Texsox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Globetrotters

Just an aside. If we continue to bail out industries, but it does not result in saving employment, have we spent that money wisely?

Current: Raiders All Time: Clippers Runner Up: Washington Generals

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 02:42 PM) True. The person below me plans on drinking a bottle of booze as a Christmas gift.... True, actually several bottles of rum The person below me has thought about quitting their job recently

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 02:40 PM) I will now have their old jingle (to the tune of the Empire Carpet jingle" running through my head all day. Steve and Gary, Scumbag , Worm Meat....Idiots

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 02:50 PM) yea but it could be a big boost to the divorce lawyer industry if everyone gets divorced because of gay marriage. It would be a big boost because there would be even more marriages that will need to be ended.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 01:50 PM) False. The person below me has never killed a mockingbird. False, I am a Texan and love my guns. The person below me has at least three leather items with them today.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 02:05 PM) The Veterans Committee sucks anyway. If you can't get in on your first 15 tries, you don't deserve to get in. Are you suggesting that baseball writers are better, more knowledgeable, voters than the guys who are already in the Hall? I don't necessarily disagree, but I think having those two groups is a nice check and balance. I also like that the final gatekeepers are players.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 01:56 PM) Not at all. I'm merely talking about how I would cast my hypothetical vote. If I saw somebody as a 50/50 case, I would vote "No." What would you standard be?

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 01:54 PM) Are you suggesting a Hall of Fame should designate less than "the greatest of players"? Sort of a "Hall of Pretty Good for Their Time?" Yes, the HOF is a museum, and yes, it celebrates the history of the game; but it also celebrates much more than just that. Specifically, with respect to individual player enshrinement, I believe it not only celebrates, but separates and honors, the best of the best. The most traditional way of gauging that has always been statistics, but not always. Human voters can weigh and assess intangbiles in a way computers can not. Have some inductees been less than "the best of the best?" Unquestionably. Does that mean we should gauge everyone's admission by that lowest common denominator? I think not. I'm not sure I get your other point. I happen to think "The Godfather" surpassed "Citizen Kane" as a film, but that doesn't diminish my admiration for "Citizen Kane" on its own merits, or warrant Kane's removal from any pantheon of cinema. Pick a number for the "best of the best". It's a moving target. As it is, the list continually increases. With players constantly surpassing the achievements of players, if we truly want the "best of the best" shouldn't some players be removed as other pass them in stats? Perhaps there should be a shrine to the greatest 25 players of all time that changes with time, then the rest of the Hall. Would your visit to the HoF be ruined because Baines or Santo were included?

I wonder when newspaper publishers will be plying private jets to Washington to talk about a bailout I was only paying half attention, I thought it was still in the rumors stage and yet to be officially announced.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 01:33 PM) I just happen to think "borderline" cases should be kept out. Isn't the voting standard 75%, would you want that raised? But wouldn't there always be a "borderline" until it takes 100%?

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 01:26 PM) It's here for me...the week of the GM Meetings, yay. I have an online final today. but Blackboard is down. Great start. I have one on blackboard, and two regular. I am also trying to nail down the last requirements for credit on my internship. That and make a few posts.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 01:22 PM) Not literally it isn't; but it is in the sense of being baseball's pinnacle of achievement. When "interesting-ness" is deemed an official, Hall-worthy criteria, they can let in Eddie Gaedell. Unless and until they do, Santo should be kept out. I have no problem with their being 290 or so members, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Every time its been drawn with respect to Ronnie (and regardless of who has done the drawing), he's been on the wrong (but correct, imo) side. That, I have no problem with at all. If it is suppose to designate only the greatest of players, why aren't players removed when other players surpass those achievements? It's a museum that celebrates the history of the game. If it was all about stats, just list the stats necessary to achieve membership and forget about voting.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 01:19 PM) Send me the money instead. You have a much better chance of getting it back from me than you do this stock. The stock will be canceled with a near certainty. Yes I would, but with you, I could not write those loses off

My comments were more general than specific to Santo. In Santo's defense, the baseball community has built up his hopes quite a few times.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 01:12 PM) I'd be very cautious. Its halted and at $1 because if it goes bankrupt, it goes to the bulletin boards, and if/when TribCo reorganizes, there is no guarantee the stock will be worth anything. They can elect to walk away from it. It will be interesting to know who the major shareholders are that are left. Follow the money as they say. My guess it was not primarily institutional sell offs that lowered the price. And this becomes an investment along the lines of I'll take in the 6th a $10 tri-box 2-4-5-9

I'm considering a buy at that price. Off to do a little research.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 12:46 PM) Ours went from looking like this paper, to editing out the stupid stuff, to totally shutting comments down. I believe that is the responsible route, although a forums like you run would seem ideal for a newspaper, but it would have to be moderated.

QUOTE (G&T @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 12:46 PM) But Jocketty wouldn't be the one shooting down the rumor. He'd want people to think it's active and see if someone will up the price. If anything, KW has set the price on Dye at a young starter with ace potential and another prospect. He would be telling people he turned down Dye.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 7, 2008 -> 03:35 PM) He's an irritating announcer. But I agree that he deserves a HoF bid for his playing time. It would seem that some people would like about 25 players in the Hall and no one else, as high as they set their standards. It's a fricking museum for the game of baseball. It isn't holy, it isn't offering immortality. It's a museum. A Santo display would be very interesting. More interesting than some 1915 shortstop that no one has ever heard of.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 12:36 PM) Ah, when you put it like that, it makes sense. IMO it just totally takes the professionalness out of the look of the site. Newspaper edit the letters to the editor in print for space and other concerns. They generally leave the on line alone to promote a free exchange of ideas. My local paper finally gave that s*** up and now edits comments when complaints come in.

The Reds could be floating this one with the hopes of setting the market price for Bailey that high. On the backside they could be whispering, hey the Sox are offering Dye, whatcha got?

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 12:05 PM) I don't know Sam's take on it, but I liken it to Michael Cain's approach to filmmaking. He has had some great roles in some great films, and he's also been in some real turkeys. And he has nearly 140 films under his belt since he first started out in film in the mid-1950s. When asked why he wasn't more selective about the roles he took, Cain says proudly that he's nevver turned down a part if he can fit it into his schedule. He grew up in working class London and has a very workingclass attitude toward acting. He's grateful to have the talent to be an actor rather than a ditchdigger, and for him an actor should be spending his time acting rather than waiting for the perfect role that might never come. Gene Hackman said about the same thing when asked if he was becoming overexposed. I sometimes think audiences believe artists can take great reviews and applause to the supermarket and exchange them for food.