Texsox

Let's dream really big Maybe we can lose in the playoffs for 4 or 5 years straight WHoo Whoo Playoff Loses Whoo Whooo Party on Michigan Avenue I love your goals for the Sox. I wish you were GM. Are you at least hoping for a second round exit? Or is just making the playoffs enough to be a success? You are signing a guy for the length of the contract. Some players will perform great, others will not. Some will have great year 1 others, their exit year. I am not trying to defend Maggs and his signing. Again, enjoy baseball the way you like, all this performance to contract as compared to other players. Tell me how the White Sox fans today are better off without Colon?

I'm looking at your sig gallery

Can anyone verify what the Sox' final offer was? It seems like it was misreported at least once. I think anyone who changes companies for money is a greedy asshole. Why would anyone decide where to work based on money? :fyou That should never even come up in the interview. Maggs should accept whatever the Sox can offer, I'm certain they are giving him way more than he deserves anyways. Come to think of it, why do players even need contracts, the greedy bastards. Now I'm getting confused again, it is wrong to tell the owners to spend more, but ok to tell players to make less?!

Yet when Sadaam got tough on crime and executed a lot of people, we objected.

And then when Carlos's contract is up and he looks for bigger dollars, drop him and rebuild again. As long as we continue to draft smart, pick up a FA or two, we can stay a threat to make the playoffs.

I can accept that. Keep fielding a team with guys making $1 million to $4 or $5 million and hope to catch a winner. Just have some above average guys everywhere and if they make a couple All-Star teams while under contract, try and trade them for some draft picks and prospects before they cost a bunch of money.

I agree with you 100%. I think Harris has been great on the roster and has really helped this team. Would you think less of Harris if he was making $3,000,000? What I cannot understand is (and maybe I'm reading this wrong) that some people would rather have a .275 10hr 85 rbi guy who is "worth it" for $300,000 than Maggs and his stats at $14,000,000.

So, if I am understanding this correctly. No to Maggs if we can have someone with less stats and a lot less money? For example a guy at minimum wage hitting .280 with 10 hr 55 rbi This is getting to my point.

I am getting frustrated because I cannot find the words to accurately discribe by point. Yes I understand that finances are a part of the game and filling a roster is as much about payroll as finances. But why accept less than a WS, because of finances? Why judge a player against a balance sheet? Why idolize the As because they lose in the playoffs?

So you are judging a player based on his paycheck? Does that add to your enjoyment of the game?

I guess I didn't see when they started reporting contracts on the backs of baseball cards. Am I suppose to watch the games and tell my kids "look at that play, he's making only $1.3 million and that may be on web gems tonight!" vs. on the same play "he's making $12,000,000; damn right he should make that play"

So as a fan you enjoy a player who is playing above his contract and not enjoying a player who is playing below his contract, regardless of performance? That's what I have a problem with. I enjoy watching E-Lo. I don't care if he's making $10,000,000 or $1,000,000.

OK, I'm getting into a few flame wars here and I am wondering what everyone means when they say a player is "worth it" Worth it to whom? The fans? The owners? Their team mates? Please what's your definition?

She has been working undercover for the liberal media for 10 years. Thank God Rush figured it out.

Juggs, Please list the "40 yr history of the harm liberal activist judges can do with respect to democracy." Are we talking civil rights? abortion? Brown v. the School Board?,

Edinburg Roadrunners in independant baseball. In MLB, Houston Astros if I had to pick one.

My issue is "worth it" Which is better? .275 at league min or .300 at $12,000,000 in the standings? Are we talking "worth it" to the fans, or "worth it" to the owners? For example; If the season ended today, the Sox are home watching the playoffs. Would Colon and a couple wins at $12,000,000 have been worth it? To the fans, I think yes. To the owners, probably not. I guess I'm a fan. I'll be happy to respond once we have some definitions.

Is this close?

sorry, when you said small fine I was thinking pocket money small fine say up to $100 dollars. As long as they pay restitution brings it to even, PLUS some punishment, I dislike calling it community service, since when is helping your community a bad thing?

Well Brando, we can go back to the "These kids can play" days and white flag it. That worked. Sox ownership has convinced a generation of Sox fans that losing in the playoffs to better financed teams is success. How many people look at Oakland and think why can't we be like them? And they have not been to the World Series in 14 years. We are accepting mediocrity and that saddens me. Oakland is a nice franchise, but I judge teams by World Series. Would you seriously rather be Oakland with zero WS in ten years, but a bunch of playoff appearances, or the Marlins with a couple rings and far fewer playoff appearances?

YASNY, I agree 100% with your post, but the Sox only capture those casual fans if they have a product those fans can identify with. If the Sox aren't winning their division and reaching a WS, the casual fan, who we are fighting for, isn't going to jump to the Sox either, they will just fade away. We need to build around an All-Star who the city can identify with. Frank is nearing retirement age and has never been Sosa-esque with the media. Maggs is the heir apparent. How much more is he worth as the symbol of the White Sox?

:puke

Two Australian men may be prosecuted after they chewed live mice and bit off their tails as part of a pub competition to win a holiday.

The Oakland A's last appeared in a World Series in 1990, They last won a World Series in 1989. I can see how you define success. There is no arguing with you. I define success with World Series wins. I guess losing is ok if it is done correctly. Are you defining success as A playoff appearance with a payroll approprate to the attendance with players who are all earning less than other players with comparable stats?

Reagan wanted an escalaton of the military and rightfully has been called the Patron Saint of the Military. Congress did not want to cut other programs to fund the military build up. So they compromised and did both. They also increased taxes in 1982 or 1983 to try and pay for all this. Interesting that conservatives give Reagan credit for the economic turn around and not the Dems. As was just pointed out ultimately the Dems approved the budget. I believe their is an economy of Presidential personality. People save for a rainy day, generally when their are clouds. They spend when times look good. Reagan's personality was a ray of sunshine after a long time of uncertainty. Clinton's personality turbo charged the publis as well. Politicians can reference "leading economic indicators" all they want but the public knows how they feel in their gut and that's what drives spending, investment in expansion, and saving.