Chisoxfn

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jan 21, 2007 -> 04:38 AM) Very interesting piece from Peter Vecsey on the Bulls and Pau Gasol; Would you pull the trigger on that deal? Deng, Gordon and Brown for Gasol and Warrick. Don't forget also that Hakim Warrick was playing some pretty nice ball earlier on in the season too. No dice. I'd consider Noc and Gordon or giving up Tyrus Thomas and a package of some other guys but no way is Deng getting dealt. And ya, Warrick wouldn't be that bad, but he has a lot of holes in his game still.

LETS GO BEARS. Have faith in the Bears!!!!

Not that impressed and as such I sold the damn thing on ebay (made 50 bucks) and picked up a 360. Oh and if anyone is interested in wireless controllers, cosco and circuit city are selling them for 38.99 and 39.99 respectively (which is 10 bucks off the normal price of 49.99).

QUOTE(T R U @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 05:14 PM) Look, most of you guys are die hard Bears fans so im not even gonna argue with you even though you are wrong.. You can sit there and talk about "What ifs" all you want but the facts are the Bears are not "Clearly" better than the Saints. I am as sick as the rest of you listening to everyone slobbing them but the fact is they arent just gonna roll over and let the Bears waltz into the Super Bowl. You could also look at it like this... the 2nd ranked offense scored 24 points on the Saints D while the 18th ranked offense scored 24 points on the Bears D. Eh, it doesnt matter anyways itll all be settled Sunday. You won't here mee saying the Bears are clearly better than the Saints. I think this is a pretty even matchup. If the Bears have Tommie Harris and Mike Brown, we are clearly the better team but we don't and with that the Saints offense (which is the most balanced offense in the NFL, imo) will have a chance to score points on us and that means Rex and the offense will have to come through (and while the offense is fully capable of that, it hasn't proven that they can consistently do so). So the defense is going to have to deliver, play at its best, wrap up guys, force turnovers and the offense is going to have to play very well (not turn the ball over, make the ocassional big play, & dominate the LOS). I really think we are going to see a darn good game on Sunday (in fact two of them). QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 05:16 PM) Actually the Bears' pass defense is better than their run defense. The Bears have pretty brutal against the run on more than one occasion this year (Gore, Brown, Alexander, Barber, C. Taylor have all run rough shot over this D) with the loss of Mike Brown who is an outstanding run stopping SS and Tommie Harris who is a better pass rusher than run stopper but still does an excellent job getting to the running back, the Bears have had some serious trouble bringing down the runner. Just watching the Seahawks game they were having some serious problems stopping Alexander late in the game, it was getting pretty pathetic there. I don't know what the stats say and frankly I don't really care the Bears have been pretty good against the pass this season they may give up some yards but that has more to do with the bend don't break nature of the Cover 2 than anything else. They'll allow for the opponent to pick up 3-4 yards on a pass but they're going to immediately drop him, you'll rarely see the Bears give up big plays through the air that is saved for the running backs. At the end of the season with Tillman, Vasher and Todd Johnson went down they actually had Cameron Worrell and *gag* Devin Hester playing in the secondary at the same time this is a recipe for disaster seeing as how they're both terrible defensive players (studs on ST however) and will never see the field under normal circumstances. Now that Todd Johnson, Tillman and Vasher are all healthy and the D-Line being mostly in-tact with the exception of Harris (huge loss) I fully expect the Bears to give Brees and the Saints passing game lots of trouble on Sunday. McCallister on the other hand could be a problem given this Defense's history of giving up huge plays to big backs (they tend to get lackadaisical and stop wrapping up, instead they go for the big hit and end up bouncing off the back.) Strong post as usual.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 04:17 PM) Aww come on fellas, it ain't that hard. Use the 'Y' pass, or lead pass, to spring your guys for a breakaway. Or go to the corner, make a hard stop, move to the middle of the penalty box and 'Bend it like Beckham' (literally for me -- Real Madrid). Keep tryin, once you learn how to bend it real nasty, it becomes fun as hell. My problem is that I had no idea what the heck the controls were or even how to bend it. When I got my goal I was ready to quit and retire with greatness (having lost 4-1 or something like that, lol).

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 03:34 PM) True, but you do have to have $$, which many of them don't have. You should see the small villages that have erupted outside Home Depots out here. And they just expanded the Orange line, so I guess someoe's riding it. Thats typically where you can get day laborers (at least in OC, you have a lot of places as designated day laborer pick up points; often times it happens to be near a Home Depot). QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 04:51 PM) You know you're in Cali when you get to the toll and the cost for 2 axels is 12 dollars. I should point out that toll roads are almost completely non-existent here. Albeit, if you are in San Fran there is a toll road and there is a toll road in South Orange County that runs through to the inland empire (Riverside) but you can take free optoins if you like (Traffic can just blow on them if you are going to riverside from South OC or vice versa).

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 05:07 PM) Um, what the hell is muscle milk? And does the stuff work? Its basically really really high fat milk (think more in terms of breast milk than normal milk). At least thats my understanding of it (but I'm sure Rock or R&W can give you a better explanation). And it works good if you are doing cardio yet also trying to build mass, because the cardio would prevent you from building mass, but having something like muscle milk gives you additional fat to help you build mass (if you are looking to bulk up). Again this is an explanation from a non-body builder through stuff my body building buddy has mentioned to me (and I'm sure I botched the details up).

QUOTE(T R U @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 03:10 PM) Cam Cameron is the new Dolphins head coach.. We have needed an offensive minded coach for quite some time.. I am excited about what he is going to be able to do with Ronnie Brown, they need to just pound away with him Rowand, how you feel? I think this is a solid hire. Cameron has done a great job in San Diego. That said he has a whole heck of a lot of weapons that make things easier on an OC.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 08:33 AM) Yeah. Jon Rauch Jason Grilli Gary Majewski Kip Wells Keith Foulke Bobby Howry Scott Eyre All of them washed up former White Sox prospects, and, while I'm too lazy to look, I'm just going to assume that none of them are in the big leagues any more. I assume you are being sarcastic Balta and I want to point this out cause I think people will miss out on this. Rauch has turned into a pretty good reliever, Majewski did a pretty good job when healthy out of the pen. Kip has had a lot of injury issues but had a couple good years. Foulke was above average, closed out for the BoSox in the series. Howry and Eyre both are quality relievers that get paid well on the Northside. Basically put, a lot of those guys we had did have success elsewhere.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 02:30 PM) 1. It's the government 2. Any recommendations won't be taken seriously (9/11 Commission what?) 3. It's the government 4. It's become too political. It's posturing. It's the Dems saying 'look at us, unlike those straight-laced money-hungry fascist pig Republicans, we care about the environment, so we're gonna create this panel to look into it. 5. It's the government 6. The scientific community, on it's own, should have ample studies/reports for Congress to use to act. A meeting or two, sure, I'll go for that. A full-fledged committee that will take time and money away from more pressing needs? A waste. 7. It's the government. Completely agree.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 02:02 PM) I think it also gives him the right to pick and choose where he would like to play and not look like an total jerk by doing it - ala Eli Manning. Like Bo Jackson did when he came out of Auburn. He didn't want to play for TB so he signed with Kansas City to play baseball. Then Oakland traded for him? If a team drafts him that he would like to play for, then great. If he doesn't like the NFL situation then he stays in baseball. He is no a no lose situation. In my opinion I think the Cubs made a stupid move. Or John Elway using baseball as his way to never sign with the Colts (Elway is awesome).

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 12:53 PM) You really think he has the potential of a sandwich pick? I just don't see it. I don't know whether he should have been a sandwich pick, but if he declared his interest in baseball I would have figured him to be off the board by the time the sandwich picks were done. He's still pretty raw, but he has the tools and his value (as a prospect) is higher because of what he did as a WR (it probably shouldn't be, but it is). If I graded him out, solely as a pitcher, no, I am not sure I'd have taken him in the sandwich round, but I bet a few teams would have considered it (based soley on his fastball). I can guarantee you the Cubs have protections in that contract that say if he plays football he has to give back a large chunk. That said any smart NFL team (if they talk to Jeff) should take a chance on the guy in the 2nd day of the draft. Just the possibility of getting 1st round talent in the 2nd day should make it worth while.

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 12:23 PM) That's the thing with Lovie Smith. He doesn't like change, want change, or even sniff change. It's what killed the Bears last year against Carolina in the playoffs, it's what I believe will kill them this year in the playoffs. Herm Edwards, coach of the Chiefs, against the Colts in the first round had a game plan of running Larry Johnson constantly. He rushed for something crazy, like 8 carries and 15 yards. The entire time at halftime I'm thinking, "the Chiefs are going to change the game plan, they're going to come out firing." What do they do? They continue to run the ball straight up the middle and Johnson and the Chiefs running game finished with 44 yards of offense on the ground in 17 attempts. Lovie is the same way. I argued that I thought the best running back tandem left in the playoffs wasn't as easy as most thought and a lot of that has to do with Benson being a non-factor simply because Lovie Smith does not like change. He simply doesn't get it. Whoa...this is a guy that benched Mike Green pretty much right at the beginning of the season in favor of a late round rookie (Chris Harris) or that made a quick change and brought Danial Manning into the starting lineup. Aside from the QB position (and I personally have long backed Lovie on the QB situation), this guy has never been afraid to make a change. Heck, Lovie made a ballsy move last year by benching Orton in favor of Rex when he came back. Lovie's history has shown that he will play the guy that he feels will be best. He won't play the guy that makes more money or that has been the long term starter in the past and thats why I like Lovie so much and I think thats why the players respect him so much (you know you'll get your shot if you play well; there aren't any politics with Lovie).

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 12:05 PM) If Ron Turner realizes who the better running back is, then I agree that Benson should be pretty important. If it's like last weekend, where he had about four touches going into the fourth quarter, than we might be looking at trouble offensively. But remember who got a ton of touches down the strecth of the 4th quarter and in overtime. God Benson is going to be a stud in this league, I can't wait to see him get more and more carries. That said, TJ is a pretty damn good player in himself. I hope the ego's can take a back seat and that we'll be able to use both of those guys a whole lot next year.

QUOTE(Gage Loves Me @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 11:02 PM) Too bad we can hardly score goals in FIFA! Talk about impossible. At least I ended up having half of my team out of the lineup thanks to red cards

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 01:28 PM) Ok, this is simply wrong. Yes, the earth has had climate changes in the past, and yes, the earth will do so again. But The fact that the climate of the earth has changed in the past is in no way an argument that humanity can't change the climate of the earth, nor is it an argument that the current climate changes are not due to human activities. Right now, we believe we have a very solid understanding of the underlying principle here. A certain amount of light is radiated away from the earth. Gases in the atmosphere can absorb this light and prevent it from leaving. Water has done this for billions of years. But CO2 has been kept artificially low in the Earth's atmosphere by the fact that life takes up CO2 and stores it. Because CO2 is so low, when you add more CO2 to the atmosphere, you can significantly increase the amount of heat absorbed by that CO2, and therefore you can force the earth's surface temperature to rise so that it will emit heat at a different wavelength where CO2 does not absorb as much light. Simply saying "There are climate changes in the past and there will be again" is totally ignoring the reality of what we're doing. We've increased atmospheric CO2 by something like 50% in the past 150 years. Simplyt saying "oh the climate will change" ignores the abruptness of what we've done, and totally ignores the interdependence of humanity on the climate systems. Oh, and who do we blame for the dinosaurs dying off? Well first, evolution; they took a major hit with the development of angiosperms, the leaves of which their stomachs were not able to digest. Then, they were finished off by a very large impact event which killed large numbers instantly and left the rest to starve in a nuclear winter (they may very well have survived though had it not been for the development of flowering plants). Which I think is interesting because it is a nice illustration of how inter-dependent many of the systems on earth are; one thing changes, then a species moves to the brink, then a catastrophe happens and they're wiped out, but without the first change, they may well have survived. I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying. In no means do I intend to say we as humans have not had an impact on the earth, however, I think a lot of people (not you) think that there was no global warming/climate changes prior to 150 years ago or even 500 years ago. In reality that couldn't be further from the truth and I've seen many shows on Discovery, History, and TLC that mention this. I fully think we should do things to clean the environment because we have done a lot of bad too it (namely the polluting of the ocean and the over-fishing of certain species). I have a fear that 40 years from now no one will be able to enjoy fish due to the high toxin/pollution and I'm sure many fish will die off because of that pollution. What I hope is that we adapt and make changes (and as a whole I think our society has become far more green, but at the same time I also realize that there is a business and the economy must go and I am not pushing us to be on the extreme side and make ridiculous regulations, however, I don't mind being aggressive and doing what we can do regulate CO2 emissions). The main problem is, while we do this (and while the US could do better, it still does a better job than anyone else, imo) we have no ability to force other nations to do this and many 3rd world countries (and 2nd world/developing nations) are polutting like mad as they are essentially industrialist doing anything they can to make a buck (and yes, I'm sure many of those factories do in fact involve products us Americans are buying). Still, what body is going to truly enforce the entire world to clean up its act. Its great for the US to do so, but the US is far from the problem (even though we are obviously vast consumers). I want our country to strive to be leaders in the world (both economically, politically, environmentally and so on) but we also must find ways to force the hand of other countries (and thats going to be tricky).

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 01:05 PM) I'm glad to see someone else have this kind of perspective. Climate effects everything, and we effect climate. Ridiculous press from movies like The Day After (or whatever that was called), and crackpots saying the world is ending, just make it worse, because they marginalize the validity and importance of the topic. And we will see climate changes regardless of what humans do. No one is going to tell me the first ice age was created by humans. Who do we blame for the dinosaurs dying off (and the climate being ridiculously hot at that time). We've had ice ages and times where the earth is much hotter and its been very cyclical. Sure humans may have some impact, but the long history of the earth shows many different time periods with drastic climate changes (that take place over a period of time). So yes, I think we should help the environment and do things as such, but maybe we should also realize we aren't necessarily the cause of global warming since the earth has had climate changes its entire history (and not all of them could have possibly changed by humans). That said I don't doubt that an extreme climate change wouldn't have an effect. We could see shorelines change, land that was once fertile for crops no longer being fertile for those specific crops (meaning we have to change food sources) but the people will adapt. There are so many things that will be impacted but as far as I'm concerned, sometime in our planets future we will face that (and no, I don't think humans are the reason for that, although we may have an effect on it getting stronger, but I think the net effect will not be near as large as some indicate or claim).

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 12:35 PM) The guy throws in the upper 90s and has a big enough frame to project that this will continue. That is why he was worth that money to them. That and the media factor, signing a Notre Dame prospect is always an easy way to get into the papers. More importantly factor in that the Cubs pretty much had no draft picks till the 5th round and they basically took all the money they would have given a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, & 4th round pick to a guy who slid a couple rounds because many questioned whether he would play baseball. Yes, he's getting more than he should, but at the same time by spending a bit more the Cubs are getting a potential sandwich pick (I personally think thats as high as he would have went) out of a 5th round pick.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 11:57 AM) Isnt Samadja (whatev) projected to be a bullpen guy at best? No, he has the tools and arm to be at least a middle of the rotation starter if he pans out. His secondary stuff is still pretty raw, but he has a really good fastball and his frame screams of someone that should be pretty durable.

Considering I think for a large part global warming is more a natural issue than it is a polluting issue (Ie just globa temperature changes are cyclical as the history of the world has shown). Now I'm not saying pollution doesn't have an impact and I'm always for less pollution, but at the same time I don't buy into this end of the world global warming crap that a lot of people spew. Still I do think we can always do things better, I just think a panel for global warming would just be political in nature and absolutely useless as opposed to something that was actually just there to try and reduce pollution, increase new ways of recycling things and using less minerals and all that jazz (without debating on how if we don't the world will end, but rather using the common sense that it keeps things cleaner and that has to be better for the planet we live on).

My buddy that is a semi pro body builder just stopped taking muscle-milk saying that his pro friends have all convinced him how terrible the stuff is. For a long time he was using it as a key part of his diet but now its non-existent. Don't ask me what it means though cause I do know a lot of people use it and like it since it gives a body builder the fat and other stuff they need to add mass.

God, I remember how big of a Ramon Ortiz fan I was when he came up with the Angels. He had some dominant stuff and had some unbelievable performances (one of which was an absolute duel with Pedro that was one of the best games I've ever witnessed). Than all of a sudden the Angels found out he got older and he lost the velocity and snap on his breaking pitches and became mediorce and since than terrible. I really don't get what happened to him to cause his stuff to dissapear so much (cause he didn't look like a guy getting help from a particular substance).

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 11:33 AM) Asian Hooters!!! Benihana's actually has an awesome lunch. We go there a bit for work and you can't beat that chicken noodle lunch dish they have for like 6.95. You get a boatload of damn good food, a bit of a show, and a nice long lunch.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 11:18 AM) With the money the Cubs threw at him, that's hard to disagree with. But anyway, does anyone else have a feeling he'll be in the NFL within a few years anyway? (Drew Henson) I agree, but he'd also get a similar signing bonus as a probable first round draft choice in the NFL. However, if he pans out in baseball he'll have a healthier life (as major league baseball players, that are non catchers, typically take less of a beating than NFL players) and would make a lot more money. Heck, I wonder if this crazy off-season, where mediocre starters got 8-10 million per year (long term) had any effect on his future. Oh and Bruce Levine in his update apparently said that he would be in the Cubs rotation by 08. Imo, thats pretty ballsy considering that while this guy has good raw tools, he is over-rated and overhyped as a prospect (mainly because of his success as a 2 sport star and the contract he signed). Plus you have to factor in that for a college pitcher he's still very raw because he had to split time with football.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 11:08 AM) Andersen was a victim of no one but itself. They were negligent at best in the Enron investigations, if not complicit. The two companies were in bed with each other, and AA wasn't going to do anything to piss off its biggest client. Even if they feds hadn't have cracked them, the horrible PR would have bankrupted them anyway. The thing is, as an auditor, I understand that for a large company (which Enron was) you have a large Audit team, but still, you are not talking about even an entire AA office. You are talking about one team, albeit a large one that may have consisted of 20-40 people, plus a partner or two (and partners who do concurring reviews, the problem is, prior to Sarbanes I don't think there was much substance to concurring reviews). These actions were done 100% seperately from AA (the firm as a whole) and that group of people brought down a company (and we are talking about a handful of partners at most for a firm that has well into the thousands of partners in the US) with thousands, if not a hundred thousand employees and billions in revenues. So I think people who somehow think that the whole company was in cahoots is dead wrong, thats not how the audit profession works. In a sense, you have a team which is like an individual company (representing our entire company as a whole) going in and doing our business and only members of that team review stuff (with a partner not associated with it doing a review afterwards just to verify we didn't miss something major). I feel very strongly about a company and so many people effected drastically by the actions of one team (less than 1% of that companies partners and work-force). Of course I'm sure people will make a case of Enron being effected by only a few people, but in that case we are talking about pretty much the entire upper/top management of the company (in AA's case you are talking about 1% of the top management, which would be the parnters). QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 10:58 AM) Image is everything, my friend. Read Sarbanes Oxley if you don't believe that hype. BTW, twerp Jason, I hate auditors. We are only as good as our image. And don't get me started on Sarbanes Oxley. On one hand it guarantees a public auditors employement as long as they are semi compitent, but on the other hand the pendulem has swung completely and unrealistically too far, imo.