NorthSideSox72

Just to keep the ring open, various articles point to the Rockies as also being potential players for Jon Garland.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 04:52 PM) He hit .287 in July, .229 in August. He is a 4th OF at best. He'll be 27 years old on opening day. He's only 15 months younger than Coco Crisp. Its not like he's some 21 or 22 year old destined to improve.As of now he is a 1 month abberration. Without September, everyone would agree he sucks. Take it any way you'd like. He has a record of continuous improvement at every level, including the major league level. Owens is not my first choice for starting in CF, believe me. But your bizarre idea that any of us who even hint that he might be a major league player is akin to us thinking he'll hit .340 is pretty ridiculous. Especially when you then ask in another post, how come there is no doubt? Its clear that with Owens you decided long ago what he was capable of, and now have a death grip on defending that opinion. That makes it utterly pointless to discuss it with you, so, I guess I give up. I hope we end up with someone better than Owens in CF. I just don't think that list is quite as long as others do.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Nov 4, 2007 -> 01:57 AM) I have no interest in AG, but I can relate to what you're saying. I might be the only perosn I know who doesn't love 'The Departed' and it largely has to do with Leo DiCrapio. I can't for one second see him as anything even remotely close to a bad ass. I agree on The Departed, I thought that was a wildly overrated movie. I think people just assumed it was great based on the director. But I saw American Gangster last night, and I have to say, I really enjoyed it. Crowe did indeed carry that role pretty well. Definitely recommended. Now that I finally won a coin toss with my wife for who picks the movie, Into the Wild is now out of the theatres nearby. I'll have to go try to catch it this week while travelling.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 05:30 PM) On August 31st, Jerry Owens was hitting .239 with a .597 OPS. He had a nice September, but he's not very good. Using your logic, he's pretty much a lock to hit .340, so why trade or sign anyone. Even Ozzie said if your not in contention, don't believe what you see in September. As usual, a discussion of JO can't be had without someone pointing to September and saying he's great, followed by someone pointing out his his June-August saying he's not. How about some solid overall perspective? Like the fact that after he got called up in early July, he improved each month in the majors? He was better in July (far better) than his early season callup... his August was better than that... and his Septmber was the best of them all. Owens showed surprisingly good performance in 2007. That doesn't mean he's going to be the next Rickey Henderson, but it also doesn't mean that he was some sort of one-month aberration either. He may turn out to be an OK player yet, especially if he can develop a little power (at least some gap power anyway).

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 03:57 PM) Hammer Time? I figured he meant himself. Or YASNY.

QUOTE(Nokona @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 02:21 PM) I seem to have forgotten when he got caught using steroids... Kind of like when he forgot what the cream and the clear were?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 02:32 PM) First poll numbers are showing a Hillary bump, post-debate. But there's definitely new life and momentum from the opposition. Where might I find those polls? I don't see any on the big board yet.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 02:26 PM) Gload isn't a free agent. Mack then, or similar. Maybe they'd take MacDougal back in exchange for Gload.

OK, I'll throw my ideas in here... --Buyout Uribe and let him go. --No contract for Pods, he can go too. --Trade Garland for Furcal plus either a little cash or a prospect. --Sign Rowand or Hunter ideally, or maybe DeJesus or Crisp if necessary. Owens should be the backup plan to those. --Give Bourgeois a shot at the 2B job in ST, open competition with Richar, and the loser gets the middle infield bench role. --If you can get something good for Crede in trade (preferably prospects or bullpen help), now or in ST, then do that. --Also if that happens, sign Geoff Jenkins to play LF, move Fields to 3B --Sign Mack or Gload or a similar player to backup 1B, corner OF and bring a decent bat to the bench --Trade MacD if you can get something good for him Now your 2008 team looks like this... Lineup: 1. Furcal, SS 2. Rowand/Hunter, CF 3. Thome, DH 4. Konerko, 1B 5. Dye, RF 6. Crede, 3B --OR-- Jenkins, LF 7. Fields, LF --OR-- 3B 8. Pierzynski 9. Richar/Bourgeois, 2B Bench: Hall, C Ozuna, LF-3B-PR/PH Other of Richar/Bourgeois, 2B-SS Owens, OF Mackowiak/Gload/???, LF-RF-1B Rotation: Buehrle Vaz Conteras Danks/Floyd/Gio/Egbert/Broadway Danks/Floyd/Gio/Egbert/Broadway Bullpen: Jenks Wassermann Logan Broadway/Danks/Floyd (whichever doesn't make it as the starter) Broadway/Danks/Floyd (whichever doesn't make it as the starter) *One of the young fireballers (Day, Russell, Aadrsma, Hernandez, etc.) Which gives you a salary in the ballpark of $112M, give or take (depends on if there is cash offsetting Furcal, Jenkins' cost, a few small ones). Last year was about $103M.

The Newark Star-Ledger seems to think the Sox might non-tender Crede. I find that highly unlikely, but there you go.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 12:03 PM) Let's hope so. And, yes, of late, a couple of Bush handlers have noted that as he begins to think more about his legacy he is trying to paint himself as having been pro-environment. His record of failure belies that assertion, certainly, but I guess he figures this might be the only thing he can spin into some sort of a positive from a legacy standpoint. Well, he did protect that huge area in the Pacific. Other than that, he's been a downright awful President on the environment. Wouldn't it be ironic if, at the end of his term, he did a bunch of environmental protection moves? Ironic because among his first things he did in office was to stay or remove all of Clinton's XO's along those same lines that he had done at the end of his Presidency.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 11:53 AM) Because the Syrians could have shot down our plane, recovered the bomb, and then we could proclaim without lying that Syria has nuclear weapons and must be stopped. Do I need green? Did you ever read The Sum of All Fears? Clancy at his best, before he went over the edge. Similar premise, in some ways - not so much the conspiracy stuff though.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 11:49 AM) As, expected, the president vetoed the enormously important (if costly) Water Resources Development Act despite strong support from both houses of Congress (House passed it 381-40 and Senate passed 81-12). Lawmakers say they have the votes to override the veto, but they said that about S-CHIP too. The Everglades restoration project is going to die if the veto stands, as are critical projects in coastal Louisiana and the Gulf coast, in the Great lakes, and in the Mississippi River. How Mr. Bush can try to posture himself as being at environmental president while vetoing this crucial measure is completely beyond me. Does he even bother trying to say he is an environmental President? Anyway, unlike SCHIP, those votes are seriously, heavily against him. SCHIP didn't have a veto-proof majority - this one looks like it does. I think we're about to see the first veto override of this Presidency.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 11:30 AM) Are you saying play Fields at SS? I assumed he meant Furcal at SS, and that was a typo.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 11:20 AM) I think it is misleading to say the weapons were on the plane, vs. the weapons were actually used. There is a slight semantics issue here. I didn't read that tactical nukes were used, only carried on the plane. Nonetheless, it's pretty bad to mislead like that. I agree - we would know it if a nuclear weapon was used. They wouldn't have been carrying them either. You don't use tactical nukes defensively, only strategically, so... why bring them if you aren't using them? The claim simply makes no sense.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 11:27 AM) Right now, I'll live with an OF of Fields, Owens, Dye, if Crede is at 3rd base and actually healthy. We've got a small, non-difficult OF, that won't be the thing that kills us, esp. with the way our pitchers tend to produce ground balls. I'm far more interested in that IF defense, which would look like Crede, Fields, Richar, Konerko, which to me looks really good. But of course, if a deal where Mr. Crede goes somewhere and actually nets us something is available, we have to take it since he'd be walking next year no matter what, and then we do need 1 more OF. If we do hold onto Crede, I think it's going to be just as easy to find a LF next offseason as this one. OK, so if we keep Crede, then forget Jenkins and keep Fields in LF, and its... Owens Furcal Thome Konerko Dye Crede Pierzynksi Fields Richar/Bourgeois I could also live with that lineup. Its just Crede instead of Jenkins basically - the trade off comes down to, do you want defensive weakness at 3B or LF?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 09:56 PM) Given how bad Hillary's debate performance was this week, a lot of things in this race changed. Excellent.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 11:09 AM) I want a Furcal/Hu for Garland swap. If you don't think that's even...then make it even by having the Dodgers include some of the money if they send along Furcal or stick in a minor league pitcher or something. If we put Owens in the OF next year, a top of the order of Owens, Furcal, Thome, Konerko, Dye, Fields, and so on looks incredibly good to me. Even if Furcal has a down year, you've still got good OBP and great speed in front of Jim, you've got L/R balance (because Furcal hits lefties quite well). It fills that SS hole, keeps solid IF defense, clears a starting rotation spot, and if we're smart sets us up with a SS for a couple years (because hopefully we'd take a stab at signing him). At worst, it sets us up for 08 at that spot. I agree, but I still think you need to have another OF in the mix. I'd love to see a Garland for Furcal+ deal, trade Crede for someone like Betemit if you can, and sign Jenkins to play LF (moving Fields back to 3B). I'd also like to see Bourgeois make the team as the back middle IF and CF, and challenge Richar for the starting 2B slot. So your lineup becomes: Owens, CF Furcal, SS Thome, DH Konerko, 1B Dye, RF Jenkins, LF Fields, 3B Pierzynski, C Richar/Bourgeois, 2B That gives Ozzie the speed he wants (that's three slots in the lineup that are capable of stealing 20 bases), but more importantly increases the team's OBP and its a lineup that still has some pop. Plus, having essentially replaced Crede with Jenkins in the lineup, whose salaries would be similar, and trading Garland, you have some money to spare for the bullpen.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 10:42 AM) Its just like anything in investing... Only risk money you can afford to lose. Secondly, recognizing the trend is the important thing. If you try to be exact about things, odds are you will miss the upswing. Real Estate is the one thing we can't create more of as an investment opportunity. It might dip for a while, but it will be back. You can protect yourself against a short term capital paper loss with a fixed loan, and not planning on selling short term. That's pretty much what I'm saying. If you can afford to buy real estate, on a fixed-interest instrument, and with a fair amount of equity cushion... then it looks like a pretty good time to buy, to me.

I find it highly unlikely that US planes were involved, or that a nuclear device was used by either the US or Israel. Those would be idiotic decisions. I am sure the US probably helped support the mission, but not the aircraft. And I agree, this was a good move.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 10:00 AM) I am sure you have heard the wise old trading saying... "Those who pick bottoms, get s*** on their fingers." That is, of course, the flipside. But looking at how real estate has performed in this country historically, any sort of real downturn is very unusual. I have a hard time imagining it will get a lot worse - maybe a little, though. And I have almost no doubt that even if it does fall further, that will only further entice opportunists, and we'll see that much steeper a recovery.

Trib reports on free agent status', Cora's competition, and that the Sox have hired a new minor league hitting instructor. People here wanted changes in the Sox organization... they seem to be getting their wish.

Thornton > Buehrle?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 06:21 AM) Question. I was just a little kid in the 70's so I don't know the answer. Did the overwhelming majority of scientists around the globe think that an ice age was on its way? The answer is yes, but the substance is no. If you look at the articles from back then, all they looked at was a few years' of data. That is of course nothing like the research being conveyed now, using eons' worth of information, not to mention a lot of things other than just temperature. But of course, the people in denial would rather point at a few idiots and say, "see, there is nothing there!"

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 01:54 PM) Eggy is disappointing me lately. Maybe some innings are catching up to him. I was wondering about that. He had a couple good outings, then his last couple he weakened a bit. Might be signs of fatigue. In any case, even with this outing, his numbers are still OK down there.