Stupid Polls

One thing that really bugs me more than it should is poorly crafted poll questions on the net. It seems we are asked to vote about all sorts of things on every conceivable site, and yet so many of the questions are so poorly crafted they might as well not even be asked. Perhaps the most ridiculous set of questions I've seen in a long while came from ESPN on the Paul Konerko signing. One question asked, "Can the White Sox repeat as World Series champs with their current roster?" Can they? Well of course they can. Whether people think they will, and how confident they are in that are actual questions. But can to me says is it in the realm of possibility. A team that won the World Series and kept most of its players of course could win the World Series. That says nothing. Then they ask what you think of Paul Konerko's new deal for $60M over 5 years. The options are he's worth it, too many years OR too much money. It's baffling to me that you can't choose both too many years and too much money, as if they are mutually exclusive. Then they ask whether Brian Anderson (a CHI prospect) is "capable of starting in center field," which is the exact same type of ambiguity as the first question. Of course he's capable. He's got a pulse and he has played professional baseball at a decent level. Will he work out as a reliable player? Should they start him? Those are actual questions. And then it closes by asking what the White Sox should do with Bobby Jenks, and one of the options is move him to set up work and pursue a FA closer like BJ Ryan, Billy Wagner or Kyle Farnsworth. I suppose that's an option, but I don't think you're going to have too much luck pursuing guys that have already signed, or are about to. I know it's just a poll, but if 30,000 people are going to spend their time voting, the questions should at least be crafted so the answer has some meaning.