NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 02:07 PM) I never get the logic of putting your worst hitter leadoff because he's resembles somewhat of a leadoff hitter. You want to give the most plate appearances to your worst hitter? That makes no sense. Why not just bat them 9th, move everyone else up a spot, and give the most PA to a good hitter? Afterall, the only inning that they truly are a leadoff batter is the 1st. If you don't have a true and quality leadoff hitter, don't force it. Hunter leading off the game is a hell of a lot more dangerous than Richar, and ultimately will create more runs over the course of the season. 1. I don't think Richar would be the worst hitter in that lineup. Uribe would be. I think Richar can be a reasonably high OBP guy, which is what I'd want in a leadoff hitter more than anything else. 2. The whole point of my posts about this, as I stated, were that there was no real leadoff hitter in there. Did you miss that part? 3. You would put Hunter there? And who at #2? I don't think Hunter is a bad idea there, mind you.

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 12:56 PM) More: misuse of apostrophes. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "Give Thank's to God." fans of sports that suck: hockey/lacrosse/cricket/curling. 9-11 conspiracy believers. regional codes for DVDs. People that repeat what a character in a movie has just said - IN THE THEATRE. misuse of the word literally (actually I love it-it's so funny) - heard a radio host say "This team has no quarterback. They LITERALLY have no quarterback." How is that even possible? Speed limits. Parking meters. Jesus fish on people's cars. People who go WAY out of their way to avoid walking by me when I'm walking my pitbull. What's he gonna do - not like how you walk and just attack? Nevermind the fact that he's a total pussycat. That's enough for now. 2 things... 1. You may know your dog is harmless, but no one else does. And frankly, I've seen a number of dogs, including pit bulls, go off on people randomly walking past them on the street. So yes, in fact, some dogs might do exactly that. Probably 98% of them won't of course, but if someone's been lunged at or attacked before, why on earth would they take the chance again? I think you are missing the perspective here. 2. I completely agree on the use of "literally". One of the most misused words in American English.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 01:36 PM) Oil has gone up what, 25% in the last couple months, from the $70's to $100? That's the kind of thing that eventually has to trickle through, and it's going to hit the products people buy. The question is going to be the scale of it, and I don't think anyone has a clue where the ceiling will be in that market right now. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 01:36 PM) Actually if you really want to look at it, we are in a general capital commodity based inflation right now. It isn't just energy stuff. Metals are at all time highs, energies are at all time highs, food stuffs are at multi-decade highs, lumber is at very high levels... These things touch everyday lives, so it is not like we are talking about a small portion of people or economy. I don't disagree that these are high impact areas. But I think maybe I should have noted that I don't believe that all these commodity prices will stay that high. I think agriculture, like any industry, will adjust. Animals will start being given more non-corn feed. Biofuel companies will push hard in other areas. The high price of corn will force alternatives. It doesn't happen right away of course, it takes time, especially in agriculture. But it will happen in 2008, and further in 2009. So I don't think all these prices stay as high. And you are not looking at the demand side of the equation. People will start being more price-conscious than they have been in shopping for food. People will also pull back spending on travel and other areas, further reducing upward price movement. I just don't see the dynamics here encouraging out of control inflation. I see it being a little high, 3 or 4% maybe with perhaps an occasional spike worse, but even those trends will only last a few years at worst (barring some new dynamics coming into play that I can't anticipate yet).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 01:31 PM) But here's the one thing that bothers me about the people who only look at the "Core CPI", the part of it excluding energy and food...that's like 50-60% of my non-rent expenditures each month (and rent's been going up slowly also). The price of corn is going up in no small part because the price of oil is going up and the price of oil is going up in no small part because the dollar is in collapse mode. It's sometimes a useful exercise to look for inflation in the part outside the CPI, but right now, the part of the market that is going to be the hardest hit by inflation is the core part...energy and food, and there is not a soul in this country who won't be hit by that (it won't matter for some but it'll still hit them). Oh I agree we will get some inflation, more so than the 1 to 2% we've seen since the early 90's. But I am thinking more like 3 or 4%, or even 5%. Not 10 or 12% craziness like the late 70's and early 80's.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 01:23 PM) I'm a very good shopper so I've been able to overcome it, but I must say at least for me, I've seen a lot of prices at the grocery store going way, way up in the last year. I'd say that in the last year and a half, the amount I pay for Milk has gone up 75%, OJ has gone up 25%, soft drinks about 20-25%, eggs 20%, and on and on. (OJ by the way is a unique one, as it went up when much of the CA crop was lost in a freeze). I mean, if nothing else, I certainly feel like I'm paying a lot more for many of the items I buy than I did a year ago. Thus, as I pointed out, corn derivatives. Milk is up mostly because of the rise in price of feed corn. That rise in price is at least partially due to the ethanol trend. We are again back to the fact that ethanol might be a nice bridge, but its not a viable long term solution. Soft drinks and eggs, same thing. Corn-driven.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 01:20 PM) Well, one could argue that it's at least possibly related to climate change, but I'm not going to be the one doing that, as I've said in the past you can never link a particular event to a changing climate. What the drought in the SE does show is our way of treating the earth. THis drought has been building for a long, long, long time, and it's just been getting worse. But until right now, until the very very end, the states involved have taken essentially NO effort to plan for conservation. They literally will be running out of water in a couple months, but they just sort of assumed until the very end that everything would be fine, that there was no need to inconvenience people and ask them to conserve, that farmers could keep using the same amount they used beforehand, that there never needed to be a surplus. There's some level of arrogance in assuming that the climate for a region will never change, and that humanity can use it for whatever it wants because there are always systems in place to take care of things. These states could have acted a long, long time ago and bought themselves many more months, if not years of water, but instead, they're literally at a point where their only options are prayer and rain dances. OK, I see what you are getting at. I don't think that's the environmental situation, I think that's human arrogance. People in this country are spoiled rotten, and they seem to think that their water, electricity, clean air, etc. are boundless resources. They are not, of course. Its tough to get people to take on a conservationist mindset, unless, sadly, we have situations like this come up more often. It appears that much of this country's population won't conserve unless they are scared to death by some event(s).

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 01:14 PM) Why does it look like a down year? In the three seasons, he's posted OPS+' of 130, 101 and 101. He's already 33 years old and will turn 34 in the middle of 2008. And in this division, with good lefties up the wazoo, you need a competent platoon partner for a guy who doesn't have a chance versus lefties, and I don't consider 33 year old Pablo Ozuna to be that guy, especially coming off of an injury. Fair enough. I think Jenkins/Ozuna or Jenkins/Bourgeois (who seems to be able to play just about anywhere) are huge improvements over Owens, though. And can be had for less money than what the market may dictate in money or trade for something better.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 01:15 PM) I would say MAJOR inflation is coming. The worst thing to happen since the late 70's is when the fed just cut those rates in a period where prices are dramatically rising across the board for all goods, commodities, services, etc. Now, the counter argument is that all these cheap goods is what is offseting this - but it can't last forever. The time machine is about to stop. I'm not a typical doomer and gloomer when it comes to our economy, but the actions of the last 3-6 months have been a really, really bad sign. Wait... you aren't saying that prices are rising dramatically now, are you? Because it looks to me like, other than energy-related and corn products (and their derivatives), prices are staying very stable. I do think we'll see some inflation due to corn's ripple effect, and the price of oil. But I don't see it as being out of control. Those drops in rates are not suddenly going to flood the market with cash. People are too tenative about credit right now, and people includes business. I just don't see it being that bad in the near term. ETA: And I forgot, major factor here - demand will slow because of the credit crisis, and that will keep some prices down.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 01:11 PM) So, I think it's fairly obvious how bad some of the environmental situations have gotten when you start reading articles like this. While I agree that situations have gotten bad, I guess I don't see this drought as being a definite example. What's the connection? Overpopulation is an issues I suppose, brought on by humanity. But are you saying the drought is due to human environmental impact? I think that's a tough case to make specifically.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 01:04 PM) For cars inventory is a year to year thing. They build new models every year. Changing the platforms is a whole nother story. Theoretially, if hybrids were doubling each year, they should be able to start with the next model year, but unfortunately they are so antiquated and outdated in their business model, they do not have the flexibility that other countries have. It is especially bad because they can charge more for hybrids, so they could make a way bigger profit off of those, than they can on traditional models, the waiting lists are just missed chances. Yeah, the dealers hate it. They want more hybrids. For them, because of the demand, they can sell them all at sticker or even above (Talking to other buyers, I get the impression I was lucky to get sticker). And for those who get turned off by the wait, they often go find a hybrid elsewhere from another company. They don't all break down and get normal cars. So its a loss for the dealers too.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 01:01 PM) Meh, Jenkins is okay. He was league average with the bat last year, probably a little worse seeing that his OPS was slugging percentage heavy (.317 OBP). If you get Jenkins, you're still not done -- you need a platoon partner, and I don't consider Pablo Ozuna to be that guy. Looking at his career, 2007 looks like a down year to me. And I think he can be had for reasonable money. As far as platoon goes, I think playing Ozuna does fine, or Bourgeois. But I think you play Jenkins 5 or 6 days a week anyway. Ozuna plays 1 game a week at LF, 1 at 2B.

If we did pick up Jenkins and Hunter for LF and CF, that makes for a serious lineup of hitters, but... no real leadoff guy, unless it was Richar. Then you'd have... Richar/Ozuna/Bourgoeis (platoon 2 of them) Hunter Thome Konerko Dye Jenkins Fields Pierzynski Uribe Lots of power there, tons of homers. But a lot of K's too.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 12:53 PM) No it's not. Your scenario has Jerry Owens in LF, and there's not a chance in hell Owens hits well enough for a LFer. It's already looking like we're going to be carrying one offensive black hole in Uribe, you can't carry another, especially in LF. Gotta get somebody who can hit the f***ing ball in LF, no more of this slap-hitter crap. *cough* Jenkins *cough*

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 12:45 PM) Where would Hunter hit in an order that includes Thome, Konerko, Dye and Fields? If the Sox added Scott they'd have 3 lefties in the lineup but it would be pretty much impossible to avoid batting 2 of them back to back. Scott Fields Thome Konerko Dye Hunter Pierzynski Uribe Richar I don't think Fields is really a 2-hole hitter, despite what Ozzie seems to think. You might want to consider putting Hunter in the 2-spot, actually, flipping him with Fields. But really, no one in that lineup is an ideal #2 hitter.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 11:13 AM) Big oil is not going to lose money producing energy. With our system of open roads and suburban homes, we need to drive. They'll either just raise fuel prices to cover the increased costs, or come up with something else they can overcharge us for. They'll over charge us, no doubt. Just for other things, eventually. I am hoping that another aspect to the alternative energy movement is that it results in diversification - that would help to foster more competition and better market conditions.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 11:09 AM) Just wait and see, NSS. It been happening for decades and I don't see it changing soon. You do make very good points, I'll give you that. But history speaks volumes my friend. Don't forget that. You may be right. But history also shows us that even those business oligopolies that seem most impenetrable, eventually fall. It may take a long time, and the market forces need to be profound... but it happens. Look at the US auto makers, for example. They didn't let much else in for a long time, and they laughed at the pathetic little Japanese companies who entered the market in the 70's. Now look at where that industry is - Toyota is now the #1 car seller in the United States. Things do change. Just a matter of when and how. And then, of course, they repeat themselves later, in some other industry or place or time.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:57 AM) You have more faith in the open market than I do. Personally, I believe the market is all controlled and if someone comes up with an extremely cheap alternative way of producing energy one of two things happen. 1. They sell out to big oil and the new source of energy is quashed due to patent rights. 2. Or ... they die. Then why do hybrid sales double every year (or nearly so)? And why do companies like LG and Kyocera (not American companies, by the way) keep selling more and more solar panels? Shouldn't oil have bought them by now? I do see what you are saying, and I agree that they are doing things like that already. The larger scale, higher cost of entry stuff like wind power, geothermal, etc., they own a lot of the patents for. And those markets have too wide a moat for little guys to get in. But all these other areas, other players are already in it. And not just a few, and in some cases, they are larger corporations, just not oil corporations. I think the market is too big globally even for big oil to effectively squash all these changes. They'll try, no doubt, and that will slow it down, costing us all trillions of dollars and more than a few environmental problems. But ultimately, the market is just too big and too powerful now, in my view, for them to really stop it.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:59 AM) IF big oil is able to crossover to big energy, then maybe. But at $100 a barrel, big oil is going to continue the status quo as long as possible. Oh I agree, they'll have a death grip on it. And they should, from a business point of view. But that won't stop people like me from putting solar panels up and buying hybrids. And further, there are more of that version of "me" than there were, and that number goes up every time oil goes up. More money for companies that make those alternative technologies, not to mention bringing the cost of production down. Big oil will want to play in that space too.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:46 AM) I agree, he didn't rebuild. He rebuilt in place. What were Danks and Masset? Danks was acqquired as the future starter, whereas Masset was the potential fireball reliever for the 2007 team. What were Gonzalez and Floyd? Gonzalez was acquired as the future starter, whereas Floyd was the potential 5th starter for the 2007 team. Floyd and Danks are a good point, they were competing for 1 slot though. I guess it depends on what you call rebuilding.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:52 AM) I have to say that you make some very good points. Yet, history teaches me that no matter what is discovered that puts big oil at risk has not been allowed to flourish. We'll have to see, but I'm betting big oil wins out in the long run. I'm betting big oil holds on as hard as they can, but I'm also betting that the free market economies in this and other countries force the issue. And mind you, big oil is OK with that in the long run - they just become big energy instead of big oil. Oil is more profitable, but once its obvious that people are buying hybrids and putting solar panels on their homes, they'll see the writing on the wall - because at some point in that demand rise, it will actually become MORE profitable to provide alternatives.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:40 AM) Honestly, I don't know about the financial aspects of this. But it just seems like every time I hear of a good idea that really makes sense for alternative energy sources, that's the last I ever hear about it. I don't know much about the details of the following, because I was very young or not conceived yet, but I' have heard some of the elders in my life talk about the Tucker car and a carborater the would keep 100 mpg back in WWII. The oil companies and their cronies seem to be able to quash any kind of advancement that would reduce the need for oil out of the equation. Corn based biofuels, wind power, solar power ... those are what they put up as 'alternatives' but realistically they aren't serious alternatives for anything. They use enviromentalists to quash nuclear power alternatives and to also keep use from building refineries and drilling for oil in Alaska or off the Florida coast. So that leaves us with Middle East or Russian oil and natural gas. In other words, stuck in the status quo. I think we WERE stuck in the status quo. Gas was still too cheap, and so was energy, to motivate the markets. Now that is no longer the case, and that to me is the tipping point in all this. Plain old pocket money. People are tired of paying what they are paying. And I think solar, wind and other energies are in fact very realistic. For solar, the big use won't be giant fields of panels - it will be distributed use. People will put them on their homes, which will give them some, most or all their energy needs. Its like the chained super computers. spread it out, the impact is small individually, but as a whole does huge changes.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:48 AM) Yeah, I agree, the shortage of these vehicles is artificial and unnecessary - a way to spike demand and price them at a premium. Yes, but, the shortage is all there really will be. They'll give the market enough cars to make lots of money, but not strangle it or artificially over-price it too much, for the reasons I specified in the other post.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:43 AM) And as demand increases, they'll raise the price of hybrids to where it no longer makes sense to go that route, keeping the oil companies well oiled, so to speak. I'd disagree, for a few reasons. One, as with virtually all new technologies, the cost of production will decrease over time. Two, car companies are starving for money, and they will want to be competitive, which will mean hybrids, fuel cells, electric cars, etc. Three, the Japanese companies, who are leaders in this area, are already well on the way to the next gen hybrids, so they don't seem phazed by big oil. And the American companies will have no choice, if they want to survive, but to compete. Fourth and finally, if the car industry makes the prices too ridiculously high, you will embolden an already-existing cottage after-market industry for converting cars to hybrids. That ultimately takes money out of the pockets of the big car companies, and they won't have that. I think that there are too many forces at work here against the car companies squashing these technologies. People want it too much. That wasn't true 10 years ago, but it sure is now.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:33 AM) The other problem the White Sox have right now is a lot of their tradeable pieces are currently in a sell low state. That's definitely a big factor, I think. Makes it hard to have a "fire sale", even if they wanted to. Better maybe to move one or two older pieces now, and one or two more at the deadline in 2008's season if the team is out of it.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:31 AM) He tried rebuilding in place last season and it didn't turn out too well. If Williams believes the White Sox stand a chance in 2008 (which I can't possibly believe), then I hope we finish with the worst record in the league. We've been over this issue before concerning draft position. If finishing poorly two straight seasons is finally the push required for Williams to see what you, I, and numerous Sox fans see than so be it. If it takes until 2011 to reach the playoffs, I'll accept that as well. It's just, from my perspective, 2008 will be looked at in the same regard as 2001 and 2002 -- completely useless. Remember, this isn't a young team. Does finishing .500 really prove anything? Especially when the consider the status of several key components of our team, and how they'll either be near the end of their contracts (Thome, Konerko, Pierzynski, Garland) or possibly injured (Thome, Dye) with no immediate replacements in sight. Carter and DLS better not slow down their ascent to the majors one bit. And I still believe at some point within the next several seasons Williams needs atleast one trade which heavily favors our ballclub. A trade in which several major league calibur prospects return. No, one step backwards, one and half step forward type deals such as those concerning McCarthy. Or Vazquez. We can't have any more deals where we're weakening certain areas of our ballclub to improve others, or in the case of Danks/Masset/Rasner, marginally improve. If at that. As to the bolded above, no, no he didn't. There was no attempt at rebuilding. There was only injuries and hole-plugging call-ups. The fact that we saw Fields, Owens and Richar was due to Crede and outfielders' injuries, plus the fact that the team was going nowhere, so why not? That is not rebuilding.