NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Mar 10, 2008 -> 12:52 PM) I don't get all the discontent. They have some decisions to make - so what? At least they have choices. I agree that having some depth of choice is better than just lacking the talent. No doubt. I was just posting an article, and expressing some concern, over the apparent direction of some of those decisions.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 10, 2008 -> 12:49 PM) I don't think Quentin is close to being 100 pct, and I think it's a big reason the Dbacks were so willing to give up oh him. I think it's more likely he's a bench player this year, and he'll be a starter come 2009. I didn't see the game yesterday, but a friend told me that Dye looked slower than ever in RF. Couple that with Swisher looking bad in CF and Orlando Cabrera looking a step slow, and he said that he's very concerned with our defense this year. If Quentin really is more injured than I thought, then by all means, let him do extended ST and start in Charlotte. But let's see how he does in the next couple weeks.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 10, 2008 -> 12:43 PM) No one posted this article either: http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/wh...T-sox10.article KW really needs to be fired, as this mess is just insane. I read that one and sort of brushed if off as KW trying to get the upper hand in a Crede trade. I still think there is a 90% chance Crede is gone by Opening Day. If Opening Day comes around and the team still has Crede at 3rd and Fields in Charlotte, still has Owens or Anderson over Quentin (if healthy)... then I'll be pretty upset. And I'm a pretty big Crede fan. He just doesn't fit the needs of the team right now, barring some strange happenings.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 10, 2008 -> 12:13 PM) Simply amazing. I know Richar is hurting, but Uribe being in the starting lineup is unreal. The Sox traded one of their best chips in Garland, and used him to obtain an "upgrade for SS", because the Sox felt Uribe wasn't cutting it at 2b. Now 3 months later, Uribe is capable at being this teams starting 2b? Now you have to look at the difference between Cabrera and lets say, Iguchi, who could have been brought back very cheap this season. Is the difference in production between the two worth Garland? It just doesn't make any sense, and thats just one of the reasons. Then there is the OF mess. Why in the hell was Quentin acquired this off-season. This organization is in NO PLACE to be dealing top end prospects for "project" type players in Quentin, which at this point he is, being behind Owens and now Anderson???? Are the Sox just bursting with prospects that they can trade on their best for a back up OF? What the hell is going on? If Richar's back is still hurting him enough that he can't take grounders, then I understand that Uribe is next likely at 2B. Although, I'd sort of hope that Ramirez would make a run at it. The OF thing is what puzzles me most. As long as Quentin is healthy, I don't see how Owens or Anderson should be mentioned in the same sentence. And since Quentin was only off for a few days and starts playing again today, it seems to me he should have the inside track. Anderson can vie for a backup slot with Owens. Its very frustrating to hear this stuff about Anderson or Owens starting. All this said, maybe Mark Gonzales is just wrong about these things. He is not the Sox, and he's been wrong before. On the other hand, sometimes they use him to get word out. Yikes.

I just keep reminding myself that its only March 10th, and a lot can happen in the next 3 weeks. Hopefully that happens.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 10, 2008 -> 11:59 AM) Quentin hasn't been 100% physically. If it truely was/is a competition for a roster spot, BA has beaten him out to this point. If he's injured, sure. But my impression was he was basically just being brought back slowly. He's back in game play today. To me, he should be the starting LF, as long as he is healthy.

This article in today's Trib has a few interest notes/surprises in it. Among them... --Uribe is a "slight favorite" for 2B --Richar's back is not healing well --Quentin "needs a major rebound to beat out Brian Anderson for the backup outfield spot" --Masset and Wassermann still competing for the last pen spot Anderson over Quentin? Seriously? Or is this just talk to boost BA's value? I still don't get the Masset/Wassermann thing. They are not remotely comparable pitchers. I think its much more down to MacD/Wassermann, with Masset a near-lock, since he's out of options.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 10, 2008 -> 08:47 AM) They may have been forced to put him on the field, but guys like Burgiose (sp) didn't get a shot at all, and apparently deserved one. There is no defending having him lead off. None. Andy played in 67 games. Cherry pick his top 4 offensive games where he went a combined 11-14 and he hit .137 the other 63. Add to that some less than stellar work with the leather and a case could be made a beer league is more his level. There could be some reason they kept sending him out there. But I don't know what it would be. So I have to agree with you - it made no sense. My theory is that the organization (and I am sure other clubs do this too) has guys they like and don't like, for reasons beyond what we may be aware of. So they played Gonzalez over Bourgeois. And go a year back to 2006, as the season went on, why did they keep trotting Pods and other injured ineffectuals out there instead of Gload? When it comes to bringing new blood in, there does seem to be a "in" list of players. Maybe its personality, or work ethic, or who knows what.

Since this topic comes up regularly, here is a thread for it. And I'll open with this volley... $107.44

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 10, 2008 -> 09:40 AM) Although I think Islamic terror is a significant part of the total, I think that a lot of the terror attacks we see are not necessarily religiously motivated, but ethnically motivated. Plus the FARC in Colombia. And those are some of the complications - organizations that get help from religious organizations, but whose motivations are nationalistic or the like. This East Turkmen group is along those lines.

I would be curious to see if anyone really has published any sort of broad-based study of terrorism in the last few years, to see how many acts were religiously motivated, and of those how many are attributed to specific religions. I don't think it would be nearly as dominantly islamic as some here seem to. But I can't say I really know anything like for sure.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 10, 2008 -> 08:35 AM) At one point they flat out asked if the 2025 included MI and FL and they said no, and that the total needed to win would change if they were included. Gotcha. So, unless someone blows out those states, I guess this would make us no closer to getting a nominee prior to the convention.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 10, 2008 -> 07:51 AM) Unless CNN was dead wrong Sunday morning, it does not. They were talking about the impact of adding back MI and FL and how it would change the election. Yeah, I saw a segment like that too - but they were saying how that might make it possible for someone to reach the necessary delegates to win. Which I took to mean the ceiling hadn't changed. But then, I may have misunderstood. I probably did.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 08:51 PM) Yeah, but the suburban city council people usually don't get a staff and budget of $40,000+ and office and have the ability to steer multi-million dollar contracts on a regular basis. Not each, no. But as a unit they do. A suburb with around 60k is like, what, Des Plaines? Skokie? Evanston? Those are pretty big suburbs, and they have pretty big budgets.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 06:55 PM) fair enough Excellent. For future reference, seriously, if I ask, I'm not being rhetorical - I am trying to engage in a conversation. I really don't know if you live in the city proper (you may have mentioned it before and I forgot), or if you have hung out with these people.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 07:09 PM) Hey guys, back to the aldermen for a sec, each one now only serves about 60,000 residents. And have you looked at a ward map lately? The gerrymandering done on some of these warss is pretty bad. There really shouldn't be any reason why the city couldn't do with 10-15 less of them. Ans sure, it would be a drop in the bucket over all, but you have to start somewhere, right? They're gerrymandered alright. But I don't see how that connects with the number of them, or the number of residents they serve. Think about it another way. Most of the suburbs have less than 60,000 residents. And they have a mayor/town manager, and a whole city council.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 06:44 PM) I just found it oddly curious that China of all places was having problems with Islamic terrorists. I thought they hated the Great Satan for simply being, and hated us and our allies for being in Iraq and Afganistan. I don't see China in those places, or even on the same side as the US, so that struck me as odd. The whole thing with east turkestan or east turkmenistan or whatever they want to call it... its not about religion. Its a region that wants autonomy. Like Tibet, but on a much smaller scale. China is not apt to let either one get their way. And I suppose in both cases, religion plays a role - Islam or Buddhism. But what they ultimately want is freedom and self-rule. These turkics get support from their bretheren in the region - just like the Tibetans do. The turk supporters will tend to be islamic, Tibetans will be buddhist. I guess I just don't see it being about religion.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 06:44 PM) changed my reply to you. no offense meant. but you are coming off like you are an expert and know how things work and anyone who disagrees is completely clueless. you display this attitude with use of rhetorical questions within your post, which come off a condescending. You are the one that made an absolute statement. I replied with "in my experience...", and disagreed. And I don't think I've asked any rhetorical questions... but I'll double check. If I ask a question, I really am curious what the answer is. QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 06:44 PM) and yes I know plenty of alderman that are a waste of money. their staff, their salary, their buildings, all their buddies with high paying jobs, family members gettin special business advantages, ect. I agree with the bolded parts. That's where the graft takes away money. But I've seen aldermen get a lot done for their communities. Its probably not because they are such nice guys - its survival. Having the aldermen work in small ward communities mean that the neighborhoods can easily see and connect what is happening in the community with their representative. So, aldermen will do everything they can to make those communities a little better. They may pay their buddies to do it, and it may cost more than it should - that's another discussion. But the way the ward system is set up, in my opinion, works quite nicely.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 06:31 PM) How long you lived in chicago? you form the suburbs? just curious. I noticed you added this later. You assumed, your first time around, that I must be from the suburbs. Does it really even matter? OK, fine. I was born in the city, and lived in the city when i was very young. My family moved to the burbs, and I was there through high school. I lived out of state until my mid-twenties, then moved to Chicago proper for a number of years. I was out of state again a few years, and moved back, to the city again, in 2004. So I'd guess I've lived in the city for 10-ish years, suburbs for another 10 to 15. Now that we've got that out of the way... how about those aldermen? What's been your experience with them?

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 06:31 PM) I've lived in Chicago almost my whole life, no offense but I don't need some guy from the suburbs who recently moved here telling how things really work. And you've known alderman who didn't do anything, as you put it? Because I've known a few, and none fit that description. I won't get into a pissing contest with you over who has lived in the city longer. I've spent most of my life in the city or the suburbs. And I've been around the political system - city, county, state - in close quarters. There is no need to get snide about this, just because someone disagrees with you.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 06:16 PM) na, i don't think so. they are a waste of money. don't need that many. most of them don't do jack. Do you live in the city? Have you worked around many alderman? Because many of them are pretty crooked, but I've never met one who didn't do a lot of work. And ultimately, even the crooked ones do a lot for their communities, in my experience. I am sure there are exceptions though. Throwing the baby out with the bath water doesn't accomplish anything.

QUOTE(bmags @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 06:10 PM) this is how I feel. I heard it was a great GOTV campaign and kudos to Obama for his help, but had the republicans ran out a legit candidate, woulda been a piece of cake. BUt Oberweis wins primaries because of money and name recognition his opponents can't match early on. Piece of cake? No chance. Another candidate may have won, maybe. But I think that's still unlikely. Oberweise is a crappy candidate, no doubt. But the other important factors - changing demographics in that district, Obama's support, general anger with Bush and the GOP... would all still have been there in people's minds.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 06:05 PM) not really. just another thing to cut down costs. alderman have staffs, take city money to pay bribes, ect. they cost a lot. have 15 alderman. done and done. save millions. I'd suggest you'd actually cost yourself money by doing that, not save it. The whole system in Chicago is too heavily tied to wards. I think you're targeting the wrong thing. If you want to get rid of corruption, get rid of corruption. But the way the city council and funding are set up is, I think, very good at getting the right level of public input and supporting the needs of each neighborhood.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 06:00 PM) Is today Rhetorical Question Day? Does the pope poop in the woods?

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 05:58 PM) 50 is way too many and a big waste of money. Having 50 Alderman, versus say 30, is the least of the worries of the city and the way its run. Chicago's nature is as a fractured city of neighborhoods.