joeynach

Seems like a really dumb idea to sign this guy to play CF. He is a gold glove 2B and thats where a lot of his value lies. Why would you sign him for big bucks and take that away from him or your team. If we get Hudson I want him as my 2B.

Am I really supposed to get excited about a guy with career #s, .248 Avg and .304 OBP, that rivals Juan Uribe's.

QUOTE (bschmaranz @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 02:48 AM) LBJ, 1964 EDIT: Same thing with Virginia, 1964 was the last time it went blue. Mercy!!

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 02:17 AM) Indiana is BLUUEEEEE MO is tied by I'd bet McCain wins NC has 100% reporting and Obama up 11 Gs, but not called. The map looks beautiful I cant believe Indiana went to Obama, has it ever gone blue before? And NC too, unbelievable. Like I was saying seems the country's sentiment really wants to get as far away from the republican ideologies and policies we have seen the last 8 years. You just had Indiana and NC vote maybe for the most liberal president ever. That says a lot man, A LOT. P.S. My poker analogy: McCain was drawing dead after the flop but saw his hand out till after the river.

QUOTE (Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 01:52 AM) I think a lot of it is overstated. I mean the margins nationally aren't exactly anything that screams mandate. But there's no denying that America will continue to trend more socially liberal, if not in perpetuity, for as long as it takes until we truly reach full equality. If the Republican party wants to cling to their current anti-gay platform, they'll be completely irrelevant in the not-all-that-distant future. If they continue to be the party which seeks to suppress science (Global warming, stem cell research, etc.) and rely heavily on the undereducated (no-college whites were the least likely of any cross section to vote for Obama) in an increasingly educated electorate, they will find themselves completely marginalized. In short, the Republican party will have to evolve (if they believe such a thing can occur), not necessarily in the next election, or even in the one after that, but in the next generation. The Republican party, which I have no doubt will still alive and well 40, or 52, or 64 years from now, will be a completely different party when the second female president of the United States gives her acceptance speech, kisses the next first lady, and walks off stage, the first openly-gay president. Great post.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 01:36 AM) That's the good point, There was a political scientist who looked at americas political history in terms of political cycles, with a creator, one who keeps those ideas, and then people who see it off. It makes sense Post civil war - G. Depression - Republicans G. Depression - Reagan - New Deal Democrats Reagan-Bush - Reagan Republicans The people who grew with this latest dynasty are getting older. Meanwhile, this whole large younger demographic has a hard time believing in the ideals of the Reagan era when the Bush presidency was such a disaster. So Obama has a chance to build the next political era. I think he knows how heavy a task this is, but also the reason he went bottom up. Yeah what he said. Im 24 years old and for once I am excited about politics in this country. It just feels like its our turn now, a generation adept at new technology, science, and media. Who doesn't want to do things like they were done in the past, who doens't know how.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 01:26 AM) Some of this is going to your heads. This is a mandate here and now, just like President Bush was a mandate back in 2000 with a Republican majority. These things go in cycles, so slow your roll. So whats to say the cycle wont be 15 years or more. Republicans were in office from 1980 to 1992, thats 12 right there.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 12:35 AM) Is it over the top to say that the conservative movement in its current form died in 2008? I would tend to agree. This election was so age discriminated. The older the age the more support for McCain, and the younger the more support for Obama. That tells you right there that if the majority of this country aged 18-45 voted for Obama thats your trend for the future. Its those voters which will shape the next 25 years. The conservative movement, the bush or McCain supporters, are either going to eventually age and die, or become overtaken by a hungrier, larger, more technologically advanced group. AKA survival of the fittest.

Best Speech I have ever heard!!

This is a freaking blowout. I dont think McCain is even gonna come close to covering the spread, lol. Really shows you how done this country is with republican politics, policies, and laurels. I think this country is in for a big change, a change it has needed and wanted for awhile.

Maybe he's not the guy to win the big game for you. But he's definitely one of the guys who will get you to the big games. Maybe the real issue here is our perception. We hate Vazquez cuz he never pitches big in big games, but maybe we are trying to compare an apple to an orange. Vazquez is who he is, we all know that now. Yes he still has some value, but only if he is surrounded by quality #1 and #2 starters. Thats the problem, the sox have a cast of #2/#3 starters in Buehrle/Danks/Floyd, let alone Vazquez himself is about a #3. Not only would Vazquez probably post better numbers, but he would be much more highly valued if the sox had your default #1 and #2 starters (think Webb/Haren, or Sabathia/Sheets).

I was totally thinking the same thing!!

Acquisitions of Jon Garland, Roberto Alomar, and Carl Everett.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 4, 2008 -> 12:53 AM) Adam Katz and Paul Kinzer are his agents. Scott Boras has nothing to do with Furcal. Does it matter this guy is gonna get anywhere from 3/36 to 5/60...there is zero chance the Sox go after that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2008 -> 03:49 PM) I seem to remember someone doing or finding a study where they took the 2003-2006 teams and took not the total amount of runs scored, but the standard deviations of runs scored per game. My question is has anyone done another study of those for recent years, and do they have a link to those past numbers? It seems to me that the 2005 team wasn't as prolific as the 03/04 teams in run scoring, but they were way more consistantly in the 3/4/5 runs per game area, instead of having large amounts of 0/1 and 10+ runs scored in a game. You could do it yourself. All you have to do is list the runs scored by the sox for 162 games in excel and use the STDDEV() formula. Then compare that to the average runs per game, use AVERAGE() formula, and you will be able to see how volatile the sox really were in scoring runs this year. The larger the STDDEV the more variation away from the mean in runs scored, meaning the more volatility in their run production.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 2, 2008 -> 04:14 PM) so the knot in Garland's shoulder brings you absolutely no fear at all? About as much as Konerkos degenerative hip

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Nov 2, 2008 -> 03:38 PM) So if we sign Freddy Garcia, are you expecting him to be the same pitcher he was when he had him the 1st time? Garcia has had surgery and been out of baseball and has had a considerable loss in velocity and effectiveness. Ur asking me to compare apples to oranges. The point was someone said if KW can trade Vazquez to fill other holes and replace his mediocre #s with someone more affordable (and less frustrating) then he would probably do it. Well all Im saying is Garland might be that replacement.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Nov 2, 2008 -> 03:09 PM) Almost everyone on the site wants Vazquez gone, yet Garland put up worse numbers across the board on a better team and bigger ballpark. Was he not a 12-14 win pitcher with an ERA between 4.2-4.5 every year while he was here...less his 05 career year of course.

I am going to go on record and say the Sox sign Jon Garland if they trade vazquez. Garland will post similar #s, the same he always does, maybe he gives KW a discount. Like 3 years 27 mil.

I would be very careful treading this water if I was KW. Trading Vazquez is fine, but going into the season with Buehrle, Danks, Flloyd, and Richard is risky. Not only is that 3 lefties, but Danks and Floyd had career years. It would be wise to expect some regression from those two guys and Richard himself is still a huge question mark.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 31, 2008 -> 10:42 AM) Let me immediately call bulls***, and just say that Kenny talks like this all of the time. He always says the guys that are here are "his" guys. Then a month later he goes out and gets the guy he really wants. This is just Kenny being Kenny. I agree hes all smoke and mirrors with this crap, he does it all the time. Is very careful of what he says to the media and uses them to position himself in anticipation of negotiations and the FA market. He did the same thing after 04 I think saying he had 100% confidence in Grilli for next season. Then signed the guys he wanted and cut Grilli. This is just Kenny being Kenny, not that thats a bad thing, but the problem is fool me once shame on you..fool me twice shame on me.

As soon as my 2009 Bill James handbook comes in I will take a look at the best Defensive catchers available on the market.

I was able to get more drawings of the construction, check it out. bridge.pdf canopy.pdf elevation.pdf LANDSCAPING.pdf pavillion.pdf

QUOTE (MO2005 @ Oct 30, 2008 -> 01:11 PM) Resigning Griffey?? Why? The guy is old, slow, and not what we need. Geez while we are at it why don't we bring back Roberto Alomar to play 2nd, Griffey plays center, and sign Kenny Rogers..Just sign all the old and over the hill players!! That would be taking the yankees approach....building a team to win the 1999 world series all over again.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 30, 2008 -> 09:14 AM) I am guessing you are referring to McCuddy's. Yes