mmmmmbeeer

There was no question in anyone's mind that OU was absolutely the best team in college football...prior to last night's debacle. When you hear chatter about OU being "one of the greatest teams of all time" throughout the sports reporting world during the season it is safe to assume that they were inherently the best team of THIS season.....before last night's debacle. Everyone roots for the underdog and that's why, IMHO, most people are pulling for LSUvUSC. I'm not really a big college football fan but I pay attention enough to know that OU will/would whoop the living s*** out of either LSU or USC. It would be a travesty for OU not to go to New Orleans....AFTER last night's debacle....they are still one of the best teams the NCAA has fielded, ever.

According to The Sporting News this Brown deal would also include Nick Johnson going to LA. Obviously LA would have absolutely no use for PK if they get Johnson. Let's pray that this deal doesn't go down between LA and NY.

IMHO, value is set at demand. If I put an antique (Arod) on EBay it's sale value is not set by me (rangers) but rather by the amount of demand, or worth, that the antique holds with prospective buyers (the AL). A-Rod, by being the best player in the American League, is certainly the most valuable player in the league. The fact that he plays for the Rangers is irrelevant. Get wishlists from all the AL GMs, with no financial considerations, and I could almost guarantee A-Rod would be on the top of every list. That's why he's valuable and that's why he makes more money than any other ML player.

That's the point though....you can't expect 1 million people to change their minds and spend more money than they currently are. It won't happen. Either JR budges (1 man, 1 mind) or the fans budge (1 million people, 1 million minds). The fans won't change unless we have a winning team for more than 1 year.

Which is easier to change, JR, one man, spending an extra $20M or doing what he's been doing and hope that another million fans change their minds and show up one of these years? When he bought this team he didn't just buy a business. He may see it that way, but there are millions of fans that don't see things that way. He bought a piece of the city of Chicago. He owns the white sox blood that flows through many of us since our fathers, mothers, grandparents, or friends turned us onto this franchise. It is his responsibility as the owner of one of the oldest franchises in MLB to ensure that a sufficient amount of money is spent year in and year out to put a competitor on the field. I'm a huge Sox fan, I've got my 2 yr old son rooting for the Sox already, my entire family is full of Sox fans. Every year our eyes hope they see a successful season but every year our minds tell us that we just don't have enough. Either we're a pitcher short, or a 2B short, or we've got a weak pen. If we can see these holes as fans then there is no excuse that the management team of the franchise can't see those same holes and do everything needed to fill them. One more thing, it's not just winning a division here and there. If we'd won the ALC this season and turned around and dumped Maggs, Kong, Flash, Bart, etc... attendance would not increase next year. We need a team that will dominate the ALC for the next 3-4 years. With the competition in the division it wouldn't take too much more loot to get it done. Attendance would then improve. Fans would be happy. JR would be happy. Do you think that when JR decides he's going to sell the franchise that his last year he will blow $100M to win one on the way out???

But with Maggs gone, Kong possibly gone, Valentin and Frank back, and Rowand with Borchard/Reed in the OF, just how good do you think our offense will be? I'm all for trading Maggs but I really think that our O is going to take an enourmous hit.

Question...why don't veterans get veterans day off? I'm a veteran and it was nice watching the veterans day parade from my window at work, but it just didn't feel right. It was like sitting at work on your birthday knowing that everyone is eating, drinking, and celebrating your birthday party back at the house.

I thought Guillen only signed a 2 yr deal with a 3rd year team option? Well put though. I'll be absolutely disgusted if CLee is not on this team next year.

Cabrera is a FA in NOV of 2004. He can be obtained via trade now as a salary dump but cannot be outright signed.

My point is Frank could become very difficult, and the Sox would have a hard time moving him, he definitely has the upper hand there. Ozzie could bench him, but that would be a bad situation, not necessarily of Frank's doing. Frank always seems to have fingers pointed at him. Most of the time, for no apparent reason. I'm sure Frank would like to be treated like Ozzie felt he should be treated at the end of his White Sox playing career. That press conference was a joke. I didn't get to see the press conference but read over the summary that Steff had posted. Ballsy, most definitely. Ignorant, not necessarily. I don't think that we'll hear talk like this very often over the 2-3 years in the media. I think Ozzie wanted to let the fans know where he stands at the outset. No harm there. I appreciate knowing these things. Look, people are talking about the Sox again. There's renewed interest in the franchise thanks to Ozzie Guillen. I believe the main reason is that fans, the majority of which felt that the team gave a lackluster effort the last 2 seasons, have hope that finally there will be a manager who believes in accountability. If the players don't like being accountable for grounding into 30+ DPs, failed SACs, baserunning blunders, and swinging for the fences then f*** 'em. If they do their jobs they shouldn't have any problems with Ozzie. What's Frank so worried about? Oh, maybe he knows he doesn't play team ball...that could be it.

I don't want to see Ponson either. There was another post that mentioned Miguel Batista out in AZ will not sign until his role is defined. I'm pretty sure if we offered him a guaranteed starting spot we could get him for much less money than Ponson. Another guy I wouldn't mind seeing next year that would come cheap is Pedro Astacio. He hasn't had an outstanding career but he seems to have pretty good stuff. I guess it all boils down to $. There's no reason to spend a ton of money on Petite, Ponson, or Millwood when their production won't be that much better than a Bautista or Pavano.

I didn't get to watch the press conference but have read quotes here on the board. I like what I hear. I also think that he just spent a year under Jack McKeon and probably heard Jack's speech to the Marlins when he first arrived. I'm willing to bet there are some parallels between the two speeches. Look, he told it like it is. No veteran should get sick of him unless Ozzie is riding his ass. Ozzie shouldn't be riding anyone's ass unless they aren't performing. So if the veterans don't want to perform, f*** em if they don't like Ozzie, they can think about it while they're riding the pine. I only see a couple of players that could be considered veterans that could have a problem with Ozzie...Frank (finally find out if he's capable of being a team player), Paulie (he's used to have to speaking up because JM wouldn't, now he needs to shut up and play), Robbie (i doubt this being a problem being he seems to fit Ozzie's "style"), and Jose (let's hope he's gone).

Yup...I voted for Cito too. I'd prefer to see Ozzie but I just don't think KW will put his job in the hands of a rookie manager. It's really rather depressing. I've been looking forward to a new manager since last season and now the day arrives. I couldn't give two s***s about Cito Gaston though, absolutely nothing exciting to me. I don't even think Cito being named will bring a smile to my face. Seems like JM's older brother who happened to have one hell of a team in Toronto...yaaawwnnnn

I hope KW scoops him up off of waivers!!!

Let me apologize up front for my apparent ignorance on the issue. Please point me to the source of our "right to revolt." I just reread the 2nd Ammendment a bunch of times and I can't find it there. I read a couple state constitutions (even Tennessee's), and could not trace the source of our right to revolt. If the right to bear arms was repealed then certainly the ABILITY to successfully astage a revolt may also be taken away. But right and ability are two diffferent matters. I see the constitutional protection for the wherewithall of revolution but not for the right to undertake one. There is no "right to revolt" anywhere. Like Sox4Life stated, it's not so much directly stated but is most certainly implied. Here are a few quotes I was able to dig up off the web to give you an idea of where our forefathers stood on (cough, cough) gun "control". I think it's pretty obvious how these guys felt about an issue that is such a challenge today. BTW, after reading these quotes ask yourself what has changed without thinking about the impact of mass media on public opinion. I have a feeling that you, much like myself, will struggle to find an answer. "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson "Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world as well as property." Thomas Paine "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..." Alexander Hamilton "The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Alexander Hamilton "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable...The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington "Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed." Patrick Henry "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium (safeguard) of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1833 "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." Tench Coxe (1788) "If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying—that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, and the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976—establishes the repeated, complete, and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime." Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah)

While you're doing your research be sure to look at crime statistics (not just murder but rape, assault, robbery) from the UK and the way that those numbers SKYROCKETED after their weapons ban went into effect. The reason for this? No matter what the law books say lawbreakers will have guns. They effectively took self defense (HANDGUNS) away from law-abiding Joe but left the guns in f***-the-law Bob's hands and now Bob can do whatever the f*** he wants without ever having to worry about Joe concealing a weapon under his shirt or behind his gas station counter. Do you realize that with our gun culture, the highest % of weapon yieldingzs/trained individuals per capita in the entire world (by far), there is no chance of a successful land campaign against this country by an enemy? Are you comfortable with the idea that our government, which more and more of us are feeling abused by daily, has a phenomonal amount of weaponry that could NEVER be contained if Washington suddenly turns evil? Since you were able to quote the 2nd amendment, or atleast knew where to find it on the internet (not being a dick, there are a ton of ignorant people out there), you are well aware of the fact that Washington has already stepped light years beyond their original bounds that were laid out in the constitution. Revolution and secession are the only tools/threats that can truly keep Washington in line. The minute we lose our right to bear arms we lose our right to revolt. Call it extreme, and I don't expect to see it in my lifetime, but our forefathers lived through revolution and knew that that threat must ALWAYS exist.

That's truly hilarious. Not to be a dick Aboz, you seem like a pretty cool cat, but I always thought it was pretty corny to have a picture of yourself as an avatar and the fact that something that I already found to be corny was included in a bad joke just makes the picture that much funnier.

1. Salem's Lot--haven't seen it in years but it scared the living s*** out of me when I did 2. House of 1000 Corpses--sick s*** 3. Blair Witch Project-- brilliant movie and seriously had me scared s***less

I'm going to be upset if we end up with Ponson. He's not AT ALL what he's hyped up to be. There are plenty of other FA options that could be had for much less money.

I've noticed that most people that don't want Ozzie have two main concerns: 1.handling the pitching staff 2. getting respect from the players I think with Nossek and Cooper the pitching staff won't be a problem. The thing I noticed of McKeon during the playoffs was that he stuck with his pitchers and let them decide their own fate. JM was a tinkerer. I think Ozzie would fall more into the McKeon mold and let the players play the game, not him. Getting respect from the players won't be an issue IMHO. Ozzie knows the situation and knows that he'll have to come down hard on whomever crosses him first. Set an example. Some ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ACTIONS!!! There hasn't been any accountability on this team for 5 years. It's amazing the impact being held responsible for your actions can have on your "heart" and "desire" to win and perform. Gaston seems too much like JM. I was so happy we dumped JM, the last thing I want to see is his older clone taking the helm.

I was in the Air Force from 94-98 and worked on wideband and satellite comm systems. Had a blast while I was in, mostly stationed in Warner Robins, GA. Money on the outside was too good to pass up at the time, 98 was when the economy was booming, especially for telecom. I really miss being in though, cake, pure cake.

3 pair Ryder sandals 1 pair Doc Marten sandals 1 pair New Balance running shoes 1 pair Nike crosstrainers 1 pair Nike Basketball 2 pair DocMartens 2 pair Born 1 pair Pugolo dress shoes 2 pair Nike cleats 1 pair Footjoy golf 1 pair Nike hiking boots 1 pair AE Born knockoffs 1 pair Adidas campus 1 pair cheap brown loafers and I still can't find the right pair of shoes half the time.....

Why'd the monkey fall out of the tree? because it was dead one of my all-time favorite jokes.

Basically you're asking me if I'd rather die from lethal injection (dying while unconscious, painless) or dying of starvation/dehydration in a cell. Let me put it this way...I would rather die from jumping off a building, being crushed to death in an automobile accident, or dying of massive gunshot wounds than starving over a 2 week period. Talk about a slow, agonizing death....it's torture, not euthanasia. From your earlier post it sounds as if you've had some sort of medical training which certainly lends some creedence to your viewpoint. On the other hand, Schiavo's parents say that they have doctors who are convinced they can get her to eat voluntarily and I'm sure those doctors have had atleast as much training as you have. I also find it hard to believe, from the reports that I've read, that her asshole "husband" has ever gone out of his way to seek the therapy that these doctors recommend. I find it rather unnerving that there are people in this world that would actually encourage a husband to have the right to starve his wife to death. I mean I'd rather see Kevorkian in her hospice room than see a feeding tube removed. One thing that I hope results from this whole event is more people, regardless of age, signing living wills or some other sort of documentation to ensure that THEIR wishes are followed rather than the wishes of a selfish spouse or other state-appointed legal guardian.

So this husband has apparently refused treatement, would not let her parents see her without his accompaniment prior to this case, won $1 million in court, left his "wife" in the same room of a hospice for 3 yrs straight (as in she never once left the room in over 1000 days), has a pseudo-wife and another kid, and we're supposed to believe what this guy claims his wife said years ago??? Hell no. This should have been in writing, bottom line. It is inhumane to starve a person to death on the words of anyone, much less this money-hungry EX-husband. Another thing I find funny is how people are bashing Jeb Bush, mostly dems, while these same people (mostly dems) are supposed to be known for their compassion, human rights stances, and bleeding hearts. So are those only important when a republican isn't involved and taking the humane side of things? I'm confused.