NorthSideSox72

Comparing Fields' half rookie season to Crede defensively isn't really fair to Josh. He probably won't be the fielder Joe is, but he will almost certainly improve as time goes on, and he may even turn out to be a pretty darn good defender.

QUOTE(greylion @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 10:34 AM) Fields is either a third baseman, first baseman or D/H, he's awful in left, forget it. Crede is gone as soon as KW gets the right offer and he will before the Spring is over. I love Crede and if he was willing to sign with the Sox then fine, but he won't so you have to get something for him because you have a guy behind him who'll probably be a better hitter than Joe although he will never be the fielder Crede is. One other thing, Crede should have had his back surgery last off season and he screwed the Sox over by waiting a year, so get something while you can. Fields will probably hit over 30 HR's this year? That's a great replacement. Welcome to the board! Good first post - I agree with everything but the bolded part. Its easy for a fan to say Crede should have had surgery earlier, but, the reality is that back surgery is an iffy, scary proposition. Any doctor worth anything will tell you that when talking about back issues, surgery should be the last resort. So I can understand why he tried everything but that first.

QUOTE(shipps @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 09:28 AM) Instead of handing the job to Quentin why not have Josh and him battle it out?Healthy competition. Quentin and Fields are probably the two most talented young players on the team. Why would you want only one of them to play? That's like setting up the NCAA bracket such that the 1 and 2 seeds to play in the first round. The priority should be for both of them to play.

Joe is still my favorite player on the team, so, I would love to have him stay if it could benefit the team. But I can't see how it would. You now have a guy in LF you really have to play (Quentin), and that is the only place to move Fields. So that leaves no real room for Crede, unless you want to demote Fields to be a platoon DH with Thome. The only way Joe makes sense to stay is if PK is traded (then, you move Fields to 1B). Sorry Joe, but you have to go.

Latest... Pak government now claims that Bhutto was not shot, but was killed by shrapnel. They say that the bomber shot at her with a pistol but no bullets landed, then he set off the bomb. At the very least, this indicates that bomber was truly an assassin, not just someone looking to kill as many as possible. It also seems, in my admittedly limited knowledge, to be an odd move for a suicide bomber. And now, Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility, and the bomber has been identified by Pak officials as being a known AQ operative. Funny how this particular set of circumstances works so well for both AQ and Musharraff. Makes one wonder.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 09:00 PM) So, why does it make more sense to have the candidates spending all their time in a state that's hardly urban, mostly rural, and has a population that is much more racially homogeneous than the rest of the U.S.? While I agree that always having IA and NH first is dumb, I don't think the fact that it is rural should have anything to do with the decision. Iowa was chosen for a number of reasons before, some of which are still valid. It makes a good bellweather state because it doesn't tend to lean heavily to one party or the other, has an unusually well educated population, and is culturally and geographically central. It also represents that rural population you speak of in a prototypical way, which is not something to ignore. Perhaps the best idea is to choose a handful of states that tend to be centrist, maybe say 6 to 10 of them, but which represent different dynamics otherwise - some heavily urban, some rural, some from each region of the country, some of different racial backgrounds... and have that be the list of states who always go first. Among that list, the order changes each year. And every 6 to 10 years, once each has gone first, you re-evaluate which states should stay on the list, or add new ones. Or heck, just go get a different 6 to 10 that have that same variety.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 01:13 AM) Vote Ron Paul. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/ and http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog...n_online_polls/ BE- as Mr. Paul is a GOP candidate (though he is of course really a Libertarian), this should really be in the GOP Candidates thread. We've been trying to keep the discussions of the candidates for each party in these threads that way - tends to keep them less messy. No big deal though.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 09:01 PM) also interesting - newest poll has Clinton at 31, Edwards at 25 and Obama at 22. so now the averages are: Clinton 29.8 Obama 25.5 Edwards 24.5 this stuff is so interesting. really there's NO way to predict what happens... That LA Times poll used 389 respondants, roughly half what other polls are using. I wouldn't put much stock in it. Strategic Vision used 600, here are there latest: Obama: 30 Clinton: 29 Edwards: 28 That is one very tight race.

QUOTE(knightni @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 10:31 PM) Oh come on... She comes back even though they told her not to; gets put under house arrest not once, but twice. She starts getting involved in politics again. She starts pro-democracy rallys. She starts pressuring Musharraf into free elections. No one else besides me saw this coming? The only thing that mitigated the possibility was that the realists aligned with Musharaff would not want to take the chance of turning her into a martyr. If a strong candidates steps up quickly to take her place and has support, that might pretty much guarantee a loss for Musharaff. But in this case, I tend to doubt this was done by anyone in Musharaff's inner circle, for that exact reason. This was probably a crazy.

QUOTE(sayitaintso @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 12:10 AM) Can't hit RHP i believe, but i wouldn't have minded if we signed him. Yeah he can't hit RHP, i was right. TEAM G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG vs Left-handed Pitcher Florida Marlins 49 95 7 28 8 1 2 13 44 7 23 2 0 .343 .463 .295 vs Right-handed Pitcher Florida Marlins 114 357 36 79 12 3 14 47 139 7 100 1 2 .240 .389 .221 He would be used primarily against lefties anyway, if he played for the Sox. But it doesn't matter. Hall is under contract for another year, his awful 2007 assured he has no trade value, and his career seems to indicate that if he's healthy in 2008, he'll be a decent backup.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 03:03 PM) Nothing will turn Sox fans off more than losing and going out on a limb and offering someone $75 million, getting rejected, and then saying you can't buy something for $1 when you only have $.50 when asked what you're going to do with that money. I understand and maybe even believe the White Sox planned to go out on a limb and try to spend money to make money, something it appears they have not done in the past, but its not going to fly with the casual fan. Nah. Most Sox fans don't hinge their opinions on KW's speeches like we do here, or about what deals were rumored or not. Most fans could care less about that drivel - they just care about the product on the field, the ballpark experience... the important stuff. What will hurt Sox attendance in 2008 is the 2007 results, as well as how 2008 goes on the field. Soxtalk is not a very representative sample of Sox fandom - people here are much deeper into all the rumors, analysis, players on the market, etc.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 03:02 PM) What does that mean? It means look at the attendance figures over the years. Sox fans show up when the team wins, and they don't when they are losing. Most teams have some amount of this going on, though with the Sox it seems more extreme. Certainly its the near-opposite of the Cubs, who draw almost the same no matter what garbage they put on the field.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 02:53 PM) No, I don't misunderstand. The World Series effect is going to wear off soon, and we are going to be right back where we were in KW first 4 seasons (low attendance) unless he catches lightning in a bottle again. This team can not compete with Detroit and Cleveland in the next 5 seasons the way it is set up now, imo. Rebuilding will drop attendance, but so with consistent mediocrity. KW's method does not keep attendance high. Even after 2000 when we led the Majors in wins, we were 26th in attendance in 2001. Even when we "competed" in 2003 we were 21st in attendance. The only reason why attendance has been high the past 2 seasons is because of the World Series effect. Once that is gone, and that's coming shortly, we will be back to pre-2005 figures. Playoff appearances is the only thing that can keep the the Sox attendance figures level, imo. KW has managed to make the playoffs once in 7 years. Not very competitive if you ask me. Even though some folks here don't see a difference between 70 wins and last place, and 85 or 90 wins and staying in the hunt until near the end... some fans do. So you can bet that having a team like the one he is trying to set up here will draw more crowds than a 5th place team would. Yes, there is of course a lingering effect of 2005. But if the team is awful in 2008, it will lose that effect a lot faster than if its good but not quite good enough (which is what I think is likely).

Fun slideshow on SI.com of Obama playing hoops with an SI sports writer.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 02:37 PM) Owens wasn't that bad last season. Everyone looks to his September stats as a positive sign, but he seemed to show improvement starting in late July. Since 7-28-07: 52 G, 214 AB, 20 BB, 20 SB .290/.350/.701 If he had that line for a season, that would be a decent leadoff hitter. Also, projecting his other stats, he would have around 60+ SB as well. What is ironic is Podsednik had almost an identical line in 2005: .291/.351/.700 with 59 SB Which is why signing Pods, for more money and more injury risk, would be silly.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 01:45 PM) That's my thinking as well which is why I voted for KW to be fired. I think that you misunderstand the way Sox fandom works from the business perspective of the Sox. If the Sox throw in the towel and spend 2 or 3 years outside of contention (like they were in 2007), their attendance takes a gigantic hit - and so does their revenue. Thus making it difficult it not impossible to compete. The fact that the Sox have had a high end payroll the last few years, after being near league bottom for most of the recent decades, is directly related to having KW as GM. He understands you have to have a team in the hunt most years, or else the team will have no payroll to work with. That's his philosophy, and the attendance and salary figures indicate how successful he has been. If you do a massive rebuild right now, and spend a couple years with KC-like records, after 2007 was already so awful... and the team is screwed for a long time to come. Because of the nature of Sox fans, and because they play in a very tough division, the rebuilding in place that KW is doing is the only way to go that makes any sense.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 01:36 PM) John Edwards' main platform is Poverty... that's equivalent to political suicide. Suicide? Heck, more politicians than not say they are crusading for the poor, particularly democrats. There is nothing suicidual about it.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 01:31 PM) right they can go to another candidate or not move or go with uncommitted. Just curious... if you had to vote for someone other than Edwards (like, lets say you were in a precinct where he couldn't poll 15%), who would it be?

QUOTE(Reddy @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 01:28 PM) Obama wasn't IN the senate to make that decision at the time. Convenient. I really hate that line. If he'd been there he would've done the same goddamned thing. Except that Obama was making speeches at anti-war rallies around that time, and being quite vocal against it. Maybe he would have caved - but I doubt it. It goes to the thing that, in my opinion, is the biggest difference between Obama and the other candidates - he is willing to lose. He's not one to cave on an important issue just to survive politically.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 01:26 PM) yep. in the Iowa Caucuses, there is an initial grouping where all the supporters for each candidate consolidate together. a tally is taken and if any candidate does not have at least 15% of the total number of people at that caucus site, that candidate is not "viable". Then a new round takes place and all those who's candidates aren't viable have to realign with someone else. I dont remember whether this is mandatory or not... i dont think so, but generally most people if not all choose to realign. the fun thing is that it's all old school where you can try to win voters that night with arguments etc etc - you can keep trying to persuade people up until the time the realignment happens. it's a very rustic system actually. lol I knew about the caucusing in general, and the forum... but the 15% rule I wasn't sure on. Its optional, then? They can realign or not? That sounds right.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 01:21 PM) In a way, but he's still "competing" in a way too. It takes a lot of patience to go through a pure rebuilding stage, something we might be headed for. If by a "pure" rebuilding phase you mean trading away most or all of your established talent above 28 years old and giving up the idea of being a title contender... then you won't see it as long as KW is GM. For good or bad, he just won't ever do that, I don't think.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 01:18 PM) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/Insi...aucus_poll.html Well now that is very interesting, I must say. Anyone know more about this 15% threshold thing? And how that works, exactly? Also very significant is the 7% undecided, who could go anywhere. ETA: I just noticed... the poll in there has Obama in the lead among "highly likely voters", but Edwards in the lead among "likely voters". Seems like a minor distinction between them, but the result changes. Weird.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 01:08 PM) Should be interesting to see KW go from ultra-aggressive to ultra-patient or at least try to do so. Does he have the personality for a rebuild? That's a question needing an answer. In a way, he is already rebuilding. I mean, look at the rookies who have jumped into significant roles on the team last season and this offseason - Fields, Owens, Richar, Quentin, Ramirez... that's 5 guys who were rookies in 2007 or will be in 2008, that are likely to be on the 25-man roster (and all but Ramirez are likely to start). Then there are Floyd and Danks in the rotation, and a still-young bullpen (aside from Linebrink). This team, since Opening Day 2007, has gotten younger at LF, CF, 2B, 3B, 2 SP's, and most of the bullpen.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) cuz thats what the polling numbers show... and i've been knocking doors and calling quite a bit and that is more often than not what i hear. "i'm going for _____ but i like edwards, he's my second choice" There's a poll that was done that shows Edwards getting 42% in the Who's Your Second Choice? question. The Dodd supporters are especially into Edwards, and I've seen the same from the Bidens and the Richardsons. Talked to one guy today who's going Richardson with Edwards 2nd. It's real. Well that is very interesting, about your experiences I mean. I am not sure that the "second choice" question necessarily means a lot, because it doesn't necessarily mean that's who people would move their votes to. But we'll see. Where are these polls, by the way?

Candidate reactions to the event. Mostly, sadly, political posturing. But some managed to stick to the point.