It's about attitude as much as won loss records, era, and the stuff thats stats heads will bring up. The guy who doesn't have three bad outings in a row. The guy with both quality wins and "quality" loses. Is Buehrle an ace? I believe he's as close as we get right now. If someone wants to call him an Ace, I'd would not disagree, but I'm not quite ready to. I think this will be the year of Mark and in October, we will be calling him an Ace and the best in the A.L.

QUOTE(winodj @ Mar 20, 2005 -> 08:42 AM) He pursued an aggressive course of therapy for five years. With no improvement, and according to every medical professional who has reviewed this that I've seen, no chance of improvement. If she's in a perpetual vegetative state with no hope of improvement, why would you try to get her further therapy? I agree that some treatments have proven to be of no help at this point, but who would consider taking her outside as an aggressive course of therapy? I disagree that there is no hope for her improvement. Just look at her parents and the tens of millions of people who want her to not dehydrate to death. There are medical experts on both sides with different opinions. Why are people so quick to want to see her die? If she is in a perpetual vegetative state, then she isn't being harmed by the care. If she isn't in a perpetual state, and we stop feeding and giving her water, she will be harmed. Who is harmed by keeping her alive? Who is helped by her dying?

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 19, 2005 -> 10:51 PM) Yes and no. At the right price, you should take chances. That might be a shy attitude, but you shouldn't spend big bucks on a huge gamble. That's what I'd consider one of Kenny's positives, is that he takes some gambles on guys, not huge risks, but some nice rewards if they pan out. Uribe, Schoenwies (first half '04), Loaiza, etc -- all examples. And, yes, stars will ultimately get the big bucks -- which I'm not against. I just want the Bears to give the big bucks to 'the right guy' -- I don't feel Konerko is the right guy to be making $10 million plus on this team. I agree that the White Sox need to take gambles, which brings me back full circle. The gamble is the Sox need to pay a guy $2mil for a $5 season. Or extented out $5 mil for a $10 mil season. They can't seem to pay a guy $10 mil for a $10 mil season, and certainly can't pay $10 mil for a $5 mil season or worse. What you get with expensive guys is consistency. Who is the base you are building on? The Sox, being a small market team, must build a base with the Credes of the world and hope for a Loiza to come along. The teams that are in the playoffs every year build a base with guys like (pre-injury) Maggs, Lee, Konerko, Thomas and then go out and fill in missing pieces. How would you like to have Pods and Lee competing for a position? Pierz and Olivo? So I mention again, I'm bored with the process. Knowing this will be the future of the franchise. Build around average players, hope for a couple breakout seasons, be oh so close.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 20, 2005 -> 01:19 AM) According to the web site run by her parents the malpractice suit was paid out in 1998, and since near $450K has been paid to medical facilities and to lawyers with fees in excess of $200K still due. MHO, I think they should let her pass. Just basing that on what I would want. I, no matter how much my parents would want it, would not want to be such a burden. As well.. they are not medical professionals and could not care for me alone. The cost, I imagine, has got to be extreme. I agree that I would not want to be a burden like that to my parents. I also watched my parents bury my little brother and I wouldn't want that either. If it was their wishes to keep me alive, I would rather they have the choice. It's a shame that so many resources that could be used for her care, instead are being paid to attorneys. She is in a hospice facility which is not as expensive as a nursing home and she does not require any extrordinary or specific medical care. She breathes on her own, heart beats fine on it's own, she just needs help eating. An issue that has not been brought up is care after the parents die. There is the possibility she could outlive them, that is unless the death penalty is carried out. I am certain if it comes down to a money to keep her alive, the tens of millions of Americans that are praying for her to be spared death by dehydration, would come through and donate enough money to keep her alive. And if they are going to allow her to die. At least make it as gently as we would a serial murderer, not slow and torturous. And any guesses why the husband has denied any therapy? Denied permission for the hospice staff to take her outside? Denied any and all efforts to help this lady beyond what he is legally mandated to do?

For those of you using Outlook, Palm Desktop, and other PIM and would like to have the complete Sox schedule loaded, Click Here Back to your regular programming. Tip: You may wish to turn off the reminder before importing. It does import it as an event with time.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 19, 2005 -> 06:14 PM) As far as Uribe and Rowand, I'd like to think that we can lock them up early, rather than doing what we've done with Konerko and Maggs these past two years (waiting till the contract year). Keep them on with the three year contracts, and anywhere between the second year and the beginning of the third year, work hard at extending these guys, especially if they're still producing well and being exceptional at what they're exceptional at (defense, slugging, etc), give them what they're worth. One can overpay a little bit, but not to the point where it will take away in other areas. I half agree with your statement about building and replacing players with better players. There's areas where you could say that's true (Lee>>>>Pods), but there's also areas where you could say that isn't true (I'd much rather have Pierzynski over Olivo, Olivo hasn't done much in his career). Ideally, over the next couple of years, we'll have an influx of good young players that will replace some of our older guys, and we're able to really cash in at other positions because this young, cheap talent coming up. Unfortunately, when you haven't won a WS in almost 90 years, it's going to be as far from ideal as possible. All excellent points. I would rather have Pierz but that wasn't the trade. We went Olivo for Ben Davis to shore up pitching, which was my point. I would prefer Olivo to Davis, but to get Garcia, we needed to drop back in another position. Would you agree then that we are in the position of needing to gamble on talent, then pay for proven? Further, isn't a proven track record why stars are paid what they are?

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 19, 2005 -> 07:51 PM) The money has already been paid out and most of it's gone. FWIU there's less than 20K left and that's going to be given to the hospis she's currently in. Michael also turned down 10 million.. IMO, that makes this not about $$ for him. According to a Fox News report, any medical malpractice suits will start after she dies. If I understood the report, there is also some death benefits. But, just because there is possibly some money involved, I do not think it is fair to claim that is his motivation. I don't know him. I fear at this point it is him vs. the parents, and possibly neither side is being totally altruistic. Although, realistically look at their lives if she lives or dies. Lives: He would have to get a divorce and then move on with his new family. The parents would be in a 24/7 care mode dedicated to her. Dies: He could move along with his new family. The parents would grieve, and eventually, I pray, overcome the anger, pain, and resentment. Again, I come out on the side of allowing the parents to continue to feed and care for her.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 19, 2005 -> 06:38 PM) It's not over yet. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...oman_congress_8 This is expected to pass the Senate & the House & be signed into law by Bush. That will give Terri more time. Is it better or worse for the nation to let Terri live? I think it's better. There might not be any logic to it but sometimes the human condition needs to trump logic. I think this is one of those times. People are willing to shoulder the cost & work hard to try & improve Terri's life. That's a rare thing in itself. humanity is better served by allowing her parents to care for her and for her to live.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 19, 2005 -> 05:07 PM) Is it killing someone when they couldn't survive on their own, and they had made the decesion that they didn't want artificial means keeping them alive? That is a difficult decision, and I honestly am not 100% certain. But I do believe that *not* killing them, is easier to justify, than killing them. What have we lost if we allow the parents to keep her alive, receive therapy which she has been denied, allow her outside, which her husband has denied, allow her parents to take care of her? He can move on with his new life. I do support someone's desire to die with dignity. Unfortunately in this case, there is no definitive written plan. And I wonder if mine differentiates between a feeding tube and ventilators, etc.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 19, 2005 -> 03:45 PM) OK -- I see what you're saying. But we haven't really had "that guy" yet. By "that guy", I mean the offensive force, the complete player who really deserves that big paycheck. You may disagree with me, but Magglio was the closest we've had to that, and even he wanted four-five million too much. A healthy Maggs, IMHO, was worth in the area of 10-12 million, and he wanted 15-17 million. Next to Mags, I thought Lee was our next best player. And now he's gone, because the organization thought he didn't fit the mold. The guys that I want this team to hold onto, and lock up long term, are Uribe and Rowand -- if they're able to repeat or come close to last year. Both play exceptional defense, are young, and are forces at the plate. Neither are OBP guys, but they do a lot to make up for that in their ability to hit for X-tra base hits. And did I mention defense? Both of these guys are our up-and-coming studs -- or the closest we have to that (and I'm not talking about prospects). I also want them to keep Pierzynski long term, or at least till he proves that he can't handle the abilities behind the plate. I guess what I'm saying is, we can't give the big bucks to guys who aren't star players. That's not to say I want a Joe Crede at every position, but I think the money can be better spent elsewhere (as far as Konerko, and if he wants ten million + -- if he wants 7-8, I think that's a lot more reasonable...). I am not seeing a building process. We seemingly cannot build with any All-Stars. You mention two players who, by the time their contracts are up, will probably command too much money. I just do not have confidence in the team keeping a player long term who makes more than 7 or 8 million. Pierzynski has got to prove himself before I'd agree with keeping him long term. 3 teams in 3 years is not confidence inspiring. The balance may be where to spend the payroll. I believe up the middle is important and that fits in with you mentioning Piers and Rowand. So perhaps 1st base isn't the place to spend money, and a case could also be made to not spend it on a DH either. Another thought, each time a starter is replaced, building would mean replacing him with a better player. We don't seem to be doing that. We take from this pile (Lee, Olivo, Maggs unavoidable) to add to this pile. It doesn't seem like a net gain. Retooled a bit, but we knock down high spots to fill the holes and we wind up with average all the way around.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 11:41 AM) My equally smarmy 2 word argument for spousal rights - especially as averse as I tend to be toward all the Bible claptrap: Genesis 2 Therefore a man foresekes his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. Marriage trumps blood. 'Cuz the Bible says so. I agree that is God's word, and the husband should be making the decision. And because you were kind enough to being the Bible into the discusion, I am certain you would agree then the husband should be following . . . Matthew 5:21 - Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: I'm not smart enough to really understand Genesis 2, but I do understand, Thou Shall Not Kill. This is so different from using extraordinary equipment like ventilators to keep someone alive. So Jim, what happens when the hsuband isn't following God's word??

I should have been clearer. I am bored with the process. It doesn't matter who the player is, the comments are always the same. Greedy player for not taking the team's offer. I believe Kong and the White Sox should negotiate the best contract they can and in the end, if it means Konerko stays great, if he leaves, that's fine also. I can not fault either side for doing their best. What bothers me the most, is the team cannot seem to keep their best players. (Frank is the exception, and if he was a position player, not a DH, I'll bet he would have been gone also). We keep dumping our best players to "fill holes". Soon we will have nothing but Crede's all around. A bunch of $3mil per year guys, a .500 record and no playoff appearances. Signing (enter player name here) is always presented as giving something up. I guess what we have is a situation where as soon as a player should be payed more than $5 mil per season, he must be dealt and someone else brought in.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 01:59 PM) Wow, you have got real problems if the person you are married to, you can't trust to decide whether to keep you on life support or not. There are various stages of divorce. Many of them occur while the people are legally married. In decisions between life and death, I choose life.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 19, 2005 -> 10:23 AM) I've actually not had rat, as far as I know. I just know that all of the things I've had that are supposed to taste like chicken (gator, rattlesnaje, froglegs, etc.) don't. Mmmm rattlesnake, great slow roasted over a fire or grilled. A little greasy, but if you give it enough time, not directly on the heat, the grease seems to cook out. I thought that LA strategy to controll nutria by teaching people to eat them was awesome, too bad it isn't working. The cost is hurting for one thing, 5 minutes to process them is about 5X longer than commercially viable.

"Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!" You know how to whistle, don't you, Steve? You just put your lips together - and blow He-e-e-e-re's Johnnie! You don't understand! I could've had class. I could've been a contender. I could've been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am. Let's face it......It was you, Charley A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti I love the smell of napalm in the morning...smells like...victory Mrs. Robinson, you're trying to seduce me. Aren't you? What do you mean, I'm funny?...You mean the way I talk? What?...Funny how? I mean, what's funny about it?...But I'm funny how? I mean, funny like I'm a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh? I'm here to f--kin' amuse you? What do you mean, funny? Funny how? How'm I funny??...How the f--k am I funny? What the f--k is so funny about me? Tell me? Tell me what's funny!...