NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Reddy @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 12:58 PM) but take into account the numbers for Biden and Richardson too. almost 50% of those numbers will go to Edwards and who knows - maybe even more come caucus night because most of those people, if they were gonna pick clinton or obama, would've done so already. So take those and add all that together then you're back into that statistical dead heat again, even if you split that other 50% between clinton and obama. Where are you getting the idea that 50% of Richardson or Biden's votes will go to Edwards? Heck, Dodd's numbers have actually been going up, so I doubt he loses many. As for Richardson's voters, the the two big differences he cuts as a candidate are fiscal conservatism and an absolute stand against the Iraq War. On the fiscal side, Edwards is the last candidate they'd choose - he's the biggest proponent of higher taxes of the bunch. And as for the war, Obama and Edwards' stands are pretty much identical. Clinton is different of course, she's more in favor of sticking it out for a while - so she is unlikely to get that sway. Overall, I think if Richardson voters flee, that favors Clinton most, then Obama. Biden has been pushing his diplomatic agenda (kind of like Richardson), and plans on how to stabilize Iraq (not just when to leave). I think that aligns best with Clinton, so that's where his votes may disappear to. So tell me why you think Edwards is likely to attract voters from Richardson, Biden or Dodd.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 12:39 PM) what you're missing is that the dead heat is actually a 3-way one statistically. Sure, in a few polls. But you need to look at more than one to get an idea of what is happening. Let's look at an average of the last 5 non-ARG polls for Iowa... Obama Avg: 29.0% Clinton Avg: 28.2% Edwards Avg: 24.2% Edwards is a clear 3rd. Those five polls have margins of error that run from 3 to 5%. At 4%, Edwards just barely ties Clinton, and is still behind Obama - even under best circumstances for him. And in reality, when you average a bunch of those together, the real error probability goes down. Then there is the youth factor, as I said, they really aren't in the polls. And further, some of them have just cell phones, and many polls only call land lines. Both those biases in the polls only make Obama more clearly in front. Now, I don't think its impossible for Edwards to win Iowa - he might. But he's running third behind to powerful, well-funded candidates with serious ground games in Iowa. It would be a significant upset for him to win.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 12:01 PM) right. you feel inspired. that's Obama's genius. whole lotta rhetoric that sounds amazing because he's able to deliver it with such skill and acuity, but where it counts he's got nothing. and what he DOES have is a) not AS comprehensive as Edwards plans and b ) stolen FROM Edwards and tweaked. and Edwards is not the Iowa Ralph Nader. You'll see what happens on Caucus night. Obama's got the glitz but Edwards has the grassroots - end of story. Rural voters - and there are a lot of them - side heavily with Edwards. Most people's second choice is Edwards. Edwards' supporters are most likely to actually show up at the caucus. I'm just saying we'll see. Polls only give you so much. Because in the end, all of this youth support that Obama has will shrink tremendously when the kids are just too lazy to get to the caucus on Jan 3. Why would this election be ANY different from ones of the past? The youth still wont vote. And that'll sink Obama. Also, as far as being all rhetoric, Edwards leads the world. I find Obama to be a much more honest individual than I do Edwards, or Clinton, or really any other of the Dem candidates except maybe Kucinich. Edwards "son of a miner" schpeal is a mask for the fact that he's actually a very successful, very rich attorney. And there is nothing wrong with being that - except that he tries to act like he is something else.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 12:01 PM) right. you feel inspired. that's Obama's genius. whole lotta rhetoric that sounds amazing because he's able to deliver it with such skill and acuity, but where it counts he's got nothing. and what he DOES have is a) not AS comprehensive as Edwards plans and b ) stolen FROM Edwards and tweaked. and Edwards is not the Iowa Ralph Nader. You'll see what happens on Caucus night. Obama's got the glitz but Edwards has the grassroots - end of story. Rural voters - and there are a lot of them - side heavily with Edwards. Most people's second choice is Edwards. Edwards' supporters are most likely to actually show up at the caucus. I'm just saying we'll see. Polls only give you so much. Because in the end, all of this youth support that Obama has will shrink tremendously when the kids are just too lazy to get to the caucus on Jan 3. Why would this election be ANY different from ones of the past? The youth still wont vote. And that'll sink Obama. I think you are missing something here, about the dynamics of the Iowa population. College kids are transient, and are often not polled because their primary address may be on campus (where the pollsters won't call), or be elsewhere but they won't be at home to get it (because they are at school). What that means is, the polls that show Obama and Clinton in a virtual dead heat (or maybe a slight lead for Obama) are ALREADY missing the youth voters. And at least some of them WILL vote, even though they weren't likely to be polled. So actually, even if only a small number of those college kids vote, that is still a small number that isn't even yet reflected that will probably be heavily for Obama.

Quick thought here... how does this effect the upcoming Iowa Caucus? For the Dems, this would seem to play into Obama's previous statements of worry about Pakistan. But, typically, this sort of international instability tends to favor experienced candidates. Then there is a third factor - and to be clear, I am not saying this is right at all, just that it simply is - a portion of the population will be hesitant to trust a female candidate to be "tough". Overall, I'd say these events might slightly help Obama, but not by much. For the GOP, Giuliani is the biggest anti-terror candidate in terms of his marketing. But, he's a mayor - and has basically zero experience on a national or international level. Huckabee is popular, I think, as a domestic profile guy - so this might hurt him. People would be wary of the unpolished Huckabee leading the country in this sort of scenario. Romney? Not sure. McCain, this probably helps more than any other candidate.

To further the post that Athomeboy made in the DEM candidate thread (ARG polls being bizarre), check out the most recent ARG poll for Iowa. Below are the results of that poll, and in (parens) is the range for that candidate for all other non-ARG polls in December... Huckabee: 23% (other polls range from 28 to 39) Romney: 21% (other polls range from 20 to 28) McCain: 17% (other polls range from 5 to 9, with one outlier at 14) Giuliani: 14% (other polls range from 5 to 12) Paul: 10% (other polls range from 2 to 8) Thompson: 3% (other polls range from 8 to 13, with one outlier at 16) Basically, their results are outside the entire range of other polls for 5 of the 6 candidates, and barely in the range on the other (Romney). Further, notice something here - the ARG Iowa polls show leanings towards nationally recognized candidates - more for Thompson, Giuliani and McCain, less for Huckabee, Romney and Paul. Its almost like they are filling in the gaps with people from outside Iowa. Basically, ARG is worthless. I think it safe to ignore they polls.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 09:49 AM) I've been following the polls very closely (like the REALLY mean anything. lol). And I kept noticing a statisitcal oddity. Polls done by "American Research Group" seems WAY off compared to other polls. While most polls so a statistical tie between Obama and Clinton in IA, SC, and NH.... polls by "American Research Group" showed her with a 14 point lead!! That seemed... well... a bit odd! So I did some research and stumbled upon this... http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/12/pr...arch-group.html I had noticed that too - ARG tended to be notably far off from other polls at any given time (usually, interestingly, giving Clinton and McCain greater leads than anyone else). Those results from previous elections are a good find. Thanks for the link. I was starting to wonder about ARG's polls.

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 09:56 AM) All I know is that the one possible bright light in an off-season signing--the possibility of signing an iffy ace at a low price--is gone. But hey, don't worry! 2008 will be fan-freakin-tastic! Didn't ya hear? Kenny Wannestedt signed the Cuban Slugger ™! One possible bright light? Did you miss the offseason or something? The team improved and picked up a serious prospect for LF in Quentin... improved at SS with a gold glove defender with a decent OBP in Cabrera... bullpen was improved by adding Linebrink, so that Jenks has a solid setup guy in front of him... and having Ramirez gives the possibility of a future starting CF or 2B (if Richar flops). I understand people are disappointed that KW didn't get his reach guy (M-Cab) or one of the high end CF's out there (Hunter, Rowand). I was too. But so far offseason, the team has improved in LF, CF, SS and the bullpen to varying degrees. Not to mention the addition by subtraction of Erstad, Pods, Myers and Gonzalez. This is a significantly better team than 2007's. Probably not good enough to win this division yet, but, a lot closer than they were. And the really underappreciated story to me, this offseason, is the large number of front office and scouting/development staff moves. Its clear that KW and company are serious about making changes to the way the team develops young talent - something that was sorely needed. Expect the 2008 minor league season, and the draft, to have a very different look than recent years. Going forward, chances are, Crede and Uribe will be traded for prospects of some sort, which can only help the farm system (though probably in a small way). The only place the team got weaker, probably, is one SP spot - and I do agree on that being a potentially big issue. I am hoping that Kenny can add a last minute pitcher to the mix.

QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 08:28 AM) We have no major league lead off man, second baseman, left or center fielder. Other than that, we are ready Quentin projects to be a very nice LF, and Richar has good potential at 2B. CF is going to be a ? to open the season, but Ramirez could develop nicely. I think all 3 positions you mention have some very good potential.

Per CNN. Read the lower part of the article too. Crackdowns by Musharaff's government appear to have been dampening the supposedly open election process. Yikes.

I'm sorry Reddy, but, I really have to root against Edwards. I would probably prefer him to Hillary, but the thing is, Obama and Edwards are splitting the non-Hillary vote right now. I think they are contesting for the same pool of voters. And since I see Obama as a far better candidate, I really hope Edwards disappoints on caucus day, because that probably means those votes will mostly go to Obama.

Also, another reason that Owens would be better than bringing in a Pods or other scrap player, is that Ramirez will likely platoon with him anyway. And since some reports have him as a future solid starter (while others say he is a super-sub), if he ends up being at that higher end, he'll probably take over the CF job by end of year anyway. Since the players who would be major upgrades right off the bat (Ramirez won't be that, probably) are gone, CF is probably now set.

Owens would put up similar numbers but stay healthy and play better defense, and for a fraction of the price. Pods serves no purpose on this team.

Then we have this. October home prices fall a record 6.7% in October (rate annualized), the biggest ever drop for the 10-city Case-Shiller index. The 20-city version fell 6.1%. Chicago at -3.2% annual-equivalent actually fared better than most.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 25, 2007 -> 10:52 AM) I'll tell you what, the stores yesterday were PACKED, and I say that compared to Black Friday. I was out both days and there was no comparison. You couldn't even find a parking spot in most places yesterday (Christmas Eve). We'll see what the numbers look like in a week or two. I hope you're right, because a decent retail season could help ease the rate of descent into this recession (or slow-down anyway) that we are headed for.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Dec 25, 2007 -> 06:45 PM) Look at the core of players on this team -- most of them are over 30 years old. The only "core" -- and this admittedly a subjective term -- guys who aren't older than 30 are Jenks and Buehrle. That's a huge problem. And please don't tell us it's not the GM's fault. The crap farm system goes directly on the shoulders on Kenny. The lack of activity in the Dominican and the length of time it took for the Sox to actually be active down there is on the shoulders of Kenny. Hell, I even blame part of the lack of going over slot on Kenny. Every year there's at least 4-5 million that's wasted pointlessly on players with the big club (last year -- Podsednik, Erstad as the top two) -- you're telling me that money couldn't be allocated to the draft? But that's a minor point in the bigger picture of the complete garbage that has been the Sox farm system over the past half-decade or so. Even though I tend to be a little more positive about KW than most... I do have to agree that the awful state of the farm system is his fault (almost entirely), and so was the LF and CF situation heading into 2007.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Dec 24, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) Believe it or not, many who currently support the 'huge, expensive wall' would probably agree with you. However, knowing how inept the government is at most things, a static wall would probably work better than a virtual one, which would depend on human oversite to work properly. A real wall wouldn't have to depend on prosecutors and LEOs actually doing their jobs and arresting and charging people and businesses with crimes who violate the existing laws. If the current LEO structure would show some balls about enforcing the current laws,you wouldn't have such a push for a real wall. I don't really agree. First, that same inept government would have to build it. That alone will do ridiculous things to the cost - and the maintenance. Second, I don't see these border runners as being prosecuted - just caught and returned. And third, you'd still have to have the surveillance and telemetry, as well as the patrols, even WITH the real wall. But I do think you're right about enforcing current laws, when it comes to dealing with those who already got in. In my view though, it isn't a lack of desire to do so that is the problem - its usually a matter of law enforcement agencies being stretched too thin. I don't think its a lack of "balls".

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 24, 2007 -> 09:56 AM) I would only expand on the demand side and mention all immigration has to be tied to jobs. No means of support, no immigration. I would even be interested in seeing some staged benefit approach. You qualify for this right away (many health benefits for one) and others after some period of time (college Pell grants maybe?) We also need some government clearing house where once an employer receives word that this employee is legal to work, they can't be charged later with hiring illegals. The demand side is key, just as others here state. But I do think that even if you fully address that, some people will still be desperate enough to come over and hope for a miracle. So I do think strengthening the border is a good idea. I just think a huge, expensive and ineffective wall is not the right way to go about it.

QUOTE(scenario @ Dec 24, 2007 -> 10:41 AM) Awards won by Sergio Miranda: - 2005 - Colonial Athletic Conference Rookie of the Year, Colonial Athletic Conference All-Star SS - 2006 - Colonial Athletic Association Defensive Player of the Year, Colonial Athletic Association All-Star SS - 2007 - Batted .370 in 60 games with Virginia Commonwealth in 2007 (2nd on team)...committed just eight errors...was named a 2007 Rawlings Division I Gold Glove winner... I believe his history as a Rawlings Division I Gold Glove winner, etc. suggests that his fielding will come around. Another factor that impresses me about him is his walks/strikeouts. (37 walks vs. 27 strikeouts on the season?) Anytime a young player walks more often than they strikeout, you've gotta like that. And his history shows that it's a trend, not a one year thing. http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/M/S...o-Miranda.shtml I am pretty high on Miranda. I see what GHC is getting at though, his error numbers seem high - which could be worrisome. And he got those awards in a not-exactly top tier conference. But it does show he probably at least has good potential defensively. Add that to his offensive numbers, and being only a 20-year-old in A-ball, and I have to echo his statement earlier that Miranda was "steal" in the 7th round.

Wall = hundreds of billions of dollars and probably decades to build, further damages our international image, and still won't keep many of them out. Virtual wall combined with demand-side measures and enforcement of existing laws = fraction of the cost, and more effective. Pretty simple, really.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Dec 24, 2007 -> 09:16 AM) i guess i'm just out of touch here. I don't understand the harsh, hateful feelings towards these illegal immigrants. if they pured sugar in your gas tank while diddling your mother, I would understand. yes, there are bad people amongst those who come over. SOME, not many, steal identities, traffic drugs, etc, etc. But you shouldn't paint with a broad brush and call them all parasites. Many, not some, come to this country for the same reason as your relatives and mine did. They simply want a better life for their families and to achieve the American Dream. Put yourself in their shoes. If this was a very poor country and your family was starving or struggling to get by and you heard about a great opportunity in Canada to make enough $ to support your family... you wouldn't go? Personally, I'd walk across scorching deserts for days to support my family. Even if what I was doing was "illegal". 1. If they come here illegally, they are criminals - a.k.a. "bad people". 2. Some of them undoubtedly are hard-working people who are desperate to get by. JUST LIKE A FEW BILLION OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. And we cannot just let them all come in and work without some controls. The result would be devastating to this country. 3. Part of the blame here does indeed fall on the government's inability to properly gauge immigration levels with economic need. Obviously, the jobs are there - so why aren't there more people being allowed in LEGALLY? On this part of the picture, I agree with you. Some of these illegals should have the chance to be accomodated legally. But that is NOT an excuse for breaking the law. I for one am happy to see this result. Dealing with the demand side of the equation is key here. The wall is a money pit that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and thankfully, will never be built. There are a dozen different things that could be done that would as a group be far more effective than a wall, and cost a fraction as much. This type of thing in the article is one of them.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 24, 2007 -> 01:42 AM) So, I'm planning to caucus. Any other caucusers here? Wish I could. Try your best to get the ISU students out to the polls - I'd rather see some future-oriented thinking than the same old stuff from the old folks like me. Get out the vote, Heads!

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 23, 2007 -> 11:19 PM) At this point, it's clear that despite the positivist complaint about how SoxTalk is negative and sees the sky as falling and hates the organization, most people here are not opposed to KW and in fact a majority likes him/thinks he's doing good. Some are critical, yes, and that's how I had a hunch that there was a lot more positivity here than they'd give themselves credit for: because everytime I say KW is bad, or Floyd sucks, or the scouts who did X, Y, or Z suck, there are several posts badgering me for it, and with positive things ("if we can get 200 innings of quality pithcing from Floyd") nobody but me or DA comes in and says, Wait a minute...let's not go...nuts... This was just a little poll I wanted to make to see where SoxTalk generally stands. Roughly half the board wants KW fired (thanks to your interestingly worded poll - 3 fired options and 1 not). It seems to me that makes the site pretty much evenly split on KW. Not really a surprise, is it? And if you wonder why people "badger" you about your negativity, look at the post you made recently when asked what you DO like about the Sox. It was mostly about the ballpark and fan incentives - virtually nothing about the team or its players or coaches. You pretty much proved to the readers of the site what many suspected - you really don't like the Sox. You just enjoy berating them.

QUOTE(jenks45monster @ Dec 24, 2007 -> 12:09 AM) He didn't really do it. It was luck. Look at the roster. It had no amazing talent. Every guy just played with good clubhouse chemistry in 05'. He should be fired pronto. So it was luck in 2005 (despite being in first wire to wire, having the best record in baseball most of the season, and going 11-1 in the post season). OK. Then was 2007 luck too, just bad luck?

For those unfamiliar... this site will put up a Future Sox Top 25 prospects list each offseason. We are hoping to put one up early next year for 2008. Its the combined efforts of various well-informed people who work with the site. Ranking is a combination of ceiling, closeness to being ready, and probable value. Its not an exact science. For now, unrelated to the site's official list... here is my 25 plus a few honorable mentions that just missed the list. Keep in mind that, as with any list like this, there is a balance of ceiling and readiness. Some players are high ceiling but not experienced enough to show anything, others are future backups but are nearly ready to make the jump... 1. Gio Gonzalez 2. FDLS 3. John Shelby 4. Jack Egbert 5. Ryan Sweeney 6. Jose Martinez 7. Aaron Poreda 8. Sergio Miranda 9. Oneli Perez 10. Chris Getz 11. Lance Broadway 12. Carlos Vasquez 13. David Aardsma 14. John Ely 15. Kanekoa Texeira 16. Jim Gallagher 17. Po-Yu Lin 18. CJ Retherford 19. Charlie Haeger 20. David Cook 21. Jason Bourgeois 22. Donny Lucy 23. Hector Santiago 24. Kyle McCulloch 25. Archie Glbert HM: Griffith, Cheatham, Gartrell, Tollefson, Mabee, Sanchez, Francisco Hernandez, Silverio, Omogrosso