NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 08:33 PM) this is where we (USA) are just a bunch idiots. went to italy 2 years ago. most restaurants had the menu written in at least 6 different languages. (spanish, italian, german, english, french and japanese) and we like to b**** about 1. what a joke. First, I don't see anyone in this thread saying that businesses shouldn't be smart. For a restaurant in Rome, it makes all kinds of sense to have those languages, so they do. It would also make sense for touristy places in the states to do the same. No one has said otherwise. And I agree with the general sentiment that Americans would benefit from knowing some other languages. No one is arguing against that either, despite your apparent perception that they are. The only thing being argued is whether or not people who emigrate from other countries should have to learn English to function, in schools or otherwise, and whether or not government entities should bend to the needs of non-English speaking residents (NOT tourists). And that is a discussion with having. No one is being an "idiot", with the possible exception of Gingrich.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 09:16 PM) Okay, so what is going on? Zell bought the Cubs, but not knowing that he couldn't own portions of two franchises, he has to sell his stock in one, and he choose to keep the Sox's stock. So now Zell has to sell the Cubs? Can someone clarify this for me... My head is starting to hurt. Also, what are the chances that the Sox get the majority of the games on WGN now? Or will the Cubs might just get their own station like YES? I for one have hoped that JA would get a station like YES for the Sox and the Bulls, but we all knew that would never happen. Zell bought the entire Tribune Company. The Tribune owns the Cubs - they are an operating unit of TribCo, if you will. Zell doesn't necessarily want the Cubs - he bought TribCo and got the Cubs with it. Now he is selling the Cubs.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 06:27 PM) It was Uribe. Damn. He was my pick-to-click too, and he had a couple hits.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 07:14 PM) The sad thing is the gun at USCF had him constantly at 91. If he wasn't throwing hard, Masset at 92 and Jenks at 93 weren't exactly bringing it either. The fact that really nobody knows Contreras' age is a red flag right now IMO. I know its been beaten to death, but there are a lot of people who would have a better idea than anyone in the US who swear Contreras is older than El Duque. He does take care of himself, but if he really is close to 45 he can lose it in a hurry. I will wait to rush judgement and go with he just had a bad day for now. He wasn't consistently at 91. I also saw 90, some high and mid-80's, and even some in the high 70's (those may have been erroneous, unless his sliders got real slow). And Jenks hit 95 on one pitch I believe.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 05:54 PM) I do like Ozzie but I wish he'd sometimes keep his mouth shut and just focus on trying to get the team to perform up to Ozzie's expectations, which I believe is to win another World Series. I'm not saying its the most ideal way to run a team, but, I think he says things like this in part so that the team CAN focus on performing. He tries to take all the pressure on himself.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) Wasn't that Uribe's error? Was it? That was one of my trips for food/beer, so I'm not sure. I asked and they told me Gooch, and I haven't checked the box.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 02:53 PM) Pablo's catch was better I was stunned by Ozuna's catch - I thought it was over his head for sure. In fact, aside from Gooch's throwing error, I thought the whole team looked pretty solid on defense.

Interesting Sox-related note on the KC/BOS game... Ross Gload is apparently the starting LF for the Royals (nominally, he's platooning with Emil Brown, but Gload's hits lefty and started on Opening Day), and played the whole game there for them. He was 1 for 4, scored once, and the most interesting part... had an outfield assist at 2nd base. Check out the video - he actually made a very nice defensive play out there. EDIT: I can't link the video, so here is a link to the recap, see the video on the right.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 12:10 PM) So I'm either confused or coming to a very cool realization... If Zell, who has purchased the TribuneCo., has to now sell the Cubs, does that mean that the Tribune has partial indirect ownership of the White Sox now? Just because Zell would own the Trib and a portion of the Sox, that doesn't mean the Trib has any control whatsoever over the Sox. Its just means that Zell has control over the Trib, and some say with the Sox as well.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 09:35 AM) One interesting footnote to this.... Zell has to sell the Cubs, because he already owns an interest in another professional baseball franchise. Anyone have a guess as to what team that is? Yup, that's right, the Chicago White Sox. Everyone wants to know who the big money is behind the White Sox, well now you know. There seems to be an echo in here...

I guess I wouldn't find anyone, Middle Eastern or not, taking pictures and looking at maps at the Tower, to be worthy of notice. This is exactly what 101 was saying earlier - this kind of reaction means we already lost. I think much of our society has become far too paranoid about these things. Living in fear is miserable. Better we act on REAL evidence, like intelligence gathered, than be constantly suspicious of people who are doing nothing wrong.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 08:32 AM) I don't think you look at this politically at all. If the system really holds that executives are getting paid too much, they will start penalizing the stocks of companies that pay their execs too much. The big thing to remember is that most of the big paydays we are hearing about is stock option compensation, versus actual dollar compensation. But that's one of the flaws in the system I mentioned earlier. What you are saying now was always a check in the system, but, its much less so now. The combination of dividends being less and less prevalent, along with the steep rise in technical trading, and a baseline expectation among brokerages that these salaries are all the norm, mean that the system is no longer balanced in this particular equation.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2007 -> 11:59 AM) My fixes? Well, naturally I don't have a perfect one, and half the people here are going to hate one of them...but first, I create a new tax bracket for people making something like $1-2 million a year, and raise the tax rate in that bracket. And beyond that, step back some of the other tax cuts that have been made that strongly favor the highest earning shareholder/option holding class. Make all stock options taxable and force them to be taxed at the time they are issued, instead of allowing execs to cash them in at the lowest prices to reduce the tax bill (as a ton of them did right after 911 when the market was hammered). Re-enstate the taxes on dividends. And come up with specific tax penalties for specific actions, such as reincorporating overseas to avoid U.S. tax laws. Beyond that, there is reform within the corporate system that might help. You'd hear screaming from executive boards, but I think the more democracy we force into these corporations, the better. Give shareholders more control over executive names and executive compensation packages. Allow shareholders to vote as to whether or not execs have earned their salary and compensation packages. Don't just have the voting forms be "Do you approve or disapprove of this whole group of people" as it currently often is now. I think you made some good points, but I think some of your suggested fixes won't really work. Taxing options at the time of grant is highly problematic. An option does not have any specific value, even at an unrealized level. How do you value an option prior to exercise? Do you value it based on theoretical immediate exercise? Or projected price outside the constrained sale timeline in the tax laws? Your valuation will be highly derivative and pretty much a wild guess. What happens if the value in your method changes over time? Another problem with taxing options on grant is that you are then doing something that is almost never done in the tax code - taxing people on monies or valuation that they have not yet realized. Its like taxing someone for forward income, before they receive it. Doesn't that seem like a bad idea? As for new taxes for the uber-high bracket, there is nothing per se wrong with that, but I certaintly don't agree with it. I don't see how it will do a darn thing to stop executive pay from being that high. If anything, it might even do the opposite. All you are doing there is redistribution of income. I don't think the answer to the equation is to let them make that money but then take some away. I'd rather use a business-focused solution of some kind and not have the salaries be so exorbitant in the first place. As far as democracy on Boards, I do tend to agree that more can be done there. I'm not sure I'd call it democracy, but, I certainly think that laws could be written to segregate boards from the company personnel. They are far too entangled. For publically traded corporations, the law can specify something like... no one on the board can be current or recent former officers of the firm, nor can the board's salary be in any way variable based on compensation within the firm. Or something like that, with a lot more complicated wording. Another solution is more information, and that is already underway. Total compensation for top executives is now (or soon will be) available to the public, and now will include all types of compensation. That is a small step in the right direction.

On a seperate note... Tom Tancredo has accounced his candidacy for the GOP nomination. Gotta love these one-issue candidates. I think we'll see Tancredo be one of those candidates that draws 3 to 5% but never goes up from there. His anti-immigration schtick won't go far in Iowa or NH, the earliest primary states.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Apr 2, 2007 -> 05:27 PM) According to SeatGuru, they average 31" pitch in Economy. So does American, United, Continental and Northwest. Many American planes only offer 30" pitch. Their seats are slightly narrower, however, 2 tenths of an inch. Comparing similar planes (MD-80/90) for example, AA has 31-33", and Delta states as 30-32". Also, many of American's planes still have the extra room they put in back in the late 90's when that was their marketing pitch. They reversed it on some planes, but not others. That 1 to 3" difference is important if you have long legs. I'm also of course going on experience here, and it sure seems that Delta must have a lot more planes in the lower end of their range (again, probably due to some of AA's planes still having expanded seating).

GOP'ers putting up some gaudy fundraising numbers as well. Romney with a big lead in that category, well above McCain or Giuliani, surprisingly. Also a couple Dem updates... Edwards raised $14M (plus $1M in general senate funds) and Dodd took in $4M (and is adding $5M from his Senate funds). I think the big money could be a huge benefit for Romney, because he still needs a lot more exposure.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Apr 2, 2007 -> 10:59 AM) He knows the Cubs will be sold for far more than they are worth. That was kind of my thought, but also, as The Critic said, the northside ballclub really has a lot less up side available to it. If anything, looking at late last year, I think its evident that the Cubs won't be able to automatically draw complete sellouts all season anymore. They may actually have to put a winning team on the field.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 02:32 AM) One day, people will realize that, even though "OMG THERE HAVE NO ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 9/11", the terrorists are winning this war more than ever in our country. Silly laws taking away our freedoms in order to "be safer" are damn well more likely to bring down this democracy than a crazy dude with a bomb strapped to him is. I agree completely.

I was at the game. A few thoughts on some of what I saw... Contreras' pitches were sometimes 90-92, but also some in the high 80's. And he didn't appear to hit 90 until the end of the very long first inning. He looked weird mechanically - like he didn't know what to do in his wind up. He wandered around the mound a bunch. It looked like he forgot how to pitch - it was really weird. He looked out of rhythm mentally and physically. We almost wondered if he was sick or injured in some way, the way he was pacing around. If one takes away Contreras' performance, the Sox played an otherwise strong game in just about every facet. I hope people don't lose track of that. I have no idea why Ozzie PH'd for Ozuna with Mack in that crucial situation with men on. Ozuna was playing a solid game. I think Ozzie got appendage happy.

QUOTE(Brian @ Apr 2, 2007 -> 09:45 AM) I'm sure the guy didn't make it up. He had to get it from somewhere and leads me to believe they were talking and close, but some of the little things needed to be agreed on. I always laugh at people who bash beat writers or reporters just because they write something and it doesn't end up happening. Doesn't mean what he was reporting was wrong. Read the article. Find one shred of actual data in it that isn't supposition. The best he could do was a quote from Iguchi saying he "respected" the Sox. In fact, if you look at the way the writer couched his phrases, it was entirely what he thought made sense, and nothing about any sort of indications or evidence. I bash beat writers and anyone else who write absolutely unfounded articles and try to pass them as fact. That Herald article was precisely that. That article was NOT reporting - it was speculation.

QUOTE(Brian @ Apr 2, 2007 -> 09:41 AM) After the past few days, i believe Tad will be back. Whether it is during the season or after. What happened the last few days, other than that writer in the Herald pulling something out of his rear end?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 2, 2007 -> 09:12 AM) Having thirteen and fourteen year olds in a 6th grade classroom is not good. There are ages and stages that kids go through and that mix is a nightmare for educators. There are many child protection issues at play here. Even things like physical education and play time at recess become issues. After school programs to help kids stay on track should be emphasized to minimize these issues. I agree that there are certain age straddles that won't work. You can't have a remedial 17-year old in with the third graders. For those on the extremes, there need to be some remedial classes. But that's a small number. Most kids will naturally progress in a small band, with most kids being only a year or two different in some areas (and less in others) than their peers, even up to high school age. We shouldn't make the rules based on the exceptions to them. For phys ed, like any classes, different kids move at different paces. In fact, I think P.E. is one of the classes most in need of NOT being socially promoted, especially when you get to junior high and early high school, when there is a huge physical discrepancy in the development of kids the same age.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Apr 2, 2007 -> 09:17 AM) I am very interested to see who is the new owner....and good luck with the 300 million dollars of crap. The media bias is over. I'd guess the team will go for more like twice that much.

Article in the Trib about how the club feels about the low expectations by many for this year's team. Nothing exciting and new, but a great article to read on Opening Day.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 2, 2007 -> 09:02 AM) I think the focus shouuld be on assuring that the kids do not get left behind. Having mixed age classrooms can be distracting to the other students. I strongly disagree. These kids will need to socialize with a continuous flow of people in their lives from all different age groups and backgrounds. School should be no different. The social learning aspect of school is of course of great importance - but that isn't a reason for social promotion. In fact, I'd say its an argument against it in some ways. Kids will still have a number of other kids around them most of the time (because in most classes, the age bad will still be pretty narrow), and most of them will move at similar paces, so there is still the chance for lifelong bonds to form. But they will also get some younger, and older, kids in different classes. I think that's a big positive.