C.Rector
-
Posts
307 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by C.Rector
-
-
This article is a good example of how far sports journalism has fallen the past decade or so. Time was, columnists got their facts straight even when they were critical of the team. Back then, writers presented their own ideas of what the team should do. Now, facts are insignificant little things and "attitude" is all important. Journalists now think that the only way to show the right attitude is by trashing the team:
Case in point, Rozner states thusly:
"You have been blamed, criticized and condemned. You have been tormented, afflicted and drummed.
And the worst part is, it's your own team doing it to you.
You've been told that until you blindly support your team, don't expect more than the mediocre squad you got most of last season.
You've been told that until you blindly support your team, don't expect to do more than compete with the wretched rest of the Midwest.
You've been told that until you blindly support your team, don't hold out hope for a playoff-ready rotation or a World Series-caliber starting 10.
You've been told over and over again that it's your fault, and the only surprise is that they haven't blamed you for their horrible baserunning, lousy execution and inconsistent defense.
The White Sox say they will be what they are until you show up in droves to see them play soccer, or whatever it is they usually do in April and May."
First of all, getting 86 wins and finishing just 4 games short of the divison championship is not "mediocre." That's pretty good and it was a lot of fun as well.
Second, nobody's ever told Sox fans to "blindly support your team" whatever that phrase is supposed to mean.
Third, outside of the since departed D'Angelo Jimenez, there was not much in the line of "horrible baserunning, lousy execution and inconsistent defense." In fact, the Sox had the 5th best team defense in the AL in 2003.
Fourth, all KW has said is that the Sox are going into the 2004 season a bit over budget in the expectation that there will be sufficient fan support for the team to not only gain the revenues needed to get out of the red, but to pick up more players later on in the season. Since when is that dumping all over the fans?
Finally, Rozner also included this: "The Sox lost Roberto Alomar, Bartolo Colon, Carl Everett, Tom Gordon, Tony Graffanino and Sullivan - and added a 35-year-old sidearmer in Shingo Takatsu, who throws 85 mph Frisbees and can't strike anyone out." From what I've read about Tatatsu. he's been a pretty effective reliever, strikes batters out and since when is a 85 mph pitch necessarily bad? You don't necessarily need blazing speed to get strikeouts. But Rozner doesn't care about getting his facts straight as long as he can get attention by dumping on Takatsu.
Rozner either is auditioning for a spot in the Cubs Tribune or he's just being a jerk.
-
Hey Dick, I don't always agree with Mr. Williams - afterall I penned the
-
but to call him a moron is a little over board.
There are quite a few GMs out there, inclduing those who are not employed at the moment, that would have fared worse under the circumstances.
Mediocre is what Kenny is....Unless you think Shueller and Evans are even bigger morons, that is.
Ron Scheuler was a better GM than KW. RS was the one who built the championship teams of 1993, 1994 and 2000. KW yet has to put a team on the field that can come any closer than 4 games to a division championship.
-
Don't believe anyone on this thread mentioned Francisco Campos of the Mexican Pacific League. He certainly could do well for us.
-
For what its worth, my take is that Sutter should be let go at least at the end of the season if not before. He may be a great coach for veterans, but this is a young team that needs a coach who relates well with younger players. Someone such as the guy who's the coach of the Hawks minor league affiliate in Norfolk.
From:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/sports/cst-spt-hawk27.html
Hawks facing key decisions
January 27, 2004
BY JENNIFER JONES Staff Reporter
VANCOUVER, British Columbia -- On the ice, the Blackhawks' situation continues to look the same.
When the Hawks face the Vancouver Canucks tonight, they will be looking to break a franchise-record streak of 17 straight road losses. Their injury list got a little longer, too, when center Scott Nichol missed practice Monday because of a groin injury. General manager Bob Pulford said the Hawks were having Shawn Thornton fly in from Norfolk as a precaution in case Nichol is not able to play.
"We have so many injuries, so you don't want to go down,'' said Nichol, who played with the injury the last few games. "We're already short-handed, so there are a lot of guys playing hurt that probably shouldn't play. We're doing the best we can. It's like a MASH unit right now.''
The Hawks hope some of their more seriously injured players return in the next few weeks. But the real story over the next few months will come off the ice, where the Hawks have to make some important decisions about their future, as well as clear up some lingering issues about their past.
Former general manager Mike Smith's grievance against the Hawks for refusing to pay the remainder of his contract still is pending. A source close to the situation said that no hearing date has been set and that the reason for the delay is believed to be a dispute over documents the team has failed to deliver. The hearing was expected to take place in January, but now it looks like it might not be until after the All-Star break.
When the Hawks fired Smith, they essentially chose coach Brian Sutter over their general manager, realizing that one of the two had to go because they no longer could work together. But Sutter's contract expires after this season, and he said Monday that there have been no talks about an extension.
"I don't worry about that,'' said Sutter, who added that as a player, multiyear contracts did not keep him from feeling like he needed to prove himself each year to earn a return invitation.
There has been speculation that the team would be better off with another coach as it continues with its youth movement. And Sutter understands the Hawks' poor record makes his situation very different from that of Ottawa Senators coach Jacques Martin, who was rewarded for his team's success with a multiyear extension Monday. But Pulford said Monday that the Hawks plan to offer Sutter an extension.
"We'll do that when the time comes,'' Pulford said. "Sutter's fine. Right now we're trying to get through this year.''
The future of many Hawks players also is unclear, with many contracts expiring after this season. With the trade deadline coming up March 9, center Alex Zhamnov is the team's best asset, and several teams are believed to be interested in him.
Pulford still is insisting that the Hawks have not decided what to do with Zhamnov, though it would be surprising if they went public with their plan to trade him.
"It's a bit early yet,'' Pulford said.
Zhamnov could fit into a number of situations, and the Hawks might be better off trading him sooner rather than later before the trade market becomes oversaturated with teams looking to dump players. Plus, teams fighting for the final playoff spots in their conferences -- the Atlanta Thrashers, for example -- might be interested in Zhamnov now, but their interest could wane if they fall further back in the race.
-
Here's another interesting article on the Rose mess:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/cont...25bbinside.html
BASEBALL INSIDER
Phillies' exec: Rose hurt his chances
By Hal McCoy
Dayton Daily News
Sunday, January 25, 2004
Bill Giles was executive vice president of the Philadelphia Phillies when Pete Rose was a free agent before the 1979 season. Rose was making a rock star-type tour of the country, offering his services.
It was like The Price is Right, and Rose was up for bids. Gussie Busch offered a Budweiser beer distributorship if he signed with St. Louis. Pittsburgh's John Galbreath offered a race horse if he signed with the Pirates.
Giles and the Phillies didn't offer the Liberty Bell or a lifetime supply of Tastykakes, but Rose signed with Philadelphia.
And through 14 years of lies and deceit by Rose involving his gambling on baseball, Giles was loyal to The Hit King. But even though he is one of Rose's biggest fans, and a friend, Giles says Rose hurt himself badly with his orchestrated confession and book tour.
"I was pulling for Pete and agreeing with (commissioner) Bud Selig that Pete should be eligible for the Hall of Fame," said Giles, now chairman of the Phillies. "Bud was close to making him eligible right after his meeting with Pete (November 2002). Right after that, Pete got into tax trouble (in California), and that delayed the process.
"The last couple of weeks with the book hurt," Giles added. "I don't know where Bud is on this right now, but I'd say he's less likely than before. I thought Pete would make it to the Hall. Now I'm very doubtful he'll make it in."
Rose's book, one of many with his name attached over the years, brings back a memory from the 1970s when the first book with his name on it appeared. Said Rose, "I've written a book before I ever read one."
On that occasion, he probably wasn't lying.
HEY, LOOK AT ME
Pitcher Scott Erickson isn't on a Rose-type tour, but he did stage an audition for his services last Tuesday in Phoenix. Eleven teams were there, including the Reds and Cleveland Indians.
Erickson threw 50 pitches that included fastballs from 84 to 87 mph, a sharp slider at 78, a curve at 70 and a new split-finger pitch.
Speaking of Cleveland, the Tribe has invited 25 nonroster players to their major-league camp, including former Reds pitchers Jason Bere, Giovanni Carrara and Mark Wohlers.
PIECES OF SANTO
Despite losing both legs to diabetes, Chicago Cubs broadcaster and former third baseman Ron Santo maintains his vigor and sense of humor. The Cubs offered to limit his radio work to only home games this year, but Santo said he wants to do them all.
He was a huge hit at the annual Cubs Convention and said, "A friend said to me, 'Everyone wants a piece of Ron Santo.' My wife said, 'Well, there's not much left.' "
THE NEXT BEST
Royce Clayton's wife, Samantha, gave birth to the couple's first child, and genes indicate the kid could be the family's best athlete. Colorado's Clayton has played 12 years in the majors, and Samantha is an Olympic sprinter from Great Britain. She ran the 200 meters in the 2000 Games at Sydney. She'll skip this year's Olympics but hopes to return in 2008.
When Clayton signed with Milwaukee a year ago, GM Doug Melvin said, "I think we've signed the second-best athlete in the family."
Royce could be third now.
WHITE GOES WEST
Springfield's Rick White wanted badly to pitch close to home, and he contacted the Reds and Indians. Neither team bit.
So White, who has a 4.17 ERA and 12 saves after 11 seasons as a starter/reliever, signed a minor-league deal with the Dodgers that includes an invite to major-league camp. . . . And he's about as far from Springfield as he could get.
A NEW WELLS?
Pitcher David Wells, author of the book Perfect I'm Not, appears serious about his season in hometown San Diego. When he was with the Yankees, the 40-year-old left-hander spent many nights prowling New York bistros and said in his book he pitched a perfect game with a hangover.
Wells, though, showed up at 7:30 a.m. one day last week at new Petco Park to work out, but he had to call security to open the gates. He is 20 pounds lighter than last year when the Yankee pinstripes made him look like a globe with longitude lines.
YANKEES AREN'T VISITORS
Speaking of pinstripes, for some reason when the Yankees and Tampa Bay play their season-opening series in Japan, the Devil Rays are designated as the home team. But the only thing that means is that they'll bat in the bottom half of each inning.
The Yankees are the attraction, and plans call for them to wear their home pinstripes and to occupy the home dugout so Japanese-born Hideki Matsui can make a storybook return to his native land.
FANS AMAZE DUSTY
When Dusty Baker was asked about the most amazing thing he saw in his first year of managing the Chicago Cubs, he didn't mention winning the NL Central or his amazing pitching staff or the fan interference that helped cost the Cubs the NLCS against the Florida Marlins.
He mentioned the Cubs fans, especially the ones who stagger home after games.
"Now that was amazing," he said. "Seven or eight people, locked arm-in-arm sometimes, holding each other up. Those people have a good time. This town has the best time I've ever seen people have on a daily basis, and the weather doesn't stop them. People don't complain about it. I find that pretty amazing."
Baker should know what Cubs fans have endured, and the many bars surrounding Wrigley are perfect places to drown sorrow.
SELIG MIGHT STAY
When Selig said he might retire as commissioner after his contract expires in 2006, some owners asked him not to do it. Now that the Milwaukee Brewers are up for sale and Selig won't be part of the franchise's ownership (his 26 percent interest in the Brewers went into a voting trust when he became commissioner), he is reconsidering retirement.
"I promised the owners I wouldn't say that again (leave after 2006), so I won't," Selig said.
That's probably awful news for Pete Rose.
Contact Hal McCoy at hmccoy@DaytonDailyNews.com
-
Here's an interesting read on the Rose mess by the man who investigated him for MLB:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...9¬Found=true
The Deal Pete Rose Didn't Take
By John M. Dowd
Sunday, January 11, 2004; Page B03
Pete Rose's baseball career has Hall of Fame written all over it. He pounded out 4,256 base hits in his 24 seasons, more than any other player, and held 19 major league records when he retired. His lust for the game was equaled, perhaps, only by his passion for gambling on sports. Last week, he reversed more than 14 years of denials when he admitted in a new autobiography that he had placed bets on the team he was managing.
Click here!
In the book, Rose renews his criticism of both the man who banished him from baseball, then-commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti, and the investigation that Giamatti ordered. Outlook asked John M. Dowd, a former Justice Department prosecutor hired by Giamatti to conduct the investigation, for his reaction to last week's events. Dowd is a criminal defense lawyer in Washington.
I knew Bart Giamatti for only six months. On Feb. 23, 1989, he retained me as the special counsel to investigate Pete Rose's gambling activities. I last saw Bart on Aug. 24, 1989, the day he threw Pete Rose out of baseball forever for betting on games of the Cincinnati Reds from 1985 to 1987, when Pete was the Reds manager. I talked to Bart every day during those six months. He treated me like a son. He called me Saint John.
When Bart hired me, he told me there would be no secrets. He directed me to keep Rose and his lawyers apprised of the progress of my inquiry. I did. Bart told me that whatever I found, the world would see. But that would come later. First, we engaged in a very private and intense round of discussions with Pete and his advisers, much of which has never been revealed in detail.
After a month of investigation, I had all the evidence now memorialized in my 225-page report. The evidence was overwhelming. He had violated one of baseball's most sacred rules -- rules meant to preserve the integrity of the game, rules intended to assure its fans that the competition on the field is free of taint. I shared all the facts with Rose's lawyers. Then Bart directed me to lay out the evidence directly to Rose in a deposition. Bart wanted Pete to see and hear all of the hard evidence. Bart instructed me not to confront Pete, but simply to present the evidence and get his responses to it. Pete lied and denied. It was a hard two days for Pete Rose.
Following that deposition, with the facts in hand, Bart directed me to find a resolution. I spent an entire month meeting with Pete's lawyers. Bart and I agreed on the fundamental points of such a resolution: Pete would have to reconfigure his life. He would have to stop betting. He would have to make a candid response to all of the hard evidence. He would have to explain his association with all of the characters in the betting operation. He would have to submit to, and complete, a full rehabilitation. During his rehabilitation, he would be removed from the game of baseball.
I had been advised by federal authorities that if Rose agreed to these terms, he would not be prosecuted for tax evasion but would have to pay all taxes, interest and penalties due. Upon successful completion of his rehabilitation, he would have been readmitted to the game of baseball and could receive all honors which come with achievement and good conduct. He would have been eligible, if chosen, for admission to the Hall of Fame.
I worked for a month with Pete's counsel. They tried but could not get Pete to admit the truth. They asked if I would meet with him alone and talk to him. They believed I could bring him around. Bart approved and I agreed to talk to Pete. But Pete's agent vetoed the meeting.
We were at complete loggerheads. Pete's criminal counsel wanted the resolution we were working on but his agent would not budge. Bart, then-deputy commissioner Fay Vincent and I met with Pete's agent. He told us that Pete was a legend and would not admit to any of the allegations. It was a short meeting.
I then tried to find some friends of Pete's -- Reds teammates -- we could call upon to reach out and help him in his obvious time of need. I was told Pete had no friends in baseball.
The rest is history -- a very public history. We wrote the report. It was given to Bart and to Pete. Bart ordered Pete to come to a hearing. Bart asked me to turn over my files to Rose's lawyers and to make available all 110 witness for interview. I did. Pete and his counsel did not interview or take the testimony of any of the witnesses. Pete refused to appear for a hearing or present any evidence on his own behalf.
Instead, Rose sued the commissioner, in violation of his own baseball contract. He lost in the courts and agreed to be banned forever from the game of baseball. Nine days after the announcement, we lost Bart forever when he died of a heart attack at the age of 51. But we did not lose his high standards and his love of the game.
Pete has now admitted that he bet on games while managing the Reds. That meets one of the conditions we discussed 14 years ago. But the question that remains is: Has he reconfigured his life?
-
The real question mark for both 2004 and the next 3 years as well is Mark Buehrle. His ERA and batting avg. agnst. have both been trending upwards and his other stats increasingly don't look too well either.
Is this just a blip in what might be a fairly long career or is it possible that by the time that Buehrle's new contract ends, that he may be more or less washed up?
If this is an irreversible trend, then my prediction is that his ERA in 2004 will be in the 4.50-4.75 range and if he wins any more than 15 games, its only going to be due to the offense coming through.
What do the rest of you think?
-
ESPN.com news services
NEW YORK -- Yankees third baseman Aaron Boone injured his left knee playing basketball and might miss the season.
Boone agreed Dec. 1 to a $5.75 million, one-year contract, and the contract contained language saying it would become nonguaranteed if he played basketball.
"Concerning his contract, I can confirm that there are certain prohibited activities, which include basketball," Cashman said.
Interesting. His contract forbids playing basketball, but he just goes ahead and does it anyways. Just like a certain basketball player was forbiden from riding motorcycles, but did it anyways.
What is it with these pro athletes? Don't they know that don't do it means don't do it?
Or is it that all they see in their contracts is the $$$ and just ignore the rest?
-
Marte all the way!
-
Won't happen is damn right. Between dirt-cheap Shingo and Maddux, that's one potentially high-reward moves too many for this inept franchise.
I mean, if we were willing to commit 36/3 to overrated Phatolo, giving 12/2 plus performance-based insentives to 1st ballot HOF'er/Chicago icon/fan draw Maddux one year removed from a 2.60 ERA season......to pitch in a very weak hitting ALC.....simulteneously keeping him away from WS-bound Cubs....no, that makes too much sense.
Let's pin all our hopes and the welfare of the franchise on Ownedweiss and Judy instead. After the embarassing 2003 (all star year; special 1983-1993-2003 historical connection) choke-job, with ongoing park renovaitons AND with the impending headlines saluting Cubian triumph, where did people get this krazy idea that White Sox are in a DIRE need of instant success in 2004.....
Aen't you aware that Maddux has repeatedly made it clear that he's not one bit interested in pitching in the American League?
-
Jose Lima is a guy who has a real blast playing the game and its a lot of fun watching him too. That 8-3 record with KC was for the 2nd half of the season since he spent the 1st half with the independent Newark Bears of the Atlantic League where he went 7-1. He should be a solid 12-15 game winner at the MLB level next year. He's the best of the bunch I think.
As for Villone, he pitched decently for Houston last year and its surprising that they didn't keep him around. He would also make for a good #5 starter.
-
This Otis guy is a fraud. He just makes up all sorts of patently hogwash tales and then gets a kick out of seeing the Sox fans go ga-ga over his pronouncements.
-
Typical Sleaze Hack column dwelling on the negative when it comes to the Sox and especially Frank Thomas. I can still remember one of her columns from last year in which she claimed that Frank had not made a "clutch hit" all year when in fact Frank had made several game-winning hits that year and that was before the All-Star break.
-
Well, don't you worry. Frank is going to show up at Sox Fest just before it gets underway, just like he always does. As for putting Ozzie in his proper place, the Big Hurt will have the grace and taste to do it where there aren't any TV cameras.
-
There's an incredible amount of ignorance, anti-Reinsdorf hatred and just plain garbage in this thread.
First, its been repeatedly demonstrated that if the Sox spend big and/or win big that folks will NOT flock to the games. Case in point: 2000 when the Sox won 95 games and the AL Central Division while the Cubs lost 90 games and finished dead last in the NL Central. Guess what? The Cubs substantially outdrew the White Sox attendance-wise.
Second, 1.9 Mil. in attendance is hardly sufficient to fund the vast spending programs that so many here want. Also, the Sox ticket prices are far less than what several other MLB teams such as the BoSox charge, yet there is a demand in this thread that the Sox reduce their already reasonable ticket prices and have even more discounting. In other words, you want higher spending with even lower revenues.
Third, there is a pre-occupation with the stupid Cubs and their place in the Chicago baseball world in this thread. Specifically, there is a misbelief that the Cubs are outdrawing the Sox because they are a better team and will do even better next year. The success of the Cubs attendance-wise have nothing to do with the quality of the team as shown by the fact that during the Reinsdorf Era, the Sox have generally outperformed the Cubs in the W-L column, yet the Cubs outdraw the Sox. In 2003, the Cubs won only 2 more games than did the Sox, but the Cubs had substantially greater attendance than the Sox. There are many reasons for this beginning with the fact that the Tribune Co. owns the Cubs and has been using its media outlets to promote the Cubs while dumping on the Sox. The only way that the Sox could possibly overcome this media bias is for the ownership to buy its own media properties.
Finally, the last thing that you folks really want is for a savvy businessman such as Donald Trump to come in and buy the Sox because such an individual would soon realize that the South Side is insufficient to the cause of adequately supporting the and would find a way to bust out of the agreements for the Sox to remain at Comiskey for the next 2 decades or so. That way, the businessman would be able to move the team to another city such as say New Orleans or Louisville where there would be sufficient attendance to make owning a MLB team a worthwhile endeavor.
-
Just wondering, but what departing coach or player has ever called KW a "whack job"?
-
Howard Done
in SLaM
Interesting how this thread has gone from childish Howard Dean to childish behavior.
-
I'm sure I glad I read this whole thread!
There's 30 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
At least it was more interesting than watching water boil.
-
State of the Union: More like State of Politicians Blather.
-
From: http://slate.msn.com/id/2094034/sidebar/2094042/
The Phantom Poll Booth
Who won the 1988 Iowa Democratic caucuses? We'll never know.
By William Saletan
This article was originally published in the June 1988 issue of American Politics.
At 9:13 P.M. on February 8, CBS News announced that Richard Gephardt had won the Iowa Democratic caucuses. Before the night was over, Gephardt had visited all three network sets, brimming with confidence over his comeback victory in the formative Democratic contest of 1988. Runner-up Paul Simon struggled to spin the outcome his way, but was told point-blank in two morning interviews that he had fallen short of expectations. Gephardt promptly jumped up 10 percent in New Hampshire polls, passing Simon for good. A week later, Simon finished behind Gephardt again and was effectively written out of the race.
But wait a minute. Did Paul Simon really lose in Iowa? The networks said he did, based on a mix of entrance polls, samples of key precincts and a county-by-county tally of votes compiled by a cooperative effort called the News Election Service. But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House. And maybe Paul Simon wasn't really the loser he was reported to be.
While ABC and CBS projected Gephardt the winner by three percentage points, NBC aborted—and didn't report until 24 hours later—its own projection showing Gephardt leading by only half a point. Why didn't NBC go public on caucus night with its projection? Because, in the words of NBC director of elections and polling Mary Klette, "you'd be absolutely crazy" to predict a winner with only a half-point margin in the key precinct sample. ABC director of political operations Stan Opotowsky agrees. "The point of key precincts is to tell you who won. A half a point doesn't mean a thing." In other words, if NBC's squelched figures were right, the race was simply too close to call.
To the network political pros, worrying about key precincts in retrospect is a pointless exercise. After all, the News Election Service's count of actual votes showed Gephardt winning by three points. "The official vote is that county vote as it comes in from N.E.S.," explains Klette. "Once that adds up to 100 percent, that's what decides who wins and who loses." Opotowsky concurs.
But questioning the precinct tallies isn't pointless, for three reasons. One, the N.E.S. count was never completed; it stopped with only 70 percent of precincts reporting. Two, it wasn't official. And three, a comedy of errors—attributable in part to the N.E.S., in part to its reporters and in part to the Iowa Democratic Party—rendered the N.E.S. count absolutely worthless as a final authority on the caucus outcome. Who won the Iowa Democratic caucuses? The truth is, nobody knows.
The Iowa Democratic Party thinks it knows who won. On caucus night, the party tabulated and reported the share of county delegates won by each candidate using a system of numerical thresholds and weights that makes a space-based laser missile defense system look like a junior high science fair project. According to the party's count, Gephardt won 31.24 percent of the weighted delegates to Simon's 26.68 percent—a margin of 4.56 points.
That's the sausage; here's how it's made. Say 100 people show up at precinct caucus X. The caucus chair designates eight stations around the room, one for each candidate and one for undecided. Twenty-eight people go to Simon, 27 to Gephardt, 18 to Dukakis, 9 to Jackson, 8 to Babbitt, 1 to Hart and 9 to Uncommitted. Now, caucus rules say you need 15 percent of the total to elect a precinct delegate. So the caucus chair announces that Jackson, Babbitt, Hart, Gore and Uncommitted aren't "viable." Members of those groups can then band together or defect to their second-choice groups. Say six Jackson people move to Gephardt, two to Simon, one to Uncommitted. The Babbitt group moves over to Uncommitted to elect one of its own as an "uncommitted" delegate who can vote for Babbitt at the county level; the Hart oddball defects to Gephardt; two uncommitted people defect to Gephardt, another to Dukakis. Now the chair counts again: Gephardt has 36; Simon, 30; Dukakis, 19; Uncommitted, 15. Of the seven delegates precinct X will send to the county convention, each group wins one delegate just for meeting the 15 percent threshold. Gephardt is awarded two of the remaining delegates; Simon gets one. So the chair phones in the results to county headquarters: Gephardt, three delegates; Simon, two; Dukakis, one; Uncommitted, one.
After all 20 precincts in the county have reported, the county chair phones in the total county delegates to state Democratic headquarters: Gephardt, 51; Simon, 41; Dukakis, 33; Jackson, 7; Uncommitted, 5; Babbitt, 3. Now, due to high Democratic turnout in this county in the last two election years, the Iowa Democratic Party "weights" these delegates to give the county more clout in the caucus process than another county, where Simon has won 30 percent of the delegates to Gephardt's 29 percent. In our hypothetical scenario, when the "weighted" delegates across the state are added up, Gephardt ends up with just over 31 percent, Simon just under 27 percent. That's the official result of the Iowa Democratic caucuses.
The network brass who deal with this process point out that it's incomprehensible, slow and seriously impure as an exercise in democracy. They spawned the N.E.S. in 1983 to eliminate these problems and to tell them who "really" won the caucuses. The N.E.S. was supposed to count how many Democrats went to the caucuses to pick each candidate as their first choice for the nomination—a simple straw vote. Above all, the N.E.S. was supposed to report those results quickly, so the networks could announce the winners during prime time on caucus night.
With nearly 2,500 precincts to cover, N.E.S. president Bob Flaherty sought the cooperation of the Iowa Democrats, the one organization that would have a representative—namely, the caucus chair—at each caucus anyway and, of course, the very organization whose electoral policies the N.E.S. would undermine. At a January 1987 meeting, Flaherty asked top party officials to make a straw vote part of the official process. The Democrats refused to sanction the N.E.S. count or to cooperate with the N.E.S. in reporting the initial head count. From the party's point of view, the N.E.S. was sloppy and had no business revising the caucus system for the sake of expediency. From the N.E.S.'s standpoint, the party was obstructing all attempts to render the caucuses fair and intelligible.
"Some of our people were excused from the caucuses because they were under 18 or because they weren't Democrats, which is not normally a test that one gives to reporters," says Flaherty. It would also be a breach of the state's open-meeting law. But Flaherty refuses to cite any incidents in which N.E.S. reporters were kicked out, and he declines to discuss specific complaints until more "research" is done.
In caucus training sessions across the state in January and in a letter just before the caucuses, the state party instructed precinct leaders to bar N.E.S. reporters from leaving to make phone calls to the N.E.S. (for fear their absence would affect viability counts) and from checking the registry of caucus-goers' initial preferences. But on caucus night, some counties allowed the N.E.S. reporters to caucus and collect the pre-viability count; many others didn't. Marty Ryan is the Democratic co-chair in Crawford County; his wife was hired by the N.E.S. as a reporter. When the N.E.S. sent her instructions to report the initial head count, Marty Ryan recalls, "I crossed out that part and sent it out to all the N.E.S. reporters in the county and said, Do not report these results." Only four precincts in the county defied him. Elsewhere, N.E.S. reporters showed up late, missed the initial counts and asked to peek at the registries; caucus chairs blew them off.
Aside from the party's attitude, four systematic problems rendered the N.E.S. figures useless.
2. Early second choices. "Right away, when they saw they didn't have, enough for viability, people started moving," says one N.E.S. reporter. "It was really hard to count them before they switched." Interviews indicate that this happened at about one of every three caucuses—generally the smaller ones. Here, the first preferences of many voters disappeared before N.E.S. reporters could record them—and an equivalent number of second choices contaminated what was supposed to be a pre-viability count.
3. Chaos. "There were so many people in the room," explains one exasperated Des Moines caucus-goer, "you couldn't tell where one group stopped and the other group began." One western Iowa county leader says that at most caucuses he's seen, "Unless you're standing five feet above everybody, you can't see the actual movement." This was the case in a third of the caucuses—generally the larger ones.
4. Incomplete counting. "If there's 100 people in a caucus, and there's 50 people over there, you know that's a viable group," says Crawford County's Ryan. "They're not even gonna count that until final alignment." This happened in about a fourth of the caucuses.
5. Procedural quirks. One caucus erupted into a fistfight; another caucus consisted of 132 participants who decided to count themselves as only 129; another voted to start all over after some Hart people complained they had been betrayed by one of their own. One N.E.S. reporter was told she couldn't obtain any figures from her caucus because the results could appear on television sets at living-room caucuses and prejudice their results.
N.E.S. corner-cutting only made matters worse. Many of the people hired as reporters were minors recruited by high school government teachers and youth group directors. Most of the kids were told they could get the raw vote from the caucus registry—precisely what the Democrats had already ruled out. Some kids tried to read the registries upside down. Some freaked out and left.
Union County youth-group director Les Sallee says the N.E.S. asked him to find kids to cover the county's 17 precincts as part of a "citizenship development" program. Were the kids up to the task? "More or less," he ventures. Apparently, less. "Some of these kids came to me and wanted to know what they were supposed to do," says Lee Campbell, a local teacher. The N.E.S. reporters he saw ranged from 15 to 17 years old. (Interestingly, 15 to 17 was also the ratio of Union County caucuses reported to caucuses held.) "I'm not sure that the young people that they had out there were getting the information that they were supposed to," says Campbell. Another 4-H director asked each of her kids to cover two caucuses at once, gambling that the initial counts wouldn't be taken simultaneously; they missed two precincts. (A 4-H officer in a third county missed six.) A sorority president in Osceola tried the same stunt. She missed two of three initial counts and ended up reporting only 3 of 10 precincts to the N.E.S.
Songwriter Dan Hunter relates his conversation with a high school student reporting for the N.E.S. in Des Moines.
Hunter: What are you doing?
N.E.S. rep: I don't know.
Hunter: Why do you have a Simon sticker on?
N.E.S. rep: I'm with his group.
Hunter: The hell you are. You can't caucus with them if you're an N.E.S. counter.
N.E.S. rep: What am I supposed to do?
Hunter: Well, you dumb s***, didn't they tell you what to do?
N.E.S. rep: Well, I was just supposed to count things, right?
Hunter: What are you getting paid for this?
N.E.S. rep: I don't know.
Hunter: Why are you here?
N.E.S. rep: I'm raising money for my wrestling team.
Out of sheer pity, Hunter gave him the count—"The final count, the delegate count. If I had had an axe to grind, I could have told him anything."
Not that the adult N.E.S. reporters couldn't have used some training, too. "It was a very sloppy business," one says. "I did not know how to do it. I thought that the secretary was keeping track of those numbers at the very beginning, and she did have some figures down. But when I went to pick them up, some of those people had moved. I know it wasn't exact. So I had to just kind of guess. There were some real large groups, and I couldn't be absolutely sure of the numbers." This reporter ended up using the caucus registry, which she and several others hadn't signed, to report the raw vote.
"We were just sort of dumped out there," says another. "The News Election Service had not asked for any training, as far as I know, and I didn't see that any would be needed." So how did it go? She laughs: "Actually, I ended up not calling in the initial results, because we forgot about it." This reporter was a caucus chair. She and her friends, none of whom were trained, had been selected by the N.E.S. as a particularly able group deserving first choice among the precincts in her county. "I thought we had problems," she recalls. "Then I heard about some of the other precincts and I thought, Well, we're not too bad off."
A third N.E.S. reporter, confused by what one of her reporters told her after the caucuses, recalls: "He said the figures were all messed up that were reported to the News Election Service."
All N.E.S. reporters were given badges and were instructed to identify themselves to the caucus chair when they arrived, so they should have been noticed wherever they were. But county and caucus chairs say the N.E.S. simply missed some precincts—in Davenport, in Council Bluffs, in South Iowa and, according to state Democratic officials, in other places across the state. Several N.E.S. county officers admit that some of their people just never called in the results, and perhaps didn't even show up.
Aside from the chaotic fieldwork, N.E.S. headquarters managed some bumbling of its own. One western county chair says he and his wife, an N.E.S. reporter, tabulated identical counts of the initial preferences in his precincts and relayed them to the N.E.S. But although the figures the N.E.S. passed on to the networks were based on reports from only 9 of 20 precincts, they showed more people present than voted in all 20 precincts. The county chair says he investigated until he located the N.E.S.'s mistake, but that the N.E.S. has refused to cooperate. He and other county chairs suspect that the local figures published by the N.E.S. were "totally fictitious."
Ironically, network political chiefs don't even seriously consider the possibility that the N.E.S. screwed up the count. "Where do you think N.E.S. got it?" asks ABC's Opotowsky. "From the party. The N.E.S. reporter's job is to phone them in. He doesn't count anything. The party officially tells him what the count is." And what if the reporter gets confused? Opotowsky sighs. "One thing you have to understand," he explains gently, "the N.E.S. reporter's not somebody who just wandered in out of the cold. This is probably his tenth Iowa caucus, in each case."
The contrast with reality could not be any more stark. If the networks thought they were getting some kind of official count of the caucuses, they were ripped off. And the viewers who watched Brokaw, Rather and Jennings rattle off N.E.S. numbers all night on February 8 were ripped off. It's possible that Paul Simon was ripped off too. Skeptics, including some Simon aides, say Gephardt's four-point lead in the final delegate count shows he probably had more raw votes. But the hypothetical scenario sketched out above shows how a Simon win in the raw vote could turn into a four-point Simon loss in the delegate count. Crawford County chair Ryan thinks that's implausible. Yet, in one of his precincts, Simon had three-fourths of the caucus-goers but was awarded only one of two delegates. And in the translation of final head counts into Crawford County delegates—a single step in the complex chain of equations—Simon dropped from 26 percent to 23 percent, while Gephardt rose from 46 percent to 47 percent. Little by little, these things add up.
Maybe Paul Simon did lose the Iowa straw vote after all. But at the very least, that devastating verdict, if it was to be reported at all, should have been based on more than a probability curve.
In the last days before the caucuses, buoyed by the Des Moines Register's endorsement, Simon aides echoed the Babbitt campaign's mocking line on Gary Hart: "Let the media decide." On February 8, that's what happened
-
With this neat little thingy, you simply input the names of your friends, their ages, genders as well as the genre of the movie and the journal format and voila! instant movie plot. To get into the fun, simply point your browser to:
http://www.haydenpratt.com/moviesynopsis.pl?n1=
Here's what I came up with:
Molto in Helicopter Shootout 4
In this thrill-per-minute bloodbath, Molto (Colin Firth) is an ex-FBI agent with a dislike for corn chips. He elects to silence Crimson_Weltall (Kiefer Sutherland) before the seemingly innocent YASNY (Eddie Murphy) gets to him. Following a chain of very obvious clues, he demolishes an underground stronghold under false pretenses. Helicopter Shootout 4 promises not to be just another movie where people get kicked in the face. It fails to live up to that promise.
Steff in Rebel Without Applause
In this thrill-per-minute bloodbath, Steff (Heather Graham) is a convicted soldier with a less than relevant background. She needs to get to Texsox (Sean Connery) before her foe, cwsox (John Goodman), reaches him. To the detriment of many peripheral characters, she demolishes a hidden warehouse under false pretenses. The hi-jinks that follow are well worth watching.
Rex Hudler in Unsavoury Shapes
In this fully-fledged epic, Rex_Hudler (Martin Lawrence) is an elite secret agent with a libido to kill. He elects to eliminate witesoxfan (Jet Li) before his archenemy, HSC (Lucy Liu), gets to him. After equipping himself with lots of guns, he demolishes a hidden fortress. Official movie of the 2004 Olympic Games.
Kip Wells Fan in Mail Lover
Managing to play every heart-string, this breathtaking story, set in the state of Arizona, tells the story of partners, Kip_Wells_Fan (Bronson Pinchot) and ChiSoxyGirl (Michelle Pfeiffer), who discover themselves becoming closer after a destructive catalyst has been initiated by his naïve father, aboz56 (Billy Crystal). The only way a film could be more moving is if it was screening during flight.
Chisoxfn in Down for the Count
Chisoxfn (Tom Hanks) has had involuntary amputations less painful than this year. After following a trail of lies that leads all the way to the top, his public image is not what it used to be, and AllStarAlomar15, his nextdoor neighbour (Danny Glover), is being held at ransom by a misguided lobbyist. maggsmaggs (Nathan Lane) hopes for a game of corporate snakes and ladders. Never was their a more interesting cabinet. Unless you include furniture.
Given the plots in a lot of movies lately, this website surely is used by a lot of producers these days.
-
This is an expensive contract for such an inconsistent pitcher. KW has yet to win more than 14 games a season. If that number was 24, then it might be a good use of money. In any event, remember that KW had to sit 1999 out do to injuries incurred from overuse in 1998. Given that Baker overused KW in 2003, its quite likely that Wood's "dustiny" will be to sit out at least a good part of 2004 along with Zambrano and possibly Prior as well.
-
While the following article does not deal directly with the White Sox, it does deal with the salary strategy that the Sox have been using, one that originated with the Cleveland Indians of the 1990's.
From:
http://twinstakes.bonnes.com/members/jbonn...33;OpenDocument
Ohio Scams
by John Bonnes
01/06/2004
The Twins also told Greenberg they have no interest right now in discussing a multiyear contract for Johan Santana.
- Star-Tribune, December 15, 2003
-------------------------
When a philosophy is universally embraced by sportswriters, baseball management and players' agents, one can be pretty sure that it's pure bunk.
Such is the case with the universal acceptance of the Cleveland plan. As the Cleveland Indians were opening a new stadium in the mid 90's, they were blessed with a farm system the produced players like Kenny Lofton, Carlos Baerga, Albert Belle and Jim Thome. They also started running away with the AL Central on a regular basis and became a model franchise for all of baseball.
But Cleveland management and baseball writers didn't talk about the causes which were really responsible for the Indians resurgence toward relevance - namely, having a load of good young cheap players develop simultaneously and a new taxpayer funded stadium that brought in boatloads of revenue to maintain a higher payroll. Instead, not too surprisingly, they liked to talk about what smart business people they were for "locking up" good young ballplayers at a reduced price for the security of a long term, guaranteed contract. It's as if the John Hart and the Cleveland Indians weren't satisfied with dominating the AL Central for the duration of the 1990's, so they devised a myth to ensure they would have a shot over the next 20 years.
It was the kind of philosophy that general managers all over baseball could embrace. It made sense. It was something that could make them look both proactive and fiscally responsible during those annoying meetings with the owner. It played well to the fans. Plus, it took care of those nasty arbitration headaches for years at a time. And so now, whenever a teams signs a contract with their own player prior to free agency, everyone - management, players reps and sportswriters - points to the Cleveland plan as the only proof necessary to show that their management is on top of things.
More often than not, it's bunk. That's because the devil is in the details, and most fans don't want to pay attention to the details, especially when they involve math. The trick isn't to sign a popular young player to a long-term guaranteed deal. All young players, popular or not, want long-term guaranteed deals. The trick is to sign a popular young player to a long-term guaranteed deal considerably below their anticipated market value, and that's the kind of research and math that makes many sportswriters' brains hurt.
For a long-term deal to be beneficial for a major league team, they need to get significant concessions in salary for taking on the risk of signing a young player, because giving a young player a long term guaranteed deal is a risk, and a big risk at that. Young players get hurt, especially young pitchers. Young players can feel the pressure of trying to live up to a multi-million dollar price tag and fail spectacularly. Young players - hell, young people - are easily distracted, especially when success comes too fast. And if any of these things happen - ANY of these things - it becomes questionable if a player will live up to his expectations (and expected salary) over the life of the contract.
The Twins have learned this the hard way. Let's review the list of young players that the Twins have given guaranteed deals while they still owned their rights: Cristian Guzman, Corey Koskie, Eric Milton, Joe Mays, Torii Hunter and Jacque Jones. The Twins have been burned badly on the lethargic Guzman, and the injured Milton and Mays. In addition, Hunter's development stalled last year and Jones is being shopped as trade bait to take his salary off the books. The only clear cut victory out of that group was Koskie, and even then it was rumored that the Twins might not pick up his option this year. You can reasonably state that the Twins have wasted nearly $20 million in salary alone between just Mays and Milton, and the $30+ million they still have committed to Mays and Hunter is looking questionable.
So not wanting to talk about a long term deal with Santana isn't necessarily a sign that the Twins don't want Santana around long-term or that they don't believe in him. It just means that they're willing to pay the freight to keep the risk of a dropoff on his side of the fence. They aren't going to lose him. The Twins will pay approximately $2.5 million this year to Santana in his first year of arbitration and will have the option of continuing to pay his market value for 2005 and 2006 if he stays healthy and productive. That's a pretty reasonable position to take with a 24-year-old arm that's never been used as a starter for a full year in the majors and had offseason surgery for chips in its elbow.
And it's a pretty reasonable position to take when dealing with most young players. Ten years ago, small market teams were sold a bill of goods by one of their own just as the source was transforming itself into a major revenue producer. Given the right kind of trade-off (like significant cost savings for a lifetime of security) that kind of deal still makes sense. But the teams that have the lowest payrolls are also the teams for which that risk is the most significant. And they're also the teams for which the Cleveland plan makes the least amount of sense.
-------------------------
That "if everyone believe is it's probably bunk" thing pretty much applies to the whole Pete Rose confession as well. And his worthiness for being entered in the Hall of Fame has NOTHING to do with how sorry you think he really is.
Of course he bet on baseball. And of course he's sorry. What's remarkable about this isn't that he finally came clean or apologized. What's remarkable is that he didn't do so over ten years ago when he was caught. What's remarkable is that he's somehow turned the unremarkable attitudes of honesty and contrition into a bargaining chip by withholding them for so long.
-
Nope. That story was posted to MLB.com on the 13th of this month. Learn to think before posting.
Another great Sox article
in Pale Hose Talk
Posted
Considering that most of any media coverage of Soxfest will be negative, the less media coverage of SoxFest, the better.