NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 03:48 PM) Come on. I know he's your adopt-a-prospect but this is silly. There was no genuine reason to take Lucy over Suzuki and in your heart you know that. Was? I honestly wasn't following the draft closely at that time, so I don't know. Looking at the available data, I would probably have taken Suzuki. All I can do is look right now. Suzuki is ahead of Lucy offensively, both in time (by at least a year) and probably ceiling, in pretty much every area except speed. Lucy is ahead of Suzuki defensively by a similar margin. 2 years from now, I don't know for sure that Suzuki is better than Lucy in total package - I'm not convinced yet one way or the other. Something else to keep in mind is this - its easier to improve hitting than it is defense at this level. Suzuki is probably not a catcher in 5 years. Look at what he did this year: his CERA is higher than any qualifying catcher in baseball, his CS% is better than only one qualifying catcher (Estrada), and his 7 PB are more than most catchers even though he played half as many games. Now an argument can be made that, who cares about 5 years out? In the short run you get a productive offensive catcher. That is true, and will probably be more true for Suzuki than Lucy. I'm just saying its not as simple as some make it seem. Looking back a few years from now, its possible it will still look like the right move.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 03:27 PM) I responded with this already, isn't that spot on? When was the last non-Christian President? It was in my lifetime, but barely, that a Catholic was elected. And that was earth shattering with many people believing the Vatican would control the US. We like our Presidents Protestant. So I would say that most Americans vote for Christian candidates. And I guess it doesn't matter who McCain would vote for, he's only one vote, but who the American public will vote for. He's stating he will govern with Christian values, those same values are shared by non-Christians as well. You keep reverting to the question of whether or not the President is Christian, which is not what I am talking about. I could care less if the President is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, B'Hai or Santaria. That is not what I took issue with. See my quote, again, in bold from that post earlier. It has zero to do with the religion of the President. That fact that you keep making it about that just illustrates my point - It shouldn't matter one bit what the President's religion is. What matters is the recognition of religious plurality, freedoms, jurisprudence and history. I can't make it any more clear than that. The United States is NOT a Christian nation - it is a pluralistic society, as protected in the words of the Constitution, and has so hard fought by the founders of this nation. McCain's apparent lack of knowledge of this fact is disturbing to me.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 03:17 PM) And he later explained I guess I have to ask who is the atheist that is running? It's been a long time that a candidate hasn't cast his first vote with God when he runs. Again missing the point. Note that I said nothing about his other quote, where he said he'd want to vote for a Christian. I have zero problem with that. Stick to the other quote, the one I quoted again above. That is the one I take issue with.

Edwards pulls in $7M.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 03:06 PM) Not what he said, so that isn't an issue. Did you read his quote? He said, AND I QUOTE: the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation This has zero to do with media bias - I am dealing with what he said, what came out of his mouth. He's wrong on this one, and its indicative of a view that will not sit well with those of us who have no desire to see this country turned into a religious state.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 03:00 PM) Most Americans want someone like themselves to be President. I think if more people would read what he said than listen to the liberal media reporting what he said, this would not be an issue for him. I guess we know now how the liberal media is going to cover McCain, again. I expect the President to be more objective, and above allowing his/her biases to stand in the way of basic freedoms as guaranteed in the Constitution, as well as the consistent history of religious plurality and acceptance in the United States. If McCain thinks this was intended to be a nation of one religion, then he needs to go do some reading.

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 02:52 PM) Not enough bandwidth to continue. We're going to have to disagree I suppose. Actually, you make many good points, and American industry is far from blameless. I just see the period from 1973-1981 as crucial in American Economic History. I'm not alone (although in the minority) in my criticism of Paul Volcker and his predecessor Arthur Burns. Paul Craig Roberts and John Winthrop Wright were prominent critics of Volcker in the 80s. The Fed overreacted to inflation in the time period mentioned, and my part of the world suffered disproportionally. People, places, things not to mention whole industries often never fully recover from a trauma. Of all the major rust belt cities only Chicago is a semblance of its former self, and that's what it is, a semblance. Like I said, we're never going to agree on this, and I'd just as soon find something we do agree on, as I consider you a top notch internet poster. At least I won't get banned for disagreeing with you. Chicago has undergone a renaissance, beginning in the 80's, that has propelled it from being a run-of-the-mill midwestern industrial center to a world class city. It now consistently wins accolades globally for being one of the great cities to live, work and play in. To say it is a semblance of it former 1973 self is, quite honestly, the opposite of the demostrable truth.

Just when McCain looks like he is getting back in it, he manages to alienate moderates, Jews and assorted others by saying he believes the Constitution establishes the U.S. as a Christian nation. Oops. Not sure if he was just that stupid, or if this is a sacrifice play (giving up on moderates, Jews, etc., in favor of courting the right wingers). Either way, long run, it doesn't help him (though he may get a short-run boost from certain segments).

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 02:08 PM) "Probably a better hitter than Lucy will ever be" is selling it WAAAY short. Lucy hasn't produced at any minor league level. His career minor league line is .257/.332/.347. That's crap. It's even worse because Lucy was a college player and, as such, was never considered "young" (for a real prospect, anyways) for any level. If Soxfest didn't (now) cost a lung to attend, that might be the first question I'd ask in the Q&A. Talk about an absolute travesty of a decision. I think thats overly presumptious at this point. Let's see what Suzuki and Lucy can do in a full season. Suzuki put up OPS' in the low 800's for the heart of his minor league career full seasons (.818 at A+, .807 at AA - didn't play much AAA), which is roughly 80 points higher than Lucy at the same levels (.724, .733). Significant difference indeed, but neither of those sets of numbers indicates a hitter likely to be an offensive juggeraut at the major league level. Add into the equation defense (where Lucy is far superior, from what few stats and scouting reports I can find), and speed (Lucy was 13 of 14 this year in stolen base attempts, Suzuki didn't steal a single bag all year), and suddenly the gap narrows. Is superior defense and a little speed at catcher worth 80 points of OPS? Maybe, but its not definite thing. The one thing that Suzuki definitely did that Lucy did not was all about time - he is about a year ahead of Lucy in terms of development, give or take. And that definitely has big value. Lucy pays the price for playing behind Garko in college and for a hand injury in 2005, which has put him behind schedule. I am not saying Lucy is better than Suzuki, not at all. But to say that Suzuki was clearly the better choice, at this point, is premature and may turn out not to be the case.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 01:44 PM) I didn't read the whole thread but someone had to have pointed out that there was really no reason to extend him. We can wait for his last season and then sign him accordingly, depending on how he ages and whether or not his attitude holds up. I understand we have, at best, Henry Blanco in our system and so we have no future catcher but that doesn't mean we should sign him for two more years when there's really not a big reason to. None? I can understand some reasons not to, but to say there is no reason AT ALL to extend him is pretty short-sighted. When the market for catchers is as thin as it is, and when your system won't produce a major league starting-caliber catcher until at least 2009 (at best) or later (more likely)... then signing a guy like AJP to a very affordable contract through 2010, right now when his value is a bit lower due to an off season, is a smart decision for the future of the team. He'll be 33 at the end, right around the age when many catchers start to see more serious aging issues. In the meantime, the team can try to draft and develop some good catching talent internally. If he goes into 2008 at the end of the contract, and you already know you will need someone through at least 2009, then waiting just means you will probably have to pay more later. Not to mention that if by chance you do have someone ready to contribute in 2009 or 2010, then AJ suddenly gets you something back in trade, instead of walking away and leaving the team dry. Its a smart move all around.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 12:38 PM) ISU - lacking seriously in talent, but ahead of where'd they'd be with McCarney I'm not sure I agree. McCarney did a lot more with much the same talent. Let's wait and see what Chizek can do for a year or two.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 12:55 PM) It'll be interesting to see what the Clintons made. I find it interesting that Obama's camp was pretty quick to release this #. Also interesting will be Edwards and Richardson. Johnny E has been declining, and accepted public funds, so we'll see just how bad his situation is. And Richardson actually out-earned Edwards last quarter - if he does that again, that could make things interesting.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 01:00 PM) Actually she is sitting down as he's standing. even better.

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 12:22 PM) There's a BA chat soon and I will summarize any mentions of White Sox prospects later this afternoon. Damn. I wish I was a member. If you get a chance, ask about Miranda!

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 12:48 PM) Yeah but Kucinich has the best looking spouse. That's all that matters. I like how he is standing on a footstool in that picture so he looks taller than her.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 28, 2007 -> 10:53 PM) I do. Especially if he wins the Peace Prize. Rumor is, if it happens, he drops the hammer on the campaign next month. And he'd crush Hillary. When do they give those out?

List is up. Sox players: DLS is #3, Carter is #10. I'm kind of surprised Carter is that high. I am also, as I alluded to earlier, disappointed that Miranda wasn't there.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 10:45 AM) Why the hell did we make this move, anyway? What a stupid, needless move. For all the very logical reasons everyone pointed out. Or did you not bother to read the thread?

QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 10:10 AM) Pods Bukvich Gonzalez Garland Contreras Hall Cintron MacDougal and Razor Shines Harold Baines Mark Salas I'd tend to agree on Hall, except that he is still under contract (2008 for $1.75M, then a 2009 option), and I don't see how he'd anything in trade with the horrible season he has had.

Question: Am I missing something??? Answer: The offseason... which hasn't even started yet.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 29, 2007 -> 01:29 PM) Hiking is cool, provided it's in the right environment. I know some that would consider a stroll on a paved path in forest preserve a "hike." IMO, hikes should contain limited to zero time on pavement and should ideally have a midpoint/end at some scenic destination. Gorp rules.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 04:10 PM) His minor league numbers have been impressive on every level. He might not have dominating stuff but he's been successful every where. He's earned a spot imo. That. Check out his ERA and WHIP numbers each year (for complete seasons - he did get promoted up late in 2004 and 2005, but didn't pitch enough games for qualifying numbers): 2004 (A): 2.75 ERA, 1.08 WHIP 2005 (A+): 1.37 ERA, 1.09 WHIP 2006 (AA): 2.31 ERA, 1.33 WHIP 2007 (AAA): 2.11 ERA, 1.22 WHIP You don't find many guys who can throw 90 with his motion, and still have very good control. Plus his pitches all have a lot of downward motion, which is why he has one of the best GO/AO ratios of any reliever in baseball (3.46 - 5th best among MLB relievers with more than 20 IP) - a perfect fit for the short fences at the Cell.

QUOTE(Brian @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 08:55 PM) "Into The Wild"? Anyone? Would like to see it Tuesday if it is playing near me. Having read the book, and being an outdoorsman, I will probably see this movie, and probably hate it. The moral of the story, really, is that that kid was very, very, very stupid. The book does understand that. But I somehow see this movie trying to somehow make his "journey" into something accidental or even heroic. I hope I'm wrong.

Podz Gonzalez Bukvich Myers Cintron Uribe Garland Philips *At least one or two of the early season bullpen crew (Aardsma, Day, MacD. Sisco, Masset, Haeger) will be traded or otherwise let go *either Erstad or Owens (the team has too many backup OF's if we acquire a CF - Owens, Erstad, Ozuna - one or two will be gone) I think its also possible that Thome and/or Contreras are traded, but I wouldn't call either one likely.

I'm having a hard time remembering a more disappointing season as a Sox fan. This was just painful. I am, however, looking forward to this offseason. I think there will be some interesting moves made, and plenty to talk about.