beck72

I don't think I expressed an opinion about Ryan one way or another. I've stayed out of talking politics on this board until recently. But divorce records are typically revealed by political candidates who are running for office. Most are run of the mill, no big deal stuff. That Ryan didn't disclose them caught people by surprise and led to the push to unseal them

If I'm not mistaken, all records that Kerry needs to turn over, that have been expected of past presidential candidates, have been turned over. There may be scraps of info here and there that a candidate doesn't have to turn over that Kerry may still have. Yet it's going beyond the bounds of what is expected. The key is, where does the request for records end? We know where it begins, and I believe both candidates have fulfilled this. This writer wouldn't have got his article put in any publication. Yet he can get away w/ making such claims on a partisan website. Yet no candidate should turn over all matters of their lives to people intent on looking in every nook and cranny, just to see what's there.

At any given time, many different news orgs are "investigating" a story. A tried and true tactic for any side to get their "message out" is to push a story through the media, ala the Valerie Plume affair. that way they don't leave fingerprints. A question, why does ABC have a tape and the CIA doesn't? I'm sure they will. But if ABC is trying to authenicate the tape before the CIA doesn't his sound a little too strange? But this admin. has "cried wolf" so many times that people have a hard time taking them seriously.

Yes, this administration. Even though news orgs like ABC might be looking into stories, the admin. can give it inside info. Or at least push a story that is waiting to be verified. If ABC just got the tape this weekend, and are trying to authenicate it, a few days is a very short time for it to be out there. That it makes it on Drudge first should set off alarm bells to anyone At various times, though, throughout the last few years, officials, like Ridge, Ashcroft, etc, have given press conferences announcing threats. They have almost always talked of old threats, without raising the terror threat level. I can cite numerous examples--the latest was the US schools in battle ground states being a possible terrorist target [when it was only a aid worker w/ info on schools in Iraq]; the threat to NJ, specific banks, etc a few months back that was 3 years old, and didn't rasie any levels in those states.

true to form. Whenever a negative story comes out, that the admin. can't really explain away w/o making fools of themselves, play the terror card. At least I called it. I forget which thread I posted it in earlier this morning Oh, here it is: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...pic=25545&st=15

Pols don't want to release all information, dems or Repub's. Only if they are required to. Kerry isn't required to release every single last document, whether its about his military records or his wife's tax returns. Neither is Bush. But to say because he isn't releasing stuff because he might have had a dishonorable discharge, like your article stated, is wrong. No person should have to try and disprove a far out negative claim made about them. The only time they have to is if story won't go away, like the Swift Boat vets. But just because the story won't go away means it has to be true. In the future please don't insult my intelligence by putting something this stupid [blah blah blah] in a post. Debate the facts but just don't stick your tongue out at me if you don't agree with what i have to say. I know I haven't posted political comments here before, so I don't know how insulting people tend to get around here. But please be somewhat of an adult. And I can read w/o the words in BLOCK type face

First line of defense for this admin---deny, deny, deny, [it wasn't our fault, the weapons weren't there] Next line of defense---attack, attack, attack [the news organ's, Kerry for bringing up this topic-How dare they point out the fact that Iraqi's have hundreds of tons of explosives to kill Americans with!! The unmitigated gall!!] Next line of defense [which will be coming probably as soon as today]--distract, distract, distract--change the subject when the facts get in the way of a good story [trot out something new, like a terror warning]

This story was only made public since Oct. 10th, due to the IAEA releasing information so news organ. didn't sit on the story. The story is relevant now as Iraq is an important topic, regardless of the election. Why? Because our soldiers are most likely being blown up by this type of explosive material, and this news shows our troops are in danger. BTW, the commander of the unit who "searched" the site [as told by the White House that nothing was there] in early April says they merely stopped by there and stayed overnight on their way to Baghdad, they didn't search the complex.

Nowhere has it been stated that Kerry received a "dishonorable discharge" except in this writer's mind and suggestions. This writer throws out this as a possible reason why Kerry has a few documents private, just to see if this accusation sticks or gets picked up a reputable news organization. It hasn't. There are many reasons to not release all types of forms, that both Kerry and GW Bush, and many other politicians routinely try to keep private. People who read too much into it, Repub's or Dem's, just want to dig up dirt where there probably isn't any. BTW, if GW can get an "honorable discharge" when he didn't fulfill his committment [by his own admission, that he completed 2/3 of his guard time], anyone can

I would target a SP who could be a FA after 2005, who the sox might be able to resign. Tim Hudson would be on the list, so would Randy Johnson. I'm not sure who else fits that category. But it would have to come about through trade. My take is the Sox have 2005 to see if Contreras and Garland will be back in 2006. Both may be fine, or one or both may be losers the sox want no part of. [though w/ contreras, their stuck w/ him for '06 regardless] Yet if the sox sign a FA now to a long term deal, just to get by [like a Russ Ortiz] they wouldn't be in a position to get a #1 or #2 if one becomes available.

Except if a guy like Pedro was signed for 4 years and he broke down after 1, how many players could the Sox have signed for those lost dollars? The key to the sox is they already have 3 SP's locked in to expensive, multi yr deals. They add 4 SP's to this and it increases the likelihood of someone going down for an extended time. A 1 yr deal doesn't sound that bad if it's for a stud like Johnson.

I agree. Hudson is the type of competitor the Sox need. But he may not fit in with the A's

Steep in my book is giving away the top prospects. If a trade could be made that involved one of the Sox top ten prospects, like a Chris Young who the Sox have depth at his position and he's a few years away, and others then i'd do it. I don't know what Ariz's plan is. If they want to get competitive quickly, then they'd want starters. If not, then prospects. Who knows which direction they'll take. But Johnson seems to have a say in whether he wants to play for Ariz or not. If they won't be competitive, then he can demand a trade.

The A's aren't the type of team to pay their set up man $3 mill a yr. Even if he's a lefty. They paid him closer's money and he's not a closer. their were other reports that the a's were trying to move both Rhodes and Redman. Yet looking at Hudson, the A's trading him makes a lot of sense. He's a FA after '05, while Zito and Mulder both have options in 2006, $8.25 mill and $7.5 mill respectively. The A's have hard throwers in Harden and Blanton, two young cheap SP's. Hudson is more of a GB pitcher [a 2.53 G/F rate this year, with a K/ 9 rate of 4.91 this year-was 6.08 in '03.] They likely won't sign Hudson to a long term deal, unless they can get him cheap [which isn't likely]. He'll make $6 mill in 2005,a nd would likely get much more as a FA in 2006. I can't see the A's paying him much more than the $6 mill now, unless a ton of cash is deferred. Plus, why sign a long term deal to a SP when they have so many already locked in, with ready young replacements. But Hudson won't come cheap. An offer starting w/ Lee makes sense, a proven hitter for avg, and power. the A's have two young guys in Crosby and rookie OF Nick Swisher, uncertainty at C, for 2005, and need a consistent, proven bat along with an improved bullpen. Also, I think Bradford is ARB eligible, not a FA. I read this in a CA paper. [bTW, the A's won't go for Cotts-- Beane won't trade back for a guy he traded away.] Harris could be added, then Uribe would have a starting spot.

The key w/ the Yanks though, is they can only sign FA's. They have no one on their roster to trade [most make too much money for another team to take on, or is overpriced], and they have a poor farm system. The A's need a big bat, someone who can hit for avg. and power. They won't sign a FA, too much money locked up for a long time. The only way to get a proven bat is via trade. Lee may fit for them. He's tied up for a few years, can hit 3rd. The A's have enough LH hitters in Chavez, Durazo, Kotsay, Hatteberg, the rookie Swisher. Though Lee's making a lot of money, the A's could make the sox take a guy like Arthur Rhodes [$3 mill a yr for 2 yrs] to even things out.

It's a tough call to make. But I think the Sox would be better served going after an ace who doesn't have a long term contract--such as Randy, Zito, Hudson. the Sox already have 3 SP's locked in to long term, guaranteed deals. Having all that money on pitching, when its the most likely position to have a player get a career threatening injury, is pretty risky. The Trade route, rather than the FA route seems the best bet for the Sox to get an ace.

Tim Hudson. This morning's NY Post wrote that if the A's can't sign Hudson to a long term contract, who can become a FA after 2005, they'll try to trade him instead of letting him walk like Tejada and Giambi. My guess is the A's will want to go into the reg. season with their pieces in place. If talks break down, he could likely be dealt. One thing is, the A's will need a big RH bat to replace Dye anyway, no matter what they do about their pitchers. Carlos Lee might look nice for them in LF and batting 3rd in front of Chavez, with Byrnes and rookie Swisher platooning in RF. http://www.nypost.com/sports/yankees/31091.htm In looking at Hudson, he fits in with much of what Sox fans would be looking for out of a SP, esp one who pitches in the Cell: low HR's allowed, only 8 in 188 2/3 IP; a GB pitcher, 2.53 g/f ratio; goes deep into games--20 times went 7 + innings in 27 starts; a low BB rate, 2.10 / 9 IP. The only thing against Hudson is he's not a strikeout pithcer, only 4.91 / 9 IP. People will say, he's not available. Yet it's not likely he'll be signed to a big long term contract. The A's have Harden and Blanton who are hard throwing RHP's. Harden should make the move past Hudson in 2005. If the Sox can't get Randy Johnson, a move for Hudson might be the 2nd best SP option.

Getting RJ would be less risky [and make the Sox a better team] than getting a mid range SP like Radke, Perez or Clement. If the Sox got RJ and his $16 mill salary and he got hurt in ST, it's off the books in 2006. Yet if they got a FA like a guy above, and he got hurt in ST, his at minimum, $21, $24, or $27 mill salary it's off the books in 2008. The Sox could be mortgaging themselves for years to come if they signed a FA SP to a 3, 4 yr contract, as they have 3 SP's already under guaranteed contracts for 3 yr's. Getting a one yr true ace like Randy Johnson would be a stroke of genius.

I'd say Trot Nixon is more likely to be moved than Millar. Millar is cheap yet a big part of the clubhouse. Nixon was hurt all year and Bos. proved they could win w/o him. His LH stick wouldn't look bad on the Sox.

Going into this offseason, I thought signing an Odalis Perez or Matt Clement made the most sense to help the Sox SP. Yet the article got me thinking, why target RJ first? The key is the Sox would be taking a huge risk having 4 SP's signed to guaranteed long term contracts if they went after a FA--Buehrle, Contreras, Garcia. One or more are bound to get hurt and then the Sox are stuck eating salary. Many teams like Minn. had to eat salaries like Milton's in 2003 and Joe Mays which kept them from getting other players during the yr. Yet a 1 yr guy like Johnson, is less of a risk. He pitched well in 2004, and his contract is off the books the next yr. The Sox have had success signing/ acquiring guys to 1 yr deals w/ options for a 2nd--Loiaza, Shingo, Politte, Bartolo Colon [the sox got 2 draft picks for him and acquired him for Jeff Lieber and Osuna]. As long as the price in terms of talent isn't too steep to get RJ [which it prob. won't] it's very possible he could be on the south side if he OK's it.

Guys who would be an upgrade over at least contreras and Garland--Perez, Clement, Radke, Ortiz---should all get $8 mill, a yr, for no less than 3 yrs. I'm not sure who you think will get for $6 mill who would at least be the sox 3rd starter.

I agree except there are no bonafide #1's this yr, [maybe Pavano]. It's deep at #3's this year. Yet getting a #3 starter means signing a guy to a long term contract, at least 3 yrs, possibly 4, for $8 mill a yr. Most guys this year are not guaranteed to give a quality start each time out, let alone dominate games like Randy Johnson. There's always the injury factor to consider in giing a guy a long term contract. A 1 yr deal is less risky. And esp less so w/ Johnson The sox already have 3 guys signed for 3 yrs. Why not go for an ace one yr, as long as it doesn't mean financing the future core of the team, just smaller pieces of it? The Sox could have room to sign a true ace next year like Mulder, or resign RJ for 2006.

Would signing a #3 SP to a long term contract [3, 4 yrs at $8 mill a yr], when the sox have 3 guys signed for the next 3 yrs, make more sense? Getting a stud #1 for one yr possibly two does make sense. Esp. if the sox don't have to trade key guys or prospects.

I don't want to sacrifice the farm either. Yet the Schilling [2 pitchers like Cotts and Adkins--Fossom and Brandon Lyon--and two minor league pitchers] and the Sexton trades [only Overbay was a top 10 prospect] show that key players can be had w/o giving up an entire farm system. Yet the 2005 Sox w/ an ace like Randy Johnson would be tough. RJ should probably be had for less than both Schilling and Sexton though.

I was going by this article http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/ds.../pro/241sd7.htm If it's true that 4 calls were made, that seems like a strong effort to get RJ rather than just a feeler call