Middle Buffalo

I really thought he was going to be great. I was wrong. Injuries and being out of shape really derailed his career. He has a career arc that is pretty common among White Sox players in the last 3 or 4 decades. A few really good years, and then injuries ruin their careers. Then they kick around MLB for a little while and disappear.

Seems Julia Child was more than just dead sexy. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_.../spies_revealed ps Add Moe Berg to my list of favorite ex-Sox players.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 11:32 AM) No it doesn't invalidate your list at all. My comment was partly tongue in cheek, if you read this thread you will see how much I agree with you. BTW, based on the date you mentioned, you would have seen his play. No problem. I didn't read the whole thread, and I did put Baines on my list. And I was just explaining how I voted and how if others here were in their early 20's, they might not have much of a memory of Baines playing. Based on the results so far, it seems as if most people only voted for players they saw play. Unfortunately, that leaves out a bunch of really good players. In fact, the players left off the list are probably better than those who will make it if the voting keeps going like it has.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 11:01 PM) If Baines is not in the top 5, then some Sox fans need a history lesson. It's "favorite" white sox players, so his achievements are only part of the equation. What makes someone a favorite is different for every person who took the time to vote. I didn't vote for anyone who I didn't see - which dates back to 1978 or so. That left quite a few of the all time great Sox - Fox, Aparicio, Pierce, Shoeless Joe, Appling, etc - off my list. Does that invalidate my list?

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 9, 2008 -> 01:35 AM) And Wilbur Wood was more than a baseball sideshow, he won twenty four games in 1973, while losing 20. Add ‘em up, 43 decisions in one season. And you say it with such confidence. Hope you're not in charge of the head count at the jamborees.

The thing I loved about Chet was that no matter how routine the fly ball, he'd manage to lose his hat in pursuit of it. Don't know if he had an ill fitting hat, lop-sided head, or if (as I suspect) he knocked it off to make the play look more difficult. Whatever the reason, he was a one of my original Sox favorites.

I've been a groomsman seven times, and only received a few gifts that I have used in any way. I have a money clip, a flask, a couple of monogrammed steins, and a few other things I don't recall. When my brother got married he gave us all a pair of Chuck Taylors that we all wore to the reception. The groomsmen wore black - groom wore green. The rest of the stuff sits in drawers or holds pens. One of the steins is actually quite nice, though it's never used. The groom got each of us a stein with our nationality on it. Mine has a shamrock and says Ireland (for example). I had another guy give me Blu Blockers as a gag - in addition to a monogrammed gym bag. I also received a mini-Bears helmet one time (there was another small gift as well). On second thought, I've received some pretty good stuff. I like the idea of going to a Sox game with the groomsmen, but it's only good if everyone can make it. However, you have to do it big. See if you can get a suite. Regular seats won't do. It has to be special or it's just another game. Whatever you do, don't be cheap. If you can't afford to do it up big, don't do the game. I know the wedding is a big expense, but you'll remember that game forever. And think of how much your wife to be is wasting on flowers and center pieces and get a little selfish. If you're going to go with one of the less expensive options - I like the Jersey option. I don't think I would differentiate between the groomsmen and best men, though.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 25, 2008 -> 11:15 AM) I only really have a problem when rookies do it, especially first-rounders. STFU you dickhead, take your millions in guaranteed money you get automatically but haven't earned because the team has no idea if you'll amount to anything or not, and go out and show you can play. Then they go on to be guys like Cedric Benson and Cade McNown. Especially troubling and confusing because the salaries are basically slotted.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 25, 2008 -> 08:59 AM) At the same time - and I'm just talking semantics at this point - some GMs like to front-load salaries and give as much of the guaranteed money up front as they can when they have a big chunk of salary cap space, especially when the bonus is massive. It gives more flexibility with the cap later in the contract. Angelo does this sometimes, I think Tommie Harris's contract is like that. Urlacher's was too, if I'm not mistaken. Freeney made something like 30 million in actual dollars last year (dollar amount is different from the cap value). In cases like this, I think it's horrible for a player to holdout. What has to be considered is the average salary (including bonuses) when compared to players of similar value. If a player is by all accounts a top five player at his position, but his average salary is 20th in the league at his position, I think he has a strong argument for renegotiating. If the player was being paid top five, but his performance was well below that, the team would be justified in cutting the player and saving on the salary.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 25, 2008 -> 05:33 AM) You still have to pay the bonus money regardless, or whatever the guaranteed amount is. What you don't have to pay is the base salary and the incentive money. Right. And GMs purposely make the contract longer in order to spread out the salary cap hit over a number of years, though. So a $6M signing bonus on a six year contract only counts $1M (plus the base salary) against the cap each year. By the fifth or sixth year, however, there's a good chance that the market will have changed or a player like Hester will totally out perform the contract. If players aren't able to holdout, management would basically win every contract because the lack of guaranteed contracts gives them the opportunity to get out of any bad situation risk free. It's the lack of guaranteed contracts makes it a necessity for players to holdout when they feel they are not being paid what they are worth. NFL players essentially have a one year contract. When we hear about a player signing a long term contract, we have to remember that it is basically just an accounting tool used to manage the salary cap. All that matters to the player in an NFL contract is the signing bonus.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 24, 2008 -> 06:12 AM) The NFL is the ONLY league where I can understand players trying to negotiate new contracts, because the contracts aren't guarenteed. once you get outside of the upfront money, you can tear up the deal at will if you are the team, and have no committment to the rest of the deal. Places like MLB, NBA, and NHL where the guys get all of the money they sign for are different. I used to hate all the holdouts, but now I agree with this. If a player uderperforms, the team can cut him and take the salary cap hit for one year (due to the signing bonus), but they don't have to pay any more money. If the player outperforms the contract, ahouldn't he be allowed to renegotiate to get market value for his services? In Hester's case, he wasn't picked in the first round. If that draft were held today, knowing what we know now, he would definitely be picked in the first round and get first round money that is slotted for the number that he was picked. So, Hester's only "crime" is that GMs weren't able to accurately predict his value. Players know when they sign contracts that they may never see the money on the back end of the deal. If Peyton Manning signs a 12 year contract eight years into his career, he knows he won't play the last several years of that contract, and he'll never see that money. The length of the contract is made for salary cap purposes in order to spread the signing bonus out over the length of the contract. FYI - I don't know the actual terms of Manning's contract. I just used that example to illustrate that GMs purposely make contracts long to make the signing bonus count less against the salary cap each year. Since the contracts aren't guaranteed, they can do this and not worry about having to pay the entire salary amount.

This is actually quite hard to do. The Sox have so many guys that were only on the team for 2 or 3 years, so even if I did like them, they lack longevity. They also were kind of a last stop for many players. The 1995 roster is really sad. Filled with guys who used to be someone. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teamstats/...=1995&t=CHA

I got the easy .pdf to work by deleting it from my programs, and then re-downloading it.

I need to create a .pdf file, but I don't have a .pdf program on my computer. I used to be able to use a free download from easy .pdf creator, but it won't work now. Anyone have any links to a .pdf creator that I can download?

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 11:56 AM) Yeah we went to both. Used to have our baseball pizza parties there. It's weird if you google nick and vito's there's a couple sites that call it that. If you look at the main website though they have a sign that says vito and nicks from like 1930 or something. I did a yahoo search and found it listed as Nick and Vito. http://local.yahoo.com/info-17449582-nick-...izzeria-chicago I'm confused. I usually make it a point to go to Palermo's when I go back to Chicago. Next time I'm making a trip to Nick &Vito's or Vito & Nick's. I've gotta get to the bottom of this.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 11:35 AM) I have no idea why, but I remember it as Nick and Vito's. I grew up at 79th and Pulaski and went there all the time. Have I lost my mind?? I remember it as Nick & Vito's, too. It was accross the parking lot from Groucho's. I don't know if I ever ate it, though. We always got Angie's (which was about a block down on the other side of the street.

My email account has a "spam" folder that fills automatically with junk emails. When I try to delete them, I get asked TWO times if I'm sure I want to delete them. One time, I get. Twice? Is that necessary?

Hurricanes were the only thing I ate in New Orleans. Of course, there are large patches of time that are missing from my memory - so it's possible, but unlikely, that some of the local food was sampled.

According to boardreader.com, soxtalk ranks just behind "unicyclist community" in the rankings of top sites. http://boardreader.com/pop/sites.html?o=1250 Hope ESPN doesn't get wind of this - it's hard enough getting Sox highlights as it is. Although, part of me wouldn't mind seeing a few unicycle highlights every now and then.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 10:02 AM) There's a whole page! http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...p;oq=drunk+cubs I followed your link and found "my reason for hating cubs fans" It brought to mind something I've been wondering. When did the Cubs start the "Go Cubs Go" thing after wins? Is this new? I remember the song, but I don't ever remember it being a tradition that they play it after victories. This season is the first I've heard of it.

Stupid girls - cubs fans

Two things that stood out to me: 1) Francona misused F Rodriguez. He should have saved him and started the 9th inning with Rivera. That would have given them another pitcher in the event of extra innings. If the game "means something," the managers really have to manage the game with the idea that the game might go into extra innings. They shouldn't be so worried about clearing their benches and making sure everyone plays. Of course, that's why the fans voting and each team requiring at least one player on the team is a farce. If the game is going to count for something, the teams should be picked differently. 2) The tribute to Bobby Murcer was played in the extra innings. If the game had ended in nine, they wouldn't have done the tribute? Seems kind of weierd to have that and not play it during the first nine innings.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 16, 2008 -> 07:51 AM) I definately wouldn't take any kid under 18 there. This is exactly how I feel. When my wife made the arrangements, she apparantly forgot that we have three kids under 10. Now that the trip is inevitable, I'm looking for things to do in the immediate area to make it fun. We're driving from Mesa, AZ, so I think we'll stop at the Hoover Dam on the way there or back. We may take a less direct route back and hit Lake Havasu (for London Bridge - though hopefully I'll see a few "Girls Gone Wild"). We'll walk the strip a little at night, but kids can only walk so far before they start moaning. We'll hang out at the pool some, and my wife and I will probably take turns going to the casinos - unless we can get one of those girls from the cards that the illegals hand out to baby-sit. What I'm looking for here is things to do that don't include the casinos. I'd be willing to drive an hour and a half or so off the strip if there's anything worth doing. I don't expect this to be the typical Vegas roadtrip. Even when we get back, when asked, I'm pretty sure I won't be able to claim that I've ever been to Vegas.

QUOTE (mreye @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 12:08 PM) Timeshare presentation? Say it ain't so, Buffalo!! I know. I see this being a great disaster. I'll actually be looking forward to my 4 year old melting down and the timeshare people showing us to the door. It's gonna be classic.

Somehow my wife was talked into booking a few days in Vegas by one of those ads that plays on the radio promising a free room if you check out a timeshare or something. Anyway, we're going in a few weeks with the family (9,6, and 4 yrs old) and staying at the Stratosphere (I think), and I'm wondering what we'll do with them while we're there. I don't think we'll do much gambling, which is fine because I don't find it enjoyable. Any suggestions about what a family can do for enjoyment in the Vegas area? We'll have a car, so a little drive isn't a problem.