greg775

The Sox are as dead as this game thread. We don't "normally" win games like this one.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Aug 14, 2012 -> 12:44 AM) Stoney takes off two road series each year. I like Stone a lot, but it's nice to hear the 'ol Wimperoo again. Yeah, I agree.

Where's Stoney? Wimpy for a 4-game series? Nice.

Man, Omar is going to play forever at this rate. 60 years old?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 13, 2012 -> 07:52 PM) No Hitler would never have been successful because he was an ideologue who would cut off his own nose to spite his face. He would never have been successful because ultimately Hitler was a fool. He drove out many of the brightest scientists who would help in his demise, simply because of their religion. He killed millions instead of enlisting them in the German army. Hitler would have never worked with Stalin, he hated Communism. Stalin likely would have left Germany alone as they would have had plenty of room to expand into Asia and against other enemies (Russia had an axe to grind against Japan.) Hitler is the most evil man of all time. Pretty incredible but he certainly tops the list.

I don't know if I could remain a Sox fan if we ever acquired Yuni Betancourt. He might be the one guy to make me give it up. He is fat and quite frankly the worst excuse for a ballplayer in the game of baseball.

Hitler sounds like he would have prevailed had he listened to some experts and not blown it.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 13, 2012 -> 08:08 PM) If the team sucks for a few seasons, he can absolutely get fired. It's part of the business, fans & Robin will understand and it won't be taken personally. It happened to Ditka, Dennis Savard. In New York, Joe Torre was not re-signed, despite being beloved by the fan base and winning all those titles. From Robin's point of view, I think he could easily get tired of the grind, especially as he gets older. It's one thing to love baseball, it's another to travel with the team for 8 months a year, dealing with the media and players and management everyday, it can wear on him. 1.) Robin will understand? Nobody wants to get fired. He could tire of the job and quit maybe, but I can't see him ever getting fired. Not after proving he can do the job. If the Sox suck in the future, other heads will roll before Robin IMO. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 13, 2012 -> 08:08 PM) Miss the playoffs and underperform for 2-3 years or so and the Chicago Media will be happy to ask whether Robin is going to be replaced every day. 2.) I don't know if the media would run him out. If the team starts to suck again I'd think the media would go after Kenny.

Wasn't this board ecstatic when we acquired Hudson? Now he's old news and we're calling for guys like Johnson and Jackson? Wow. This boards chews em up and spits em out. We want the second string quarterback all the time round here.

How come the Veep candidate is exciting Republicans more than the presidential candidate. Why didn't Ryan try to get the nomination if he's so great? Romney is too unlikeable (way too rich, comes across as snob) to have a chance at the White House.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 13, 2012 -> 02:22 PM) How many managers in all of baseball have even managed one team for 25 years? Can you picture a scenario in which the White Sox ever replace Robin Ventura? He's proven he's not a buffoon and knows how to manage, which is not rocket science. He's already proven he's as good as anybody they could get nowadays. He is the opposite of Ozzie mouth-wise, so he'll never get himself fired. That leaves him stepping down some day on his own. I would assume he's set for life financially five times over, so I guess he could tire of the grind. If he truly loves baseball, I think he's our manager the next 25 years. How can the Sox ever fire Robin Ventura? That can't happen cause of his name and history with the franchise.

I think it's pretty obvious he'll hit below .200 again. But his dingers have been a big plus this year and his RBIs.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Aug 13, 2012 -> 04:31 AM) It means the Yankees got Ichiro .Wise did fine with the Yanks and looked to be swinging with confidence today. Wow. I didn't even realize my idol Wise played today. 2-4. Nice debut; had to impress Robin and the home fans.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Aug 13, 2012 -> 04:32 AM) He was Designated for Assignment actually. He refused the assignment to AAA becoming a FA. Then he signed with the Sox because he lives in Charlotte. Thanks. The fact he got DFA'ed makes me think he can't hit anymore. Yikes.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Aug 13, 2012 -> 04:39 AM) He will never be a manager in the Major Leagues. His personality will not allow it to happen. Seems like he'd be a natural. A lot of times he looks in the dugout if a pitcher has completely lost it. Seems like he'd have a good feel. It's amazing when you talk about managing. Ventura has done well enough this year that he's assured a 20-year tenure with the Sox if he wants it. What is Robin, 45? He's proven he can manage. With his personality, he's NEVER going to get in trouble with anybody (owners or players) so he's set. He could be a White Sox legend. If he can win one or two WS in 25 years and eight division titles, he'll be a living White Sox legend. Question is ... can he do that? Let's say he's our skipper the next 25 years. Can he win 2 WS and eight division titles? I'd say maybe one WS. Two might be difficult.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 12, 2012 -> 08:07 PM) England (and later the U.S.) bombed the crap out of Germany. Hundreds of thousands of civilians died. These days we'd probably consider it a war crime. Deservedly so. Probably thousands of churches were hit, just because there were few buildings in Germany that weren't hit before the end. The guy who planned England's strategic bombing campaign was named Arthur Harris. He became known first as "Bomber" Harris for his advocation of strategic bombing, and later, "Butcher" Harris for the things that it did. The reason I asked is they never addressed that situation at all in the piece by Brokaw. They kept talking about Germany bombing England and England wanting us to get involved, but there was literally no mention of England bombing them. They did mention England had radar. It made me wonder if the Brits were just taking the bombs and doing nothing on their own to fight back.

Congratulations, Rock. How did you propose? Give us the facts. Did you a.) take her to a nice restaurant and have the ring hidden in the dessert (in the gooey pie or brownie)? b.) Take her to minor league game and have proposal appear on scoreboard? I assume the Sox don't do proposals on the big board (too many). c.) Get on one knee on Michigan Avenue or State Street? d.) Ask her in the privacy of your or her place, either on the couch or the bed? CONGRATS from Sox talkers around the world!

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 12, 2012 -> 11:00 PM) Losing 2 of 3 to the royals still pisses me off. And Thornton blowing the lead last night doesnt sit with me well either. Over the next month, they need to iron out some of the lapses and bad decisions if they want a shot at the playoffs. True. This road trip on paper promises to be a bad one. Toronto usually handles the White Sox and the Royals play good baseball against just one team: The White Sox. I'd say KC wins 2 of 3 again (one win is about all we can expect; KC is so bad you'd think we will be able to get the one victory and avoid what would be a devastating sweep). The key is to split the four-gamer with Toronto. If that happens, the Sox go 3-4 in the next two series. Not great, but I don't see any better record than that and a worse record than that is entirely possible.

Today's heads up play by AJP in scoring all the way from first on a slow roller to short has, in my mind, earned him another 2 year Sox contract. Not to mention his 23rd home run. Let's say for some reason he stinks next year. Well he'd still not be stealing money, cause he's underpaid this year considering his production. I mean ... the man is so damn smart. He scores all the way from first base on a slow roller to short?? You got to be kidding me. He's the smartest man in baseball. He'll know when his skills have diminished to the point he's done. For now ... sign him up. He definitely will manage the White Sox some day if Robin decides he doesn't want the job forever. I'm sure nobody will dispute this ... AJP deserves to remain a White Sox and deserves a good chunk of change for next season!!! Give him 8 million a year for the next two years and be done with it.

QUOTE (kev211 @ Aug 12, 2012 -> 10:22 PM) f*** this. I hate dwayne wise why does he get to stay. I worship Dwayne Wise so to speak, but I am in favor of keeping Danks over Wise. Wise might be our bad luck charm (except for the catch). I think Danks deserves to stay; has to be demoralizing after the huge home run. Why did NY release Wise? That should tell us something right there.

OK guys, here's another column I read today backing my assertion that Obama is a great politician and horrible President. What you think??? Basically he writes that Obama was a big flop and he's running a campaign on, "Elect me, I'll get it right eventually." No doubt in my mind he's gonna win, but IMO he is a bad president. p.s. Romney is a horrible horrible alternative as well. Obama seeking a second chance By David Shribman PittsburghPostGazette George W. Bush was not an enigma. He had no hidden parts. His father was not mysterious. George H.W. Bush’s life was dedicated to achievement and service. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t unfathomable. Nothing in his presidency — the brilliant highs, the shocking lows — was a substantial, unpredictable departure from his past. Barack Obama, though, is the most enigmatic president since Jimmy Carter, the most mysterious since Lyndon Johnson, the most unfathomable since Franklin Roosevelt. Political professionals sometimes say of public figures that what you see is what you get, more or less. But with Obama, what you see is both more and less than what you get. All this is on display as Obama runs for president in the same economic crisis that helped catapult him to the White House in the first place. His first term was disappointing; even he implicitly acknowledges that. He is looking to renew his vows with the American people — the 18th-century English pundit Samuel Johnson would call that the triumph of hope over experience, his classic definition of the second marriage — and he’s returned to his most comfortable role: candidate. Abrupt change A third of a century ago American pollsters and consultants began speaking of a “permanent campaign” — the notion originated with Carter pollster Patrick Caddell — that transformed the act of governing in the White House into an extension of campaigning for the White House. But there was an abrupt change between Obama’s campaign, which seemed so beguiling, and Obama’s presidency, which managed to repel his allies on the left even as it consolidated, even fortified, his opposition on the right. Obama was a silver-tongued orator in the campaign, but he lacked a silver bullet in the presidency. He was a darling on the stump, a dud in office. This is not a remarkable view. It is held in the White House itself. Part of the reason was the hand he was dealt. No one underestimates the rot in the U.S. economy, made worse by the crisis in Europe that Obama cannot be expected to control and the competitive challenges from Asia that former Gov. Mitt Romney’s proposals also would only glancingly affect. But no one assumes the presidency without anticipating difficulty and unpredictability. Part of the job Bush the younger understood this, and when a White House visitor expressed sympathy for the hardship he faced after the 2001 terrorism attacks, the president said that handling such challenges was precisely why he sought the office. So it was, presumably, with Obama. He ran for president to deal with the economy, not to be burdened by it, and to change the way Washington worked, not to bemoan it. Outside the Washington Beltway, and perhaps inside it as well, the president seems to be two men, one a brilliant practitioner of the political arts, the other a conscientious objector to politics. But politics comes in two dimensions. A skilled president must know how to get the office and then know how to use it. Failed presidents triumph in the former and stumble in the latter. Presidents come in multiple dimensions. The political scientist and biographer James MacGregor Burns opened his classic 1970 work on FDR’s wartime presidency by observing that Roosevelt was “divided between the man of principle, of ideals, of faith, crusading for a distant vision on the one hand; and, on the other, the man of Realpolitik, of prudence, of narrow, manageable, short-run goals, intent always on protecting his power and authority in a world of shifting moods and capricious fortune.” Operating from this kind of divided personality — and here we are obliged to acknowledge that Obama is no more complex than Roosevelt, nor does he have a rougher burden than Roosevelt, who faced a Depression that threatened capitalism and a world war that threatened democracy — FDR nonetheless came to personify a kind of political unity. He flourished in electoral politics, and he flourished as president. The gravest warning sign in Obama’s background wasn’t his spare record in the U.S. Senate (Johnson often ridiculed John F. Kennedy for having accomplished almost nothing in the Capitol), nor his limited experience in electoral office (Lincoln had but one term in the House). Instead, the most troubling aspect of Obama’s past was the 129 abstentions in his Illinois Senate career. They suggested that Obama was more interested in getting elected than in doing the work he had been elected to perform. Tying rhetoric to action Few accuse President Obama of being a shirker and, in any case, no one measures long-term impact by the length of a president’s day or his attention to detail — not since Ronald Reagan (substantial success despite snoozy afternoons and evenings at TV tables watching old movies) and Jimmy Carter (little success despite grinding workdays and such a freakish attention to detail that he programmed the music in the White House and reviewed requests to use the tennis court). But the mystery about this president is why he has not been able to match his poetic style of campaigning across the country with the prosaic business of governing the country. In 2008, when Obama was a phenomenon as much as a candidate, he sowed excitement not seen since Kennedy and promised a change in governing approach not seen since Reagan. Now he is campaigning again, this time lacing his effort with blistering critiques of Romney, many of which seem to have damaged his rival. But the election in November is far less about Romney than it is about Obama. It is also about this stark fact: This is the first election since 1992 when an incumbent president is in the position of asking not only for a second term but also for a second chance. — David M. Shribman is executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Aug 12, 2012 -> 05:34 PM) So, we should thank Britain rather than them thank the USA? The point of the piece was all about the British since the Games are in London, so yeah, that actually is how they concluded the piece. The praised England for hanging in there til we got involved. When it came time to talk about our involvement, they did show our factories churning out ammo for Britain once FDR decided we better support them. And the piece hurried up and ended indicating we got involved after Pearl Harbor. It pretty much made it clear the USA involvement was the key, though. They made a big deal out of Churchill staying after FDR and finally getting to him through religion. Churchill played some religious songs for FDR and it really touched FDR according to the show. They had some older guy from England on who lost his mother in the nightly German bombings who was 7 at the time and they asked him if he came to peace with Germany. And he said yes because he visited there and met some people who also lost close relatives. It was pretty emotinal. The guy is about 80 or 90 and still carries his mother's picture and he started crying. Obviously his life wasn't the same without his mother. The show concluded with Churchill's quote about "never have so few done so much for so many" or whatever that famous quote is. To the history buffs: They talked a lot about the overnight bombings and Germany blowing up a famous church. How come the world wasn't more outraged and how come England didn't send some bombers over to Germany? Did they have no bombers? Were they sitting ducks for Germany's planes?

Did you see Brokaw's special piece from London on Churchill and London staving off Hitler and holding on until the US finally joined the war effort? Also touched heavily on Churchill staying after FDR begging him basically for weapon. There were emotional interviews with some British survivors of Germany's attack on Britain in 1940 and 41. The conclusion was USA should be thankful to our pals in Britain for hanging on, that the world would be a much worse place today had Hitler taken over England. I enjoyed it. Was it all accurate?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 12, 2012 -> 03:13 AM) Anyway, you're 1/2 right. The very rich are getting richer and snubbing their noses more than ever at the middle class and the poor. And frankly, we're not likely to take significant steps to stop it no matter who is elected. We're told that anything you say is a problem is "wealth redistribution!", unfair, "hand me downs from the word that it should be beneath a regular person to use". What is to be done? Well, the best answer I can give is that we can keep trying to bandage it for n ow. Make sure people get health care (check), stop cutting government jobs (which we've cut nearly a million in the past couple years). GET OFF OIL. Basically, unless Europe falls apart, whoever the next president is will likely see 4 years of pretty strong economic growth just because we're climbing out of the very deep hole left by the bursting of the housing bubble. But we have a choice...does all that growth go to the "Very rich getting very richer" or does it get spread around evenly? Well I will never vote for Romney. The question is ... will I bother to go vote for Obama or not? Not that it matters in my state. My vote doesn't matter. Romney is a lock to win. That is encouraging you think the economy will turn around the next four years cause that wasn't what I was reading. I hope so. I'd be more than willing to give Obama credit if he's in charge of a recovery. I just have not been impressed with the guy's leadership. Maybe nobody can be an effective leader any more, cause I do admit that politicians do not seem to be out for passing legislation that's best for the U.S., they are only concerned with who gets the credit for effective legislation. I truly believe politicians no longer are out for the betterment of our country, just for their own party to get credit and to block the other party's measures. I realize it has been like this forever presumably, but I personally think it's getting much worse. I can see why more and more people do not vote. Both sides disgust me.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2012 -> 09:59 PM) I don't know any active athlete in MLB, NFL, NBA, or NHL who has come out. A former basketball player for the Jazz did. With the several thousand people in those leagues, numbers say that several dozen players across the leagues should be homosexual, on average. Yes, we have people on this site who are openly gay, and I will choose not to speak for them now since it really shouldn't be a big deal either way. That to me is amazing no active athletes have come out as being gay. I wonder if their teammates know. If America was as advanced as we think ... all this outrage over CFA, you'd think ballplayers would casually admit to being gay. Why not? QUOTE (Reddy @ Aug 11, 2012 -> 10:18 PM) lol why does it matter? and yes to both questions. None of my friends, co-workers have ever come out, so I was wondering if I "knew" anybody on here who was gay, that's all. I am for gay marriage but I still don't think it makes me a bad person saying I prefer the man/woman traditional model because without it we'd have no future society. The deaths would far outnumber the births if we only had same-sex activities going on.