JUGGERNAUT

I disagree. They just asked the parents of the dead children if they believe their kids would be alive today if MLB players had made public statements against steroid abuse when their kids were playing sports. All of them said yes. Try to imagine the impact of those spots day in & day out during every game. Those spots could include %'s of fatalities, suicides, & other characteristics brought up in these hearings. That data being associated with iconic players of heroic stature would have a definite impact on high school players. Now try to imagine players in the game getting caught at the same time these ads are airing daily. PR death.

Some of this is beginning to make sense. I think we can assume that both Ozuna & Valdez are out of options. That means the Sox can't add them to the 40 man roster. Either they fill out the 25 man or they go on waivers & get designated for assignment. Harris on the other hand has option yrs left since he's played mostly on a 25 man roster the past 4 yrs. As a sub you can minimize his futility vs LH & he hits RH's pretty good. I'm surprised by all of the coaches comments of Harris recently. It certainly seems they are leaning to Uribe as #2 at 3B, & Harris as #2 at SS, & 2B. I wonder if there's a major drop off in speed betweeen Harris & the other two.

You guys are right: http://www.warriorcentral.net/tenaywarrior.html Search on steroids.

I've not heard any one advocate yet that MLB needs to spend $ to produce tv spots to publicly condemn the use of illegal drugs. I think this would do more to help the cause then slowly strengthening the drug testing policy in MLB. This to me makes the best sense. A commitment to pay for & air such spots during every MLB telecast this year would hurt the pocket books of both the owners & players. Make the MLBPA & MLB produce their own spots with their own money.

I was a big fan when he was with the TBJ & A's & had high hopes for him with the CSox. But I knew when his velocity dropped to mid-low 90's that was it. I blame Beane. He overused him that year & something happened to his arm. He pretty much dealt us damaged goods & I think he knew it.

Did you guys know that suicide rates were so high with roid users? I knew there was a link from the WWE studies but I had no idea it was that high in withdrawal. I think the hearings are proving their worth now. I think when most of us think of roid users we think of greedy, cheaty players at whatever level they play. But the hearings are painting a different picture. This really is drug abuse that is associated with an addiction. Once you are juiced it's very hard to get un-juiced for some. Speaking of the WWE did any of you see that Real Sports special on HBO where McMahon was interviewed? The death rates & suicide rates of WWE stars in the Hogan era was alarming. I wonder if they are going to bring that up at these hearings. McMahon of course disavowed any responsibility for those deaths. One star that came to mind when I was a kid because he resembled something of a comic book character was the Ultimate Warrior. The guy never reached the age of 40.

I don't want our guys throwing as hard as they can. When you play in one of the best hitter's parks it's foolish to live & die by the fastball like the Cubs staff does (Wood, Prior, Zamby). It's more important for ChiSox pitchers to induce GB outs than to K guys out. Power is over-rated at the Cell. That goes for bats & arms alike. But in the same context you need power in the rotation & the pen to compete in the bigger parks on the road. Too bad Maddux didn't sign with us.

This is the part of the hearings that got little press but is the most important. The discussion of abuse by high school students. These are not paid athletes. These are kids accepting this risk based on peer pressure & future goals. What was Canseco thinking when he wrote in Juiced that moderate & controlled use of illegal performance enhancers can lead to desired results? How irresponsible can you get? I hope they hold his feet to the fire after that revelation.

O ERA: Edison, Camden, Jacobs, Comerica, Pro Player, Kauffman, Olympic , Network, Safeco, Tropicana, Arlington 1+ ERA: Metrodome 2+ ERA: The Cell 6+ ERA: Wrigley 10+ ERA: Fenway, Bronx I see no reason to be concerned.

Frank & JR are obviously very proud that Frank has been a member of the WhiteSox his entire career. They both want to keep it that way. JR I feel has been fair in balancing the needs of the team vs paying Frank good market value. The last contract gave Frank the flexibility to consider the decision each season. He received better offers but not so much better that it made sense to give up something he's really proud off. If Frank becomes the natural poster boy for MLB's anti-steroid face that's definitely going to boost Frank's spot. One thing that might come out of these hearings is MLB's agreement to air anti-steroid ads on TV networks. Who better to feature in those ads than Frank? That's going to boost his marquee status in the game & could open the way for bigger endorsements. This really is a pivotal time in Frank's career. One of the top 10 OPS players of all time, future HOFer, roids free for life, & loyal to his team throughout his career. Can you think of a better spokesperson for MLB's anti-steroid crusade? We'll know how much this means with the All-Star balloting. He's been beat out by east coast players in the supplemental voting the past couple of years. This could be the year he wins that vote.

Great news! I'm so glad they accomodated him. If Congress is smart about this they can still get value from the players taking the 5th by posing hypotheticals at the players. Mark McGuire, you owned the single-season HR record until Barry Bonds surpassed you. How would you feel if it was determined that Bonds was juiced during that historic season? Sammy Sosa, you were neck & neck with McGuire for the single-season HR record. How would you feel if it determined that McGuire was juiced during that season? I hope they spend considerable time focusing on high school athletes. Across the nation the money flowing into high school sports programming is growing quickly. Where the $ flows the pressure builds.

IMO, the LAD are a poor example of a GM making good decisions. They have Ross & Bako as their #1, #2 at C. Both have poorer CERA than Burke. So you can't even make that argument for Bako. What's the risk that Burke will hit worse than Bako over 300 AB+? Low. He's a good guy. If he gets a chance I think he'll continue to hit.

I just wonder what the rest of the world is thinking when they see the American government obsessed with America's past-time. As I see it the real purpose of this hearing was to show the nation & the world that we take our laws seriously & that no one is above the law. Yet I don't see that message coming out in these hearings.

We'll see come July KW has a track record of going after the big names. Putting that aside what is this infatuation with Pirate players all about? :headshake

I made a big mistake on Davis' option situation. He's in his 8th yr & used up his options before being traded to Sea from SD. He's also used up his arbitration years. So the only way to keep Davis was to sign him to the 25 man roster. KW didn't have any other choice there. I guess KW had no other choice. Both Davis & Burke were out of options so the player KW kept would have to be guaranteed a 25 man spot. Burke had only 133AB to Davis 1512AB. Davis was the logical choice. He had until the first waiver deadline to decide whether to add Burke to the 25 man or get another catcher. That gave him time to sign AJP. If he doesn't sign Davis then the Sox would have had no C on their 25 man roster. What does that do for KW's bargaining position vs FA C's? In the end KW did the only thing he could do. Probably could have gotten him cheaper though.

That's not true. They would have to open up a 25 man roster spot for him. That's the only option they had once they claim him off waivers. He can't be added to a 40 man roster again. Ever. Designating him for assignment is at Burke's discretion. At that time he can refuse & become a FA. So a team claiming him off waiver's w/out a spot on the 25 man roster risks losing their waiver priority & getting nothing in return. No team is going to do that. That waiver priority is a big deal because it applies for the whole year including the Aug 1-Aug 31 period where a team claiming a player off waivers only earns the right to trade for that player. These are usually the firesale players that can still help a contender but usually cost some bucks. There is usually more than 1 team vying for these guys so priority makes a difference. We don't normally think of it that way but a team claiming Burke now risks their right to claim a potential impact player in the 2nd 1/2. No team is going to do that & it has little to do with what Burke's accomplished. Unfortunately when the WhiteSox added Davis to their 25 man roster they dropped Burkes trade value as well. Any team seeking Burke would have to question why he didn't make the team. I think it was a stupid move on KW's part (as Davis clearly needs ml seasoning more so than Burke).

Burke fell on some hard luck with respect to options. If he had any left he probably would have been claimed off waivers. But not having any options means a team claiming him must find a spot on their 25 man roster. They can't even add him to their 40 man any more. After a player has served 3 yrs of combined ml+ML service he has 3 option yrs. Those are yrs in which he can be added to the 26-40 man roster spots. Once that happens an option yr is consumed. The team can then call him up & send him down as many times as they want in that year. When a player is out of options he can no longer be added to the 40 man roster spots. He must either be signed on the 25 man roster or to a ml contract. As I understand it, Diaz, Cotts, Adkins, & Borchy have already been added to the 40 roster so the WhiteSox have consumed an option year from all of them. That means Adkins, Cotts, & Borchy are out of options after 2005 & Diaz has 1 more option year left. It seems so small but it really is a big deal. How many options a player has left can definitely affect their trade value because of the flexibility it provides the team claiming or trading for them. A player with options is a lower risk than a player with no options. Harris looks to have been a late season call-up in 01, & a 40 man in 02 & 03. He was definitely a 25 man in 04 so he should have 1 option yr left. At present he's on the 25 man roster so the Sox have not used up an option yr on him yet.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/1999/0908/46397.html Borchy has one option year left. A player gets 3 option yrs. Those are 3 yrs in which the team can purchase his minor league contract. Once that happens the team can send the player back & forth as many times as they like. When the rosters expand in Sept players are called-up. They still play under minor league contracts & therefore do not count towards option yrs. Borchy was a callup in 2002, but had his minor league contract purchased in 2003 & 2004. That leaves him 1 more option year. I believe when the minor league contract is purchased it's pro-rated as is their ML contract at the time of the purchase. Adkins, Cotts, & Borchy are in the same boat. They currently appear on the 32 man roster which I believe means their ml contract was already purchased for 2005. The Sox have used up their options. 2005 is their last option year. Diaz appears on the 32 man roster as well so I'm assuming they did the samething with him. If that's the case he has 1 more option yr left after this one. Burke is a strange case. 2004 was his last option yr because his ml contract had been purchased by ANA in 2002 & then the Sox in 2003. What's strange about it is that he only played 2 games prior to Sept in those years. Had the teams waited until Sept 2004 would have been his first option year.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stor...yson&id=1860265 http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/1999/0908/46397.html. Both these links are very good in explaining the various rules. I believe you are right that the team loses it's waiver priority which only comes into play if they were competing with another team to claim a player on waivers. Between Aug & Aug 31 the rules change. The claim only affords the team the right to seek a trade. If a player changes it's mind or can't come to agreement it can pull the player off waivers 1 time. The next time the player is put on waivers no trade is required to make a claim. I will agree that Burke's value was not high enough to where any team was willing to risk their waiver priority on Burke. Simply put that means at least 60 C had higher value than Burke. I don't dispute that. But I contend that if 1 of the 60 should get hurt Burke is probably on a short list as a possible replacement. Yes it's only 120AB, but VS. LEFT: .311 / .787 VS. RIGHT: .356 / .804 HOME: .338 / .804 AWAY: .327 / .783 is impressive. Of course one could say that Davis is more likely to be traded/released than Burke.

Anybody know how guchi's doing? This guy seems to have completely fallen off the radar. In the Times today there was a small barb saying that if Harris is in the running for 2B (while hitting below .200) then the ChiSox are really saying they don't have a major leaguer ready to play 2B.

Why would a team claim a player off waivers with proven success in a limited role at C? If I'm not mistaken claiming a player off waivers costs a draft pick. That's a high price to pay for bench C. That doesn't diminish the value of what that player accomplished in that limited capacity. If a team should lose a starting C & then have to platoon that position Burke suddenly becomes an option for that team.

I was surprised that some school districts had adopted an abstinence only policy towards sex-ed in the last decade here in IL. IMO that represents an extreme viewpoint. Just as extreme as those districts who feel obligated to give out condoms. Most moderates like myself believe in an abstinence-first policy. That means you still cover most subjects such as (sexual abuse, condom usage, medical information, rape crisis & stds) but you do so in an abstinence context. For example when discussing condom usage you place the emphasis on the fact that they do not guarantee prevention of pregnancy & discuss how the risk rises with improper handling. You also bring into the play the cost of condom usage so that students understand sex is not free from responsibilty. Again with condom usage you emphasis those stds that are small enough to pass thru the membranes of the condom. The net effect is that students will learn nearly all details of condom usage, std's, & medical information but in a context that emphasizes abstinence his best for healthy living. Abstinence only is equivalent to teaching biology w/out evolution. Preposterous.

I don't think some of you understand the relation between oil prices & inflation. The price you pay for gasoline is a drain on the economy. The higher the price the bigger the drain. There is little investment growth for the oil industry beyond pricing. When prices are expected to reach near $3.00/gal in some parts of the US this summer it's a serious problem requiring serious solutions. Unless you can get the so-called green voters to give up their 18MPG SUV's for 30MPG cars there is much point in trying to protect that which is needed most. Extinction of species is not a problem any more. We can clone that which we desire the most.

Then again all the major points in the DaVinci Code are mentioned in the other book De-bunking the DaVinci Code. So as long as the Vatican offers the De-bunking book you can still get that challenge to your spiritual faith you desire

As a proven ML hitter in a backup capacity Burke has trade value. An RPG of 6.06 for 120AB is pretty good. His value won't materialize unless another team's starter goes down. In that scenario he definitely has some trade value. To the ChiSox he represents an easy call-up if Davis should suck again.