NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 03:19 PM) Get me a new ss and a new cf, but I honestly have no problem going into next season with most of this bullpen back. As crazy as that sounds, it wouldn't bother me one bit to have: Jenks, Thornton, Mac, Wasserman, and Logan all back. Agreed. If it happens the team can acquire one reliever that will be reliable and experienced, for not much money, great. But I think those 5 you list are likely to be pretty decent in 2008.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 03:20 PM) Let me fire this back...which network out there do you actually see even attempting any real, in depth discussion of difficult topics? At the very best you get the "2 talking heads" format where 2 people sit on screens and yell at each other. On a very rare occasion you'll get something like an Amanpour series on CNN that actually does exactly what you're talking about, but I find it surprisingly difficult to say that the media is just giving the public dumbed down stories because that's what the public wants when virtually no one is trying anything else. The other side of the token that you're missing is that it's vastly cheaper to put a camera following Paris Hilton than it is to actually send a reporter to Iraq for 3 months outside of the Green Zone, keep them alive, and actually see things like how the society is evolving. Or it's easier to report on what Al Sharpton said today in a press conference than it is to go to New Orleans and actually analyze what we could be doing to rebuild more effectively. Or it's a Hell of a lot easier to transcribe a Bush press conference than it is to actually bother reading a little bit to see whether or not there's an ounce of veracity in anything he said. I'll tell you, I think the best places to get solid news nowadays are major newspapers, public television, and a few Euro-centric periodicals. No CNN, no major networks. The problem is, if you want up-to-the-minute stuff, you have no choice but to go to CNN or a major network provider. Among those I choose CNN, grudgingly. And I am not missing the cost angle at all - it goes along with what I said. Why invest in something that fewer and fewer people will want to read or watch? Its revenue-for-cost analysis.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 03:17 PM) And that's exactly right - which is why I think we're now in some trouble. 5% inflation is not what we need - and I'm telling you, we're getting ready to hit some serious bumps in the road. Yes. And as foreclosures have seen a HUGE jump in the last two months, I think we haven't even yet seen the big dip in consumer spending that is inevitable. Its a lagged effect. All that equity cash people have taken out of their properties is just now starting to run down, and so as the months go by, spending will plummet. The general market fears will only amplify the effect, as people hunker down and spend less. The good news is, that in itself will help counter inflation a bit on highly price-sensitive goods and services.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) There is secret network of journalist who meet regularly and decide how stories will be covered. It is dominated by liberals. Not certain how liberals got control of the media, but they did. All news outlets have to agree to follow their guidelines. Conservatives have not been able to crack this cartel. I'll see your sarcasm and raise you reality... We get the media we want. Guess what - the media is full of useless soundbites and shallow, silly stories because that is what many people choose to watch/hear/read. Its simple market economics. Networks show what sells. So really, the reality is, the media is dumbing down because more and more of the public is becoming lazy and they care less and less about real, in depth discussion of difficult topics.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 03:07 PM) So, I've been one of the hawkish folks on the housing bubble for a couple years I'd say...but I'm not sure this isn't a bad gamble. 2k5's looking at the potential downside, which I'll agree is large if everything goes wrong, but here's the question; what is the likelihood of us getting stuck in a stag-flationary cycle that we can't get out of? Even with the current situation of inflation, I'm not sure it's that high. On the other hand, what is the potential downside of doing nothing or of a limited action for now...that'd basically be a complete yanking out of the bottom of the housing market, and probably a very long period of low growth/recession while 15% of the economy tanks...and what is the likelihood of that happening? If no action was taken, I'd say the likelihood of that was very high. Housing prices are going to tank here for the next few years, there's almost no way around it...but an action like this may result in softening the bottom and slowing the spread. It's a gamble...and it's a gamble that we could have easily avoided by more sound monetary and regulatory policies since the housing runup began in the late 90's...but a gamble is about all he can do right now. One thing we should be thinking about now is how to prevent things like the housing bubble in the future. And while predatory lending had a hand in it, I think the biggest driver by far was bad decision-making by consumers. The best way to address that isn't to take away tools from everyone, but instead to educate the public better on matters of finance.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 03:04 PM) http://www.dailysouthtown.com/sports/ladew...141LAD1.article Well that is good news at least. But the team still would need to move some current salary in order to make big splashes at both CF and SS.

Whoa - just looked, and the major equity indices are up around 3%. Holy moley.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 02:53 PM) Assuming David Eckstein gets 2/$10 (and that's a very high number), you are still looking at $7.5 mill in the top combo and $13.5 mill in the second combo; that either allows the Sox to add more money either in the pen, in the rotation, or to the rest of the lineup. There are way too many variables to be playing with to leave it at those two; those are obviously just examples, but you are using two players without taking into consideration the 23 other players on the roster too. Furcal and Owens may mean the pitching staff is absolute garbage, while Eckstein and Dejesus may mean the Sox can afford to make another splash on the trade market, bringing in a guy in his 5th or 6th year in the league (thus, signed relatively cheaply, relatively young, but good at the same time). That could be true. As you noted, I was really just trying to make a point about choices, and that was the example that sprung to mind.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 02:40 PM) Exactly. But the media's not biased! The "media" reported an event. Some outlets then blew it up into something, which is what they do to every candidate in both parties. They aren't biased... they're lazy and incompetent.

As much as people get on Greenspan about his responsibility for the housing bubble, I tend to agree with him that its a natural cycle that needs to play itself out. I don't think this rate cut is a good idea. The very small difference it would make for the average mortage or car loan holder won't overcome the problems those people are having - it will however cause greater speculative debt forays. It might ease the pain for housing development-related industries, but long run, it just introduces more risk. Blech.

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 02:23 PM) Interesting. What is their budget for 2008? From what we have seen for years, the budget is based on profits, driven in large part by season ticket sales, on a post-facto basis. 2007 season ticket sales were a small bit below 2006, from what I understand. So it seems unlikely the team would be willing to increase payroll in any significant way. That is the assumption I am going on... but if your information says that is incorrect, that they are willing to go up, then that's great.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 01:00 PM) Yes, Gavin, keep dominating September callups so we unwisely entrust you with a starting spot next year! ^^ ok, thats a TAD pessimistic. Nevermind that his last two starts, both solid, were against the two playoff contending teams in this division.

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 01:10 PM) He strikes out twice as much as he walks. For a potential leadoff hitter that some are either annointing him, or wish him to be, not good. If he has good pitch selection and can work the count like Lofton can and he can hit for average like Lofton can, that's one thing. He hasn't thus far and he didn't in the minors. They should be shooting higher than Jerry Owens as a starting CF on a team they want to contend, and I believe they will. If someone is getting on base at a high clip, the K's are not all that important. I agree with you by the way, they should be shooting higher. But... its all about budget. If the choices for SS and CF are, for example: Eckstein and DeJesus or Furcal and Owens I'll take the latter. I would of course like to upgrade both, but if getting Furcal means having Owens in CF, I don't think that's such a huge sacrifice.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 01:12 PM) Sounds reasonable IMO. I was OK with it until this phrase: I am not sure what he means by "the wealthy", and that is crucial here. If you increase tax levels on dividends and cap gains, you decrease investment and business, and that hurts everyone. Now, if when he says wealthy, he means people who are truly so wealthy that they will invest a ton of money regardless of a few points in taxes, then that might have a minimal effect, and I might be OK with that. But how do you determine that? Income level doesn't appropriately reflect investment base, and you can't easily determine everyone's net worth or portfolio size, so... how would you propose that? I suspect that Obama's plan uses income level because that is simply the only reasonable way to do it. That said, he'd better be talking about people with incomes of like 500k plus, or else his plan will actually have a decaying effect on the economy.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 12:59 PM) It takes about 10 seconds of looking at a map to realize that the statement about the straits of Hormuz being threatened by Saddam in the least is sheer and utter lunacy. Iraq does not border the Straits of Hormuz. In fact, Iraq is several hundred kilometers away from the Straits of Hormuz. Iraq had no air force after the Gulf War. It was destroyed. And the southern part of Iraq was blanketed by a No Fly Zone, and had any Iraqi aircraft, had they actually existed, tried to enter that area, they would have been turned around or shot down. Iraq had no Navy. The straits are guarded by the U.S. Navy, and even if you tried to do a USS Cole style attack on the straits, you'd literally have hours and hours of a journey across the entire gulf to get there. Iraq had no missiles capable of reaching the Straits. The longest range missile in Iraq's arsenal pre-war was the Al Samoud-2 Missile, which was actually banned by regulations, which was being destroyed by the UNMOVIC teams, and which has a maximum range of about 180 km; not even half way to the straits. That was pretty much my thoughts. Reading what Greenspan said, I couldn't help but think that this was a case of a highly intelligent person delving into an area they know little about. I don't think Greenspan is anything other than a genius, but even genius' are sometimes at a loss outside their areas of expertise.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 10:41 AM) Because I am often pessimistic about players that I'm not high on, like Owens, Pods, etc. I'm very happy with Fields power so far. The one thing that's been disappointing is his speed. I expected a little more speed getting out of the box based on his minor league steal numbers. He beat out a double play last night and looked pretty good down the line. And he has shown some speed in LF, at times, when he feels confident in his judgement of the ball.

Discussing whether or not this team is a contender in 2008 is pointless until about March. We aren't talking about a club that will be almost the same - we're talking about one that will probably have major changes. Right now, this team could literally be a title contender or the worst team in baseball, depending on what happens in the offseason. Get back to this in March, once the dust settles.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 09:46 AM) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2461421.ece This will not make Russia happy because they just found out their air defense systems are not that good. And Iran cannot be happy either because they have the same systems and like the article states, their defenses are weaker than Syria's. Israel will not allow a nuclear Syria. This is similar to what some people have been saying Israel will do to Iran, if Isreal gets credible information and location of nuclear materials there. Not that I want to see another major conflict in that region, but, I'm glad Israel is keeping Syria in check on this one.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 09:47 AM) The target of the left, as the only network on the right? That too.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 09:36 AM) O.k Olbermann junior. FOX NOISE. They are the target because they are in front. Just like CNN was when they were in front. In front of what, exactly? They certainly aren't in front of any ratings chases. They are a target because they are really bad at news.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 09:18 AM) What exactly does the anti-trust thing do for MLB? I hear about it all of the time but never really get what it is. From the perspective of the government, based on court decisions and maybe a Congressional act (not sure about that last part), Major League Baseball is seen as something like one large business instead of 30 individual businesses. That means the owners of the 30 teams can collude, make decisions of all types together, and pretty much lay down the law as if they were just operating units of one business. Other sports are more independently-run from a team perspective. I am not up on the history enough to know for sure if Congress gave them special exemption before, but I know that courts have held that MLB is not subject to anti-trust litigation.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 08:13 AM) OK, so I'll bite. Why was it ILLEGAL? And I think that word has some serious ramifications. And I disagree on the part of "not to protect or allies or ourselves". I think by creating the battle field there, it's saved lives at home. Now - the real debate is - we've ruined XX millions of lives in Iraq - and all for what? I do think that it DOES protect ourselves and our allies. However, it's probably not by the means we wanted it to be. I thought the illegal part was pretty clear. We invaded a country, one who was no threat to us, and one who was under UN sanctions that were working. That violates pretty standard international law, as it were. If you don't think international law is worth following, then so be it. But we chose to walk all over it. Iraq was a near-zero threat to the U.S. Here is a list of countries who, off the top of my head, represented greater threats to us and our interests as of 2003: Iran North Korea Syria Pakistan (yes I know they are an ally, but it doesn't change the fact) Saudi Arabia (same) Russia Yemen China So let's dispense with the B.S. about a threat, and be honest about why they chose Iraq. They chose Iraq because of location, because of the perceived ease of victory, and because of oil.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 08:02 AM) Well, there already is capitalism in the Middle East - it's called Dubai, for one. The 4 main points you listed is a lot of it, and I wasn't singleing you out - most people are very short sighted when it comes to Iraq. Really, it all goes back to 8 weeks after the launch of the war. If they would have gotten in there and stabilized things right away instead of it festering (for many reasons - but most of it was a HUGE vacuum because no one knew who was in charge), then I think things would be very different now. That part definitely rests to GWB, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (aka the three musketeers). I do think that the 4 things you stated are attainable, if they don't back down . . . but most people don't have the stomach for it. Now - I'm NOT saying that we should "stay the course" - but I am saying that we need to make sure things get cleaned up as much as they can be and hope that we can get more people to forge alliances like some parts of Iraq has done in the last 2-3 months. I don't find them attainable, because of the parameters within which the U.S. military has to work. But that discussion aside, here is the other question - even if we can, should we? I mean, look at what we did. We invaded a sovereign country, for our own political gain. Not in self defense, not to save lives, and not to protect our allies or ourselves. It was an aggresive, illegal invasion. This country has lost much of its leverage and political power world-wide now, because we decided to do this. That decision will be hurting the U.S. for decades to come.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 07:50 AM) I have never said that Fields and Richar suck and always will. I have said that about Owens and Floyd. But it goes to show why I dislike debating you. Where on Earth do you get the idea that I think Fields and Richar suck and always will? Or that I don't believe in giving them a shot? Now you're just making things up. Example: Here you say his only game is power, and that as soon as the league figure out this hole, he's going to suck. Your words - sucking at baseball. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but, all four of these players have continued to get better as the season has gone on. I don't expect anyone to think that these guys are all going to be big time star players, but, I do think that their performance thus far tells you they MIGHT be. Fortunately, most baseball men are willing to give players that chance to perform.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 07:31 AM) I've said this before, but it's very short sited to look at Iraq as a very short term thing, which most people are. Again with the assumption. I've said before in here, I've said it to you... I am very well aware of the real reasons for attacking Iraq. It was never about WMD, or how Saddam was a bad man (those were way, way down the list, if they were factors at all). It was about: 1. Creating an anchorhead for democracy and capitalism in the Middle East, hoping it would spread in the region. 2. Have more control and influence over the flow of oil from the Gulf 3. Creating a military depot in the region allied with the U.S. 4. Centralize the greater military and politcal conflicts in a country of our choosing, where we could battle extremism head-on Those were the main drivers. They are plenty long-sighted - just not very intelligent. You cannot create democracy at he barrell of a gun. It would have been much, much cheaper to invest in getting off oil entirely, then to invade and own Iraq. Now I have been wrong on a lot of things, but I'll tell you, these facts all seemed pretty damn obvious to me from the get-go. I just don't understand why this administration couldn't see it too.