Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Jerry Sandusky's Wife Tries To Run A Reporter Over

Hot Stove Update: Holliday to Cards, Big Unit out to pasture, O's interested in LaRoche?

It appears the Orioles weren't so much "waiting in the weeds" as they were taking simply taking a nap. Matt Holliday returns to the Cardinals for a 7 year, $120M contract with a full no-trade clause. It's not a disappointment to me because I never actually thought he'd sign with the Orioles. I may have let my mind wander to the possibility, but that's about it. I'm actually glad he ended up in St. Louis. By all accounts St. Louis is a great city in which to play, he'll be side-by-side in the lineup with Albert Pujols, and the Cards are perennial contenders. Even if the Orioles were serious about him, how could they compete with that? 

Other news that's not shocking in and of itself but which still gave me a start when I read the headline is the announced retirement of Randy Johnson. It's not shocking in that Johnson is 46 years and has dealt with injuries the past few years, but every time one of the guys I grew up watching retires I feel a little sad. Johnson is possibly the last 300 game winner we'll see for generations, and as a pitcher he really did it all. 5 Cy Young awards, 2 no-hitters, one World Series Championship. He's one of the nastiest pitchers I've ever seen and even though I unfortunately didn't keep close track of him when he was in the NL, I'll always remember him as a member of those early 1990s Seattle Mariners teams that I loved so much. It's rare that I really root for a team other than the Orioles, but that Mariners team with Johnson, Ken Griffey, Jr., Edgar Martinez, Jay Buhner, Harold Reynolds, and the rest were really something. So best of luck to Randy Johnson, owner of that legendary mullet. Baseball will never see a pitcher quite like him again. 

Finally, according to Buster Olney, the Orioles appear to be in the hunt for 1B Adam LaRoche. In case you sometimes get your Andy and Adam LaRoches confused, rest assured that Adam is the more successful of the two. He will be 30 years old in 2010 but has put up much better career numbers than any of the other current Orioles 1B, albeit all in the NL other than his 6 game stint with the Red Sox in 2009. I could be ok with LaRoche manning 1B for the O's in 2010. 

Comment 130 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

LaRoche

I guess he’d be ok to have for a year. I like the thought of him at 1st for a full season better than Aubrey.

by daveh873 on Jan 5, 2010 8:21 PM EST reply actions  

Remember when we almost traded Brian Roberts for Adam LaRoche?

Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.

by birdman on Jan 5, 2010 8:24 PM EST reply actions  

from buster's tweet
Sources: Giants offered Adam LaRoche 2 years, $17 million but that was turned down; that offer may now be off the table… (cont.)

"I doubt he could reach [second base]...mostly cuz his fucking arm was in Aybar's nuts." – twistedlogic

by zknower on Jan 5, 2010 8:35 PM EST reply actions  

that being said...

g-men are supposedly looking for a lefty w/ power to play the outfield. o’s sign laroche, send luke scott westward?

i have to admit, i’ve taken a shine to the little gun toting jesus freak, but everyone has their price. besides, i’d like to see him put a few more plaques on eutaw street (i think that by the time they update it, he’ll be the o’s leader…which is kind of weird).

"If they pitch to you, make them pay."

--Diamond Dave to the Phenom

by j.q. higgins on Jan 5, 2010 8:47 PM EST up reply actions  

When you’re packing a 9mm and have Jesus on your side being the Eutaw St. leader is cake!

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 5, 2010 8:52 PM EST up reply actions  

Visiting from McCovey Chronicles

A lot of members there have discussed Scott as a possible trade target. Do the Orioles have someone to take his place? Jones, Reimold and Markakis in the OF. If you were to sign LaRoche it appears that you would have 1st base covered, but still no DH if you traded Scott. That would probably make the Orioles less likely to trade him.

#1 threat to America: Pandas
Also, Tim Lincecum
Official McPokeMaster

by GrahamCrakalaka on Jan 5, 2010 11:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Reimold can DH

As can Wiggy (ugh) in a pinch. Matt Weiters on some days. Scott is definitely tradeable.

"I doubt he could reach [second base]...mostly cuz his fucking arm was in Aybar's nuts." – twistedlogic

by zknower on Jan 5, 2010 11:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Who would play OF? A FA? Or is there someone else?

I really dont know

#1 threat to America: Pandas
Also, Tim Lincecum
Official McPokeMaster

by GrahamCrakalaka on Jan 6, 2010 1:31 AM EST up reply actions  

Felix Pie is the other candidate for LF.

Weaver's Fourth Law: Your most precious possessions on offense are your twenty-seven outs.

by Vuff on Jan 6, 2010 1:41 AM EST up reply actions  

Oh right. Alright. Well I wonder what it would take for the Giants to get Scott. Is there a certain position where your prospects are weak?

#1 threat to America: Pandas
Also, Tim Lincecum
Official McPokeMaster

by GrahamCrakalaka on Jan 6, 2010 1:50 AM EST up reply actions  

We don’t have a lot of upper-level infield prospects, especially at SS. 2B isn’t an issue for several years with Roberts there, but 1B and 3B are open questions where we’re all praying a couple of prospects pan out. SS is the big one, though, I think.

Weaver's Fourth Law: Your most precious possessions on offense are your twenty-seven outs.

by Vuff on Jan 6, 2010 1:54 AM EST up reply actions  

I'm sure

we’d always take another pitcher too.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 6, 2010 11:25 AM EST up reply actions  

yeah i still like pie

great speed, he covers alot of ground in the outfield a former number one prospect so we could still see some great years in the future

http://draftdayencyclopedia.wordpress.com/
check it out, great draft blog.

by danielreese05 on Jan 10, 2010 8:38 PM EST up reply actions  

About five million decent DHs on the market still...

…somehow, I think we could make do with Vlad, or Thome, or Cust, or Dye, or…

by James F on Jan 6, 2010 12:01 AM EST up reply actions  

True enough. You would have to sign someone before you could replace Scott with a decent player.

#1 threat to America: Pandas
Also, Tim Lincecum
Official McPokeMaster

by GrahamCrakalaka on Jan 6, 2010 1:33 AM EST up reply actions  

jermaine dye would be nice

http://draftdayencyclopedia.wordpress.com/
check it out, great draft blog.

by danielreese05 on Jan 10, 2010 8:38 PM EST up reply actions  

Anyone who thinks it is ok to carry a gun or ...

… who believes in Jesus is a radical.

One who believes in both fits the description of radical terrorist.

At least according to the current Secretary of Homeland Security.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Jan 6, 2010 4:33 PM EST up reply actions  

On the other hand

if somebody believes in Allah and carries a gun…

Again spare me the “us Christians are so discriminated against” garbage.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 6, 2010 6:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Never said a thing about discrimination.

Shouldn’t let your bias show. Doesn’t look good.

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 1:53 PM EST up reply actions  

lol

that was obviously your implication.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 2:56 PM EST up reply actions  

So among your many talents is reading minds?

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 3:32 PM EST up reply actions  

When Christians

start professing Jihad I’ll quit worry so much about the Muslims and more about the Souther Baptists.

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 3:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Anyone who … believes in Jesus is a radical.

Uh, right. Christians have such a hard time in this country, don’t they?

"I doubt he could reach [second base]...mostly cuz his fucking arm was in Aybar's nuts." – twistedlogic

by zknower on Jan 6, 2010 6:59 PM EST up reply actions  

lol

do you watch The Daily Show? they had a segment on this phenomenon on Monday I think. Hilarious.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 6, 2010 7:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Same as above.

Who said anything about Christians having a hard time?

I was just commenting on what a certain government official said.

Besides, you don’t think referring to someone as a gun toting Jesus freak isn’t on the derogatory side? Were I to refer to Adam Jones my favorite watermelon eating pickineny on the team, you don’t think there would be any sort of uproar?

How about calling Markakis a boy loving, turk baiting olive eater?

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 1:59 PM EST up reply actions  

What the hell are you talking about?

Luke Scott widely professes his love for Jesus and guns. Have you ever heard Adam Jones say anything about watermellon? Nick Markakis ever said anything about loving boys/baiting turks/eating olives?

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 2:55 PM EST up reply actions  

I think one has an 'E' too though so I could be wrong.

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 3:34 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Rec

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 3:42 PM EST up reply actions  

This is the sort of intelligence free, knee jerk response I was half expecting.

Congratulations.

It matters not whether Luke Scott (or anyone else) professes their belief in or love of God or expresses their opinion on the right to carry firearms. The question under discussion is whether it is ok to make disparaging remarks about someone. A related question is whether there are some people or groups that it is ok to disparage or make fun of, and not others. For example I don’t see people getting worked up over jokes and internet photos about rednecks and southerners. Does that mean it is ok to single them out? If you someone who has no problem with professing their belief in Jesus makes you uncomfortable it’s ok to refer to them as a freak? What if someone has no problem with professing their love for someone of the same sex and likes to demonstrate that love in public and you are made uncomfortable by that? Is it ok to call them a freak of nature?

I don’t think j q meant to be derogatory. I took it more as an attempt to be sardonically humorous. And it was to a degree. But I also thought that it offered the opportunity to address a bigger issue. It has been my observation that some of the people who speak the loudest on respecting others and calling out the discrimination card are also some of the worst when it comes acting that way.

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 3:58 PM EST up reply actions  

But the points you raise are exactly the point.

Christians are free to disparage gays, muslims, jews, etc, but if anybody says one thing about Christianity they are crying foul. That’s the sort of holier than thou attitude that drives me (and apparently lots of other people) crazy.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 4:17 PM EST up reply actions  

What are you talking about?
Christians are free to disparage gays, muslims, jews, e…

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 4:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Uhhh

have you heard what the religious right has been spouting for the last 30 years??

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 4:27 PM EST up reply actions  

perfect example

Just this week, fox news commentator says that Buddhism isn’t the right faith for Tiger Woods:

“The extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith,” Hume said. “He is said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger would, ’Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

And then when people call him out on the absurdity of his comment (who the fuck is he to say one religion is better than another – especially when he obviously doesn’t know a single thing about Budhism), the whole Christian right announces that Christianity is under attack again.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 4:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, you know, I’m just from middle america or the bible belt where we pretty much let people be whatever they are. I guess you’ve had some bad experciences with Christians and I’m sorry for that. Hopefully, you don’t let the minority in every situation influence you.

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 4:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Dude it has nothing to do with personal experiences. It’s public, consistent, messaging from religious leaders in politics and media.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 4:42 PM EST up reply actions  

So you just hate christians b/c of religious leaders in politics and the ever present right wing media?

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 4:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Pretty sure

you’re the one all worked up over a country drenched in christianity.

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 5:00 PM EST up reply actions  

Oh I'm definitely passionate about this issue.

But NOWHERE did I say I hate Christians. By calm down I meant for you not to get carried away and start making things up. Sorry – should have been more clear.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 5:05 PM EST up reply actions  

have you been watching 700 club reruns or what?

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 4:49 PM EST up reply actions  

I think I can help you.

Quit watching FoxNews and you’ll be a lot happier little person.

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 4:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Definitely true.

But we were not debating my happiness. We were talking about this double-standard whereby Christians can say what they like about other religions and people, but if anybody says anything about christianity they cry foul.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 4:59 PM EST up reply actions  

I think that's just

what you’re going to have to deal with. Kinda like the fact that Lou CAN HIT. We’re not a Muslim nation or a Catholic nation. Or a scientologist nation…although any religion started as a bet between science fiction writers can’t be all bad.

In the end, I guess you are just going to have to keep coming here and making an ass out of yourself everytime someone brings up Christianity.

God Bless.

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 5:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Not if you're confused about the official national religion...

because we’re not any type of religious nation. We’re a free nation that very clearly separates church and state.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 5:06 PM EST up reply actions  

Oh, I understand perfectly. English isn’t the official language either and yet here we are.

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 5:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Curious...

so besides that one “fox commetator” talking about Tiger (and I thought that was on ABC but honestly I didn’t pay much attention) who are your other arch nemesis?

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 5:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Where are you going with this?

Do you want me to list every person that I disagree with? What would be the purpose of that?

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 5:27 PM EST up reply actions  

top 3?

Just give me some idea of these religious right types so I can avoid. I think you probably disagree with everyone at some point. So don’t list everyone. But if I had to guess I would guess it’s the usual republican suspects that has you up in arms. Beck, Limbaugh, any hottie from Money for Breakfast, etc.

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 5:29 PM EST up reply actions  

You're generally on-target.

Rush is an easy target, but he’s not the most offensive out there. The Fox News cartoons (hannity, beck, take your pick). Sarah Palin is also pretty offensive about her religion.

There are plenty of christian republicans out there that don’t flaunt their faith as morally superior to everybody else’s that I don’t have any issues with.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 5:33 PM EST up reply actions  

also

why did you put fox commentator in quotation marks?

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 5:29 PM EST up reply actions  

I assume you attribute every radical, right-wing comment to fox news. and i thought there was a chance it was from ABC but I wasn’t sure. why do you question why I put things in quotation marks? “HUH?”

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 5:32 PM EST up reply actions  

ok

I figured (correctly) that the quotes were you doubting me that it was a fox news commentator.

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Brit-Hume-Tiger-1013443.aspx

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 5:36 PM EST up reply actions  

Hey guys

Feel free to continue your discussion, but please be careful. Y’all are being pretty civil, but this kind of discussion can explode in a hurry, especially if some random person jumps in.

by Stacey on Jan 7, 2010 5:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Who are you to question

my discussion with Lefty? :)

I’ll put you in quotation marks!

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 5:35 PM EST up reply actions  

fuck any random people that happen to jump in!

just kidding.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 5:35 PM EST up reply actions  

I gotta go anyway

be safe and “see” you guys tomorrow

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 5:37 PM EST up reply actions  

This is an excellent topic for discussion.

A large number of people, including some of the most intelligent around, incorrectly refer to the section of the first amendment addressing freedom of religion as the Seperation Clause.

The correct term would be Establishment Clause. It states that no official “state” church be established. You need to look to the mindset of the founders and their understanding of history to truly understand what they meant with this clause.

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 8:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Let me know if I'm following correctly

Are you saying that instead of taking them at their words (that there is no official state religion), you have some knowledge about their mindset? And that mindset was that this should be a christian nation? I might not be following correctly…

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 8:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Lets look at the text.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I would say that you are correct in saying that the intent was to prevent the establishment of an “official state religion”. The issue does not stop there. People disagree on what constitutes “establishment”. Some take the argument that anything the govenment does must be absolutely neutral with regard to religion or completely absent of religious content in any form. Others argue that is reading more into the wording than was intended by the writers. When two parties can’t agree, the next step is to look deeper into phiosophies, opinions and beliefs of the people who wrote the Article in the first place.

What I am saying is that when you do look deeper into it, you will find that the framers had some very specific ideas in mind that they wanted to avoid or prevent.

Whether or not the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights thought that ours would be a Christian nation may not be the right question to ask. They undoubtedly did. At a minimum they assumed it would be. I believe the more important question in the debate over separation of church and state is what they thought constituted establishment. That’s where the fun lies. And that is where you have to delve into the authors mindset.

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 8:54 PM EST up reply actions  

I find it interesting that you want to delve into their mindset about this issue. Would you also like to delve into their mindset relating to the 2nd ammendment? Do you think any of the framers wanted every tom, dick, and harry carrying semi-automatic handguns? I don’t think so. But, that’s why we go with what’s actually written, not conjecture about what they may or may not have been thinking. What’s written is no official state religion.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 9:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Why don't you tell me what you think

is meant by the 2nd amendment?

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 9:05 PM EST up reply actions  

I personally think they meant a militia, but that’s the point – lots of different people can think lots of different things about what a bunch of guys thought 2 and a half centuries ago.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 9:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Which is why so many people ...

… spend so much time and effort studying history to better understand the intent. Even a quick check (i.e. wickipedia) on the Bill of Rights includes a section on antecedents. Why, because they help us better understand the intent of the framers.

In looking at the 2nd amendment it is easy to see why we would want more information regarding what they meant. If we go simply by what is written, then which part counts and which doesn’t? Is the preamble to the sentence the most important part or is it the second part? I believe an English major would say that the subject of the sentence is infringement against the right to bear arms. The framers certainly believed that a major reason for this was to support the ability to call up militias. But was that their only reason? Many (though by no means all) of the framers had a healthy distrust of government. In particular governments that maintained large standing armies. They had seen first hand what such a government could do. They also had an abhorance to the thought of paying for such forces. (They were landowners and therefore the ones whose taxes would go to pay for them.) But their belief in the right to bear arms was also driven by more than being against a standing army. They believed that only by preventing a government from having a monopoly on force could it be trusted not to slide into oppression. And the only way to do that is to ensure that every citiizen had the right to arms.

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 9:39 PM EST up reply actions  

I think that’s a decent argument. But then why would we base the ways in which we run our country today on the unknown thoughts of men who lived so long ago in such a different world? How could we honestly infer what they would think about a world that is so dramatically different than anything they lived in?

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 9:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Not sure I can answer this in a simple statement ...

… and I’ve already blown off my workout and am still going to be late for dinner.

The short answer is that they were operating from what they believed were universal truths and concepts. Ones that they themselves derived from the study of man’s history.

The fact that it has worked as well as it has is testiment to the possibility they were.

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 9:52 PM EST up reply actions  

haha

I was late picking up my fiance at the gym…

Well right – but we’ve already determined that some of their truths and concepts were absurd and disgarded them (the value of the different races, genders, and slavery), so what makes some of the issues they wrote about untouchable?

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 10:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Have you seen some of the guys that proclaim themselves “militia” nowadays? Now THAT’S scary.

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 10:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed.

I think I’d rather have the corner kids in baltimore be armed than those guys…

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 10:18 PM EST up reply actions  

I dunno if this is really the case.

Unless you’re mostly watching a station like Fox News, which is actually going to cover people bashing Christianity and paint them in a negative light, I really don’t think that most media jump to Christians’ defense.

And I think a distinction needs to be made between Christians “disparaging” other religions and people versus Christians stating their beliefs about other religions and people’s behavior. On the one hand, take groups like the extreme anti-gays that show up to protest at funerals and say that every natural disaster is God’s judgement upon our growing acceptance of homosexuality. They are condemned and criticized by pretty much everyone, most Christians included, as they should be. But that’s a lot different from, say, a Christian saying that he has nothing against homosexual people, but believes homosexual acts are wrong. Or, to take an actual example, Carrie Prejean’s little incident. She says she has a traditional view of marriage and is roundly attacked by most of the media (Fox being the main exception).

So I really don’t think that Christians get to say whatever they want about anybody else and get away with it. And sure, Fox is going to have coverage of anti-Christian stories more than other networks and is likely to be critical. But I think there’s a much greater tendency on the rest of TV news and most of the major newspapers to take cheap shots at Christians and ignore the faults of other religions. Why do so many media types blast “anti-gay” Christians who want to preserve traditional marriage while ignoring the dozens of nations where homosexuals are killed and the religions which encourage their murder?

Weaver's Fourth Law: Your most precious possessions on offense are your twenty-seven outs.

by Vuff on Jan 7, 2010 5:53 PM EST up reply actions  

You're definitely right

that Fox News and other media outlets make it seem a lot worse than it is by giving jackasses the spotlight. But Fox News also has an absurdly broad viewing population, so people obviously absorb and support these types of absurd beliefs.

As far as why people focus on anti-gay christians, it’s probably because it’s in our country and they want to limit the freedom of our citizens. Those same people are probably equally outraged by the situation in Uganda (which I think you’re referencing – and they are particularly outraged at the implication that US politicians and religious leaders seem to be associating with the Ugandan leadership…), but those laws aren’t impacting their friends, family and community.

Again though, just because I’m talking about this situation in the US it doesn’t mean that I’m not just as passionate about the international human rights issues you raised.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 8:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Right, I didn’t mean to suggest that you weren’t similarly passionate about the issues overseas, but that many media outlets don’t seem to be (because, frankly, they want to influence domestic policy rather than encourage that we go to war).

Weaver's Fourth Law: Your most precious possessions on offense are your twenty-seven outs.

by Vuff on Jan 7, 2010 9:01 PM EST up reply actions  

A double standard?

So here we are in a nation that allows relegious to a greater extent than anywhere in the world, both now and in the past, a nation that is predominately Christian and founded by people who held a strong belief in a Christian God and you want to get passionately worked up over a few of them that are out towards the end of the spectrum?

Not to tell you what you can be passionate about, but what about passion against those nations, people or cultures that prohibit all religion or only allow the one they think is the right one? If you are passionate about speaking against those who argue against gay marriage in this country, where is the passion and the arguments against countries such as Uganda or Iran or Saudia Arabia that execute people for being gay and solve the whole gay marriage debate that way?

It is a double standard when you want to castigate a group of people over relatively minor issues and stay quiet about much bigger ones. I doubt most people would agree with the statement that Christians can say what they like about other religions and not have anything said about it. Yes, like anybody in this country they can say what they want. But to believe that they regularly do so without criticism is to turn a blind eye on the real world or at least look at it with filters so you don’t see what might disprove your opinions.

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 8:20 PM EST up reply actions  

how do you know

that I’m not also passionate about the international issue of religious oppression? Because I happen to be talking about religious issues in this country? Don’t make assumptions based on limited information.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 8:38 PM EST up reply actions  

You are right.

I shouldn’t be making assumptions.

I’ll leave that to you.

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 8:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Again man

there’s a gigantic difference between assuming that you are bitching about Christians getting a raw deal when you whine about some passing comment an administration official made about christian radicals with guns, and you assuming that I don’t care about international human rights because I’m talking about domestic human rights.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 9:03 PM EST up reply actions  

No whine.

Simple statement.

Now how about explaining what the difference is? If it so gigantic, it should be pretty simple to do. You can go ahead and assume I had to ride the short bus to school. Hell, I was a torpedoman, and we are generally known for strong backs and weak minds.

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 9:09 PM EST up reply actions  

The difference is that I made an assumption based on partial (or maybe misunderstood, but I don’t think so) evidence (your “simple” statement – we both know it was meant to stir the pot, but whatever) whereas you made it based on negative/non-existent evidence (that I hadn’t said anything about international human rights even though it wasn’t even remotely related to anything we were talking about). Don’t those seem pretty different to you?

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 9:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes. you are correct in there being a difference.

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 9:44 PM EST up reply actions  

And who is saying they are free to do this?

There are ignoranus’ on both sides of any debate. Those are not the people you want to take you cues from, whether for or against.

O’s I like the fact you are willing and even eager to enter into a discussion on almost any subject, but you have a habit of being completely assure you have the superior opinion. Look at some of the terms you use. Such as labeling what you thought my opinion was as “garbage”. That is showing respect for another’s opinion?

Or automatically assuming you know the exact point I was making and using terms like lol and haha, while telling me to “get serious”. Does that mean that you think anything I might say that doesn’t jive with your own beliefs is laughable? It certainly shows distain for the opinion of others.

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 8:06 PM EST up reply actions  

lol seriously?

I’m sorry – I should have used terms like “intelligence free”. That’s much more respectful.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 8:39 PM EST up reply actions  

My comment was specifically framed to get a knee jerk reaction.

And I am probably guilty of a little trolling by doing so.

But that doesn’t change the fact that you like to shoot from the hip and don’t care about respecting others until you feel that it’s you that is being disrespected. How about responding to the point I make rather than trying to see who is the slicker blogpage shootist?

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 9:03 PM EST up reply actions  

So because you framed it to get a certain reaction

it’s ok for you to disrespect that reaction? But it’s not ok when I disrespect an opinion?

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 9:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Show me the disrespect.

Can you recall exactly what it was I said?

Here, I’ll save you the trouble of paging up.

“Shouldn’t let your bias show. Doesn’t look good.”

What do you consider disrespectful? You certainly showed a bias when you used the term garbage. And my telling you it doesn’t look good is simply an opinion and possibly good advice. Were someone to tell you your fly was open would you accuse them of disrespecting you?

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 9:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Nope that wasn't it.
This is the sort of intelligence free, knee jerk response I was half expecting. Congratulations.

That was the one.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 9:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Ok, the intelligence free part can't be spun

as being respectful.

Sometimes I can’t help it. As I said, you can be an interesting person to discuss a topic with. Just try showing a tad of humility (sp?) I know I’m not the first that’s challenged you on your style.

I will say that I’m impressed and even surprised at not seeing a single “fuck” or other swearing – no sarcasim implied here. Have a good night.

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 10:02 PM EST up reply actions  

I try to save

my obscenities for people who deserve them – like Rich Hill and Adam Eaton.

Eh I don’t really, but whatever. haha

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 10:19 PM EST up reply actions  

And if you want to talk about intelligence free responses...

You responded to JQ making a running joke about a player’s open love of Jesus and guns and compared it to random racially and culturally offensive stereotypes about other players that have NEVER been referenced by the players themselves or anybody on this site. It doesn’t take much intelligence to realize the absurdity in your logic.

The stereotypes you referenced about Jones and Nicky would be comparable if somebody referred to Luke Scott as a “gun toting jesus freak” just because he was from the South (rather than the fact that he’s an admitted jesus and gun lover). It’s not even remotely comparable to the ridiculous comments you made about Jones/Nicky.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 4:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Ok, so you know for a fact that Adam Jones doesn't like or eat watermelon?

I’ll admit I don’t know with 100% accuracy that he does, but I’d say the odds are in my favor he’s eaten it before. I know I love watermelon and I’ve come across very few poeple in my life who don’t like it.

But it doesn’t matter. If you want to pick nits and ignore the elephant, that’s your choice.

Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.

by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 8:34 PM EST up reply actions  

haha

Everybody likes watermelon (spelled it right this time BP).

The point was that JQ referenced something that Luke Scott regularly puts out there for all to see. It wasn’t a stereotype or made up. Your comparison was not even close to valid. If the word “freak” being included in the description of Luke bothered you – that’s valid, but saying it’s the same as making up random racial/cultural stereotypes I just don’t see.

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 8:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Thanks!

I dislike watermelon. And canteloupe for that matter. I’m really not much of a fruit or vegetable guy at all and for the longest discriminated against green foods. But I’m broadening my horizons as age rises, metabolism slows, and this dang arctic air interrupts my running.

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 10:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah

that’s definitely not up my alley. Although I did eat a salad for dinner last night.

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 10:24 PM EST up reply actions  

I’d never made it before, but it was pretty good. Put enough soy sauce on anything though and it’s pretty tasty. Probably counteracts any of the health benefits, but whatever…

by O'sFan21 on Jan 7, 2010 10:27 PM EST up reply actions  

I’m a meat and potatoes guy in about the worst way possible. In fact…sometimes I’m not even a potatoes guy.

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 7, 2010 10:28 PM EST up reply actions  

isnt markakis married? and come to think of it doesn't he have a son?

i remember reading something in the son about it so im pretty sure he’s not “boy loving” and he was born in new york but lived in georgia i think, maybe south carolina, so im not so sure about this whole greek thing either.
no doubt he’s got some greek roots but his sister’s name is mary lou (thank wikipedia for that little tidbit) and the song they play when he comes up to bat is “country boy” for gods sake. he’s about as american he can get.

http://draftdayencyclopedia.wordpress.com/
check it out, great draft blog.

by danielreese05 on Jan 10, 2010 8:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Only if...

As long as we just pull an Atkins with a 1-year deal with an option if need be (that will obviously be declined), I could deal with his. As I recall, he’s at least pretty good with the leather. Could be wrong though, other than the Phillies, I don’t pay quite as much attention to the AAAA.

"Chicks who dig home runs aren't the ones who appeal to me. I think there's sexiness in infield hits because they require technique. I'd rather impress the chicks with my technique than with my brute strength. Then, every now and then, just to show I can do that, too, I might flirt a little by hitting one out." - Ichiro Suzuki

by Billy Buckner on Jan 5, 2010 9:05 PM EST reply actions  

His at-bat music is worth a two year deal all by itself...

You’re the best around

"I'd like to do something. We all would here," he added. "As I've said before, you just don't want to do anything stupid that you're thinking in May, 'What in the God's green earth was I thinking about?'" - Andy MacPhail 12/8/09

by getxstoked on Jan 5, 2010 9:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Amazing

I am officially all for signing LaRoche now.

by daveh873 on Jan 5, 2010 9:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Wow.

Well, that’s just epic.

"Chicks who dig home runs aren't the ones who appeal to me. I think there's sexiness in infield hits because they require technique. I'd rather impress the chicks with my technique than with my brute strength. Then, every now and then, just to show I can do that, too, I might flirt a little by hitting one out." - Ichiro Suzuki

by Billy Buckner on Jan 5, 2010 10:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Randy Johnson

Also had a legendary nickname… “The Big Unit,” and he was on the Arizona team that kept the yankees from winning the WS that one year.

What up?

by snakethejake on Jan 5, 2010 9:21 PM EST reply actions  

Contrary to popular belief .,.

.. he got that moniker not because of his height, but as a result of the reaction of a couple of the players wives when they were let into the clubhouse unexpectedly.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Jan 6, 2010 4:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Too much information.

Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.

by birdman on Jan 6, 2010 4:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Frankly, I don't see the point in LaRoche

Let’s save the money and give Chapman $25 million instead. At least that move has upside.

by James F on Jan 5, 2010 10:42 PM EST reply actions  

Asked and answered.

If Chapman is open to using the above song, we can discuss signing him.

by kba26 on Jan 5, 2010 10:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed.

Couldn’t agree more. It’s a deal-breaker.

"Chicks who dig home runs aren't the ones who appeal to me. I think there's sexiness in infield hits because they require technique. I'd rather impress the chicks with my technique than with my brute strength. Then, every now and then, just to show I can do that, too, I might flirt a little by hitting one out." - Ichiro Suzuki

by Billy Buckner on Jan 5, 2010 11:55 PM EST up reply actions  

LaRoche

I watched him in Atlanta a couple years ago. He has some power but has a long swing and strikes out alot. Good fielding 1B. I wouldn’t mind him at 1B for the O’s, but only for one year, and he apparently turned down a two year deal with the Giants. If it required a two year deal, I would say no thanks. Not a clutch hitter. Think .260 with 25 HRs. Not worth taking up the spot.

by fuddnelson on Jan 6, 2010 10:35 AM EST reply actions  

I wouldn't mind getting Branyan

He wants 2 years, not sure what money he wants. He hit 31 bombs for SEA last year, has more power than LaRoche, and did a successful 3B to 1B conversion last year.

LaRoche would be good too, but not for that kind of scratch.

by CoachOfEarl on Jan 6, 2010 11:49 AM EST reply actions  

wasn't he hurt quite a bit the 2nd half?

Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt

by BPinOK on Jan 6, 2010 3:58 PM EST up reply actions  

He had some back issues

so yeah, it should be a bargain bin type of deal.

by CoachOfEarl on Jan 6, 2010 4:55 PM EST up reply actions  

He turned down their first offer

over a 2nd year option. SEA was trying to get Kotchman recently.

by CoachOfEarl on Jan 6, 2010 4:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Bit embarassing not being up to date on the Mariners, considering I live here.

But then I don’t get the paper and never listen to the news.

I do know a guy who works in the clubhouse, but I see him perhpas once a week when I stop in to by wine.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Jan 6, 2010 6:11 PM EST up reply actions  

wait, apparently I slept a little long on the bball the past week so let me ask a few quick q’s; Kotchman to Sea? for what?… The O’s were only one of two teams looking at LaRoche for nothing? Now the only one, so should we expect a signing soon? and for good measure, are Delgado and/or Blalock still available?…

As a side note, I was willing to swallow the Atkins signing if the O’s were able to acquire a BIG bat to offset but i’m not so sure LaRoche is that guy. I hope my gut is wrong….. Anything left on the offseason [wish] list? Flip Scott? Sign a low risk / high reward injury recovering pitcher who once was an O (bedard or sheets)?

by bigity b on Jan 6, 2010 6:50 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The SB Nation blog covering the Baltimore Orioles.

Please read our Community Guidelines

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

100_1952_small
Mike Flanagan's Father Delivers Acceptance Speech
Gamecock4_small
THE BULLPEN: BALTIMORE
Wieters_small
OT: CC Fantasy Baseball Keeper League

Recent FanPosts

Virginiatechvtlogo_small
Luck and sports: A 1000-year look at the 1977 American League
Fixed_small
Keith Law On Dylan Bundy
Small
Mistake in going to arbitration with Jones
Small
Korea and the O's
Southpark11_small
Traveling to Baltimore
Bflag4_small
2012: All the O's need to do is beat low expectations
Small
Bowden tweet on DD and Manny

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Official Sponsor of Camden Chat GameThreads

Tankeray_medium
Tankeray provided by dayzd toe


Bowser

Flanny_small Stacey

Koopa Troopas

Baltimore_oriole_avatar_small zknower

P1030831_small 2632

Rainbowsmall_small duck

Esskay_small Eat More Esskay

610x_small Andrew_G

Goombas

Reynolds_small birdman

Thumbnail_small j.q. higgins

Img_0927_small dfa

4840750964_54cdc24eef_small James F

091_small WestcoastO'sFan

2009_june22_philliekid3_small twistedlogic