NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 03:29 PM) I believe she did some work on children and the law and may have been involved in Nixon's watergate counsel (or something to that affect). I believe she was very well recognized throughout the 80s as pretty influential as a lawyer. Just because you all don't like her doesn't mean she didn't do anything before her husband's presidency. I have to admit - I have been focused mostly on what she did during Bill's Presidency, what she has done as a Senator, and what she is doing now on the campaign trail. I know very little of what she did before 1992, except that she went to one of the Maine high schools. Her record since 1992 has been quite enough to turn me off of her, but my feelings might be a little different if I knew what she did previously.

QUOTE(ballyb11 @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 11:09 AM) Dye was brutal in RF last year. His age has caught up to him. I wouldn't go that far. Dye still has a plus arm, gets solid reads and takes good lines to the ball. But his lack of speed did certainly catch up with him. Overall, I think he's still an average RF, or close to it. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 11:36 AM) You improve the team defense at 3 positions by a lot, and I really don't think it would take Dye, who grew up as a SS, long to get 1B enough to play it passibly. I'd be willing to bet his first day on the job he would already have better range than Pauly. The big differences would be that PK is excellent at digging balls out of the dirt and turning the 3-6-3 DP. I think moving Dye to 1B in that scenario is a big time net gain for the Sox. That's the key - its a net gain defensively in multiple positions, a loss at one, but that one is easier to pick up than others (not EASY, easiER).

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 02:49 PM) So I just got my teeth whitened, which is worse than being an Iowa State fan. It'll look good in a couple days, but it hurts so goddamn much right now. I'd be pummelling you right now... if you only lived somewhere less remote and more appealing than Bismark, North Dakota. Like maybe Baghdad.

Dubya is in town today. Among his stops are meetings with Daley, and with the leaders of the effort to get the 2016 Olympics. If you read the Trib, it seems clear that when Bush asks the magic question ("What can we do to help?"), Daley's response will be "we need mass transit funding". He is also touting No Child Left Behind while in town.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 12:35 PM) Thompson admitted a few days ago that they're simply not campaigning at all in NH other than attending the debates. Unless something surprises, it's going to be much more interesting to see what happens when they move on to SC and Nevada with this group. Yeah I know, he dropped out of NH a while back. And I agree that SC and Nevada, as well as Florida, will make January interesting for the GOP group. I don't think that Giuliani will be able to make his double digit leads in the Super Tuesday states stick, because he just doesn't look viable in any of IA, WY, NH, SC or MI. The only January contests where he is currently even in the running are FL and NV, and as he keeps losing, those may fade too. McCain needs more than NH too - he needs a second January win to have a real shot, I think. And Huckabee can't just lean on IA - he needs at least SC to stay in it as a non-establishment guy. Romney can survive 2nd place in NH, but only if he wins 1 or 2 other January states. Still wide open for the Republicans.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 01:16 PM) Attorney General? I'd hope not, but maybe.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 11:43 AM) Follow the yellow Barack road? All the way to the Edwards City?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 11:17 AM) Gosh I hope not. I think Obama can do a LOT better then Edwards, if that time comes. Maybe not a VP candidate either. May just be making an exit, and if he leaves after NH and endorses Obama, he may get a cabinet post or something. Undersecretary for Fighting Poverty or something.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 10:22 AM) Skimming the thread, why would everyone be arguing whether Swisher or Fields would become the 1B if Konerko was traded? Jermaine Dye would be the perfect candidate to be our next 1B, because it would also free up RF for Quentin, LF for Swisher, and leave CF to Figgins, or some other filler D-first type CF off of the scrapheap. Dye with his athleticism and height is a natural future 1B if you ask me. That would be excellent - great post. A lineup something like this would be pretty nice: Figgins, CF Cabrera, SS Thome, DH Dye, 1B Swisher, LF Fields, 3B Pierzynski, C Quentin, RF Richar, 2B

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jan 6, 2008 -> 08:47 PM) Shut the f*** up. None of you are Iowa State fans. Ahem.

Lots of NH polls out. Ignoring the usually unreliable ones (Zogby, ARG, Suffolk), just from the 1/5-6 period we have: CNN: McCain +6 Pierce: McCain +9 Gallup: McCain +4 Str Vis: McCain +8 Those are all leads over Romney. Huckabee is still well down in third, no closer than 12 points to Romney. Giuliani and Paul behind Huckabee in all polls but one, which has Giuliani one point ahead of Huckabee. Thompson still no pulse in NH.

Polls are just pouring in now for NH. New ones over the 1/5-1/6 period (I'll just list the leader and lead)... CNN: Obama +10 Suffolk: Obama +1 Gallup: Obama +13 Pierce: Obama +3 Str. Vis.: Obama +9 Those are the leads over Clinton. Edwards is running anywhere from 14 to 23 points behind Obama, and is no closer than 9 points behind Clinton. Anyone else notice during the NH debate that Edwards aligned himself with Obama pretty clearly? Not sure if that's because he sees that as the winning route, or if he thinks it benefits him to get rid of Clinton, or if Obama and Edwards are approaching some sort of deal... could be any combination of those things.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 6, 2008 -> 04:40 PM) Isn't Nevada before SC? Both 1/19 as far as I see on the calendar.

Every polling organization and their brothers have been doing new Hampshire polls after the 1/3 Iowa caucus. I'm here to break it down for you. There have been 7 polls published in that period - post-Iowa. I will ignore Zogby (Romney +1) and ARG (McCain +12) because of their history of crappy methods, and Suffolk (Romney +3) for the reasons I mentioned a while ago that made it clear they were unreliable. That leaves these 4... _________Concord__CNN__Rasm.__Mason-Dixon McCain.........35..........33.......32.........32 Romney........29..........27.......30.........24 (Avg -5.5) Huckabee......13..........11.......11.........12 (Avg -21.25) Giuliani..........8............14........9...........9 (Avg -23) Paul..............7.............9........11..........8 (Avg -24.25) So there they are - the post-Iowa NH polls that are worth their salt. I left Thompson off because he's polling 1 to 3% and has abandoned NH. The GOP race is becoming really interesting. If McCain wins NH, as it looks like he will, then there are really still 4 people in it. Any of the 4 big names could still get it done. Looking ahead, in future states (all polls were PRIOR to Iowa), you had Huckabee leading South Carolina (1/19), Romney and Giuliani neck-and-neck in Nevada (also 1/19), and Giuliani with a slim lead in Florida (1/29). There is also Michigan on 1/15, and I am not sure if the GOP elected to skip that state like the Dems did - Romney and McCain seem to be leaders there. And Romney took Wyoming, and its very small number of delegates. Basically, its still a crap-shoot.

Every polling organization and their brothers have been doing new Hampshire polls after the 1/3 Iowa caucus. I'm here to break it down for you. There have been 7 polls published in that period - post-Iowa. I will ignore Zogby (Obama +4) and ARG (Obama +12) because of their history of crappy methods, and Suffolk (Clinton +2) for the reasons I mentioned a while ago that made it clear they were unreliable. That leaves these 4... _________Concord__CNN__Rasm.__Mason-Dixon Obama.........34..........33.......39.........33 Clinton.........33..........33.......27.........31 (Avg -3.75) Edwards.......23..........20.......18.........17 (Avg -12.75) Richardson....4............4.........8...........7 (Avg -29) So there they are - the post-Iowa NH polls that are worth their salt. If Obama wins NH... with SC the next primary that actually counts (MI has been shunned by the DNC for moving theirs too early), and Obama sure to get some strength there... Its hard to imagine him being caught now. I think Obama only loses the nomination now if Edwards bows out and endoreses Clinton. And I doubt that will happen.

QUOTE(lostfan @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 05:22 PM) Swisher would be the slowest leadoff hitter I've seen in recent memory. In a lineup without Owens, why on earth would you not lead Cabrera off and have Swisher bat second? It would make no sense whatsoever and it's not like anything is lost by having Swisher at the second spot in the order. This isn't like the 3rd and 4th spots in the order where there isn't much difference between which power hitter you have there. Some folks feel that OBP is king when it comes to leadoff hitting. Depends on your perspective. Swisher provides power, but this lineup is already pretty well powered up in the middle. Since everyone else is doing it, here would be my lineup... Cabrera, SS Swisher, CF Thome, DH Konerko, 1B Dye, RF Pierzynski, C Fields, 3B Quentin, LF Richar, 2B

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 05:10 PM) Swisher isn't a leadoff hitter. It would make tons more sense to bat Cabrera leadoff ahead of Swisher. Cabrera, last couple seasons, puts up a .335-.345 OBP, steals 20-something bases, strikes out pretty rarely (~50k/season), and his numbers w/men on base say he is a very good situational hitter. Swisher has had .372 and .381 OBP's the last couple years, though he lacks speed, strikes out a lot, and actually sees his numbers dip a bit with runners on. He'll be a serious power threat in the Cell, though. Neither are ideal leadoff guys, but I could see arguments either way.

Are they saying its postponed or anything? It does make one wonder, as YAS said, if KW is busy doing something else at the moment...

QUOTE(NCsoxfan @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 12:32 PM) Just got laid off from a top firm on wall street... Sucks big time... Oh jeez, that sucks man. I hope you got a decent package.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 10:43 AM) Well Jumpin Joe Cowley is on greasing the wheels. Joe just stated he thinks that Crede will be the starter and Fields will be in the minors. How f***ed up is that. 23 homers, over 60 RBIs projecting to well over 30 and he will go down. Laughable. Fields is the 3B in 2008, barring some bizarre series of other trades that isn't likely to happen. He is saying that because Crede needs to be traded.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 09:30 AM) I hope so. He is, in my opinion, the smarmiest candidate currently on the playing field. Agree. And that's an impressive feat.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 09:22 AM) Well, biggest loser is Guiliani who can stop kidding himself now. Giuliani isn't leading in the polls in any state prior to Super Tuesday. His plan is for a big bang on that day. He tried campaigning early on in IA and NH, but as they got to know him, his numbers plummeted. So he abandoned ship and is going with his big bang theory. I think its going to fail spectacularly, but we'll see.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 08:41 AM) One reason I like this trade is because Swisher is a good character guy. I know that flys in the face of many opinions on this board, but I enjoy cheering for a player I like. I don't like arrogant assholes with a load of talent, yet are still arrogant assholes. Many people here don't give a s***...it's win at all costs, but for me personally...I'd rather cheer for a guy like Swisher than a guy like Manny or Bonds. They may have more talent, but IMO their antics and pompusness overshadow that. Sure I would take their homeruns and ability to help the Sox win, but I would curse them under my breath and not feel good about it. I know stat guys and paper roster guys never look at s*** like that, but as a fan I do. When Swisher hits a homerun for the sox, I will feel dam good about it. Guys like Swisher mean something to a team and it isn't always in the numbers. So yeah I really like the trade. Agreed. We pay these guys' salaries... I expect them to respect the game and the fans. I don't know much about Swisher, but from what I am reading, he's the right guy.

It will be interesting in the next few days to see what the Iowa results do to the NH polls for both parties. for the GOP, I looked at the latest non-Zogby, non-ARG polls. I am a little skeptical of the WHDH/Suffolk tracking poll, because if you look at its day-to-day results, they are all over the place. For example, McCain's numbers for the last few days (PRIOR to Iowa, so no effect there yet), have gone 31-32-29-25, which is a big set of swings. Romney 25-23-25-29, Giuliani 14-11-9-9... the swings are just too big, compared to when, say, Rasmussen does a tracking poll, they tend to only shift a point in a day, maybe two at most. The Franklin Pierce poll has a pretty low number at 419 polled, so I am a bit skeptical there too. CNN's poll uses 1000 correspondants. Looking at those two... ___________Pierce__CNN Clinton............32.......34 Obama............28.......30 Edwards..........19.......17 Richardson.......8.........5 Biden...............3.........3 Dodd................1.........1 I kept Biden and Dodd in there because, with them dropping out, it may be interesting to see where those voters go. I think Edwards may be done. He's running somewhere in the 10-20 points behind range, and probably 10+ behind even 2nd place. He has virtually no money left to spend. And he won't get much of a bump from Iowa, if any. Richardson is definitely done. At this point, its Clinton and Obama. And that 4 point lead she has will probably vanish after Iowa, making this a very close race. Ultimately, I think the decision of Clinton versus Obama will be decided by Edwards and Richardson, and who they endorse when they drop out (which I suspect Richardson will do after NH barring a major upset, and Edwards will do after Super Tuesday, again barring a major upset).

It will be interesting in the next few days to see what the Iowa results do to the NH polls for both parties. for the GOP, I looked at the latest non-Zogby, non-ARG polls. I am a little skeptical of the WHDH/Suffolk tracking poll, because if you look at its day-to-day results, they are all over the place. For example, McCain's numbers for the last few days (PRIOR to Iowa, so no effect there yet), have gone 31-32-29-25, which is a big set of swings. Romney 25-23-25-29, Giuliani 14-11-9-9... the swings are just too big, compared to when, say, Rasmussen does a tracking poll, they tend to only shift a point in a day, maybe two at most. The Franklin Pierce poll has a pretty low number at 419 polled, so I am a bit skeptical there too. CNN's poll uses 1000 correspondants. Looking at those two... ___________Pierce__CNN McCain...........37........29 Romney..........31........29 Huckabee........5.........10 Giuliani...........10........12 Paul................6..........7 Thompson........2..........2