NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(NUKE @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 10:12 PM) What I find really amusing is that all these people keep saying we're headed for recession when you have GDP growth approaching 4% for this quarter according to the latest read on it that was out today. It doesn't seem as though the housing problem is hurting the economy as a whole with numbers like that. This is doubly remarkable in the face of the ongoing subprime mortgage mess and sky high energy prices. People have been predicting impending doom for the economy for months now and even though events say we should be slowing down, we're not. Keep in mind that GDP is a trailing indicator. Let's see where its at in 2008. But I do agree with you in general that the slowing in growth which IMO will occur, will not be massive. But it will happen, because it has to. People simply have much less money to spend. The only way to artificially prop up consumer spending at 2006 levels is if the consumer base decides to stretch themselves thin in their credit cards to the same extremes they did in home equity - and if that happens, we could see a much more precipitous correction further down the line.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 04:41 AM) I couldn't stand watching "An Inconvient truth." It was obnoxious to see Gore stroke his ego so much. What's so riveting about showing pictures of glaciers 20 years ago and now? Yeah you're right. It will be much more riveting to watch when 10's of millions of people in Bombay and Miami have to either flee the city or spend trillions of dollars to protect themselves from rising ocean levels. I do agree about Gore though. He's the least interesting part of the film.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 07:12 AM) Their is no one who does these jobs for a living unless they have some money in the bank or has another job that lets them work the odd hours. They are not full-time jobs and probably pay less than $4000 for the season. $50 a game is probably max. and even that may be high. These things are listed every year, and may not even be available. I know a number of people who string stats or do scoreboard work, etc., for a "living", while in school or elsewhere. And as I said, its a foot in the door. You missed the point.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 06:07 AM) The Sun Times is reporting KW will meet with Torii Hunter in the next week and he is the White Sox top priority. His best OBP in his career is .337 and he will cost $15 million a year. The article also mentions Eckstein and even says Eckstein could be added and Uribe's option could be picked up with Uribe playing second or third. It seems ridiculous to me if Eckstein and Uribe are both on the field that Eckstein would be the one playing SS and Uribe 2B. Uribe at 3rd? WTF? Like we don't have enough third basemen already? And I just don't believe that Ozzie and KW are stupid enough to play Eckstein at SS while Uribe is elsewhere on the field. That makes zero sense. I'm going to go read this article, but on the surface, this seems like B.S. to me (not from you DA, I mean the article).

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 04:36 AM) I bet these jobs don't pay s***. I did specifically say this was more oriented towards those just out of college. Its a way in the door in a very competitive field, which generally means lower pay. But thanks for the jab at those who do these things for a living. I am overwhelmed by the staggering profundity of your artfully crafted retort.

QUOTE(spiderman @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 09:13 PM) Why do you want Jenkins ? Because I think he can be had at a decent price, and he fills a need for us. He's a plus defending outfielder who can hit for power and put up an 800-ish OPS. If Crede is not healthy or is traded in ST, then Jenkins slips nicely into LF with Fields at 3B. Or if Crede stays but PK goes, Fields to 1B and Jenkins in LF. Or, and I don't know how possible this is, since Jenkins is a very good defensive LF, maybe he can play CF. Point is, depending on how the offseason and ST shake out, having an outfielder who can put up those numbers and play solid D would be huge - and he can probably be had for significantly less than Rowand, Hunter or other names being talked about for the outfield.

Just thought some of you folks, particularly those in journalism and/or just out of college, might want to check this out. The Sox are advertising for 3 jobs: Sports Reporter, Stats Stringer and Pitch F/X Tech. Good luck!

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 05:06 PM) I'm just a bit confused. I thought the housing meltdown had a bit to do with the fact that the housing craze made everything pretty overpriced in general and put a lot of people in a much more financially strapped position than they could afford to be in. As those people started to default on their houses, the mortgage market imploded which basically created a shortage of liquidity in the market? This doesn't seem to be an altogether bad thing - because the liquidity that was there caused big financial institutions to overstretch on housing, yes? So, although a drop in the Fed interest rate helps keeping the housing market from cooling too quickly, is it really doing the right thing in an economy headed for recession? Lower interest rates equals a weaker dollar. This would help our exporting, however with our manufacturing base shriveled, is that really a huge gain for us anymore? On the other hand, it helps boost energy costs, specifically the price of oil. This fuels inflation in food and energy - which seems to be the big problem for the most of us who don't have a ton of cash to throw around on 3.00+ a gallon gas and 4.00+ a gallon milk. So while prices for essentials for Americans increase, savings rates get further depressed because traditional means of savings are getting more and more pointless. Wouldn't this dampen the already weak American will for saving further? I just don't see how rate reductions at this point would be a good thing for the average American. I personally think the rate change, especially such a minimal one, isn't really good or bad in the net - its just a softening move. But I tend to be more or less a market naturalist. People make mistakes, they struggle to reset, and then get stronger again, hopefully making slightly smaller mistakes next time. In any case, the higher commodity and fuel prices will result in lower costs elsewhere over time.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 03:19 PM) 150k is not wealthy. And that is what Rangle is talking about. Tax people, find a rate and tax them. But its kind of funny that we have a sliding scale that the more you make, the more we can dig out of you. And then to add a surcharge, like a little bonus to take out of people its sad. Then you eliminate any items like as FICA caps at 97k, and some of the deductable items. Its nothing more than a shake down. I guess being a thief is okay when you dress up like Robin Hood and tell your voters in your district look I stole from the rich, you get free everything. Woo Hoo Socialism. Just curious... are you a proponent of a flat tax? Ala Steve Forbes? There are advantages to it of course. But you do realize that a flat tax is by nature somewhat regressive, because not all costs and spending are completely dynamic on scale. The cost curves for most things people spend on are not as steep as the tax curve, if you will.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 02:40 PM) Any time you put MORE money into the system by reducing rates, with already key inflation indicators starting to look unstable, you run the risk of blowing things right over the top. Sure. But look at the whole money picture, and remember that the amount of money in the system that is more liquid to the economy is a factor inflation as well. What I mean is, look at the housing boom and the cash-outs that occurred from 2002-2006. That was that equity, non-repeating cash you heard me harping about at the time. Even with all that cash being flung around, inflation was controlled. Now, you put a small margin more cash in the whole economy, BUT... with all the foreclosures and bankruptcies, a lot more of it is coming "off the table", if you will. Less money to be spent, less propellant for prices. Know what I mean?

So, Stephen has decided that the $35,000 price tag to register for the GOP primary in SC is too high a price. The Dems only charge about $3,000, so he's going to run only as a Dem. But... there is a catch. He has to be seen as viable nationally by the SC council who reviews the candidates (also needs to campaign in the state, but he has already done that). So basically, this council holds his candidacy in their hands. And they plan to decide tomorrow (Thursday) afternoon.

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 01:42 PM) No he's not.....his throwing arm makes him mediocre. He's already average or above average defensively in every area other than his arm, and he's still learning the position. Plus his arm will be a bit stronger next year, from what they are saying about some sort of injury. In 2008 he'd be a slightly above average defender overall, I'd suggest. Arm is important, but not nearly as important as jumps, reads and range.

And here we go again with the extremes on Owens. Kind of like we get with Crede. Reality is somewhere between... Owens has some advantages on Crisp - better base stealer, more range defensively, possibly higher future OBP's or at least on par, and of course by far most important - a 350k pricetag. But, Crisp is better than Owens in pretty much every other way, and that's a lot. I don't think there is much question that Crisp is a significant overall upgrade on Owens. The question is, is it an upgrade enough to be justified by the money? To me, as long as the Sox don't have to give away a prime prospect, he's worth it. $5M is still pretty cheap for what you get from Crisp, even if he is like he was the last two seasons. And he might, just might, improve to his CLE levels. Owens of course would improve over time, but his ceiling is I think still well below Crisp's ceiling, with the only exception being baserunning. This is coming from one of Owens' supporters - I am not opposed to him starting, depending on how the rest of the team looks - but Crisp is a significant improvement.

I know the sponsor-a-candidate thing kind of died out, but, I thought I'd add something out here anyway. The Trib has been doing profiles, one candidate at a time. 4 to 5 pages on the web. Nice pieces, showing the good and the bad. Richardson's is now up, so I am linking it in. If you want to see what makes him unique, its a good read. And you can go from there to the other candidates as well.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 12:35 PM) I'm telling you (like I said with the last rate cut) that we are about to see the 1970's inflation cycle all over again. OK, maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but 5%+ inflation will happen in about 18 months - and will it be a coincidence that Hillarity will have been in office for 3 months? I don't think so. This is a small move to counter the credit tightening, and I think ultimately the credit crunch slowly removing cash from the system will actually mitigate inflationary pressures. As bankruptcies and foreclosures increase, debts will be paid off partially, but because this economy is so debt-heavy, that will actually be something good for the debt levels. Plus decreasing home values will allow some new home buyers into the market. I do have two inflationary concerns other than the flow of money into the system, though: energy and food commodities. While we are making progress away from oil, its very slow going, and oil prices will continue to rise, as well as eventually gas prices. As for food commodities, the corn thing is starting to hit hard, and that will show up in the market basket for real costs to consumers. Its towards something positive, but short term, it hits hard. Diversification into switchgrass and other non-food green stuff to be used for fuel is essential.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 11:12 AM) The whole Carter thing just caught me off guard. The Red Sox pretty much have to trade Crisp this offseason, he still has a big chunk of $$$ remaining on his deal and he's been terrible since leaving Cleveland 3 years ago, there's no way he should cost the Sox Carter. I'd have no problem with KW bringing him in in exchange for a C prospect or two but he's not worth Carter. Exactly.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 11:15 AM) The top economist from the Soros foundation said that the fundamentals indicate oil should be around $65. Part of the problem with discussing "fundamentals" and oil is that there is not (contrary to what some people want you to believe) a definitive concensus on what makes up those fundamentals. Certainly your basic supply (oil out, refining capacity, transport capacity, storage capacity and current inventories) and demand (consumer, energy, US versus non-US) aspects are in play. Costs of production too. But here is the thing. Aren't regional political problems such a normal, expected thing now, that they should be considered fundamental? I think so. But how do you adjust price for such an unpredictable factor?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 10:12 AM) Well, Edwards has the potential benefit of having done this before, and Obama generally seems to have a motivated following, so in terms of ground games you might hypothetically think that they'd be in better shape than Hillarity. On the other hand though, Iowa seems to be moving its caucuses to January 3rd, and this is before Iowa's colleges will be back in session; hence, most of the students will be at home. And if they're registered at school, or they go to school out of state, then that could put a major dent in the ground game of those 2. And then there are dramatic complicating factors beyond that. For example, in 04, Dennis Kucinich actually got to play something of a kingmaker, because on the eve of the convention he told all of his supporters to caucus for Mr. Edwards instead of himself, and that may well have been enough in terms of people and momentum to push Edwards into 2nd place over Dean. With Kucinich in this race again, and Richardson and others hanging out at the back, there's still plenty of room for movement right up until the end. It's not that hard to imagine one of these folks sitting down with Gov. Richardson and promising him a VP slot if his people caucus for that other candidate and push that person over the top, for example. I think you are right about Richardson being in play right now for VP. He's at that 7 to 10% support level in IA and NH, which is exactly enough to make trouble, but also a really nice boost for any of the big 3. And I think Richardson has to know that he would need to finish top 2 in IA and NH to have a chance, which seems like an extreme longshot at this point. I mean, I hope he does it, but I don't see it. So, being the calculating guy he is, he's gotta be thinking VP. Thing is, he really would be an ideal VP candidate for Obama. He's really a statesman, with serious foreign policy experience, as well as executive experience, which Obama doesn't have. He's an experienced, calculated guy, as opposed to Obama's youth and vigor. He has energy policy experience. And again, that 5 to 10% following would sure be nice. But I am 90% sure that Clinton already made arrangements for a VP long ago, in Evan Bayh. Edwards, I am not sure what his thinking might be on a VP candidate.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 11:02 AM) Nothing that Crisp has done over the past 2 years makes me want. Whenever you're praying that a player "regains previous form" after sucking for 2 full seasons somethings not quite right there. If it's up to me I'm not trading away my top position prospect for a guy who's making over $5.5M a year and has been absolutely dreadful for the past 2 seasons. He doesn't steal many bases, doesn't hit for any power and hasn't gotten on base since 2005. I'm pretty sure KW can manage to find a low .700 OPS OF for less than Crisp would command (in terms of both $$$ and talent.) That's sort of what I was getting at - Carter is too much. Although I think he's better than Owens overall, I wouldn't want to give up Carter for him. A lower level prospect I might consider, though. But I think he should be a backup plan, kind of like Owens should be the same.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 10:45 AM) I just opened the latest Sports Illustrated and on page 32 Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus said the Red Sox will most definitley trade Coco Crisp and the White Sox seem like the likely candidate. It has Boston sending Crisp to the Sox for 1B Chris Carter. Carter was third in Class A Sally League with 25 homers. This seems like a KW type move to me... Crisp out in LF sounds good. If KW decides to bring Rowand back we would have one hell of a defensive outfield. Why put Crisp in LF? You'd put him in CF as far as I'm concerned. Carter is a pretty big price to pay, but Crisp would be a significant upgrade in CF. He is, in my view, slightly below Rowand in value - but he's relatively cheap at about $5.5M per year for 2 years (then an $8M option in 2010). And there is always the chance he might regain his Cleveland form. He''l be 28 on opening day, 30 in his option year, so he's not too old. Has some speed. I just hesitate with Carter. Konerko and Thome are getting old, and Carter looks like he might be the real deal to replace one of those two in a year or two. Seems like a shame to trade that away. Also, any online link? I'm curious if this is just spit-balling.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 10:01 AM) Well, this might put a damper on demand for his services as a FA this offseason. You know...if you test positive once, and get ordered counseling for it...you think you might be smart enough to actually have everything you're taking tested to see if anything you're taking is actually tainted. Unless, of course, you know, you're lying through your teeth. You know at this point, if I were in their shoes, I wouldn't take anything other than a multi-vitamin and advil. Just too risky to do anything else.

Further from the Trib. He is interviewing this week. Also, interestingly, the topic of replacement bench coaches includes Rene Lachemann. Don't worry about the last bullet at the end, this article was written prior to the Erstad/Myers announcement.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 08:46 AM) Way to aim high. Enjoy the overweight corkscrew swinging at pitches bounced in. I forget, Hawk tells people that he can carry the team. LOL I thought he meant that Uribe would be on the Orioles.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 08:47 AM) Because of the method of their caucus. It's not a traditional voting system. It is all about organization on the ground there and getting people to as many house parties as possible. Remember four years ago at this time, Kerry was dead in the water - and nobody was paying any attention to him nationally until the caucus day, when the media realized - oh s***, Kerry and Edwards have a good ground game and might actually win this thing. So, as far as you know, who has good ground games in Iowa?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 08:47 AM) - not really, I don't have time... but I did read it this morning for sure. Well this is interesting. Turns out the reason we have different numbers is that even the experts aren't sure what the correct number is.