NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Dan Pasqua's Rec Specs @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 04:33 PM) started inside and leaked outside it was passed on from a number of people and got to me. When i heard who it came from it did not sound so far fetched. But im sure many of you think im bs (so be it), but i believe its gonna happen before the meetings. I heard it from a chain of people. but these people seem quite reliable. Fair enough. Thanks for answering and not being evasive, I appreciate that.

QUOTE(Dan Pasqua's Rec Specs @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 04:16 PM) Aaron Rowan will be a white sox by the end of the weekend. I have sources sources? multiple? Inside the organization, or otherwise? Sorry for the questions, but I'm very curious. That would be big news, obviously. And this is kind of out of the blue.

Check out the fun Iowa poll chart - check out the trends. Obama is pretty consistently gaining, Edwards consistently falling, Clinton wavering. Also kind of interesting is the "trading" market, people betting on the candidates in an open venue like a financial market. The "price" quotes right now actually show Obama highest, then Clinton, then Edwards. Its right above the chart. Click on the candidate name to see their "financials".

Rasmussen Iowa poll shows a still very tight race, even tigher than the last one from them 2 weeks ago (parens): Clinton: 27% (-2) Obama: 25% (+1) Edwards: 24% (-1) Richardson: 10% (even) ------- Also interesting, sort of... New Gingrich comes out and predicts that not only does Obama win Iowa, but that he'll win it by a large margin. Seems to think his ground game is quite good.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 02:08 PM) Apparently this was only the second time in Chicago HISTORY that the Superintendant of Police came from outside of the City of Chicago. Whenever a large department like Chicago's goes outside the department, outside the region and even outside the realm of municipal law enforcement to find a new chief... you know there are major problems. Outsider = Ax Man.

Update, as interpereted by me... Blago: Yo Assembly, pass a transit bill Madigan: OK, here you go, a transit bill Blago: Hell no. No new taxes. Madigan: OK... what do you suggest? Blago: Put the gas tax all-in towards transit Madigan: Sounds good. We can get that through committee. But what about the part of that money that had been paying for downstate roads projects? Blago: Don't worry about that now, just pass the transit bill. Madigan: OK, but the full House is downstate-heavy and won't pass it... *bill passes house assembly Assembly: f*** you. *bill fails in Assembly Madigan: Told you. Blago: You all suck. If you'd like a more detailed description, see this article. Dumbasses.

CPD has a new chief - the Special Agent in Charge of the Philadelphia field office.

QUOTE(Soxfest @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 12:41 PM) KW arrogance at it's finest again, he huffs and puffs and nothing happens. I do not see anything major happening at winter meetings or rest of winter. KW will trade or sign a middle of the road guy and tell Sox fans whoever it is was plan A the whole time! Its still November, and the team already has improved significantly at SS and the bullpen, not to mention the addition by subtraction of Erstad, Cintron, Podz and Myers. Most teams haven't done even half that much. You.Must.Chill. Give it a few months.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 11:49 AM) Cashew butter and Cherry preserves. While driving your Beamer to the club for some tennis?

QUOTE(iamshack @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 11:34 AM) Very interesting article about the MCab sweepstakes... http://www.palmbeachpost.com/marlins/conte...rlins_1129.html "We felt we had a deal with them twice," Moreno told West Coast writers during a news conference to introduce new Angels outfielder Torii Hunter and pitcher Jon Garland. "They came back and asked for more. They're doing it to everybody. "I think (Dodgers General Manager Ned) Colletti thought he had a deal for Cabrera, and it changed on him too. (The Marlins) maneuvered us against the Dodgers. We both need a third baseman." Wow. If the Marlins' GM is doing that to everyone, he's not making life easy for himself. The other GM's won't deal with him. Pretty stupid.

A few interesting tidbits on Fernando Hernandez... In 2006, he had the 6th highest K/BF ratios in High A baseball, and among the list linked here of those in that best group, he was also 9th in GB%, being well above average in both categories. The article posted recently here compares him to Matt Gurrier, who can hit 92-93, after being 90-91 at one point and developing some more power. Baseball Prospectus sez: I'm not saying velocity isn't important, because it is. But I think this is yet another example of where people get too obsessed with velocity when it comes to pitching success. Stats in the minors are a fickle thing, but a guy who has repeated success up the line AND has such strong peripherals deserves some consideration if you want to really find guys who are likely to get guys out in the majors.

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 09:46 PM) As for F. Hernandez, he tops out high 80's without a real plus pitch and the White Sox don't think he'll last long in the majors, if in fact he makes it. Especially the American League. How does a RHP who can't hit 90 and has no plus pitch consistently strike out more than a batter an inning and put up the kind of solid numbers he has, year in and year out (with one exception, 2005)?

QUOTE(WHITESOXRANDY @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 10:14 AM) Listen, there are 5 things that we pretty much know for certain: 1. KW is going to acquire atleast one good outfielder. 2. KW is very likely to add another bullpen arm. 3. Crede and Fields will not both be on the team in April. 4. The Sox will not pay Uribe that kind of money to sit on the bench where he'd likely be even less consistent when he does play. 5 Plus, a number of the young pitchers are out of options. A couple of them will be moved. So, there's still going to be lots of action happening. I would be shocked if we don't hear about a couple of moves in the next 10 days.

QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 10:29 AM) As I understood Rudy's response, he would limit gov't agencies by not having their vacancies filled as a result forthcoming retirements. That was in addition to spending cuts across-like Reagan-the board. Not that I necessarily accept that in full, but if you're courting conservative votes, how is that not a good response? I wasn't speaking for some specific group, I was speaking for myself - as a fiscal conservative, I think his spending approach is illogical. His idea of not re-filling some posts via retirement, that's all fine and good.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 08:19 AM) Before Hunter signed with the Angels, KW promised a dynamic offense. He promised that all his moves would come together like a jigsaw puzzle. His comments in today's article have to be a bluff. This is a team that has been terrible for a year and a half. Swapping out Garland for Cabrera and Linebrink doesn't definitively make them better. It definitely makes them better - just not enough better to match his bluster. But for everyone panicking... you cannot take KW's words on entering the GM meetings seriously. Why would he go in there and say "I'm desperately seeking a CF"? That would just weaken his position. And I still don't get Gonzales' fascination with a backup middle infielder.

Bly, Dawson and Raines. Seriously considered Baines, Rice and John.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 09:32 AM) It had to do with gays in the military, and I think the story is even up on drudge now. Bill Bennet busted CNN out on the after part of the debate where they were talking to the six critics about what they thought of the debate. OK. That was definitely an interesting segment though. Hillary plant or not, I think it was a solid question and situation to put to that group. I'd recommend watching the videos of the debate if you haven't seen them - to anyone here. In particular, that segment, but also the opening sequence between Giuliani and Romney about illegal immigrants, and also the McCain-Paul exchanges over Iraq. Those were the three really interesting parts, IMO. And when watching the responses to the gay Brig Gen's question about gays in the military... watch the candidates who answer, listen to their choice of words, and watch their facial expressions. If you see what I saw, you'll see one very hateful human being (Hunter), one very circumspect and unsure candidate (McCain) and one flip-flopping fish out of water (Romney). In any case, the answers to that question disappointed me more than any other. What a bunch of cowards. Have some spine. We teach these 18 year old kids to do all manner of unthinkable things for their country, but we're not sure that they can handle thinking that the guy/gal next to them might have different sexual desires than they do? What a bunch of homophobic losers.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 09:30 AM) Then it will be another ten years before you will want one. Chunky or smooth? Grape or strawberry? The correct answers to that are ALWAYS... chunky and grape.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 09:20 AM) Do you think the candidates think or talk for THEMSELVES? Of course they need their writers That's one of the two things I was trying to hint at.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 09:17 AM) What, no mention of the fact that CNN let a Hillary operative ask one of the video questions, and be in the audience for a followup question? And CNN claims they didn't know who he was? 5 minutes on Google could have told them that. Really? I haven't checked the news sites yet this morning, so I hadn't heard that. Which video question was a plant? Was it the gay General?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 09:16 AM) I know some people on here aren't going to like to hear this, but governments, but their very nature, are the most wasteful form of commerce out there. There is absolutely no incentive to be effecient, because they answer to no one. Knock the private sector all you like, but they have stockholders and investers to answer to, and if a company isn't preforming to par, they will remove those problems. In government it is the opposite, the longer someone has been working, the more entrenched they become, and the easier it is for them to do a bad job. Without a profit motivation, there is simply no way to force employees to work hard, because they don't fear losing their jobs. Now say if you came up with a system that fired the bottom preforming 5% of employees in an agency annually, and gave bonuses to the top 5%, maybe that would change, because at least there would be a carrot and a stick involved. The candidates can talk all they want, but without involving the private sector, or some other real world incentive/decentive, the preformance of government is going to be ineffecient. That's what I was getting at - if you reward no one and penalize no one (like now), or if you just penalize everyone (Rudy's plan), you will never ever have more productive government agencies. If on the other hand you actually reward high performers and penalize losers, you can maybe get a lot more out of those agencies.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 11:07 PM) NSS will tell you that things are just rosey. At this point, I'd say it's better then a 50-50 shot at a recession. Rosey? I think you've mistaken me for some other poster. I do see a long, slow decline coming, probably at recession levels. I just don't think its going to be because of inflation as you do. Inflation may go up a bit, but I think the bigger killers will be energy policy, continued high military spending in the government, and massive credit card debt. Each of those three things has multi-pronged negative effects that are just starting to spin off problems into the greater economy. Add into that the mortgage crisis, which will probably peak in 2008 but still linger awhile, and you have a formula for medium term recession. But I suppose if you think we're headed into the next Great Depression, then yeah, I think things are pretty rosey.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 01:13 AM) If you're fighting for labor support, three weeks before a caucus in a state that labor can have a real effect on, you aren't crossing that picket line. Most of those candidates wouldn't dare. It would be insulting to the labor movement in general. And the first rule of politics is you don't s*** in the bed you've made. And the Democrat's bed is Union Made. Have the debate somewhere else with a different moderator. That is exactly what I was thinking. I wasn't suggesting crossing the picket lines.

QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 08:31 AM) A lot of people have view Paul as over-the-top extreme, which he mostly is, but Dole also promised to scrap the Dept. of Energy if he was elected in '96. My Dad, a DOE employee, ironically still voted for Dole b/c he hated Clinton. Rudy, I thought had a good response about how to cut federal programs. Rudy's method for cutting spending - simply cutting all agency budgets by 5 to 10% - is counter-productive. That's why businesses don't do that unless they are going bankrupt or something. Think about what doing that would mean... for lousy agencies, they are STILL lousy, but with 10% less money to spend. For agencies that are providing critical services in a solid way, you just ensured that the people using those services will get 10% less of it. Its not exactly lose-lose, but I'd call it break even-lose. Instead, I'd rather see what Thompson recommended - via the OMB or consulting firms or whomever, target the agencies that are most wasteful. If they are SO wasteful that they fail entirely, just axe them (and, I'd add, perhaps re-think and re-implement the intended service via other methods). If they are somewhat wasteful, then clean house or cut budget. Don't penalize everyone for some people's failures.

Heh. White Sox mention in the debate. Funny.