Controlled Chaos

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 03:30 PM) Would you rather let him sit and then walk next year or try to get some kind of draft picks for him and just get it over with. I dont agree with Lances tactics but if he wants to go be "the man" somewhere else Id rather get something for him now then let him walk next year. Yeah, I'd rather let him sit unless we get what we deem to be fair value. Either way I don't think he is going to sit out.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 02:54 PM) TO some players thats a great contract but to one it isnt, and thats his right. The Bears arent doing anything wrong technically but that doesnt mean he has to honor it. He has the right to sit out just like we have the right to franchise. He wants to leave...oh well, trade him and move on. This seams to Jr. High to me and I wish it would be over with. Why should the Bears hurt themselves just for playing by the rules. If someone offers us a good deal then fine we'll trade him. I'm sure Angelo will listen to offers, but Angelo has no negotiating power. Every team in the league knows Lance's stance now, which means the Bears will most likely get the lesser end of the deal. Funk that.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 12:23 PM) Here's an honest, sincere, request. Provide the names of a couple of the dissenting scientists so that I can read what they have to say and make an objective decision as to the merits of their position. There are people like Frederick Seitz and S. Fred Singer (who have been discussed here before) that on paper look like they should be able to speak with some authority on controversial science issues, but have been revealed to be nothing but well-compensated pro-tobacco and pro-Big Oil shills who represent the worst of sham science. Then there are intelligent, well-intentioned scientists on BOTH sides of the anthropogenic climate change debate whose findings have not held up entirely under scrutiny. Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann of U Mass is probably the best known example from our climate change "alarmists" camp. On the dissent side on the other hand, there is a well-respected climatologist (his name escapes em but we've also talked about him here) who had maybe 15 years' worth of solid data suggesting that the alarmists' findings were overblown. In the end, it turns out his data were flawed from two honest but fatal flaws, one involving a computational error and the other involving a temporal measurement error in which his instruments were recording nighttime temperatures but reporting them as daytime temps. As Balta says, it's a disservice to represent the anthopogenic climate change debate as being between two more or less equal-sized groups of scientists on either side of the issue. A few thousand "alarmists" have added data, insights, and studies supporting their views while a handful of respected legitimate scientists continue to doubt the findings or the conclusions. That's just it. I don't know if it's a handful....I have to dig to finad out anything. I don't have time to dig. I like to get my info from the news. Here's a couple articles I found. Take it for what it is worth. I don't know if it's right. I don't know the fricken scientists and I don't want to take the time to research them. I want someone else to do the work. Tell me this side. Tell me if there's more that believe this same thing and how many. February 15, 2007 Scientific consensus - except for those other scientists J.R. Dunn "Scientific consensus!" chants the mainstream media in America when it comes to global warming. Not so long ago, that would have been the end of the story for nearly everyone. One of the pleasures of the Internet is coming across first-class publications - newspapers, magazines, and the like - that might never have been available to ordinary people in the pre-wired world. Newspapers like The Scotsman and the Sydney Morning Herald, far superior to their equivalents here in the U.S., open windows to other points of view and often contain information impossible to find in the domestic media. The Hindustan Times is not quite on that level. But here too we have a source of information that - to put it kindly - we might never otherwise have come across "Experts Question Theory on Global Warming" from the February 11th edition may not be the most gracefully written or edited piece you'll ever read (e.g., the use of "cosmatic", which is not a word in standard English and which I believe is supposed to be "cosmetic"), but it's essential reading all the same, focusing as it does on the Indian scientific community's attitude toward climate change. Dr. V.K. Raina is a leading Indian glaciologist, a scientist who has devoted half a century to the glaciers of the Himalayas, the man to see concerning South Asian glacier studies. Which raises the question of why no one has come around to see him. Dr. Raina undercuts contentions by the UN's International Panel on Climate Change that Himalayan glaciers have retreated due to global warming. "Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," he says. These include the fact that American and European glaciers are situated at much lower altitudes, and are less dusty, which, if my truncated scientific education isn't leading me wrong, suggests that they would melt much less quickly than Himalayan glaciers. Raina's statements imply that observations at only a handful of sites are being applied worldwide without any kind of local confirmation, a serious lapse of scientific procedure, if true. Like any scientist anywhere, Raina spends much of the interview bemoaning levels of funding. But he has a point - of the 9,575 glaciers in India, only fifty, or a little over half of one percent, are currently under study. One somehow expects more, particularly considering all the rhetoric about glaciers being a key element in the case for global warming. Dr. Raina is backed up by at least two other glaciologists, Dr. R.K. Ganjoo, director of a glacial study center, and geologist M.N. Koul. Neither sees any evidence of glacial retreat in any of the sites they've studied. It's difficult to tell exactly what the IPCC's sources are for their glacial data. The recent "report" - actually only a twenty-one page summary - is a little sparse when it comes to citations. Presumably these will be included when the full report is at last published. But the Hindustan Times makes it clear that they did not talk to the leading Indian glaciologists, a country with a billion people, notable for scientific accomplishments, and bordering the mightiest mountains on earth. To whom did they talk? What's that? The debate's over, you say? It seems to depend on which scientists you talk to. It's easy to achieve "consensus" if you only consult people who agree with you. ******************************************************************************** UK News 'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims Documentary Sunday, 4th March 2007, 11:04 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary. 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans. The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world's poor. Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2. Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn. A source at Channel 4 said: "It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for." Controversial director Martin Durkin said: "You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don't believe you - it's taken 10 years to get this commissioned. "I think it will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys. "It is a big story that is going to cause controversy. "It's very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks. "Al Gore might have won an Oscar for 'An Inconvenient Truth', but the film is very misleading and he has got the relationship between CO2 and climate change the wrong way round." One major piece of evidence of CO2 causing global warming are ice core samples from Antarctica, which show that for hundreds of years, global warming has been accompanied by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. In 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' Al Gore is shown claiming this proves the theory, but paleoclimatologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it actually shows the opposite. He has evidence showing that warmer spells in the Earth's history actually came an average of 800 years before the rise in CO2 levels. While Prof Clark fully acknowledges that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are anthropogenic, he just doesn't see any evidence that the man-made increases of CO2 are driving temperature change. Scientists in the programme also raise another discrepancy with the official line, showing that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, when global temperatures then fell for four decades. It was only in the late 1970s that the current trend of rising temperatures began. This, claim the sceptics, is a flaw in the CO2 theory, because the post-war economic boom produced more CO2 and should, according to the consensus, have meant a rise in global temperatures. The programme claims there appears to be a consensus across science that CO2 is responsible for global warming, but Professor Paul Reiter is shown to disagree. He said the influential United Nations report on Climate change, that claimed humans were responsible, was a sham. It claimed to be the opinion of 2,500 leading scientists, but Prof Reiter said it included names of scientists who disagreed with the findings and resigned from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and said the report was finalised by Government appointees. The CO2 theory is further undermined by claims that billions of pounds is being provided by governments to fund greenhouse effect research, so thousands of scientists know their job depends on the theory continuing to be seen as fact. The programme claims efforts to reduce CO2 are killing Africans, who have to burn fires inside their home, causing cancer and lung damage, because their Governments are being encouraged to use wind and solar panels that are not capable of supplying the continent with electricity, instead of coal and oil-burning power stations that could. Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, is featured in the programme, and has just released a book claiming that clouds are the real reason behind climate change. 'The Chilling Stars' was written with Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark who published a scientific paper, claiming cosmic rays cause clouds to form, reducing the global temperature. The theory is shown in the programme. Mr Calder said: "Henrik Svensmark saw that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars - when there are more cosmic rays, there are more clouds. "However, solar winds bat away many of the cosmic rays and the sun is currently in its most active phase, which would be an explanation for global warming. "I am a science journalist and in my career I have been told by eminent scientists that black holes do not exist and it is impossible that continents move, but in science the experts are usually wrong. "For me this is a cracking science story - I don't come from any political position and I'm certainly not funded by the multinationals, although my bank manager would like me to be. "I talk to scientists and come up with one story, and Al Gore talks to another set of scientists and comes up with a different story. "So knowing which scientists to talk to is part of the skill. Some, who appear to be disinterested, are themselves getting billions of dollars of research money from the Government. "The few millions of dollars of research money from multinationals can't compare to government funding, so you find the American scientific establishment is all for man-made global warming. "We have the same situation in Britain The government's chief scientific advisor Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the Government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change." The programme shows how the global warming research drive began when Margaret Thatcher gave money to scientists to 'prove' burning coal and oil was harmful, as part of her drive for nuclear power. Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London who also features in the film, warned the issue was too complex to be down to one single factor, whether CO2 or clouds. He said: "The greenhouse effect theory worried me from the start because you can't say that just one factor can have this effect. "The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be, or indeed of continuing to produce CO2. "It's ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2C or 3C." Mr Stott said the film could mark the point where scientists advocating the greenhouse effect theory, began to lose the argument. He continued: "It is a brave programme at the moment to give excluded voices their say, and maybe it is just the beginning. "At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion and this is dangerous." In the programme Mr Calder said: "The greenhouse effect is seen as a religion and if you don't agree, you are a heretic." He added: "However, I think this programme will help further debate and scientists not directly involved in global warming studies may begin to study what is being said, become more open-minded and more questioning, but this will happen slowly."

My only thing with regard to this topic is there are a lot of scientitsts that disagree with Gore's views on global warming. I'm not talking about Joe Quack. I'm talking about people that have been in the field for years. Clearly there is disagreement among many regarding the facts. I'd just like to hear both sides get some equal play and let people make they're own decision on the facts provided. This has been a one sided debate since it began.

It's all posturing. There is absolutely no way Lance sits out the year. For one he not only forgoes his salary, but I think he is penalized for not coming to practices etc... as well. and two he will not get a contract bigger than what the Bears offered him last year if he sits out a whole year. The only interesting thing he said id that the bears offer was 7-33 mill when it was reported everywhere as 6-33. I'm curious what the truth is on that.

If I may make one suggestion. I don't care what side the calendar is on per say as long as we can keep it consistent throughout the year. Whatcha think? or we can keep changing it and my lazy ass can just keep having to move the icons all around. either way. Nice Job knightni!!!

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 08:49 AM) I am sure he isn't happy there. The guy wants to play, and getting benched is not going to help that. This would create an even better story line and just solidfy my post in the prediction thread.

I just read he has a clause in his minor league contract with Texas that he has to be added to the 40 man roster by Thursday or he can request his release. Since he is batting .476 this spring, even though spring stats usually mean nothing, in Sosa's case it's gonna mean a pay day. I'm far from a contract guy so I have no idea how it all works, but I think that stipulation in Sosa's deal was a pretty smart move. Now I don't know if his deal with Texas is any good and I don't know if after they add him to the 40 if they can send him down to the minors or what. I'm not sure what his status is since he didn't play last year. Either way I think he is gonna get paid on having a good spring and then be a bust again when the season starts. Somebody will be a sucker...

He was suppose to be at the improv comedy club in Woodfield this past Saturday. A group of us we're going to go, but found out the show was cancelled early in the week. RIP Platypus man!!

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 02:38 PM) Brian Anderson just homered. Awesome. Sadly Ozzie Guillen was looking away at the time and does not acknowledge this accomplishment. haha

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 02:10 PM) That's right, merge into my thread Mine was way more professional looking....

Mark Johnson catching for Zona. Shout out to Mark!! Go Sox!!

I always feel like...somebodys watching meeee....and I have no privacy.

There was a special on the History Channel last night about "300". It wasn't about the movie, but about the real stand. http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=det...pisodeId=214233 Speaking of Cage, nobody was a fan of Matchstick Men?

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 09:36 AM) if you hit it off the fairway, keep your eyes open for rattlesnakes. I have an Aunt that lives in Tucson and have golfed a little out there, and you do hear/see them Yeah they warned us about the rattlesnakes before we teed off. Even if I was like 2 feet off the fairway...I left the ball alone. Do Javalina's look like wild pigs? Our cab driver almost hit one of those on the way home one night. He jerked and swerved off the road to avoid it. We were like what the f*** was that? He answered, but none of us could understand him.

Went golfing to three courses when I was there last year. Arizona national was top notch. Beautiful course. Be sure to play the 18th from the black tees. I don't normally play from the blacks, but the cart lady told us we had to go up there and she was right. The view was awesome and I ended up with a par on that hole...so rock on cart lady!!! Starr Pass was also beautiful, but extremely difficult. If you're left or right you're in the desert, bring a lot of balls. Both of these courses are pretty expensive...We we're able to get an employee rate($69 instead of $199) at Starr Pass cause my buddy worked for Marriott and then we did a twilight at Arizona National ($85.00). I don't remember if Starr Pass had a twilight, but if I were you, I would look into it. Also you better start trying to book your tee times. For some cheaper courses check out the public courses We golfed Randolph($51) last year and it was pretty decent. It's similar to a golf course out here. Open fairways and lots of trees. It wasn't a desert course, and after playing Starr Pass the day before I was relieved. Starr Pass Randolph Arizona National

1. If given the opportunity, Brian Anderson. If Brian doesn't get a shot, then Buerhle. Mark will get back to being Mark and have his typical working mans kind of year. 2. Unfortuantely, I think Dye peaked last year. I think his drop off this year, will still leave him with pretty acceptable numbers, but I think they will most definitetly go down. 3. Ozzie. I think he has more affect on the game then most managers, be it positive or negative. Going into his fourth year, he needs to learn from some of his past mistakes and keep the guys focused.

Get six guys together...get six receivers and each person take one receiver for their house. Split the bill up 6 ways. I'm not sure the overall cost, but even if the bill was 100.00 a month, it would only be about 17 bucks each guy. Plus if you want to get like a gold package with all the movie chaneels and stuff....its's cheaper cause you're splitting the bill. Only thing is you'll only have it on one tv...so you'll want to keep your other service as well.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 12:52 PM) Howard Stern had Frenchie on, I believe, Monday morning. She gave her point of view, but Howard and Robin were arguing it's not exactly the same because Antonella (sp?) didn't get paid for her pictures and Frenchy did. They mentioned something about Idol had a former stripper on and kept her, they said that was a better comparison (not sure if that's true or not) I guess I would say it's discrimination against "beauty", or what our society views as beauty, which many may argue has racial undertones. I know the second I heard Antonella's pics were out there I was on the internet looking for them, because I think she's an attractive woman. I did not look for Frenchie's because I don't think she's attractive. That may make me a terrible person in somepeoples eyes, but it is the truth. I guess it boils down to what is this contest really about on Idol? Is it a singing contest, like the judges like to label it? Or is it a contest for an American "Idol" where singing is one component of it along with looks and personality? I guess with that basis Frenchie should have been kept on (also because I believe she fronted to the producers about the pics before they came out) and let America decide. Frenchie was paid to be on a Adult porn site called "Daddy's little Girls" Antonella poised for some pictures with friends and for her ex boyfriend which we're never intended to be plastered all over online. That said, Antonella needs to go because her singing blows. As far as AI having a stripper on, I would agree that would be a much better arguement, with regards to Frenchie, but I never heard that before. Either way the "racist" card gets pulled out way too much.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 12:22 PM) Huh? I was talking about Briggs, are you saying he underperformed? I think he was just speaking in general terms. Like why should a team rip up a cheap contract and give the player a new lucrative deal for overperforming when they can't rip up a lucrative deal for a cheap one when a player underperforms.

Rosie opens her yap again. Rosie O'Donnell laid a smackdown on "American Idol" this morning from her perch on "The View," saying that "Idol" canned former contestant Frenchie Davis for her breast-baring snapshots, but kept current wannabe Antonella Barba despite hers -- because Davis is black and fat and Barba is, well, not. "It's weightist and wacist," said Rosie, doing her best Donald Duck impression.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 02:34 PM) DO you think if he sits out we wont trade him? I would rather try to get something for him if hes gonna sit out than just let him rot. First off I don't think he will sit out a whole year. That's a whole lot of money to throw away. Over 450k per game. If he does sit out he won't even get the 6yr 33 mill offer he already turned down. He can act like he never knew where he stood with the Bears, but it's all bulls***. They were ready to make him the second highest player on the team and he said no. He knew the tag was an option, in fact, Angelo even alerted him to the fact. You made your bed Lance. This is a business, are the Bears suppose to make moves detrimental to their success just to be nice to a player?? As for trading him, something can come along, but I do't see Angelo giving in. With Lance going public like this, he put all the leverage to the other teams. He could have met with Angelo privately and made these demands, but now he hurts Angelo in trade talks, which in turn hurts his own chance of getting traded. See ya opening day Lance. Your agent blew this one for ya.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 04:09 PM) When Briggs turned down that very fair offer of 5 years at over 6 million a year a while back, he should have known this was the risk he was taking. However with that said, all those Bears fans who think Briggs can just be replaced by a Leon Joe or Jamar Williams are sadly mistaken. There is a reason this team was bad in-between Holdman and Colvin leaving and Briggs emerging, and it's not just the QB. And this whole thing is pretty simple, it's about signing bonus. The 7.5 million number means nothing, just like the 80 million dollar number for Nate Clements means nothing. The only number in football that matters is singing bonus (aka guaranteed money), and Briggs isn't getting any here, hence the holdout. Briggs will be replaced. The year the Bears were without Holdman and Colvin was 2004. This was also the year Urlacher missed 7 games and the Bears lost all seven. That is the guy that can't be replaced. Briggs got repsect with the Bears contract offer...he didn't take it and knew this tag was an option. This falls on him and his agent. Let him sit out all year and make nothing or let him be a man and try to get by on his 7.2 mil.

Updated: March 6, 2007 South Siders need rotation to deliverBy Jerry Crasnick ESPN.com MESA, Ariz. -- White Sox pitching coach Don Cooper missed part of batting practice Sunday against the Cubs, but manager Ozzie Guillen appeared unfazed by his absence. "The way our staff has been throwing, we're better off without him," cracked Guillen, in reference to the Sox' 7.53 ERA after five Cactus League games. And you think Guillen is lying when he talks about flunking sensitivity training? Actually, Guillen just finished taking those classes mandated by Major League Baseball as penance for his slurring Chicago Sun-Times columnist Jay Mariotti, but his sensitivity trainer told him he's more incorrigible now than when the sessions began. Guillen provided confirmation last week when former Sox pitcher Brandon McCarthy made some innocuous comments about feeling more comfortable in the Texas clubhouse this year and Ozzie went all Sean Hannity on him. AP Photo/M. Spencer Green Mark Buehrle (12-13, 4.99 ERA in '06) looks to rebound from the first losing season of his career.You can't blame Guillen for being a tad out of sorts this spring. The White Sox followed their 99-win, world championship season with 90 victories and a third-place finish in the American League Central, and now Gary Sheffield has joined the division. "There were two differences last year -- the Detroit Tigers and Minnesota Twins," Guillen said. "They kicked our butt and played better, and we deserved to finish third." Although Guillen's candor, humor and inability to self-censor can be endearing at times, White Sox fans might contend that his charm went a lot further when the staff ERA was a full point lower. Offense wasn't a problem for the 2006 Sox, who scored 868 runs, compared with 741 for the championship club. Pitching was another story. The team ERA spiked from 3.61 to 4.61, and the Chicago staff allowed more homers (200 compared with 167) and a higher batting average (.271 versus .249) than in the previous season. It's likely the Chicago staff paid for its valiant performance in 2005, when the starters led the majors in innings pitched and showed the fortitude of Iditarod racers in the postseason. The White Sox made the playoffs on the strength of a 35-19 record in one-run games, and they swept Houston in the World Series despite outscoring the Astros by only six runs. "Those guys will never admit it because they're all gamers, but we just asked so much of them the year we won,'" Chicago first baseman Paul Konerko said. "We didn't give them too many 8-1 ballgames. And when you throw that many innings with that kind of intensity, there's definitely a little fatigue. I think it took its toll." Jose Contreras, 9-0 with a 3.38 ERA at the All-Star break last season, went 4-9 and 5.40 afterward while dealing with back and hamstring problems, and Mark Buehrle was catching way too much of the plate for a guy with a reputation as a master painter. "If his stuff and command regress any further, he'll be less than a mid-rotation starter," one AL scout wrote in his report on Buehrle last fall. So what's a general manager to do? Chicago's Kenny Williams, never hesitant to seize the initiative, consummated two noteworthy trades. First, he sent 17-game winner Freddy Garcia to Philadelphia for Gavin Floyd and Gio Gonzalez. Two weeks later, he traded McCarthy to Texas for prospects John Danks and Nick Masset. Notwithstanding the outcry in Chicago, the moves make sense on a certain level. Garcia is eligible for free agency in November, and his rate of strikeouts per nine innings has declined from 7.89 to 5.62 since 2004. And though McCarthy might develop into a top-of-the-rotation guy, his ground-ball-to-fly-ball ratio did not bode well for success at U.S. Cellular Field (or Texas, for that matter). Economics, naturally, were also a factor. When Gil Meche, Ted Lilly and Jeff Suppan signed deals for $10 million or more annually, Williams suddenly envisioned Garcia, Buehrle, Jon Garland, Javier Vazquez and Contreras all hitting the open market between now and 2009. He was intent on stockpiling some young arms and, in his words, not being "held hostage" to exorbitant free-agent prices. Good for long-term planning. Not so good for public relations. "I've been raked through the coals," Williams said. "This has not played very well in Chicago." Then again, Williams sensed a potential backlash when he outlined his plan to White Sox chairman Jerry Reinsdorf in the fall. "Like I told Jerry, 'We're going to take some bullets. But we're going to take them from November to April,'" Williams said. "Once we take the field and people start to see what we have, there'll be a realization: 'That's why they did what they did.'" Bring on the kids Meanwhile, the White Sox are offering up a buffet of story lines this spring. They have veterans looking to reassert themselves and prospects out to prove they belong. They have hard throwers galore in the bullpen, and a guy trying to make a positive impression at 65 mph. One of the most compelling story lines of the spring involves the fifth spot in the rotation, where Floyd, Danks and knuckleballer Charlie Haeger are holding a spirited competition. Floyd, once regarded as Philadelphia's top prospect, has developed a reputation as overly analytical and lacking in self-confidence. "He's almost too nice a kid," one National League scout said. "You wish he had a little bit of a mean streak." The Phillies also were concerned that Floyd had developed a nagging habit of drifting back in his delivery and becoming too deliberate and almost robotic. He lost some zip on his fastball and bite on his curve as a result. Upon arrival in Arizona, Guillen advised Floyd to clear his mind of all that clutter. "I told him, 'When you think, you don't have confidence. So grab the ball and throw it in the middle of the plate and wish for the best,'" Guillen said. "That's my philosophy. Attack the strike zone and don't worry about the rest." Haeger's biggest challenge is harnessing his knuckleball, which also has a mind of its own. Last season, the White Sox brought in Charlie Hough for a tutorial, and the lessons apparently stuck. Haeger went 14-6 with a 3.07 ERA for Triple-A Charlotte, and now the Sox are giving some thought to carrying him as a long reliever if he fails to crack the rotation. Unless Williams springs a trade for Doug Mirabelli, it'll be up to A.J. Pierzynski and Toby Hall to catch the dreaded thing. Danks, Texas' first-round pick in 2003, has the highest upside of any of the kids. He has 439 strikeouts in 426 minor league innings, and he's spent the past season cultivating a changeup to complement his low-90s fastball and tight curve. Lisa Blumenfeld/Getty Images Opportunity knocks for John Danks, one of Chicago's promising new pitchers.Williams, seated in the stands behind home plate during the White Sox-Cubs game Sunday, was particularly impressed when Danks shook off catcher Wiki Gonzalez twice on 3-2 counts, then threw a changeup past Koyie Hill for strike three. Although the Chicago brass wouldn't mind sending Danks to the minors for further refinement, he is anxious to speed up the timetable. "I've been champing at the bit for some time," Danks said. "Since I'm a younger guy, they're going to be slow with me. But if I can come here this spring and put it in their minds that I'm capable of getting big league hitters out, I don't think they'll shy away from having me up there." Power of the pen Ultimately, the White Sox will go as far as the big boys carry them. Garland came on strong after the All-Star break, and Buehrle seems rejuvenated in the Cactus League. The most gratifying moment of his start against Milwaukee on Monday came when Brewers infielder Tony Graffanino, bat in hand, turned to Pierzynski and asked, "Is Buehrle throwing harder this spring?" Buehrle's stuff is nothing compared to the hell Chicago's opponents will encounter in the late innings. Bobby Jenks (6-foot-3, 280 pounds), Andrew Sisco (6-10, 270), Matt Thornton (6-6, 235), David Aardsma (6-4, 205), Mike MacDougal (6-3, 185) and Masset (6-4, 235) are likely to make up the White Sox bullpen. They run the gamut in velocity from 90-plus to "Oh my gosh, that sure sounded fast." As a bonus, the White Sox relievers should do a great job of dominating the offensive boards. "I think the idea was to just round up some guys who have really above-average arms and try to harness that," Konerko said. "We definitely have some guys who throw hard. And they're all big, so if we get into a fight, we'll be OK." Guillen's banter notwithstanding, the White Sox have immense faith in Cooper's ability to get the most out of the talent on the staff. Cooper tapped Jenks and Thornton's potential in a hurry and coaxed a 21-win season out of Esteban Loaiza in 2003, so he has a track record for doing the Mr. Fix-It thing. Given the small margin of error at U.S. Cellular Field, the White Sox like the idea of having hard throwers who challenge hitters. But most of their relievers have suffered from the wandering-strike-zone syndrome at various stages of their careers, so watching from the dugout won't always be pleasant. "Ozzie is going to need some Maalox," a scout in Arizona said. And if things don't work out, he can always augment that sensitivity training with anger management. Jerry Crasnick covers baseball for ESPN Insider. His book "License To Deal" has been published by Rodale. Click here to order a copy. Jerry can be reached via e-mail.

This is about my cousins website. Please give it a hit for me.