NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 07:00 PM) He's going to be 32 at the start of next year -- I would bet a large chunk of change that Konerko won't top 2006. Much as I like Paulie and hate that its true, I have to agree. Over the next 3 seasons, he'll probably be closer to 2007 numbers than 2006. Still a very good offensive weapon with good defense at 1B, but decreasing speed (if thats possible) and range, and not those gigantic All Star type seasons too often any more. So I would not be opposed to trading him for the right return.

Mesa beats Phoenix 7-3 on opening day. Sox players... Getz: 1-5, K Sweeney: 1-1, 3 BB, SF, RBI (as DH) Lucy: 1-1 Russell: 1.0 IP, 1 H, 0 R Day: 1.0 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 2 BB (got a Hold, but that's not a pretty inning)

Wake me up when this is confirmed by anyone other than B&B. Have to admit though, it does have KW written all over it, freeing up the money. Which could mean its true, or could mean that's why these guys came up with the idea.

Definitely go if you can, and report back here. Do we have a USSR flag smiley?

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 02:45 PM) Ass But yes, true. Hey, I dislike Barry intensely, but I still can't deny he has one hell of a bat. Still one of the best in baseball.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 02:38 PM) He's a fantastic baseball player hitter. Clarified.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 02:13 PM) I have a beard. I bet 17% fails in comparison to the amount of jobs I wouldn't be considered for simply because I have facial hair. Is that discrimination? I write on my resume that I'm a Sox fan. I bet I'd be denied by a ton of employers for that. Is that discrimination? You put that you are a Sox fan on your resume?

Aaaaaaaand we're closed.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 01:28 PM) I think this look at Egbert and Horne is informative as well. Egbert is a very fringe prospect. Odds are he would get ripped up good in the bigs. He just happens to be the Sox 3rd best prospect and so looks good in comparison to the rest of the system. That's not to say the Sox shouldn't give him a shot in the bullpen if he pitches well in spring training next season -- there's always a chance he can beat the odds. That may turn out to be true, but let's be clear - Egbert doesn't just look good compared the system. His results weren't against his teammates - he pitched pretty dominantly the last couple seasons, against OTHER teams. So he looks good in comparison to them, as well.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 01:20 PM) http://thebaseballcube.com/players/S/Andy-Sonnanstine.shtml What is your point? That sometimes rookies pitch badly? No surprise there - the guy is 24 and barely touched AAA. Or are you saying this guy is an analog for Egbert? I am not saying that success in the minors translates 100% to success in the majors. I am saying that you look at success AND tools/stuff/skills, but that the balance should tip more towards actual success as they player progresses to higher levels. I can provide all kinds of examples of players who fit this way of looking at things, as could you. It just comes down to this - every scout, and every organization, has a different idea of that scale. I tend to be more in agreement with those more towards the success side of the scale for players at later levels of development. Its not black and white, of course.

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 12:56 PM) I told people a month ago that the people in charge of scouting for Baseball America hate Egbert, as they think his stuff is nowhere near MLB caliber. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but I just thought you'd like to know what their reason is. This is kind of an example of what I was talking about. I understand in college and early minors where "stuff" or "tools" might be more indicative of future success than performance... but to me, that scale tips the other way as players mature and move up through the system. My question to people like these is, when does performance itself start to mean something? I mean, look at Eggy's numbers through the minors... not only has he excelled at every level, but his peripherals have actually gotten better as he faces tougher competition. Everything about his stats thus far says one thing - success. I really think that some of these folks come to a conclusion about a players tools and stuff waaaay early in their development, and then are so staked to their original perceptions, that they just won't be convinced otherwise no matter what. Its this arrogance that says "I refuse to acknowledge that some players may be successful for reasons I cannot easily understand". If they can't figure out WHY the player is good, they decide the player ISN'T good, because there is of course no possible way that maybe their measurements and evaluations may not be perfect. I'll take players that succeed at each level over Mr. Toolsy who disappoints statistically each year, every day and twice on Sunday.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 12:41 PM) Well damn then, I guess I'll have to drop my print media boycott and read it.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 12:32 PM) I asked what sources they had because I didn't read the article. I trust that you can offer a good synopsis of the article. If you wanted us to read it, why explain it? I just gave a precis. A teaser, if you will. I didn't really do the material any justice - just giving people an idea of what the article was about.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 12:12 PM) I didn't have time to read it. Plus, IIRC the Trib has a registration thingy. Thanks. I link to an article, you question the article, I clarify, and you tell me you didn't read the article?

No Eggy??? His 2007 wasn't a fluke, given that his 2006 season was also very, very good. Some of these picks on these lists are just bizarre. Seems like writers who specialize in evaluating prospects have a habit of relying far too much on their gut feelings on players, instead of seeing who is actually succeeding (and therefore, who is more likely to succeed later).

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 11:37 AM) That's good to know, but now how about when thousands of these things started getting crushed in the bottoms of landfills and start seeping into the water supply? Seriously Mercury? In this day and age? If the amount of mercury being polluted actually was a net increase due to those bulbs, I'd be right there upset with you. But as it will actually decrease, I'll take it. Now... one day in the future, if all the power generated for our homes (or most of it) is solar, wind, water or otherwise renewable energy-created, then we maybe need to re-evaluate. Hopefully by then, they will have been able to reduce the mercury substantially in them. I'm sure it will be decades before that energy pipe dream happens anyway, if ever.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 11:35 AM) Why don't you do it? internet message board warrior. That sounds like a good character for one of those beer commercials, where they highlight some odd hero, like "Mr. Taco Salad Maker" or "Mr. Giant Foam Finger Guy".

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 11:11 AM) Did the trib have any credible sources or is this some theory from a reporter? The source was right there in the story - its the insurgent leader that is interviewed. ???

Found some info... CFL mercury content has been capped at 6 mg for certain bulbs, 5 mg for others. Philips makes low-mercury ones, at 2mg. Interesting fact - the amount of extra mercury emitted from coal power plants to power a conventional lightbulb over a CFL is far more than the amount of mercury actually in a CFL bulb. Here is an electrical manufacturing association website (companies who make bulbs of ALL types) about CFL mercury caps. Here is the EPA info on what to do if you break one - doesn't sound any different than if you drop a thermometer or a battery starts leaking or the like. Here is an NPR story on the mercury in the bulbs, and the danger associated with it. They ultimately result in much lower mercury emissions in total, but its key you recycle them, or else risk putting trash workers at risk. And finally, Snopes does a little investigating on the risk level. Hope that helps! Ultimately, the very small risk involved is far outweighed by the positives for myself or my family, so it wouldn't stop me from using them.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 11:01 AM) So why aren't the new lightbulbs being pushed so hard clearly warned about having mercury in them? Having a 2 year old and another one on the way, I don't think I feel the same about having them in my house now. All it takes is one dropped bulb to be exposed, correct? http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/...1008160623.aspx The amount of mercury in those things is super-tiny. From what I read, its such a small amount that it pales in comparison to other things in your house. But I do not recall now where I read that. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this can shed some more light.

Very interesting article in today's Trib about the insurgency, and why the violence saw a sudden downturn recently. There is good news and bad news. The good news is, these insurgent groups are starting to think like political factions instead of just warring tribes. Further, they are seriously considering aligning themselves more with the U.S. The bad news though, is that its a temporary freeze in action, not anything due to the gains the military claims were gotten due to the "surge". Also bad, the freeze is under the expectation that the US will start materially pulling out troops, AND let former and current insurgent groups be part of the government. So there is an opening there, but it seems that opening leads to another dead end.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Oct 8, 2007 -> 01:36 PM) The only thing TBS has done wrong is the overkill of the Frank TV commercials. That. Also, Big Frank needs some work, he was pretty awkward. But I have to say I was impressed by Granderson - he had the presence and the smoothness of someone who had been there before.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 08:00 AM) that's a great thought and exactly why it won't happen. I would love to see a President have the guts to do one thing specifically, that would help people who really, really need it, who this country has collectively shat upon for decades, but who are a politically irrelevant group... American Indians. The reservation system, the B.I.A. and the rest of our treatment of them continue to be an embarrassment. But because they rarely vote, have no money and have near-zero political influence, they are left to rot. I would love to see someone in power actually do some things to make their situation better.

With all the talk about Jeter and A-Rod, what is being missed is that Cleveland was and is just a better baseball team.