Texsox

Reds keep paying Griffy according to CBS sportsline. Interesting. So we basically sold them a couple players.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 08:19 AM) Probably, but, I think part of the appeal of weed for younger folks is that its illegal. I think there is a better distribution systen in place to get weed into a 18 year old hands then a beer.

QUOTE (Cubano @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 06:50 AM) Are you canadian? They defected in Canada. By the way, there is a USA law called Cuban Adjustment Law. If you oppose this law, then you should call your US Congress representative. Actually I favor equality in the law. Perhaps expand it to cover Mexico. You do not post in Filibuster, but I live on the Mexico border and favor making it easier for people to come here. I was tweaking a few noses of those who complain when a yardman or waiter "defects" but can't wait for a SP with a 95 MPH fastball to defect.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 09:00 AM) What the hell is taking so long for everything to come out? Jesus Christ it's annoying. Doesn't the score have people that can atleast contact White Sox management and find out a thing or two about the prospects or what the hell is going on with the logjam of slow in our lineup. The last thing the team wants to do is announce one of their players may be traded. Makes the player feel unloved. So it will be quiet unless someone leaks something or the deal is done. Isn;t the deadline today for unrestricted trades?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 07:54 AM) It could be a Foxsports radio station, because it was one of their guys who broke the story. Also at least in my eyes, it makes the most sense. And a Chicago station would pick that up in a heartbeat.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 07:53 AM) Are you still looking for 160 mil over 8 years in the offseason? That's what Boras says he'll get me

And I am starting to feel a Konerko to the DL thing happening. Griffey is DH insurance.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 07:48 AM) Interesting. That means both the Fields and Anderson stuff is 99% not true. Why would El Paso have better information then Chicago? Doesn't make sense. A PTBNL, based on performance makes the most sense. Plus, another low prospect. This doesn't fill a Sox need, Cincy is not going anywhere. They unload the salary and hopefully get Junior in the playoffs before he retires. No one else is really looking to trade for him.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 07:46 AM) Its not a numbers game. Tex dropped alot of value when he became a rental player. I'm old and at the end of my career, two months is all I got

First of all, and to get accustomed to married life, what does your bride say? Do that. I personalized each gift to the groomsmen instead of a one gift fits someone, kind of. I received a personalized (with mine, not their names) money clip / knife I used for years and years. I also received a beer stein with their name and wedding date that was kind of nice. The engraving was very subtle. The bats would be kind of cool, but you are right, they could end up in the back of the closet. But then any gift could, and finding something that all the groomsmen like is really impossible. So, I'd try and pick a different gift for each guy. Ask their wives and girlfriends for advice.

I seriously doubt Griffy will wave a no trade clause twice. And since there is no mention of a third team immediately in the deal, I suspect he's here for the season, if this goes through.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 07:18 AM) I'm a minor league guy, I don't like losing prospects. That's just how I feel. I don't like the fact that the White Sox only see their minor leaguers as trade bait and not as future stars. I'm a Chicago White Sox fan and believe the minor league is a resource to help the team in Chicago win. Sometimes there is time to develop players, other times the needs are more pressing and you have to trade 110% potential for 90% proven talent.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 07:13 AM) Trading Dye would be dumb, trading Quentin is out of the question. It all depends on what you get in return. Quentin for Pojols (not likely) wouldn't be "out of the question" or Dye for Matt Holliday (equally unlikely) would not be "dumb". Every piece is tradable for the right price.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 07:13 AM) In trades...you never know how prospects will pan out, especially if you don't develop them. Have you actually seen Gio pitch? Have you met him? If you had, you would want him on your team forever. Teams can have success by developing players, look at the Brewers, Braves, or even the Red Sox. By almost any yards stick, K-Dub has been one of the top GMs in baseball the past few seasons. I'll take the days in first place and WS yardsticks. To claim he overpaid, you would have to know what the other team was willing to accept in trade. You could always try and underpay, but you could wind up with zero deals done.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 07:06 AM) fixed...just so soxtalk doesnt go nuts trying to figure out what the bigger trade would be, when in fact there may not even be a bigger trade Any of our starting corner OF would return a top SP.

The locker room got better. here is a scenario that no one has mentioned, Cincy moved him to a contender to give him a chance at a WS ring. They took almost nothing, perhaps just enough so he doesn't look like a charity case. A possible DH or bat off the bench. Perhaps Konerko is getting shut down for the season.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 07:16 PM) I always forget which is which. McCain has sponsored a lot of great initiatives, but this wasn't one of them.

Close, it was the 2002 BiPartisan Campaign Reform Act.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 10:05 AM) why didn't anybody tell me Puddle of Mudd concerts suck? I left like an hour into it and just went to the bar to get hammered. Now I have a headache. QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 10:28 AM) The fact that the band came to the Dakota's should have been the first hint that they blow. QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:34 PM) Gage with a rare moment of hilarity. I been waiting three years for Gage to say something close to POTM worthy . . .

Yawn. The twins just grabbed a bite of our ass. I'll worry about the Tigers, if, they get close.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:53 PM) You know what I find interesting about this discussion? For years, hell for as long as I can remember, people have been basically mourning how apathetic voters were in this country. We had barely 50% of the country showing up to vote. People felt like their votes don't make a difference. People were turned off by negative campaigning and stayed home. So many other democracies were working so much better than us. Country x has an 85% voter turnout rate, country y has a 90% voter turnout rate, we practically developed democracy and we can't even get people to turn out. On and on, op-ed piece, editorial, whatever. Now, one side puts out a candidate that people are genuinely excited about. There's a flood of new voter registrations. The supposedly apathetic young people are working in record numbers and at least in the primaries were turning out in record numbers. There's an air of excitement around this election that I haven't seen in my lifetime. People genuinely want to talk politics, people who debated in October of 2003 never bothering to vote again are actually excited about maybe having a chance in the next 4 years to fix some of these messes the last disaster has made. And after all those statements about how bad it was for this country to barely get people coming to the polls, when we finally get a measure of excitement, especially amongst the younger folks (Hiya!), we're told how scary it is, how bad it's making our candidate look, how we should just calm down, how we're just embarrassing ourselves, how we're driving away voters because we're working too hard. Take your pick. Either enjoy the crap we've put up with in the White House for what, 20 years now, because good people found enough to hate about the process that they didn't turn out and vote, or enjoy having something a little better because people got back involved and tried to make a difference. Giving someone a pass because people are excited about the election isn't logical. There are standards that should still apply. People have been excited about candidate and against certain candidates every election since I've been around. The anti-Reagan crowds were as vocal as the pro-Reagan crowds. Clinton had his own electrifying effect during his first race. In fact, I think even more than Obama. Perhaps because I see similarities in both. Voters are telling you how to change their vote, how to win their support, and if a campaign does not want to listen, that will insure 20 more years. We do not want your vote because we're excited!!!!!! OBAMA ROX!!!!! You SUK!! There was an author on Colbert or Daily Show that proposed that today campaigns basically hold up a mirror to the voter and claim they are just like us. I think that is true. When the campaign, and I mean both the official and the "water cooler, internet message board" is portraying the candidate as being very unlike ourselves, the support dims. Obama will need support from groups other then the excitable kids. And btw, new voters have been excited in every Presidential race since I've been around. They think they invented sex, drugs, and rock n roll, along with candidates. remember Clinton appearing on MTV!! Woah! Boxers or Briefs? Inhale? Electrifying the youth.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:46 PM) It wouldn't surprise me if there were. But that's not a reason to throw out the data we currently have. Like any supposedly scientifically done study, if we threw out every bit of research because people had done things wrong in the past we'd never have gotten past Newton. Is this man funded by the "Marijuana industry" or did he clearly do something wrong? Beats me. He admits to being a user, so he has motivation to work on that side, but you can't just toss data aside without giving me some sort of reason. I agree. But any self reporting study is suspect. Plus, from other studies I've read, marijuana has changed over the past few decades. Whether from selected breeding or natural mutations. Without a consistent operational definition for marijuana, it will be tough to really understand the data.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:33 PM) By the way folks, it's really not that hard to google "Marijuana cancer link" and see what comes up. Clearly it's not a conclusive, double-blind study or anything along those lines, but if we're going to discuss whether or not smoking marijuana causes cancer, let's at least look at the data currently available, which says it doesn't. Seems like there have been other studies. IIRC weren't there a lot of studies that showed how wonderful tobacco was?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:28 PM) Common sense - how many marijuana smokers do you know who smoke 10+ joints per day for an extended period of time? Your average user isn't Snoop Dogg. Common sense tells me that there may be different substances between the two and they may have different rates of toxicity. How many cigarette smokers inhale and hold the smoke as much as pot smokers. I also do not know if a rolled filter cigarette is different then a pipe, or unfiltered. Also how many cigarette smokers burn their fingers trying to smoke the last bit of a cigarette?