NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 05:27 PM) Now we're going off one good half of baseball, to be secure in the bullpen? I know we are desperate to find some reassurance in the bullpen, but that doesn't do it for me. Nope. We're going off 4 specific players - that was the point. Not who had a good half season - but that the bullpen in the first half was 50% different pitchers than are being discussed here, and the other 50% have multiple years of semi-solid track records. That was my point. The fact that the bullpen sucked in the first half of the year isn't all that relevant to 2008, since the staff is different. You need to look at the individual parts.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 05:33 PM) There is no such thing as having a secure bullpen for the most part. There are only so many good middle relievers, bullpens are inconsisant from year to year(for the most part), you just never know. That's the other half of what I was talking about. Very rarely can you pick up relievers that are truly reliable for certain performance.

QUOTE(spiderman @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 05:13 PM) No doubt a political solution is needed, but can one exist with such a high level of violence ? That's why the recent progress is good news. If it lasts, it allows for a chance at a political solution being worked out. Did you even read my first post in this thread? The recent progress IS political, and not military.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 05:00 PM) Wow... Did you read the book?

People here seem to be thinking of last year's bullpen as a single beast. Really, there were two different bullpens. The opening day pen had one good month, then basically imploded. Most of the pieces that imploded were either demoted (Aardsma, Masset, MacDougal, Haeger, Sisco, Day), and look at the lousy numbers they put up. Then there were the few that stuck it out - Jenks, Logan and Thornton - and all three had far better numbers post-ASB than pre-ASB. Then they added a couple guys - Bukvich (who sucked) and Wassermann (who did well). Bukvich is gone. So... You now have "last year's bullpen", at the end of the year, made up of four guys were were quite solid - Jenks, Logan, Thornton and Wassermann. THIS bullpen, of the end of year 2007 Sox, was not nearly as bad as the final year numbers indicated. So before people get too up in arms about how bad the pen was, remember that those 4 core guys who are NOW in the pen, from the end of last year, are actually a pretty good group. This bullpen does not need to be blown up, and it would be a huge waste of money to try to do so, given how iffy most bullpen pitchers are year-to-year. They need 1, maybe at most 2 new guys. I'd say 1 quality, experienced reliever is plenty. Then leave the 6th slot for one of the remaining "prospects" in the system (Day, Aardsma, MacDougal, Hernandez, etc.).

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 04:35 PM) Wasn't Coleman always regarded as a bit of a "loon"? As I recall, most of the long-running weathermen in Chicago were/are a bit loony.

QUOTE(bigruss22 @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 03:18 PM) I dont see any names of significance in here, but maybe somebody else knows more about one or all. Also, I really hope the Sox bring back Beorgouis (sp?), and look at Knoedler who seems like a young cathcer who could compete at AAA with Lucy. Also, since I'm always one to point out that age isn't as important as how they got there... Knoedler has been playing catcher in the minors since 2002. That's 6 full seasons in the minors. Lucy wasn't even drafted until 2004, and only has 4 seasons under his belt, one of which (2004) was post-draft shortened, and missed some time in 2005 with a hand injury.

QUOTE(bigruss22 @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 03:18 PM) I dont see any names of significance in here, but maybe somebody else knows more about one or all. Also, I really hope the Sox bring back Beorgouis (sp?), and look at Knoedler who seems like a young cathcer who could compete at AAA with Lucy. Justin Knoedler is a 27 year old catcher, repeating PCL, who's numbers are pretty similar offensively to Lucy's first AA season in a pitcher's park. He's got about 15 points of average on him, an identical OBP, same HR's and he strikes out a lot more. So, why would they want a guy who hits like Lucy but is 2 years older? Its unlikely he's as good defensively, since Lucy's quite good in that area, and handles pitchers well. Plus Lucy has speed that Knoedler appears not to. What would be the upside over Lucy?

Just another case of the drunk elephants leading the drunk elephants...

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 02:08 PM) I like how Richardson said you can't use falling death totals as a measure of progress, but then used death totals to bolster his arguement from the downside. That's the kind of doubletalk that I thought we weren't going to get with this guy... His use of the numbers is bad. But he is pretty much dead on about a political solution being needed. I don't agree with the type of solution he is stating exactly, though.

The drop in violence is indicative of a very, very important change in the dynamic, but not for the reasons that are being pedaled by the MSM (many of whom are simply being fed information by the military). If you read just one thing I post on Iraq this year, please read this... I've said for a couple months now... Ignore the talking head types, and read articles written by journalists who are actually over there and talking to the locals. Those articles, in the Trib (you know, that bastion of liberalism), the NYT and both Washington papers (yes, both), have all pointed to the same fact that a lot of people seem to be ignoring - the drop in violence has nothing to do with the surge. Its happening because many of the insurgent groups are electing to sit back for a bit, and try re-entering the political process. They are all saying the same thing. Now, that doesn't make the progress a bad thing - not at all. In fact, I think that's even better than having it be created by a military push. It means there is hope for a politically stable Iraq. A "peace" generated by military might would be short-lived, and the violence would re-surge as soon as troops drew down. So this, to me, is actually even better news than the supposed military surge. But... and this is a huge key... the fortunes of this trend hang by a thin thread. Whatever progress the US and the Iraqi national government have made in opening these doors lately needs to be reinforced and nurtured in a huge way. This should be the priority. If they do that, and if they allow these groups real involvement, then I think things can get a lot better in Iraq and fairly quickly. If on the other hand, our leaders are falling for this military "surge" garbage, and don't work to further involve the regional/tribal leaders... we will be right back to the high violence rates in short order. This is a key point in the Iraq campaign. Don't be deceived into thinking this very significant positive turn is the result of a relatively small military shift. And for the anti-war crowd, don't dismiss the drop in violence as some sort of aberration either. This is real, and it needs to be fostered into something bigger. Its time for the anti-war folks who deny all signs of progress, and the ill-informed followers of a failed administration, to put down their pride and act in the best interests of Iraq, the Middle East and our own country. I hope our leaders can see this too.

I can't remember if it was Bureau, but someone recently stated that Getz was looked at as having some plus hitting skills. Add that to his speed, and ability to draw walks, and I think he might make a good backup plan if Richar doesn't work out in 2008. And having him and Bourgeois in the system is good - one of the two of them could make a solid backup IF.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) I think the movie and book Willy Wonka (original movie) is one where both the book and movie were equally good. I have to disagree. But I'm biased. As a kid, there was a period of time where Roald Dahl was my favorite author, and I read everything he wrote, including both Wonka books. The more recent adaptation, with Mr. Depp, was quite good. But, still not as good as the books.

QUOTE(WHITESOXRANDY @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 12:04 PM) Why can't we have an EXTEND Garland scenario ? $ If you extend Garland at the $15-$17M/year it would take, you can probably forget about Hunter, Rowand or any other big name outfielder being added. Also no run at any Japanese players. And less likely to acquire anyone expensive in a trade. Basically, severely limiting. And since he's in his last year of the current contract, one that is affordable and enticing to other teams, he could bring back some nice value.

QUOTE(soxfan3530 @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 11:48 AM) Just curious to see if anyone was interested in bringing Jose Valentin back as utility type player. I know we ahve pablo coming back and he is getting old. But i figured he could play a little of 2b, 3b and SS if we needed it and has had a couple of productive seasons with the Mets. Plus he would be on the cheap. Thoughts?? Between Ozuna, Uribe, Richar, Bourgeois, Crede, Fields and whomever the team might acquire for SS or 2B... why would they need another shorstop or thirdbaseman? Especially one as horrible defensively as Valentin? And you think Pablo is old? Valentin is 38.

A note about the supposed media bias... Looking at sites like CNN and MSNBC of the "MSM", Hillary Clinton's planted question issue has been high on the list of news items for days now, along with her declines in the polls, and her poor debate performance. All making her look bad. Meanwhile, this morning, the top banner "Breaking News" item on CNN was Thompson getting the Right to Life endorsement, which is a positive for him. Hillary is being probed heavily because she is high profile. That is what the media does - goes after the easy, high profile, well known targets.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 10:28 AM) I agree with that. One of two things is going on there... Either they are putting out fake signals to hide who they really want, or this thing has been a done deal since the day that Bayh dropped out. I think if Romney wins the nomination, he needs an older established guy, with a long list of credentials to make up for his flip-floppingness. A John McCain could be a great fit here. If Guiliani wins the nomination, judging by the Robertson endorsement, I think a deal has already been done to get a right-wing religious guy on the ballot with him. I could see a few guys being out there, but a Huckabee or Brownback makes good sense, as does a Sonny Perdue. I am also going to go out and say that the Unity Party snags either Bloomberg or Paul to run as their nominee. Those make sense. Definitely agree on Giuliani, and Romney/McCain is interesting. Didn't someone say Paul announced he wouldn't run as an independent? Bloomberg could cause a load of trouble for both parties.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 10:08 AM) What did he say that bothers you most? I don't even recall the exact details, to be honest. I read a number of his columns, and I remember not only thinking that he doesn't understand the game very well, but it was also (amazingly) littered with grammatical errors and I think he got a few names wrong. And when I say he doesn't understand the game, I'm not talking about just subjective stuff like how valuable a given skill is, I mean fundamental misunderstanding. He's just obviously in over his head. I stopped reading his stuff after a while. Whenever there is a link or an article of his now, I just skim past it.

Dayn Perry is probably the worst, most ill-informed national baseball writer I've read. I wouldn't take anything he has to say seriously.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 09:52 AM) I guess my question to you would be why would any accept this? We should all be pissed off about this, not dismissing it. Jesus its bad enough the dollars that are put into these campaigns, and yet we can even get a real question asked at these events? Maybe if we actually did this right, we could get best candidate on the ballot, instead of the person with the staff most effective at throwing lob questions to their own people. I don't care if everyone does this, it doesn't make it right. Agreed. When I was in UK for a while in, I think, 2000, I watched a "town hall" meeting that Tony Blair was hosting during his election cycle. Now, I don't want to get into how good or bad Blair was as a PM, but I was very impressed by this get-together. It was painfully clear that there was no prompting of questions or topics, and in fact, there was a lot less organization in general. People bombarded him with tough, and sometimes confusing or leading questions, and people in the audience sometimes chimed in randomly. It was, *gasp*, like an actual town hall meeting. Blair looked a little flustered a couple times, but mostly maintained his composure and looked pretty good doing it. And guess what? That charismatic, patient, open-minded demeanor was said in the press there to be one of the big reasons he won huge in that election. Maybe our own candidates could take a page from that book.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 09:45 AM) Kerry did it in 04, as did Bush. I guarantee you that Romney, Guiliani, McCain, Obama, Richardson and Edwards all do it too. Maybe Thompson too, but I think his audience gets too sleepy to know for sure. There was even an episode of That '70s show focused around it. This is a time honored tradition. At rallies and town halls, everything is generally scripted. That's why when a candidate gets heckled - or someone asks an honest question, it makes news. I don't know why people are so shocked at this. I'd bet candidates do it to variable extents. Clinton seems to run a heavily strategized campaign - doesn't surprise me she does it a lot. Someone like Obama, Huckabee or McCain, who are just naturally better off the cuff, probably do it less directly or less so. Marginal guys like Kucinich probably don't do it at all.

knightni and kid gleason brought this up in the Films thread, and I thought it would make a nice discussion topic... What movies have you see that were better than, or as good as (or almost?) as the books they were based on? Obviously the list is short. Here are what come to mind for me... The Hunt for Red October - I'd say as good as, or very close. And I liked the book a lot. LOTR Trilogy - Very well done adaptation, and I think I may have enjoyed the films more than the books (I'll probably get scolded for this one) There are probably others, I'll think of more later. What do you have?

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 07:15 AM) Agreed. When it comes to books to movies (especially with Horror) I try to never compare the two, or even associate the two. The upcoming Girl Next Door will be an exception to my rule though. Good thread topic...

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 08:37 AM) Apparently you are too. Not necessary. Reminder to all - no personal attacks of any kind. Commenting on post material is all good, posting your opinions of other posters is not. There will not be another warning.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 06:22 AM) Animals are stupid, and we can't have just have a bunch of them running around the Earth with no control. This is one of the strangest sentences I've ever seen posted in here. You do realize humanity has only been "civilized" on this planet for a tiny, tiny, tiny sliver of history, right? And... are you afraid of the chickens?