NorthSideSox72

I think we'll have that extra pitcher, as DBAH0 said. My prediction of the bench: Owens Ramirez and/or Ozuna Uribe Hall I think that's your bench, 4 or 5. I think Ramirez is likely to be on the big club. And I think there is a good chance that Uribe or Ozuna gets traded, in which case, you bring up a Bourgeois or a Getz. That group does lack one position - first base. But I am sure Uribe (or Bourgeois) could handle learning it.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 07:25 AM) That would be good news for Obama. All he has to do is keep it close there, for respectabilities sake. That's what I have been saying/thinking. Obama will gain a bit this week in the South, probably, after SC. NY and IL are forgone conclusions. AK and assorted mini-states are probably not worth the time. If I'm Axelrod, I'm emphasizing for Obama (in order of importance)... --California --New Jersey --Massachussetts --Missouri --Minnesota --The mountain west group - CO, AZ, NM (and UT and ID, only because they are right there, though they are small) --Kansas (he's sort of from there, he should make a quick appearance to remind people of that) Obama already has a lead in a few of those, but is well behing in NJ, MO and CA. Other states are close. If he can make most of those at least close, and do well in the south... that would be a big overall win for him. At this point, I would imagine that Clinton and Obama are really pushing Richardson to endorse. He could be a huge help in CA, the mountain west and OK. He could hand NM to whomever he likes.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 07:08 AM) Is CA winner take all for the Dems? As I understand it, the Dems don't have any winner-take-all primaries. At least not according to what I've seen. Can someone else verify that?

The first Dem poll in California taken after the SC Primary is out (adding in that company's few previous results to show trend)... SurveyUSA (888 LV in latest), most recent first... ____________1/27__1/13__12/16__12/3__10/14 Clinton...........49........50........49.......50.......57 Obama...........38........35........30.......24.......20 Edwards...........9........10........14.......16.......13 The incredible shrinking lead for Clinton: +37, +26, +19, +15, +11. Clinton's number is nearly the same, but it seems like Obama has taken a little bit of Edwards' numbers, and a whole lot of everyone else who dropped out.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 10:32 PM) You know what, you guys can bring up all those points, and while I'll acknowledge the need for OBP, you simply aren't going to be able to convince me that Podsednik's work on the basepaths wasn't a very important ingredient in the 2005 team. Yes, the pitching was the biggest part, no one doubts that. Yes, pitchers throw fastballs anyway. Yes, the guy only leads off once a game. Yes, Iguchi grounded out to 2nd to get Pods over to 3rd plenty of times. Yes, he only scored 80 runs (despite missing a month). But there was a reason why we made sure he got in the all star game. Because whether the stats say it or not, he was a huge part in a lot of those wins in the first half. Just watching the games, you could see it. You could see how big a difference he made on the basepaths, you could see how big a difference it made when he got hurt and was terrible/on the DL for 1.5 months. That's what my eyes told me. I think that's what the 10th in the 1st half and 18th in the 2nd half in runs scored tells me. Whether the stats say it or not, for the 2005 team, having that guy at the front of our lineup who stole 20 some bases in a row was damn important. This is one of those runarounds that has gone on in here since 2005, and will probably still come up in 20 years. There are some people convinced that Ozzie Ball / Small Ball was the reason the team won the title. Others it was pitching. Still others it was homeruns. Or defense. I find the great exaggeraters amusing. People who say that any one of those things won the championship are selectively ignoring much of the picture. Pitching was number 1, no doubt. But defense, Pods' presence at the top, lots of home runs, good situational hitting when the team needed it, some luck, some small ball, and even a little bit of that intangible grindiness all came into play. No way that team wins the title without ALL those things.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 10:24 PM) CNN has Hillary's gigantic California lead holding at 17 points, poll taken Thurs-Sun. Wait until about Friday, or Saturday, when the new week's polls (post-SC, and post-SDOGPEIT campaigning) come out. That will tell a more accurate story.

I saw a brief article on CNN that got my blood going a bit. The NY state chapter of NOW, issued a blistering statement accusing Ted Kennedy of abandoning women by endorsing Obama. If you read the article, the statement isn't just hinting at it either - it just comes right out and says that they think Kennedy has left women behind by making that decision. Now, point number one, I find this statement to be incredibly offensive to everyone involved. Why the hell is it offensive to women that a Senator happened to endorse a male candidate? Is this really what this is about for some people? Vote for Hillary because she is a woman, or else you are leaving women at the curb? Which leads to the same question on Obama... if a scathing article like this was published by the NAACP because a prominent black political figure endorsed Clinton, I would find it equally offensive and embarrassing for that person. What an awful way to look at things. Still, that all being the case, I want to reiterate something I have said before... I think that the way women are treated in our current society is much worse than the way its racial minorities are treated, on balance. I'd say sexism is indeed a bigger problem than racism, at this moment in time, in this country. That isn't to say there isn't still racism, as I'd say there definitely is. I just think that sexism is more pervasive, and is having a greater negative effect. I am curious what the rest of you think. Is racism or sexism the bigger problem right now? And how do you feel about that NOW statement? How would you feel if the other scenario I suggested occurred?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 08:38 PM) Romney is actually the leader in delegates right now. Obama is the Dem leader in pledged/committed delegates, just like Romney is for the GOP. Is Obama the front-runner?

Well, I do like Bush's saying that he will issue an XO to have federal agencies not use any funding from earmarks not voted upon in Congress. That will only address a certain number of problems, but its a good start. But this whole thing where he is getting on Congress for earmarks is a joke. The GOP was way worse pre-2006 than this Democratic Congress has been.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 07:42 PM) This is more of a must win for Romney. He is, like Obama, facing an uphill climb in national polls, and this is his last chance to claim that whole momentum thing and put himself firmly ensconced in the front runner role. Yeah, I tend to agree, I think Romney needs this more than McCain.

Oh hey, little noticed, there are 11 non-state delegates up for contest in this primary season, including American Samoa, who goes to the polls on SDOGPEIT as well with its 3 mighty delegates. No word if anyone plans to campaign there. ETA: Sorry, change that - they have 3 pledged delegates based on results, but they also have 10 Supers, for a total of 13 delegates. That's only 5 less than Alaska. And I'd guess that Samoa is probably pretty pro-Obama, given he lived in the Asia Pac region and grew up there for part of his life, not to mention he is multi-racial.

Discuss.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 07:19 PM) Right now, what little polling data is out there suggests that the people who are Edwards supporters would, on balance, wind up slightly favoring Clinton if he dropped out without endorsing. Kinda makes sense demographically, since a lot of them are white. Yeah, but, I find it reeeeeeeeeeeally unlikely he drops out and doesn't endorse someone.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 07:14 PM) but in regards to something NorthsideSox said, I think if Edwards endorsed Obama, his followers would follow suit - i doubt many would go to Clinton. Edwards supporters are typically die hard since they KNOW their candidate isn't going to win but are supporting him anyway. Most would respect his choice and go with it if you ask me. Really? I mean, I'd of course hope that was the case, but I am not sure. Though it probably depends a lot on location. I think the South, more of the Edwards voters might go to Clinton. Just my take, based on some of the polls, and the results of SC.

OK, I just saw this on the Trib site. Edwards' camp is spouting the same stuff I've been saying in here about 51%, getting delegates, etc. Just more proof, that is what he is going for - leverage to get a good position in the new White House, and crowning the nominee. Read the memo in there.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 05:19 PM) Momentum is gaining that Edwards will be named Attorney General by Obama... Novak: Edwards Working With Obama Uploaded by dollarsandsense123 Its possible of course. But here is the thing. I'd contend that it is better for Obama to have Edwards stay in the race through Super Tuesday - he is taking away some of Clinton's votes I think. Then after SDOGPEIT, when Clinton will probably have a narrow lead, Edwards can take all those delegates and support and throw them to Obama (we can only hope). That could be the difference maker. If Edwards were to drop out and endorse Obama right now, some of those Edwardians would go to Clinton, and Obama wouldn't have the benefits of those delegates at convention.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 05:01 PM) I get more and more turned off by this election with every passing day. The Republican field is still a mess ( although I think both Guiliani and Huckabee are done for after this week ) and none of the candidates have any new ideas. The Dems all talk about "CHANGE!!!" without offering anything really specific. Honestly I'm seriously thinking about taking this election off. QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 05:12 PM) Because, Bush Sucks, and it has to be better with them in charge. The Democratic Platform since 2004 has been "Bush Sucks" and "we can do better!!!", and we see how that's going with the current Congress, don't we? You guys are welcome to think that if you want, but if you actually look on their websites, most of the candidates have a lot of specifics they are suggesting. I think they all have plans, and they all have specific CHANGES they want to make. So to me, that's not the issue. The issue is, which one might actually get it done. McCain looks like that guy to me, in the GOP - he knows how to actually work across the aisle, he's consistent in his convictions, and he isn't overly divisive. Obama similarly for the Dems, has a track record of not being as divisive and actually working with the other party.

What possible use is he on this team right now? One thing it certainly doesn't need is an old outfielder with poor defense.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 04:31 PM) The question now is...which one of those 2 options would you actually want to see? No comment, Senator.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 04:22 PM) Obama's South Carolina speech has passed up a topless video of Britney Spears as the #2 video on Youtube. #1 of course is a Ron Paul video. There's a topless Britney video on Youtube? I mean... yeah, that was a heck of a speech!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 04:17 PM) In a pretty rare victory...made even more rare by the fact that Senators Clinton and Obama showed up to vote...the Dems have successfully filibustered an attempt to ram through a FISA update that granted amnesty to any telecom company that joined in Mr. Bush's illegal wiretapping programs. *applause*

Just for fun, let's take a look at the most recent Super Tuesday state polls for the Dems, which are all taken PRE-SOUTH CAROLINA (which will effect southern states a lot), and the recent Kennedy and Morrison endorsements (which may effect MA and, again, the south), but since mid-January (after primaries and caucuses got going). Consider this the "before" snapshot, since we'll get the "after" later this week or on the weekend (NOTE: Not all SDOGPEIT states have any January polls, including MN-88, OK-47, KS-41, NM-38, DE-23, ID-23, ND-21, AK-18)... California - 370 Delegates Average of 3: USA Today / Gallup, 1/23-26; PPIC, 1/13-20; Rasmussen, 1/14 Clinton: 41.3% (+9.4) Obama: 31.7% Edwards: 10.7% New York - 281 Delegates Avg of 2 recent polls: USA Today/Gallup, 1/23-26; Quinnipiac, 1/14-21 Clinton: 53.5% (+27) Obama: 26.5% Edwards: 10.5% Illinois - 185 Delegates Research 2000, 1/20-24 Obama: 51% (+29) Clinton: 22% Edwards: 15% UNDECIDED: 12% Massachusetts - 121 Delegates Survey USA, 1/22-23 Clinton: 59% (+37) Obama: 22% Edwards: 11% UNDECIDED: 8% New Jersey - 107 Delegates Quinnipiac, 1/15-22 Clinton: 49% (+17) Obama: 32% Edwards: 10% UNDECIDED: 9% Georgia - 103 Delegates Rasmussen, 1/22 Obama: 41% (+6) Clinton: 35% Edwards: 13% UNDECIDED: 11% Missouri - 88 Delegates Avg of 2 recent polls: Rasmussen, 1/24; R2000, 1/21-24 Clinton: 43.5% (+16) Obama: 27.5% Edwards: 23% Tennessee - 85 Delegates WSMV-TV, 1/19-21 Clinton: 34% (+14) Obama: 20% Edwards: 16% UNDECIDED: 30% Colorado - 71 Delegates Denver Post, 1/21-23 Obama: 34% (+2) Clinton: 32% Edwards: 17% UNDECIDED: 17% Arizona - 67 Delegates Behavioral Research Center, 1/20-24 Clinton: 37% (+10) Obama: 27% Edwards: 15% UNDECIDED: 21% Connecticut - 60 Delegates Hartford Courant, 1/9-17 Clinton: 41% (+14) Obama: 27% Edwards: 9% UNDECIDED: 23% Alabama - 60 Delegates Rasmussen, 1/23 Clinton: 43% (+15) Obama: 28% Edwards: 16% A few interesting thoughts on these... --Look how few places anyone has 50%+ - Clinton twice, Obama once. --Edwards still reliably holding 10-15% of the vote in these states --Minnesota is pretty big - surprised there are no polls yet --MA is likely to have a tectonic shift after the Kennedy endorsement --Watch the southern states with large black populations (GA, TN, AL) to shift after the SC results Discuss...

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 01:24 PM) I do not believe Bush has been nearly as bad as many here. I also think President receive too much credit and blame for what happens during their Presidency. The fans want to take all the credit and point to their predecessor to blame any problems. And their opponents want to give them all the blame and none of the successes. The main reasons why this President has been so bad - Iraq, the way Afghanistan was handled (we left before it was finished, AGAIN), the oil-loving energy policy, the nearly complete lack of regard for the environment, the adverserial tone of foreign relations, the bungling of the agencies responsible for the war on terror, the my way or the highway attitude, and the outright stomping on the Constitution (signing statements, warrantless taps and searches, etc.)... all fall right on his doorstep. They were all well under his control. He receives bad press for those, and deserves all of it and more. Now, on the economy, I agree - I don't think he's done a lot of damage. He's done a few good things, a few bad. And Presidents don't have a ton of control over that anyway, as you say.

Looks like Baseball Cube didn't include his 2 GCL/VSL years for some reason. Not sure if they missed them, or they don't count them as pro ball or something. Anyway, my source was off there - my bad.

QUOTE(bkmoney @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 12:41 PM) "Mota was 5-3, 2.60 with one save in 17 relief appearances at Single-A Lowell in 2007, his first season as a pitcher after four years playing the outfield in the Red Sox organization. Socolovich split the year between two Single-A teams, going 2-2, 6.65 in 11 games at Greenville and 5-4, 3.56 in 14 games/13 starts at Lowell. He has been in the Boston system for four seasons." right from the link so 5 years (1 pitching) for Mota and 4 years for Socolovich meh 1 year pitching for Mota, and my research showed 2 years for Socolovich - but my source could be wrong. Or the article could be. I haven't followed SSI's link yet.