greg775

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 2, 2013 -> 03:11 AM) Take out Santiago and that's a fair deal. Two busts for two busts. Not sure why you want to gift wrap the young improving pitcher. I figured Moustakas is not officially a bust yet. I figured Royals might make the deal if we include Santiago who is expendable.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 07:46 PM) Hey man, just shop around. I always thought Blue Cross was the best when we had it at work. Coventry makes me sick just thinking about it. 15 percent increase though. Wow. We definitely have a health care crisis in our land.

I'd trade Beckham, Santiago and Keppinger to the Royals for Giovatella and Moustakas who have been busts and see if our new hitting coach can help fix 'em.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 03:23 AM) Yea they are, which is why I'm forced to read BBCWORLD and AJ for news. Because mainstream American media is ALL slanted, and the vast majority of it is slanted democrat/liberal. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't journalists caught in between, but it's pretty overwhelming what's going on, which is why I don't even bother with news here. ...and you probably don't either. So please, let's not defend them, and that includes Fox who will tell you they are "fair and balanced". The ratings alone will tell you Fox is the sole republican news slant, as it's the only undivided audience. I'm convinced at election time the Democrats get a huge boost from the media. Most don't even try to hold back their disgust of the Republican party. Just my take but it's like they fawn over any mention of Obama, Clintons, etc., and scoff at the clownish Romney types. Sure, during the middle of Obama's term, they might have a negative story or two or three about a Clinton or Obama, but come election time, forget it. They reverse that back to how saintly the Democratic candidate is vs. the unqualified (in their eyes) Republican. They are going to be treating Hillary like a Queen of England type candidate, so much respect to her will be shown. That's why I hope she loses her attention span during the campaign and says something so 'b****y' and utterly ridiculous it costs her the crown. The 'first female president' thing will be pretty much the only thing the media focuses upon IMO and she'll roll with it and be Queen Hillary for 8 years. As far as the media, I wish we had a true third party (not an offshoot of the Repubs) so the media would be lost trying to figure out what to do with their election bias. The third party would be a godsend if it actually was a reasonable party and not some collection of unruly radicals. QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 12:04 PM) To answer your question, I'm sure the Las Vegas odds would put her at 75-80% to win in 2016. (To predict two terms would be crazy). That said, there's a TON of time left for things to change, and change, and change again. If the ObamaCare program/s become more and more unpopular, that's going to be one of the most credible attacks used against her, as she and her husband made health care (unwisely it turned out) their number one priority in 1993/94, and it ended up with one of the most resounding mid-term defeats in recent memory. She's also vulnerable on the age issue, and the fact that, like Obama, she's hated/despised by 20-25-30% of the US population already. She's polarizing. She won't bring as many young voters and minority voters into the field of play like Obama did. She has age going against her. (She does have the "first female president" on her side to mitigate all that). It all depends on how the economy is faring in 2015-16. It's just as likely that things are pretty stagnant or growing at only a 2-3% rate with unemployment still hovering around 7% or more....nevertheless, as the co-President (in a way) during the last period of economic success and well-being in our country's history, that could actually work to her advantage. Greg's right in one sense, running Rubio against her would be another version of the 1960, 1992/96 and 2008/2012 elections, where the younger/more appealing/more energetic candidate carried the day. It's not just about appearance. If Sarah Palin ran against Hillary (which won't happen), she would get crushed. The problem to me is that the Republicans need to stand for something...and they need to move past immigration and find issues which will resonate with the middle class again. They lost a lot of the Reagan Democrats, and they've alienated most of the women, ethnic minorities, lesbian/gay/bi-sexual, etc., in this country with McCain and Romney and the Tea Party. Frankly, I'm not so sure she's going to be capable of being a great leader at her age...and, from having observed her for 20+ years, she's not nearly as likeable as her husband, George W. Bush or Obama (to a lesser extent). She just doesn't have the ability to inspire and elevate...not even compared to past politicians like Mario Cuomo or Jesse Jackson. She's Bill Bradley or Al Gore or Bob Dole, but a woman. Scary that a brilliant mind like caufield has her at 80 percent. Scary. However Great great post. I especially like your last graph. She truly is the female Bob Dole. But ... I am firmly convinced person after person will go in the booth and vote for Hillary and it'll be a landslide because of the 'first female president' factor; Bill Clinton factor. Some people on this board are brilliant; the average voter isn't. My only hope is some people go against her Queen of America status and superficially don't want to 'grow old with Hillary' so to speak. Perhaps the only good thing of her winning is it might be good for older Americans who might get a boost with an older American as president. Politicians are worse than ever in saying anything to get elected. Look at Obama. Horrible horrible horrible president, yet you know my opinion on his electability. He'd win again and again if the law was changed and he could be a permanent president. Scary but tells us about America today. We don't care about performance, just all the side issues like the sweet-talking ability and appearance of a candidate and the 'first woman' stuff. Just say no to Hillary please.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 12:47 AM) What's really sad is that really isn't the only recycled slogan in the post, it pretty much all is. Nobody answered my question so I rekindled my question in the post? If I wasted anybody's time, sorry. I truly despise Hillary and it's on my mind.

I can understand why Sox aren't going to get Ellsbury and McCann if those 2 get ridiculous contracts, which they probably will. But I hope the trades and moves they make are for this upcoming season and not just for prospects. Our division is pretty horses*** (I'm not a believer in Cleveland and KC) and it's hard to fathom that we can't compete with Detroit. I know we currently can't beat anybody in our division, but we need to revamp the lineup so we can start to win divisional games again. I love the Grobber and he said last night on his show the Sox pitching is good enough to win with. He said, 'they just have to take care of that lineup, change that lineup.' I agree. Writing off next season is stupid. Make some trades, sign AJP as stopgap catcher on the cheap.

I don't think elected officials in Kansas give a flip about what their constituents believe, that's the problem here.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 11:07 PM) When did the media become Liberal? I edited out that line since it is drawing some wrath. My bad.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 12:01 AM) Trade 1: White Sox trade Gordon Beckham, Hector Santiago, and Chris Beck to Dodgers for Andre Eithier. Why it makes sense to me: - Its no secret that LA has 1 too many OF'ers and Eithier seems to be the odd man out. - Beckham can play either 2b or 3b and both are positions of weakness for the Dodgers. Uribe, Schumaker, and Mark Ellis saw a lot of PT for them - Although hes been a bit of disappointment for us, Beckham is a good buy low option for a team like LA. - Santiago is a young, cost controlled SP who should excel in the NL west. Presents a very cheap #4 starter for the next 3-5 years. - Beck is a decent arm that could be a 5h/middle reliever in the near future. - Don't think I need to explain why Either is a good fit for us. Trade 2: Alexei Ramirez for David Freese -No need for me to ramble here. They need a SS and we need a 3B. Freese's down yeaer of .260/.340 is sadly a huge upgrade for us at 3b but he should be much better next year, especially at The Cell. Let me know what you guys think.... You are giving up too much in that first deal. i'd take Ethier for Beckham straight up. Or for Hector straight up. I'm much higher on Q than Santiago. Freese isn't a good player. Good idea on that one, though. I'd trade Lexi for a good hitting third baseman.

I'm getting more and more worried about Hillary being our next two term president. How worried should I be, guys? You people on this board are very smart. Give me a percentage that Hillary is our next president for a full 8 years. For the life of me, I don't see how the U.S. voting public, who vote on superficialities more than anything else, can vote for Hilly, who quite frankly is the opposite of Obama in terms of how she comes across on TV. We all know how one projects himself/herself and one's physical attractiveness on TV is HUGE in any election, vital in a presidential election. No offense to Hillary, but she is 1/10 of Obama in this category. She's just not likeable. Should I keep worrying about Hillary being a lock? Or do I have hope it'll be somebody else?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 03:43 PM) Having Marcus Semien sitting mostly on the bench as a fill-in/utility guy could be your worst idea yet. I meant having Beckham as the utility guy and starting Semien at 2B every day. I don't want Beckham on the team at all. I was just saying if we have to give him another chance, I'd rather he be a backup 2B and 3B.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 12:23 PM) TATBG - the ability to be good - is far more important than TWTW. If you give me the choice between taking 25 players who "just want to win" and 25 players "who are very good at baseball," I am going to take the 25 "who are very good at baseball." I'm also not sure why you put Thome in this fabled TWTW category since, by all accounts, he was an incredibly unclutch and bad player late in games. Pretty sure he only had 1 walk-off homer during his entire tenure with the Sox. I'm surprised people got on me about AJ and not Rowand. As I recall there used to be a lot of Rowand bashing. As far as Thome, he exuded leadership to me. Maybe I'm mistaken. AJP is all sorts of a pest to the opponent looking for any edge to WIN. Rowand gave up his body a lot. I'd take a Rowand over a DeAza or Rios so quickly it'd make your head spin. I'd take Thome over just about anybody who has worn a Sox jersey. If I'm wrong about him, then so be it. I guess an argument could be made he didn't have TWTW since he hit into the shift so much when he coulda gone the other way.

QUOTE (He_Gawn @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 12:54 PM) There's been some rumblings from UK insiders that Kansas, with the addition of Jerrance Howard, has become pretty dirty. All rumors at this point, but Self/Howard have really, really picked it up to a UK level of recruiting of late. The number they keep throwing out is 800K to Wiggins' family and their claiming the NCAA is already looking into it. Has the NCAA in the last 20 years ever gotten a school for paying a player? I mean making a direct payment? I can't recall one incident. If coaches are paying players they have the system effectively rigged. I guess Wiggins could use the 800,000 now, but I don't know why they can't just wait until after this season when his shoe contract will kick in even before the draft.

I could "handle" giving Beckham the proverbial one more year IF he's the backup to Semien at 2B and fills in once in a while at 3B for what I hope will be a new third baseman. I really truly want to see Kepp and Gillaspie gone and I've had my share of Beckham as a starter. If he's a Lillibridge type utility guy, fine.

QUOTE (Frank_Thomas35 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 07:26 AM) Did anybody see John Farrel's post game comments on feild. He was asked what was so special about these guys and he said something about chemistry and blah blah. But.... At the end he channeled THE Hawk Harrelson, he said the most important thing was....? THE WILL TO WIN, above anything else TWIW. Boom Brian Kenny. Lol. I hope Hawk had it ™ Anyways, congrats JP and Matty Ice. I'm glad Peavy finally got his ring even if it wasn't with us. The statniks will get mad at this, but TWTW is important. Aaron Rowand had it, and a lot of people think he was a horrible big league starter and ridicule him. Other important TWTW people in Sox history: Thome, AJP, Buehrle, Fisk off the top of my head.

I'm sure I can make a statement to steer the thread back in another direction since I do love Ozzeroo.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 08:26 PM) If Paulie was too proud to keep playing when he was one of the worst players in baseball...he'd already have retired. He still hit lefties well. He's still a great fielder. There are arguments to keep going (if healthy).

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 02:03 PM) Wow. So you want to dick around the 2nd most important player in the franchise's future just to keep Paulie around for one last season? To be fair, I was saying, IF Abreu can play left. If he can't then by no means go that route. I don't think making him split duty between DH and 1B is dicking him around too much. I'm still thinking of ways to improve the trade via trade and one option is packaging Viciedo and Beckham, don't u think? QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 02:12 PM) The only facet in which Konerko is even remotely valuable any more is as a part time player against LHP, and there are about 30 different guys the Sox can use to do that job. He has been absolutely brutal against RHP for 10 straight months of baseball now. He can't play D and he has never been able to run and he was arguably the worst overall player in the majors last year, everything considered. This isn't like letting Thomas go after 2005. He was still a really good power hitter. This would be like the Mariners bringing Griffey back and then having him retire in May after he falls asleep in the dugout. The more honorable thing to do would be to allow him the opportunity to seek out a contract elsewhere and, when he inevitably fails to receive the starting role he desires, to let him retire as a member of the White Sox and to retire his number next season. That's a pretty great post with the Griffey analogy. Yes, sir. I agree you are right there. That could definitely happen. That would be sad. But I just have a feeling Paulie's troubles are health related and I really have the feeling he wants to give it a shot again. I mean if he hit .280 instead of between .240 and .250 we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If he still has a burning desire to play, this should be very interesting. The easy thing for Paulie to do in this give-everybody-a-trophy, cut and dried what-have-you-done-for-me-lately society would be to quit now. But he might be stubborn enough to actually put it on the line and give it a shot (if his body is OK). I think we all should predict what will happen. I'm thinking he reluctantly retires right before spring training or signs a 1-year Sox deal or the two year deal I was talking about with the stipulation or the wink-wink that he will retire if he's not feeling right in spring training. I do not think he'll sign with another team, primarily because he's slow as an ox and it could get really ugly with the fans of his new team if he continues to have problems hitting for power.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 06:52 AM) You have no idea how terrible an idea this is. Please just let Paulie retire. Paulie is too proud to hit .195 or something. Don't worry. If he after 2 months is hitting like that, believe me, he'll retire. I am almost sure he's going to try it again. I have vibes he feels like he can still play. I'd give him a one-year deal for 4 million with a team option for the second year. So two years, 8 mill, but only one year guaranteed. If he doesn't like that, he moves onto the Orioles or somewhere. BTW I'd also offer AJP the same deal. One year 4 mill.

Can Abreu play LF? I'd rather have Paulie at first and Abreu in LF (if he is OK out there) and trade Dayan. How bout a Dayan/Beckham package to somebody for a 3B and set up man. If Abreu can't play left then have him split time between DH and first and give Paulie and Dunn breaks.

What's going on with this story these days? Is she going on trial soon? Etc.

How's the dating, pick-up scene in college these days? Are the women easy to pick-up if that's your thing? Or are we in a generation of more responsible behavior, i.e., not as much sex?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 07:34 PM) I always thought that winning the WS was the best and worst thing that could happen for Ozzie. Best: Obviously bringing Chicago a WS title as manager Worst: It inflated his already huge ego to epic proportions and he suddenly thought he was the best manager in the world and refused to hear it any other way. Which also spread to his next of kin. That ego got in the way of baseball and helped lead the Sox into major underachievement. Good post IMO until the final sentence. From reading the Ventura comments this season, I thought most on here agreed managers have very little effect on games. Hmmm Ozzie led the Sox into underachievement cause of his ego? Maybe the players let him down as the did Robin? QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 07:40 PM) I know. Yay. Eminor gives Greg a vote of confidence of sorts a few days before Halloween.

QUOTE (KG#1 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 02:17 PM) Like I'm sure many on here, I have been re-watching my '05 World Series DVDs. Man, watching Ozzie in the dugout during those games makes me miss him as the manager - he was fun, laid back (well, other than screaming at umps), hilarious in '05. That being said, from '06 till the end, he thought he was the best manager in the world and should get paid like he is... As said above, that is when he was too much and needed to go. Doesn't change the fact that in '05 he helped make that the best year of baseball for Sox fans. That is a fair post. Darn good post. I don't think he necessarily needed to go, though. I've given Kenny credit many times for winning the war. He beat Oz mano vs. mano. Knocked him out in the battle for Jerry's love/approval. QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 03:34 PM) Right, this is dumb. We're all bickering with one another over something we weren't even mad about until greg came in here and started spouting Ozzie garbage about changing the game and the best ever and all. Eminor, I am not the devil.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 02:02 PM) BTW, I have no doubt that Ozzie would be better respected (ok I need a better word than respect) and his accomplishments seen in a more favorable light, if not for the efforts of Mr. Greg. The more Greg seeks to elevate the man, the further down we collectively push. Like everyone else associated with the team, he had good years and bad. His last year was bad and that is how we remember him best. That's just not correct. Most of my posts are meant to give Ozzie his due. When I see a slight like this headline I feel like I have to react. His signaling for Jenks in the bullpen is what baseball is supposed to be about, fun. Instead of signaling for a righty, he does the hulk maneuver. That's out of a movie, hilarious. Ozzie was fun. And of course we know my feelings on 05.