NorthSideSox72

Phoenix won big today. Sox... Sweeney: 3-5, RBI, R, SB (he's 5-for-6 in SB in 20 games in the AFL - he was 8-for-13 in all of the regular season) Getz: 3-5, 2 R, RBI (hitting .304, he's the only .300 hitter on the team) Lucy: 1-5, R, 4 K (Donny still hitting .200, striking out a lot) Hernandez: 1.0 IP, 1 H, 1 BB (now has 12.2 IP, still no earned runs)

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2007 -> 02:34 PM) At least for the last one, the hosts finally started saying that Gravel isn't actually running a campaign since he doesn't bother, you know, campaigning, and didn't include him. Heh, I didn't notice that. On the one hand its too bad, he was kind of amusing. But its for the better overall, the field is too crowded, and the real contenders need more time.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Nov 12, 2007 -> 01:59 PM) Looking forward to this Thursday's debate. Predictions: --Edwards and Obama will both continue to hammer Clinton --Clinton will try to cast herself as the victim, tyring to take the moral high ground, and be extra-calm doing it --Richardson will will try to look different than any of them --Kucinich will make a joke about the UFO sighting --Biden will try to connect the current downturn in violence in Iraq to the diplomatic efforts with the regional governments, thus like his plan --Dodd will continue to be likeable but not stand out in any real way --Mike Gravel will find a reason to scold everyone on the stage other than himself

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 05:59 PM) I think rather than giving up eating meat, it makes me want to eat free-range and organic meats instead. Much less cruelty involved, much better sanitation in the packing process - generally. That's the key for me - I've gotten very sensitive as to food source recently. And so have others, apparently.

Meeting.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 05:40 PM) Easier being the first Catholic in 1960 or easier being the first Mormon in 2008? Seriously? Far, far, far easier being the first Catholic in 1960. Catholics had been in major elected and appointed posts since the 18th century in this country, they are looked at as a strong, if over-bearing, branch of Christianty. Mormonism is seen by most as a cult, and you'll have a hard time finding a Christian who sees the LDS as even remotely related to being a Christian faith.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 05:23 PM) she's just getting started. That's true. Maybe she needs more time.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 05:16 PM) What if this is true? http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2007/11/1...y-team-hillary/ after they promise not to do it anymore they continue. no one can out scuzzy the Hillary Clinton, no one. I wouldn't bet otherwise. I think she has yet to reach BushCo levels, but she's headed that direction.

QUOTE(forrestg @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 12:54 PM) All this talk about bullpen relief, shortstop, centerfield how about a catcher? If AJ who is a great hitting catcher but I believe there are better defensive catchers.. How about a catcher to back up aj or eventually replace him. If you want a catcher who is good defensively and can throw out basestealers, you can call up Donny Lucy. Just be ready for him to have a .180 AVG. He isn't ready yet, and will likely never be the hitter AJ is. Hall had a lousy 2007, but looking at his career, if he can get his shoulder 90% or better, he'll probably be a decent backup in 2008. The Sox have him under contract still, and he just makes the most sense for next year. After that, if Lucy can hit in AAA, then he takes the backup slot. If he can't, then you start thinking about another player outside the system.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 03:33 PM) 1.41 ERA, 1.05 WHIP, 10.6 K/9, 2.9 K/BB in 70.1 IP - Jeff Bajenaru at AAA in 2005 It's possible to be a dominant reliever in the minors and be a pretty mediocre (or worse) reliever in the majors. I'd imagine that's what Hernandez is. Of course its possible. Its also possible to be a mediocre reliever in the minors (statistically) but be good in the majors. My question was, if his numbers are good, what is it we don't know about him that makes him less of a prospect? I'm not saying it isn't the case. I was looking for the "why".

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 03:36 PM) Could be either way. I think selling Catholicism overall would be easier than LDS. I also think we accept the differences easier today than in 1959. I just don't see the comparison as being nearly on the same scale.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 01:06 PM) I wonder if the staffers for Hillary that planted her softball questions will get any percentage of the scrutiny as the FEMA folks? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310417,00.html Not even close to the same scale of scuzzy-ness. She didn't have a press conference filled with her staffers. It was a small percentage as bad, and accordingly, its getting a small percentage as much coverage. That said, as I've noted, her repeated tendency to do this is making her more and more like W every day. Like his "town hall" meetings during the 2004 cycle where the entire crowd was sifted to be only his most ardent supporters.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 12:47 AM) I saw Lions for Lambs tonight. It rang pretty true for me, but at the same time wasn't particularly mindblowing. Saw it too. Nothing mind-blowing, but, its one of those movies where I think a lot of the reviewers completely missed the point. A lot of the reviews talked about how it was lacksadaisical, had no good resolution, left them feeling unsatisfied... well, duh! That's the whole point! The message was primarly about getting involved, and as such it was reflective of a society that doesn't currently value that. I thought it was well done.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 07:42 AM) It was a big campaign issue. We like our Presidents old, white, and Protestant. With Kennedy, the Pope was going to open a branch office in the West Wing. Many people, and not just the "wackos" believed that Kennedy would have a higher power, the Pope, than his responsibilities as President. That is push came to shove, he would take the interests of his Church over the interests of the Country. Remember, no Catholic had been elected President at that point. Here is the speech that many believe turned the tide and allowed him to get past this issue. This issue was strongest in the south and Kennedy meeting these Ministers on their turf was huge. http://www.quotedb.com/speeches/greater-ho...ial-association The man could speak. Some of this is probably frame of reference, but Catholicism is not viewed on equal footing by mainstream Christianity. Remember the Protestant religions are protesting something, and that something is Catholicism. There are theological differences, and the most fanatical will tell you that Catholics are going to hell for their beliefs. So graphically it's something like this Protestants ---------------> Catholics -----> Mormons Sometimes I'm not certain where to fit in Jews and sadly, why even bother with thinking about any other religious or non religious beliefs? One final note, let's remember that he barely won. He probably has much in common with Bush '00. Thank Chicago and the Dem Machine. IIRC he barely won Illinois, by around 5,000 votes but won Chicago by close to 500,000. I understand a parallel of sorts, but I think its on a very different scale.

I think YAS had it right earlier when he said that the school board should have say in the curriculum. And if the parents dislike the curriculum, they can express it to the board. If the board doesn't act in the interests of the parents, then vote them out. One other thing - there can be an opposite extreme here. For example... I happen to know a teacher in the Chicago Public Schools, who teaches older and also honors-level English classes. They got a large chunk of money from a Gates Foundation grant, which has been a help. Unfortunately, the Gates money comes with a very stringent curriculum as a condition. The choices of what books to teach leave zero room for flexiblity at a given school or for a given teacher. And apparently, some of the choices are odd. For example, for "American Literature", one of the required books is Into the Wild. Now, I happened to like that book a lot, but... is that really even in the vicinity of classic American literature? Its more like journalism to me. Anyway, point is, teachers should have guidelines and requirements, but also some flexibility. School boards should have the authority to step in to make changes. And parents should stay involved and informed, and use the school board meetings and elections to mold change.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 11:37 AM) MacDougal's cheap, absolutely, but you aren't going to get much of anything for him. If KW is offering Sweeney for Qualls, and the Astros won't trade a good, but not great, reliever for a high reward prospect, what can the Sox expect for MacDougal? (That also does speak to the White Sox system; that, or Wade's crush on Costanzo. They'd rather trade their best reliever for Michael Bourn than trade a setup man with no guarantee of success (Qualls' K/9 in '07 was good, but it stands out, as he has never struck guys out at a good basis) for Sweeney. That, to me says, you are getting jacks*** for MacDougal) Point blank, I really don't think you should trade MacDougal unless it is the final piece of a deal; if you just trade him to get rid of him, you are almost assured of losing the deal. I agree he won't fetch much, but since its my opinion that he's below the performance value of most replacements, I'd think any return for him at all would be worth it.

Wassermann is successful because he has a lot of life on his pitches. Case in point - his GO/AO of 3.46 was among the best for relievers in all of baseball. Oh, and during his minor league career, his home run rate against was 1 HR for every 41 innings pitched. That's about 1 per season for a reliever in his role. Those numbers have little to do with delivery/deception or work ethic. It means his pitches have a lot of downward and/or angular motion. The fact that he has a goofy delivery and can hit 90 with it (unusual for a guy with that motion) are helpful, but they aren't going to result in that stat. Its easy to assume that weird delivery is his key when you see him pitch, but the stats say otherwise. Pitching in the Cell, having a pitcher who excels at jamming hitters and making them hit it on the ground is a very good fit.

A few Sox players did good in the AFL today... Getz 2-4, 2B, R (now hitting .281) Egbert: 5.0 IP, 1 H, 1 ER, 1 BB, 6 K (ERA now 3.26) Russell: 1.0 IP, K (ERA now 2.40) ---------------------- By the way, he didn't play today, but something nice to think about - Fernando Hernandez' line so far in the AFL: 11.2 IP, 4 H, 0 ER, 3 BB, 11 K, for a 0.60 WHIP, a .100 Avg Against and a perfect 0 ERA That's after his 2007 AA B-Ham campaign where he had a 3.06 ERA, 1.13 WHIP and 84 K's in 85 innings. In 2006, he had a 1.93 ERA, 1.25 WHIP and 81 K's in 65 innings for A+ W-S. He's 23, and probably headed for Charlotte in 2008. He was a 49th round (wow) selection in the 2002 draft, but signed with the Sox in 2003 after playing a year of college ball. The only "hitch" in his development was a lousy 2005 with W-S, after having pretty good 2003 and 2004 campaigns at GF and Kanny. Other than that 2005 year, does anyone know why this guy seems not to be mentioned among the system's relief prospects? Does anyone know more about this guy, like stuff, velocity, etc.? He's got an AAP page, but its just the introductory stuff.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 04:37 PM) He said if he loses in the primary he won't run as an independent. He had said he would go back to congress if he doesn't get the nomination. He also stated he will not endorse the GOP nominee if he doesn't agree with their policies. Oh he did? I didn't know that. Well, then he's just a novelty, I guess. Unless he puts together an impressive run. He'd need to be Top 3 in Iowa at least, to stay alive for a shot.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 04:34 PM) Catholic + 45 years = Mormom?? You lost me. You mean Romney's Mormonism today is seen in the same light as Kennedy's Catholocism in 1960? I don't think so. Even in the 60's, I doubt much of the population saw Catholics as a cult. If they did, Kennedy wouldn't have gotten the votes he did.

Wasn't sure where to put this, but I know how much the conservatives love to make fun of Chavez's rants, so... Hugo Chavez called former Spanish Prime Minister Aznar (the one previous to the current one, who supported Bush in the war on terror) a fascist, and a snake. His comments were so insulting that even the current far-left Spanish PM, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, scolded Chavez. And the best part? The King of Spain told Chavez to sit down and "shut up".

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 04:23 PM) you also have the Ron Paul supporting, more libertarian type GOP voter. Sure. That's a small but growing group. I think a lot of the fiscal conservatives, disillusioned with the party going a little too far with the crusading bent, are attracted to the idea of a Ron Paul type candidate. If he decides to run in the national as an independent, he could really screw the GOP's chances.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 02:54 PM) Depending on what you're trading him for, I could get into that. If you can get a good return, sure...but the calculation you have to do is MMac on one side with his higher risk but affordable contract and on the other side maybe going 4/$20 for someone like Linebrink and having whatever you got for MMac. Now, that might make sense if you get back a good return or if you can find another reliever somewhere cheaper than that, but I really don't see that many right now. I guess I'm more willing to go the gambling route based on cheap contracts for Thornton, Logan and Wassermann than I am for Mac. You are taking a chance with all of them of course - I just think MacD has show he is less consistent, and more likely to fold like a lawn chair under pressure, than the others.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 03:03 PM) Hey Admin, ever check out all the threads D'OH!

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 03:09 PM) Obviously this is a "we'll see what happens" type thing. I know CNN was really pushing the "party schism thing" for a while, but they don't know what they're talking about. That would be the equivalent to going to Bill O'reilly or Sean Hannity to get the inside scoop on the Dems. A supreme court nominee is a big issue with the religious right people, and Giuliani will give them more of what they want than Clinton. And they see Giuliani as the guy who can win. Oh, and you're right about Romney, they won't vote for him because he is Mormon. They see that religion as a cult. Just so you know, I'm not basing my knowledge on CNN's opinions. I think the party's division is clear from the decisions, votes and candidates. That isn't to say the Dems are some model of unity either - they are actually much more fragmented than the GOP. But its less of a 2-group thing there, and more of a lot of gray.