JUGGERNAUT

The good news is that it's been said that NYY$, STL, HOU were the 3 teams on KGJ's short-list. It's obvious now he's added the White Sox to that list. He's never said anything about CLE, ANA, BOS, or BAL. CLE still requires a family move so I don't think it's proximity to CIN will have any bearing on his decision. Though Cashman said the NNY$ would not put in a claim you can't rule out a trade. They would need to involve a 3rd team because they can't contend with the White Sox talent pool. As for his home in Orlando you can't rule out ATL, HOU, or STL. ATL & HOU in particular play ST games in Orlando.

I'm still leary of the Levine report because it's been continuously reported that ML personnel are under strict rules not to reveal such information, but if it's true then you can expect KGJ to clear waivers w/out the White Sox putting in a claim. If a team puts in a claim for KGJ they are on the hook for the $49M. They can't revoke their claim. The Reds can revoke their request ONCE if they don't like the trade. If they do that KGJ can't be traded before Sep 1st & can't appear on a post-season roster. So it makes no sense for the White Sox to claim him off ML waivers. Assuming he clears it's then a question of best offer. The White Sox were hitting much better at the time of the trade than they are now. With BOS & MIN coming up don't expect much to change offensively. I think that gives the Reds greater strength in the deal now. My guess is to make things easier on both clubs the Reds will pick up all of what they owe Griffey in 2005. That drops the 3 yr cost to the White Sox down to $22M. In addition I see them picking up the largest deferred payment ($16.5M) owed in 2024. That drops the White Sox deferred payment cost to $13.5M/08-2023. At 4% interest compounded annually over a declining principal it's probably worth no more than $16M/08-2023.

The KGJ deal: $112.5M/9yr (2000-2008) + $4M buyout. 57.5% of that $$$ is deferred until after the 2008 season. At that time the deferred money begins earning 4% & increases significantly from 2010-2024. The final payment is expected to be $16.5M. He turned down a $135M/8 yr deal from the M's to join the Reds. Using The Unit as an example of a player owed a LOT of deferred $$$ the Reds are responsible for what the contract paid from 2000-2004. The White Sox would be responsible for what the contract pays in deferred $$$ from 2005-2008, a pro-rated portion of his 2005 cash payment, & the 2006-2008 cash payments. I believe Griffey's contract was structured so as it was always $6M cash the rest deferred. So the 2005 portion the White Sox would pick up would be about $1.5M cash & $4.4M deferred. That would make the contract a $23.5M/3 yr + $30M/(08-24). That's where the $49M figure you've heard about comes from. If the original rumor is correct than the Reds were going to pick up $15M of the $23.5M owed over the next 3 yrs. Dropping the upfront cost for Griffey Jr to $8.5M/3 yr. A steal for almost any club.

http://www.x-shemale.com/shemale111/view/101.jpg

I've added a poll. I think I've out done Kinsey in this scale because I separate dream from reality. Dream & fantasize go hand in hand. Reality is self-explanatory. For those of you who have seen the movie "Man of the House" (Texas Longhorn Cheerleaders with big chests) I want you to imagine for one second these girls turning out to be dudes. Because I kid you not there are such people living in Japan. As for those who are asking what's the point of the poll Kinsey suggested that the majority of persons would fall between 2-5 & that bi-sexuals would be the norm. Are you not even the least bit curious to find out if his belief fits SOXTALK at least? I've updated what I remember of his scale to reflect the modern world in which virtual reality is on the horizon. What most people would feel ashamed to admit or experience in reality might become the escape in a virtual world. If you haven't guessed it yet there's a strong asian influence that's acted upon my life. It's nearly as strong as my American one. Japan is a much more open-thinking society. Some of it is rubbing off on America in the VG industry. Consider how many male targeted games feature female heroines. Lara Croft, DOA. All of that is driven by the duality of male-female personalities in all of us. Right now it's all action, but in the near future Lara Croft players will become Lara Croft in a virtual world. That's really going to be a mind-f*** for some people. The rest of us will take it in stride as we are both open & prepared for such changes in society. Having read that you'll probably never thing of your big breasted super-heroine VG's the same way again

I choose accepted to mean something a person would partake in. As opposed to tolerate which would be accepting what other people partake in. Let me re-phrase the scale: 1: participate in only heterosexual relationships 2: participate in heterosexual relationships, and bi-sexual ones with gorgeous people 3: participate in heterosexual relationships, and bi-sexual ones with average people 4: participate in homosexual relationships, and bi-sexual ones with average people 5: participate in homosexual relationships, and bi-sexual ones with gorgeous people 6: participate in only homosexual relationships Maybe we do need a poll so that people can weigh in anonymously. It would give us better results. I just thought of a 12 level scale that might be better. I'll post the poll.

I'm curious to see where others fall on the 6 level scale. Do we need a poll?

If you are the proud owner of a "cheater" box your cheating days are coming to an end. Thank Motorola for that. What Motorola did was develop a box that can support digital, uncompressed analog, & compressed analog channels. Comcast waited for SCI-FI fans to switch to digital before lowering the boom: compressing the analog channels of the expanded basic lineup. After that all analog equipment including cable ready TV's treat those channels as if they aren't even there. But that wonderful Motorola box de-compresses them & makes them viewable for the Comcast slave. Now if you are waiting on a digital "cheater" box forget it. It's not happening. Think SSL when you think of digital cable. We're talking encryption. Tough as nails to hack. Someone might be able to develop a box that will decompress the analog signal but will the market be there for expanded basic channels that have a short-life to begin with? Probably not. There are plenty of hacks available though for dish systems but I'm sure Motorola will have a hand in that as well. Cheater TV is coming to an end.

Ozzie greeted long-time friend saying "This guys a homosexual! This guys a child-molester." or something like that. He clearly doesn't view such statements with the sensitivity that some people do in America today. I say America because I do not see such sensitivity expressed in Japan, Germany, or the UK. Places I have visited often & have friends & colleagues in. So I can fully understand where Ozzie is coming from. I view that comment has no different than ones I've received from others linking my Irish heritage to being drunken monkeys. It comes as no surprise I prefer the world's view on such matters over America's. The basis being that if you include everyone in the "dark" humor pot then we are all offended equally & no one should take it seriously. On the days we actually resemble those stereo-types it makes it even funnier. If you can't laugh at yourself then there's something wrong with you. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: So is homosexuality normal? Physically no, but mentally yes. Physically they are not. Statistically they represent somewhere between 7-10% of the world's population & leading research is leaning towards abnormalities during reproduction as well as genetic inheritance as the primary cause. Simply put weak chemistry can lead to homosexuality. It is probable that in the near future science will narrow the physical causes that lead to homosexuality. Capitalism will likely drive the marketing & selling of preventive methods. It will be interesting to see the statistical consequence of what I call a GATTACA future. Mentally they are. Not only are they normal but statistically their group has a larger % of creative talent than heterosexuals. Scientists are still trying to explain that one but it is believed to be partially related to the reproductive process. Obviously environment plays a role as well. Capitalism will no doubt turn those findings into a $$$ making scheme. Statistically there is no greater level of child-molestation or any other heinous crimes in the homosexual population than the heterosexual population. That is why the AMA & APA have come to the conclusion that as a group they are as normal as any other group. More recent research has opened the door to environment playing a greater role than what was assumed in the 1970's. This isn't a knock against homosexuals as much as it's the belief that there is a much greater population of bi-sexuals than what the leading institutions (AMA, APA, & IMH) once thought. They believed bi-sexuals were even more rare than homosexuals but new findings are challenging that idea. This has led to a general belief that ALL sexual behavior is influenced by both physical & social influences. On the physical side you have hormonal abnormalities experienced during reproduction from either genetic inheritance or chemical factors. On the social side you have influences during upbringing. For example, there have been cases in the order of 1000's documenting mothers who brought their sons up as daughters because they had always wanted a daughter. There are cases on the opposite side but not as many. When you sum it all up Kinsey was probably right in that we are all born bi-sexual to some degree (the 6 level scale) but that our experience in life determines where we fall on that level. Life jn general seemed to sort this stuff out in our society but I fear man's desire to play God will lead to the creation of supreme races. Weird won't be as tolerated or accepted then. In relation to sin let's put it this way: in most religions of the world sodomy is considered a sin. Whether it be man-man, woman-woman, or man-woman. Ideologically speaking it's something undesireable. But in practice the data that's available suggests it's as common a practice as people who won't hesitate to sleep with a step-son, step-daughter, step-father, step-mom, or any other step-relative. I'm having difficulty remembering Kinsey's 6 level scale & I'm too lazy to look it up so here's my version of it: 1: only heterosexual relationships accepted 2: all heterosexual relationships accepted, some bi-sexual relationships accepted 3: all heterosexual relationships accepted, all bi-sexual relationships accepted 4: all homosexual relationships accepted, all bi-sexual relationships accepted 5: all homosexual relationships accepted, some bi-sexual relationships accepted 6: only homosexual relationships accepted I'm a 1.5. I could never see myself getting busy with the same sex but I can understand how others might. Having been to Japan on more than one occasion I know there exists she-males who are drop dead gorgeous to look at. If you're close enough to admire their beauty but far enough away not to notice they're male they will give you a hard on. Some of you are probably thinking "gross" but I would say they would fool you as well. How can you tell that the cutest dolled up person you've ever seen with really nice cleavage is a guy? By the time you find out your own hormones have kicked in to where you don't care. If not for religion I'd be a 2. The some being confined to drop-dead gorgeous she-males. Having been through that experience I'd be lying if I said otherwise. The same can be said for girl-girl. There are some times when it's a turn on. According to my religion such thoughts are sinful which is why I don't dwell on them. Temptation just waves goodbye :; I hope that answers your question.

This is so cheap of a reporter to do. In case he didn't figure it out the first time it was intended to be a "private" conversation between Ozzie & his friend. It was not intended to be a conversation between this douchebag, Ozzie, & his friend. This reporter has no class. Ozzie obviously grew up & probably has an off-season home in a very ethnic neighborhood. So did I. I still do. When I lived in Texas for a decade of my life it was the same story. It may be politically incorrect to some but it's colorful to others. Especially those who live there. People like to enjoy life & the more color added to it the better it is. Now if Ozzie had used such statements at a press conference that's an entirely different story. A press conference is like speaking to the world & all the people in it. You must be aware of people who could be offended by your remarks. But that certainly wasn't the case here.

After all the public statements against steroids abuse & Thomas being casted as a crusader against steroids it would be a major black-eye for the organization.

It's CHRISTMAS in August for WHITE SOX fans! Griffey: "I enjoy being in Chicago. My family comes here a lot. I do have control. The Reds and Chicago have to make a deal." What changed his mind? Griffey: "I hadn't heard about any kind of trade. But I did think it odd that the front office told Kent Mercker, David Weathers and Adam Dunn they wouldn't be traded, but nobody said anything to me." It sounds like he's pissed.

You are making a HUGE assumption: that there is a team out there willing to pick up the additional $15M. I don't believe there is. As you have stated his value might be the highest it will be from now until next yr's Sep 1st deadline. So if the owner decides to part with KGJ to free up the $ his best option will be the Chicago White Sox because that is the best $$$ offer on the table. Failure to do so risks declining trade value in KGJ. If no one other than the White Sox claim him off ML waivers in Aug then no one is going to claim him off SPL waivers in the off-season. Which means the Reds will have to agree to pay more of the contract to move him. So logically speaking if the Reds owner decides to part with KGJ right now is the best time to maximize his trade value in $$$ & talent by trading him to the White Sox

Well you have to understand logic in order to decide which is more plausible. That teams request ML waivers on most of their players during August or that teams only request ML waivers on players they are trying to trade. What is fact is that if a team revokes a ML waiver request on a player the team can not trade that player for 30 days. Logic would dictate a team is going to be engaged in trade talk before requesting ML waivers on a player

I don't know if this helps boost your hope but I do not believe the need for KGJ to clear ML waivers will have any impact on the White Sox getting him. It comes down to the White Sox making an offer the Reds owner can't refuse. It's as simple as that. It makes no sense for the Reds to request ML waivers on KGJ just to dump his contract on another team. They can do that with SPL waivers after the season. With the season he's having they have to weigh the risk of him getting hurt over the next 2 months vs his trade potential for & during the 2006 season. It doesn't help that KGJ played a major role in sweeping the Cubs. The owner is probably feeling pretty good right now.

Define HUGE in terms of numbers please. Over 120 million persons have been murdered at the hands of atheists (including communists). That's HUGE.

IMO, Ibanez would get blocked. 818 OPS, 2006 is the last yr of his contract & he costs about $1.5M to pick up. In 2006 he'll cost about $6M. But with an 818 OPS a blocking team could easily trade him in the off-season to dump the contract. Dmitri Young might slip thru. 828 OPS, 2006 is the last yr of his contract & he costs about $3M to pick up. In 2006 he'll cost about $10M. At a cost of $10M it will be harder to pull an off-season trade off. So a blocking team might be stuck with a $13M cost. There are two club-option years at a cost of $8M each if you're looking at him long term. If we use SDP's block move of Randy Myers as the most a team is willing to pay for a player they don't intend to use then $15M is the figure. That would include what it will cost the team this year & the remainder of the contract.

I think I understand what Stark is saying. It has to do with ml option years. When a ml player having option years is traded the new club does not have to request an OR waiver to move that player to their ml club. I think in the case of the White Sox & Reds deal all of the ml players involved have options remaining. Those are player options & are not subject to any one team. So in the case of the Reds - CWS trade I don't think that's an issue. But if the ml player is out of options I can see where MLB would then view the acquistion of such a player as an addition to the new team's 40-man roster & in that case require the new team to request ML waivers on that player. Even if said ml player had cleared OR waivers in the prior waiver period. I can see where Stark might think that was an issue in Aug trades because many ML ready ml'ers are probably out of option years.

A team seeking to outright a player to a ml club or to another ML club in the month of August must request a ML waiver on that player. The rule is very clear.

The MLB rules clearly state that if a player is revoked from ML waivers the team can not request ML waivers on that player for 30 days. Now if you think the Reds requested ML waivers on KGJ for the purpose of seeing who's interested then you're an idiot.

Definitely Owens or Brown.

With regard to KGJ try to understand what that means. If the Reds revoke a ML waiver on KGJ they can not trade him until after Sep 1st in which case he is ineligible to play in the post season. That is why the process of putting him on waivers & trade discussions go hand -in-hand. The Reds not only have to come to terms with the team they want to trade KGJ to but they likewise need an OK from the other GM's. If a GM doesn't give their OK then the Reds have to decide whether to keep KGJ, work a trade with the evil GM or simply dump his contract on the evil GM. For the CWS to get KGJ from the Reds all other GM's must OK the trade. The one time revoke option is really for the bizarre case where an evil GM gives his word not to block but puts a claim in anyways. Since that would seriously jeopardize the credibility of that GM I would expect such cases are very rare.

In regards to the Manny posts in the thread, BOS requested what is known as a special waiver (SPL). From Sept 1st to the 30th day of the following seasons a club can request a SPL waiver. This waiver is only good for 7 days. Meaning that if the player clears SPL waivers you can request SPL waivers on him again 7 days later. You can repeat this process as often as you like. But each time you do you have to DFA him.

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/arch...hp/t-75859.html MLB rules: The general rule for all waivers is that they are irrevocable. The exception is the MAJOR LEAGUE WAIVER. From Aug 1st to the end of the regular season a team can request waivers on a player they wish to either option to their ml club or assign a player outright to another ML team. They need to secure this waiver on a player if the date of the assignment is 3+ yrs after the date the player first reported to a ML club during a championship season. (Strike years don't count.) A team can revoke the waiver ONLY once during this period. When a team revokes a waiver the player can not be be placed on waivers for anything but unconditional release for 30 days. *************************************** That's why I doubt very much most players are put on ML waivers for the month of Aug.

Very sad. You're whole argument hinges on the belief that what is normal outside of the month of August (calling a team & asking about a player you have an interest in) is not normal during the month of August.