NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 08:51 AM) Very insightful post. I agree on Ryan Wing too, they need to make a decision on him this winter. Sweeney isn't up because he's not 100% and they want to get him healthy. If Sweeney is indeed still healing, or if recalling him would somehow screw up his arb clock, then I can understand those reasons. I just didn't see indications that either was the case. Thanks for the info.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 08:46 AM) You can't force people to go to the doctor, but if everyone in this country received proper preventitive care, the amount of money we spend on health care would go way down. That is very true. That can be accomplished in many ways, but you can't FORCE people to go to the Doctor. You can make preventative care cheaper and easier to get, and I hope we do that.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 08:53 AM) you give the best alternative versus the worst SUV, so of course you can make that argument. I abhor Yukons and similar vehicles. As I said, I'd take an X-terra before any of those cars. Clearance, Torque, handling, etc over a subaru. The point is... the fact that a vehicle happens to have an SUV box is irrelevant to how it handles adverse weather conditions. All it accomplishes is to make the car heavier. What matter is at the ground level - tires, torque, brakes, traction contol, handling, clearance. And other than clearance, none of those things is tied directly to have an SUV frame on top. Even clearance isn't necessarily so, but certainly tends to be more often than not. The whole "my SUV is safer in the snow" think is a myth. Like I said, its heavier and takes LONGER to stop, so you be driving SLOWER than those around you.

Butt Heavy Canoe Bust, Makeup and Leave (SS2K5 will get this one) Naked Call (and this one)

QUOTE(Reddy @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 08:26 AM) plus you wouldn't have to pay for it so... who cares? Newsflash - you still have to pay. Do you think Doctors are just going to donate their time? We'd all pay - just a matter of how and when. This is one of the reasons Edwards has a following, and why he would be an awful President - the guy convinces people that there is some mystical pile of gold waiting for the "working class" in America, that the mean rich people are unlawfully withholding. Its just not there.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 08:39 AM) I'll remember that when my sweet ass X-terra passes your tiny POS subraru when you're stuck in the 3ft snow drift...I mean, you did have 4WD and traction control and GREAT brakes, so why would you need my help? have you ever seasoned a NE winter? I grew up in Chicago, and have lived in Iowa and Colorado. Suffice it to say I've driven in some snow. And the Subaru probably wins that contest anyway, unless there is some giant 2 foot drift, then the clearance comes into play. Believe what you want, but the physics don't lie. A Subaru or Audi, versus a Yukon, if they both have good tires, ABS, AWD and a competent driver, the Sub/Audi will be better at stopping, skid arresting and vehicle control than your SUV. And if both engines are sufficiently torquey (made up word, I know), they'll be the same or the sdan will do better in getting out of slick or snowy areas. The only thing the SUV is likely to win is that it has an extra couple inches to avoid high-centering.

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 08:24 AM) I'm just asking, but at the AA and AAA level who might these pitchers be that aren't named Gio Gonzalez? Its all subjective, but as far as starters go, I'd call Gio and Egbert high-potential pitching prospects. There are also some others that SOME think have MLB starter potential of varying degree, but if I bring up names like Masset or Haeger, there will inevitably be contrarians. Gio and Eggy are the two that would be commonly accepted as such. Let's not even get started on Gavin Floyd, but to say he certainly shows some of the right tools (just not the mental ones). My personal pick for someone others don't consider - Ryan Wing. As for relievers, I think its a lot harder to say - there is so much more guesswork there. Guys like Vasquez, Russell, Day and Perez all looks like they have better than even chances of being MLB relievers, and possibly very good ones. And at the lower levels, of course, there are yet others, but it gets a lot harder to predict down there.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Sep 3, 2007 -> 09:16 AM) you got nothing on this guy. 1) I know for a fact that a suburban going 35 mph won't kill a pedestrian if they hit on the right front corner of the vehicle. 2) You clearly have never lived in the NE where snow + ice + mountains = s***ty driving experience that only an SUV can handle. Having an SUV has zero to do with handling adverse weather driving. Zilch. Nothing. Here is what helps: 4WD/AWD, proper weight differential, traction control, good tires, good brakes (w/ ABS). Notice how none of those is the same as: 4000 pound oversized vehicle. In fact, contrary to popular belief, SUV's are often worse in snow and ice for a very simple reason - they are heavier and take more time to stop. I really go nuts when I hear this argument that SUV's are safer in those conditions. They are not. And people think they are, so they drive really fast, because in their minds they somehow think that 4WD makes their car stop faster.

Broadway and Philips were not called up because they "deserved" it - they are being called up to show what they can do, because neither one of them is likely to be with the organization in 2008. So, since the season is lost, why the hell not? Phillips can't be protected anymore except on the 40 anyway. I love how people here are assuming these guys are being called up because they are the team's best prospects, and therefore the farm system must surely suck. Well, OK, it does kind of suck. But there are a number of good pitching prospects - these two just aren't among them. There are other motivations clearly at work here. As for Lucy, he is the one I am psyched to watch play. Even as a rookie, he'd probably be a far sight better than Hall right now. And he is already a superior defender and thrower as compared to either of the current catchers. Add to that he's known to be strong at game calling and pitcher handling. He's never going to be a spectacular hitter, probably, but as he has progressed through each level, he pretty consistently gets his average up to the .265-.280 range, an OBP in the .340-.360 range, and steals a few bases (this year at B-Ham: .269 AVG, .343 OBP, 13-for-14 in SB attempts). Whomever said "he's overmatched at AAA" needs to keep in mind he's been there less than a month. A lousy month, but only a month none the less. The Terrero thing is crap, though. That really should have been Sweeney. I don't see the reasoning there.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 07:14 PM) I'd take him over any of our starters. It's funny, though, how Williams approach to drafting pitchers has seemingly concentrated on those who can induce groundballs, and here is Carmona -- a perfect representation of that -- pitching for Cleveland. It must be mocking him. Any?

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 07:00 PM) Why when you have a super pull hitter like Uribe, would you allow him to open his stance up. Thats like putting out a fire with gasoline. I think they had him do that, to try to cut down on the Tasmanian Devil thing. Harder to do a pirouette in a wide stance.

I am really looking forward to tomorrow, when we start seeing the September callups. Anything to get Erstad and Gonzalez off the field.

You have got to be f***ng kidding me.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 04:17 PM) Ryne Sandberg says he was told he was too old in AA to ever make the Majors. Beyond him, I can't think of anyone too recent who was unfairly labeled due to his age. And it's especially true at the lower levels, and it's very consistent with what they've done in the past. Oh I know its been done that way commonly for some time. That doesn't mean its good. Again, it should be part of the picture, but not as much as it has been. When it is, you miss some guys, for no good reason. Scouts need to look more at a factor that often is ignored, amazingly - success. As players progress through the levels, I think that "tools" become a less relevant way of evaluating talent, and that actual, real success becomes more important. I'll take a guy who has kicked ass at AAA over a guy who has mediocre numbers at the same level but the scouts say has "the right tools", every day and twice on Sunday. At Rookie ball, certainly, that is different. Tools and specific skills are more the emphasis, and that makes sense.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 04:02 PM) That's pretty funny. Age is pretty much the first thing I look at after the general "statistics". Age is incredibly important. Well I guess I just don't see it that way. I think its very common for age to be incredibly important, as you state. I just think thats a mistake. I am not saying it doesn't have some importance. Just that when you are talking about a 20 year old (like Miranda), versus a 23 year old (like Paiml), I think that age is nearly irrelevant. What is more important in this case is that Miranda is simply outperforming Paiml, and at a higher level. I think that a lot of very talented players, who could be major league contributors, are lost in the shuffle due to age, and for no good reason. Ross Gload is a good example - succeeded at every level, and has been a .300 or near it hitter every year he has had any significant number of at bats in the majors (his success and obvious talent is why I was always pulling for him). Yet, beause he was stuck behind the likes of Konerko, Thomas, etc., he got a couple years too old waiting for his shot. He was then labeled as "not a prospect". If you overemphasize age, you bias yourself out of some potential talent.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 03:27 PM) Miranda's three years younger and not embarrassing himself at a higher level. I'm not about to get excited about 23 year old in Rookie ball. I have this battle all the time with various folks in here... unless he's 30, age is pretty irrelevant. What is relevant is WHY he is 23 and at the level he is at. There is a huge difference between a player who is in Rookie ball because, for example, he actually played and graduated from college, versus one who just failed elsewhere for a few years. According to what I can find, Paiml is the former - played 4 years at school. Now, looking at his college numbers, nothing seems too huge. And his GF numbers aren't anything spectacular either. THAT would be the reason I'm not overexcited about him. But even just a guy can put up decent hitting, if he is a plus defender (no idea if he is), is better than much of what we are seeing in the system. And I do think Miranda has very high potential.

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 02:43 PM) It probably won't help but here it is. Growth rates of various religions Pentecostals That pretty much proves my point. Among those 6 fastest growing religions you point out, only 2 are by nature religions that would be considered behaviorally "stringent". And even Islam has varying degrees of that. B'Hai is a very open, flexible faith. Christianity of course has a wide range of followers, but most are not so strict. Hinduism is also not very demanding on people's lives. Jainism I admit I know little about, but Wiki says that they preach equality of all life, spiritual independence, and education. Plus, look at the growth rates - for all six, none are even 2%. The world's population is growing at a faster rate than that. Therefore, even for these religions that are fast-growing, are not really growing in relationship to the world population at all. They are shrinking. Pentacostals are also an example of what I was saying. Most of western Christianity is seeing lethargy, but some of the smaller subsects like the Pentacostals and FLDS are drawing that conservative minority in significant numbers. EDIT: Further research reveals that the world rate of population growth is roughly 1.5% right now, not the 2.0% I thought it was. I was off by half a percent. Doesn't change the point - these religions, according to their rates of growth, are at best only staying stable on a relative basis.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 01:37 PM) Cmon, Jason. We're dead last in producing much of anything resembling an offense. Since 2005, when his OBP reached a respectable .363, he's steadily taken less and less walks per season. His stolen base totals are nothing to admire, either. When coupled with a complete absence of power, what good is he? These aren't facts which support anything resembling a solid leadoff hitter. I agree he's an improvement over Uribe. But ultimately, how much do the White Sox improve over this season due to this signing? Does this make us a playoff contender now? Honestly, i'd rather trade any of Thome, Konerko, Garland -- acquire (among other pieces) several promising MIF prospects -- and go through their problems for 300K than deal with another walking grinder. It's just another no-nothing move. Since we're probably not going to be winning anything for quite awhile, while not set our sights towards acquiring young talent for SS rather than waste resources on Eckstein? Completely pointless, imo. Only purpose it serves is to give the illusion of improvements. A feeling of "anything is better than Uribe." Sure, for one or two seasons. Then who replaces Eckstein? I realize that railing on the farm system is your favorite passtime, and often you are right because it is not in good shape. BUT, as some of us were just discussing, we do now appear to have two decent SS prospects at the lower levels (Miranda at Kanny and possibly Paiml at GF). So as for your what-do-we-do-in-2010 issue, I think there may be some answers at that point. That's not even to mention that we have drafts and trades galore between now and then. I know you want to write off the next three years and all, but I think its a little early for that.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 01:54 PM) If they move a second starter, I still say it will have to be either Javy or Danks, because I view Jose as an immovable object. This next month will dictate, to an extent, whether or not Jose can be moved. I think if he has a few decent starts, that he can and will be moved. They may not get much more than a prospect or two for him and still have to pay some salary though, or involve him somehow in a larger trade for another high salary player.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 01:49 PM) IMO...if the team still likes what they have in Floyd, and I think they do...they will probably attempt to move 1 guy. My money says they'll keep trying to move Jose, fail to do so utterly, and move Garland around X-Mas as with last year, hopefully bringing back someone who can play SS. You leave one open spot, and you do so with this thinking; you pencil Floyd in, but think that if he really sucks in the Spring and someone else looks an awful lot better, then you consider the other person. The goal should be to start Gio in AAA next year. If you start with Floyd, or Broadway, or Haeger in the rotation, and they spend a month or two being lit up, then it's either Gio time or time for one of the other guys (If Gio struggles a little). I'd really prefer to give Gio at least a few starts at AAA before we bring him up. If they only move one starter, that all makes sense. We'll see if that is what they do.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 01:25 PM) This is why I love slate.com. They had an article explaining how a wide stance would impede your BMs and why that is most likely a lie. Here's your stupid reactionary quote of the day from Montana State Senator Dave Lewis on a blog about protecting forests from forest fires. http://www.sosforests.com/?p=651 It's comment 7 to his own blog post. Wait... are we sure that was really him? I mean, its just a blog entry. It could very well not be him. So I read some of the threads on that blog. Dude who runs it is a psycho.

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 01:14 PM) Your reply made me dizzy from banging my head against the wall. Islam, the Latter Day Saints, and various small Pentocostal faiths just to name a few. Just because Europe and the West are busy and gleefully flushing traditional religion down the toilet, doesn't mean that sits well with everyone. Why do you think so many Second and Third World countries and societies have abolute contempt for us.? The thought of their daughters videotaping themselves having sex a la Paris Hilton is nauseating to them. Everyone in the world doesn't want to be like us, and everyone in the world doesn't like our social and religious mores. I thought that was obvious, but I guess not. Every day it's shown to me in big and small ways how out of touch I am. Or maybe it's the other way around. I am not sure what you found dizzying, but I see you chose to ignore my examples. The Middle East is not the fastest growing part of the world. And neither is Utah. Of course there are examples of extremism on the rise, as I just said. but the largest growing countries, India and China, have populations that are walking away from religion as a trend. Not entirely of course, and not everyone either. But that is the way its going. Add them to the U.S. and the rest of the West, and that's a huge portion of the world population. Feel free to keep banging that head. Let me know when you want to discuss the examples I have given. Or when you want to give any of your own.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 01:06 PM) I really wish we had really good candidates. We haven't had any in 20+ years. Give me a Richardson v Paul election in 2008, and I think that would be really interesting.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 01:05 PM) I think it will be interesting to see if that growth can be maintained. I think once there are political and economic changes in those areas, there will be rapid drift away from religion also. . . Exactly - the fastest growing religion in the world right now is capitalism, in my view. Christianity is declining not only in actual numbers of participants, but also in the amount of involvement the average Christian has. I have seen much the same trend with Hinduism in India. Same trends in China. I think the majority of people are less religious as time goes on, but that those who are still more stringent are getting louder and more extreme.

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 01:01 PM) I listened for a minute or so, and that's about all I needed. My views on this guy would make no one happy, not the fundies, and not the Fla Sox secularists either. He is right about one thing. Christianity, as it stands now is lost. One thing to consider though, the fastest growing religions in the world, are those who profess strict and uncompromising moral strictures. Just a statement of fact, with no editorializing intended. I myself, would hardly be considered religious in the traditional sense. I'd like to see some support for the fastest growing religions being stricter. I don't see that. I see the largest countries in the world (China, India) having a lot of people that are either only marginally religious, or are parts of LESS behaviorally stringent religions. I see the U.S. and the west generally having more and more of their core populations eschew religion entirely. So what religions, in what part(s) of the world, that are somehow more strict, are growing so quickly?