NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 12:14 PM) OMG OMG OMG THAT's GREAT NEWS!!! Please. Try a little harder next time to be just a little more cynical. OK Kap, YOU calling someone else on cynicism. That's priceless.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 12:10 PM) Well its not like there coming over here from castles to work like that. They have it just as bad in nothern Mexico, I'd say worse. Towns like Juarez, where an estimated 268 women have been killed since 1993 and slave labor, rape and other such atrocites are the normal. This do to NAFTA. So we should be pointing the finger at employers, not people trying to escape a harsh reality for the chance to not have that. We ARE pointing fingers at employers. AND the illegal immigrants. Need to do both. And the fact that Juarez is a s***hole is not due to NAFTA. That place was a hole well before NAFTA kicked in. Mexican border cities are hellish, have been for a long time.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 11:51 AM) Of course legal is the way to go. I think that should be the way. I just don't like peoples attitudes about people who come here ilegally. There just poor people trying to better there lives. You have people saying we should "round" them up and so forth. I really don't think that Ilegal immigration is that serious of a problem anyway. Not paying taxes is stealing from the government. At the very least, they are committing theft, probably grand theft. That's not even to mention the security issues, health issues, etc. It may not effect you directly, but it surely costs you money, and it costs some people a lot more.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 11:35 AM) White people in this country who complain non stop about immigration don't like mexicans And with that right there, you have lost all credibility. If you had said that SOME people feel that way, it would be accurate. To say it in a broad statement like that, or even to call it a "good amount", is just assinine.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 11:32 AM) I'd say that middle to upper class white americans have blamed other people for their problems. There always talking about how mexicans did this or black people do this. Not all are like that, but a good amount. um... no. In fact, I have heard very few people of any race or class ever say anything like that. There are some, but they are the small minority, in my experience.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 11:32 AM) Huh? You mean get rid of them all? , if so. Well, not EVERYONE voted for it. Kucinich for example is a candidate who, as a house rep, voted against.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 11:25 AM) And so were the Democrats... it's funny how that little FACT is always left out. So where does that leave us? Hopefully, it leaves us with a President and a bunch of Congresspeople in 2008 who had NOTHING to do with starting the Iraq war (which by the way discludes all the senators who voted for it).

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 11:07 AM) Notice how Guillen has been talking a lot about guys "having good at bats". Buehrle chimed in about that philosophy too, in a way. Look for more patient hitters to be brought in, not only guys who can slap the ball, bunt, and run, but good pro hitters. Not that I'm advocating it, simply speculating but I wouldn't be surprised to see Abreu here. I'm not sure about Abreu specifically, but I completely agree with your point on hitters and where the trend is going. And that makes me happy.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 10:32 AM) A big ol cruiser sitting there deters a lot more drivers than a guy washing his car. Highly visible would seem to deter more than undercover making highly visible more cost effective. Now if we perhaps start talking the income side of writing more tickets, perhaps the equation changes. Do you really think that article was written because the journalist went looking for this story? No chance. These departments are probably BEGGING papers to have articles like this. One of the cops quoted in there even said it, pretty much - they want people to think there is a cop on every corner. Only way to do that is for people to be aware of these tactics. Therefore, as word spreads, it works quite nicely as a deterrent.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 10:14 AM) Tossing this log on the campfire. My guess is the average citizen is more likely to be involved in a traffic accident than being robbed, assaulted, etc. So those people actively involved in public safety should spend time in the areas that would decrease the most likely threat to body and property. So aggressive enforcement of traffic laws make sense. The undercover part seems silly and cost ineffective. Perhaps there is more to the story like a specific problem at a specific location? Read the article, it talks about targeting the enforcement to areas of accidents or school zones. As for the undercover part being cost ineffective... I don't see how. A cop costs the same in jeans and a t-shirt as he/she does in a uniform.

Take a bite out of crime.

Per an article in the Trib, some Chicago suburbs have started using some serious undercover tactics to nab speeders. They are dressing up as construction workers, lawn mower riders, citizens on porches, even street beggars, just to enforce traffic ordinances. Here is the question for the board... do you think these sort of tactics are acceptable? Are they a good idea? As a general rule, I think that police departments (particularly suburban and small town ones) have a habit of doing too much traffic enforcement, and not enough real police work (active patrol, community contact, investigations). On the other hand, someone going 20 over in a school zone most certainly creates a hazard, and should be dealt with. So I guess I am OK with it, particularly in those high-risk areas. But I think it needs to remain in those high risk areas only.

I'm OK with Owens being Plan B for left field, behind Fields. I am not so excited about him being the starting CF on Opening Day.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 08:01 AM) If there was a whiff of intent behind it, I highly doubt the House Dem leadership would have agreed to a subpoena power investigation within 24 hours of the event. Have to agree.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 09:38 PM) From the Guardian, FWIW. Rumors/ allegations of Bush-Hitler ties have been floating around for years. I'm surprised if you hadn't heard someone make that claim before. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html claim, yes. Never backed up, though. Thanks for the article.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 03:55 PM) You know maybe people compare Bush and Hitler so much because they have a lot in common. Considering his grand-daddy profited off Hitler. what are you talking about? Usually in the Buster, we prefer it if you explain/back your bizarre claims instead of just throwing them out there like so much grabage.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 03:47 PM) I wish the people that were against "ilegal immigration" would just come out and admit that they just don't like mexicans. Its quite clear. We all know that if it was canadians coming in and not mexicans they wouldnt care. There seems to be this angry agressive attitude in people that are all firey about it. I think it will lead to violence and other such means. Its just white america trying to keep it as white as can be. Who are 99% of the people complaining about this. middle and upper class white america. And besides all that. Get a f***in life and stop blaming other people for your problems. For some people, its racism. But there are also clearly some very real negative consequences for all involved when there is a constant stream of illegal immigrants into the country. Mexico is the focus, at least in part, because they are by far the biggest part of that problem. And who exactly are you saying is blaming other people for their problems?

The mailbag is out, and Scott Merkin brings up some interesting stuff. He hints at things like... --Fields in LF --Pods not returning --Contreras still possibly being moved --Owens maybe getting the inside track for CF All things discussed here, but always interesting to see it actually in print on the Sox' site. Makes them slightly more believable as possibilities. I'm particularly excited about Fields maybe in LF, and Pods not returning.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 02:25 PM) The evidence I have seen regarding the "negative positive" is for guys who get so bulky it actually impedes their physical ability (slows the swing or run). It makes a lot of sense. Big muscles are orgasmic to many guys on steriods, which is why I think they don't care about the size of their pee pee or balls when they are on them. There aren't too many baseball players built like body-builders though. A few exceptions of course, super-bulky dudes like McGwire was. Probably in part for that very reason, that too much bulk would be self-defeating (and I suppose because that might make it painfully obvious what they were doing).

QUOTE(Shadows @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 02:04 PM) Bingo. Which is completely false. Evidence says otherwise. Why on earth would they take it if it only hindered their performance? Are you saying maybe they like the side effects or something? Maybe they prefer to see their parts shrivel?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 01:24 PM) That's probably why he used the word "potentially." The grammar threw me off, I thought he was speaking present tense. He certainly seems to have the potential to be above average in a few years. Hopefully he will be, since it looks like the chances of Crede being here beyond 2008 are pretty close to zero.

A friend emailed me this article. Basically, a reporter tries to infiltrate Defcon (conference for security and defense contractors who wish to remain anonymous). Defcon finds out. Fun ensues. I am usually on the side of favoring an aggresive investigative media - sunlight is good and all that. But in this case, this reporter went over the line, and it was fun to read what went on.

QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 01:14 PM) watch Fields play...He just looks like a pure 3rd baseman to me...a really good quick first step, good side to side movement, great movement when charging in, and what appear to be very good instincts. He has also shown the propensity to improve greatly from year to year. Because he did it in the minors, I fully expect him to be a far superior player next year than this year, and the year after that he'll be even better. Fields is a terrific athlete with tremendous work ethic and the natural skill to be a terrific third basemen. He has all the natural skill you want in a third basemen and all he needs is experience. I really have to question anyone who think this kid is a bad defensive player. He's going to make some errors initially, but I see not only an average fielder potentially, but a well above average fielder. Well above average? That means he is better than 15 or 20 current starting third basemen in the MLB. No way he is anything like that level. He might be eventually, but right now he is lucky to be better than 5 or 8 of them.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 01:04 PM) Yes, I looked at every game. Apparently Crede never made any bad decisions in the field? I seem to remember a deja vu moment against the Red Sox where he dropped an easy pop up just like Josh did yesterday. If you take Crede's first few months as a starting 3B and Josh's I think you would see a very fair comparison and to me since Josh is so athletic I feel that he will keep improving every day. The Crede I remember was well ahead of Fields around the same time in development. You are right that Fields is a terrific athlete, more so really than Joe probably is. So he should improve. But it seems unlikely he'd improve that much. I think if Fields is the starting 3B next year, they will start to miss Joe's D.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 12:32 PM) I have no idea where you have gotten the impression that Josh is a sub-par 3B. Everything I have seen from him states otherwise. In fact I wouldnt be surprised if he isnt as good if not a bit better than Crede eventually. No chance. He isn't in the same territory. Heck, just look at last night's game. Fields is a below average defender. He may eventually get better - I hope he does. But even then, its unlikely he gets to Crede's level defensively. I'd like to pull out some numbers, but with Fields only playing a small bit, his defensive numbers are probably not a good measure yet. D numbers usually need most or all of a season to become useful.