NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 10:35 AM) Why is Ozzie so worried about the right handed matchups, considering we did very well against righties last year. It was the lefties, and the loogy's that just worked us over last year. Maybe he should worry about that. Here is rotoworld on the subject. Jesus f***ing christ. Anderson has no f***ing shot He still has a shot. To wit... Why would the starter be pushing a guy in AAA? The answer is he wouldn't. It seems clear from the quote that Ozzie still thinks BA has a shot. Erstad isn't a given just yet. Also... He is referring to Erstad as security. If Oz is stupid and puts Erstad as the starting CF, then I'll be just as upset as you are right now. But that article actually reaffirms my belief that Ozzie is being Ozzie - he thinks BA has an attitude, and he's giving him the 3rd degree by saying Erstad is solid out there. I think some people might be surprised come April 1st or so. ETA: Check out the quote at the end of the article... Combine that with him saying Anderson won't be a backup, and I think its pretty clear Anderson is still in the picture for starting in CF.

Before we brand Oz a hypocrite on this particular subject (the CF job), let's wait and see what he does. One thing to keep in mind... if indeed Oz thinks that Anderson needed an attitude adjustment, then all these "hints" and badgering he has done this spring are exactly what he'd be likely to do to show him that. And yet, he might still get the job. Just a thought. I'll wait until we see the 25 man roster. If indeed BA and Erstad keep up their current performances, and Ozzie puts Erstad as a starter anyway... then yes, he's being a grudge-driven idiot.

QUOTE(Capn12 @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 12:46 AM) I can't wait for us to be Ross Gload's b**** all year, and you KNOW its going to happen, he will have the big hits against us at some point. If someone on the Royals beats us up, I'll be happy if its him. Dude is hitting .424 this spring. With the mess of mediocre and/or young players over there in the OF, plus an injury-prone DH, I'd say its not impossible he may eventually slide into a starting spot this year.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 12:07 PM) Does that line read 1 BB and 8 K's? If so, then he definitely needs to go to Charlotte to work on his eye. No, its 4 BB and 2 K.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 11:26 AM) Owens would be a much better option if he had any sort of arm, or if he got better reads. He's kinda like Pods. The couple games I saw him last year, one in CF and one in LF, his reads looked OK to me. Didn't have any trouble getting to the right spot. But his arm didn't look good.

That third article is awesome. Where is that from?

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 09:08 AM) That would be the most likely solution, with Iguchi leading off against LHP - I know his splits were mediocre, but that may be more of an anamoly than anything else. He was great against them in 2005, so it's hard to make a judgement on how well he actually does hit them. Hall or Perez could then hit 2nd and 6th respectively. Terrero just acts as a true 4th OFer, hopefully putting up an OPS around .700 off of the bench with good D. That seems as though it's the best case scenario in my mind right now, as much as we all love Ozuna. Strange as this may sound, but what if you used Ozuna as a DH against LHP? He has no power I know, but if he can get on base as effectively as last year, with the other power hitters already in the lineup, that may not be a bad move.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 09:05 AM) From what I keep hearing about Owens, he needs to go back to AAA. I keep reading how he is behind in ABs and needs to play, so let's let him play. I would rather see a guy like Terrero buried on the bench vs Anderson or Owens. Let the kids play. QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 09:11 AM) All snarky comments aside, Owens probably does need another year down at Charlotte. That is definitely the concensus, and there is still some question on whether or not he will ever reach the starting level anyway. But, what do we think Ozzie will do? I just can't help but think that Oz would consider it, if Anderson is in AAA.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 09:00 AM) And this proves entirely how worthless Podsednik really is to the club, even if indirectly. Exactly as you pointed out, if Anderson were the CFer, and Erstad the LFer, not only would the OF defense be improved, but it's very likely that the offense would improve as well. And, if Anderson needs a day off, Erstad slides over to CF - surely, Ozzie would allow a starter to play two different positions! Perez could be the difference between the playoffs and golfing in October. It's an absolute necessity to get him on the roster. And, if that means getting rid of Ozuna, it should absolutely be done. Ozuna's a hell of a sparkplug, and I love the guy as a fan, but plain and simply he's a horrible defender, he doesn't have power, and the speed he does have he can't put to use on the bases. He's still my sleeper to not make the roster too, because I've almost no doubt Podsednik will. So if Perez makes the roster and Anderson does not, how would you propose to handle backup CF? Assuming Pods is the starting LF, would you take Terrero over Ozuna?

Since there are half a dozen threads related to the CF job, I wasn't sure where to put this, but here is something to think about. Here are Jerry Owens' numbers so far this spring... G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG 12 21 7 8 0 0 0 1 8 4 2 4 0 .480 .381 .381 High average, very high OBP, 4-for-4 in steals, though not a ton of AB's. In other words, with those numbers and as much as Ozzie seems obsessed with speed... I wouldn't count him out as a possibility to make the team over Anderson, Terrero or Perez. I'm not saying its necessarily a good thing... just that its possible. But here is a question I cannot answer, since I haven't seen him play this spring... how has he looked in the OF defensively? Because if he has looked decent in the spring in defense, I have a feeling Ozzie may be considering him for a spot. ETA: Talking about the 25th spot in general here, and the OF, not necessarily CF.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 17, 2007 -> 10:36 AM) Keep telling yourself that Perez serves no purpose when Santana, CC, Cliff Lee, Rodgers, and the rest of the lefties are shutting down Thome killing our attack. To me Perez needs to be on this club, or we will have another aenmic attack against lefties and we will wind up short again. We havent had a real good right handed stick off the bench to counter the lefties in a while. Thome certainly did struggle against lefties. But let's look at the other hitters who will likely play against LHP. PK, Dye, Ozuna and Hall all do very well against LHP. Crede, Uribe are not great, but their dropoff from vs RHP to vs LHP is not large. Iguchi and Thome are the ones who split poorly against lefties (though Cintron does reasonably well against LHP and could play 2B some of the time), and then we have the mystery CF position. And since there is no way Perez is playing CF, his only real use is as a DH against LHP. Look at it in terms of the choices available. If you take Perez instead of Terrero (assuming for a moment that Anderson is in AAA), then you gain a solid bat against LHP for the DH position. But what you lose is exactly what everyone on this board complained about not having last year - a backup CF!!! Which is more important? To me, having a CF who isn't a complete disaster out there is far more important than the DH position against LHP. Of course, it should also be noted that if Anderson stayed with the club, you could maybe solve both these issues in one roster spot. But that seems unlikely at this point.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 06:58 AM) Which is exactly why you have to stay patient with these young players like Anderson and wait until they flourish, and it could be as soon as this season, who knows. But it will happen. But the question is, where is that patience best used? Brian is a heck of an athlete, and seems to have all the tools to become a solid player, but he doesn't have a major league batting approach yet (he's gotten by, until now, mostly on pure athleticism). So is he better served working that out with the big club, or with a year (or part of a year) at AAA? I don't know that there is a definite answer to that, but I think its the important question to ask. I do still think he is a better choice to start in CF than Erstad for this year, but not by much.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 03:32 PM) I agree in general with the article, but want to point out that Biden has indeed suggested something other than a pullout or stay-the-course plan. Biden is not my favorite candidate at all, I don't like him much, but he is trying a different path than everyone else.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 10:18 PM) We went over this topic in another way about three or four months ago when southsider and I were both saying that ARM loans, etc. were "bad"... well, gee, here we are! And I think that's important to keep in mind, about high-risk mortgages. The bankruptcy bill exposed them, and more people are falling into that trap. But that doesn't make the bankruptcy bill bad - in fact I think it makes it good, in the long run. We're removing some of the unnecessary crutches from the system, which will result in people either learning and growing, or not. But its on their shoulders in any case.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 09:04 PM) Replace the currently-injured Perez with Terrero and I think you're looking at your opening day lineup. Agreed, that's a lot more likely. Perez serves no purpose on the Sox roster, and if he is there instead of Terrero or Anderson, that goes against not only logic, but what KW and Oz have both been saying (that they need a real backup CF).

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 05:47 PM) It is looking like Pods is going to be good to go for opening day which was probably Anderson's last opportunity to make the team. It would have been Erstad, Anderson and Perez more than likely with Pods on the DL. With a healthy Podsednik you'll more than likely see Pods in LF and Erstad in CF with Terrero making the team as the 4th OF, leaving Anderson and Perez out in the cold. So in other words I think Anderson's chances of making the team have gone from slim to nil in the past week despite his excellent play. Could be. I'm not convinced. And I think Anderson and Terrero are both more likely than Perez, but I seem to be in the minority there. But if Erstad is the starting CF, then yeah, Anderson goes down and Terrero/Perez stays. I think Terrero is a lot more likely, since he can play CF (at least in their eyes anyway), and KW and Oz have both stated the need for a backup CF. That, if no other reason, makes Perez highly unlikely to make the team.

Mack has been getting fewer reps in ST this year than a lot of other outfielders (less AB's than Anderson, Erstad, Ozuna or Sweeney) . That's because he is not auditioning for a job, with this or any other team. There is reason behind that. He isn't going to get traded, unless an offer comes out of left field (figuratively). Therefore, I think Hall, Mack and Cintron are locks. Ozuna is a virtual lock, unless he is sent off in a trade of some sort (which, if Pods is healthy, is a possibility). Erstad is making the roster, either as the starting CF or a bench OF. That leaves one slot for... Anderson Terrero Perez I think Perez is the least likely of the three, since he's a pretty lousy outfielder, and that's what they are really looking for. 1B is solid with PK, Thome, and in a pinch, Mack or others. I think that its Terrero or Anderson, both of whom are having solid springs. if Pods isn't ready opening day, maybe both are on the roster, then one is sent down. The only wildcard is a trade - which is possible for any of the names above, except Hall, Erstad and probably Mack (who are all very unlikely).

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 01:21 PM) Ok, for once I'll be serious and try to not "fan the flames" with rhetoric. I think I try that in about 1 out of 100 posts in the filibuster. (OOPS, DAMN! My secret's out!!!). I agree with your general sentiment, and you're one of the posters who I do see that at least tries to see both sides of an argument. I've said before (although sometimes hard to see because of the "rhetoric") that THEY ALL DO hazy, shady, bulls*** things, depending on what their interests are. Most of the time, if you're a "liberal", you want to talk about how bad the Bush administration is and how bad his s*** stinks, and if you're a "conservative", you want to talk about how bad the Democrats are (the Clintons, today's Congress, etc). I get so sick and tired of seeing nothing but "SCANDALLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" about the Bush administration, and I also get sick of hearing about how it's always different when Democrats walk up to or break the line of the law. The defense of Clinton lying under oath cracks me up (he just told a little lie to save his marriage, it didn't REALLY matter!!!!). The defense of Sandy TurdBurgler also cracks me up (well, no one KNOWS what documents he destroyed or took!!!). It is just depending on your point of view. Our government is as corrupt as it can be, just about (thank you lobby $$$). I think what scares me is what we do NOT know that is happening. If you can't look at our government today and scream ROME!, then you've got your head in the sand. And ulitimately our country is going to face the same historical fate. We are ALL so egotisical in our country, system, spoils, riches, etc. and argue about such petty crap. In the end, we all leave this earth with the same thing. NOTHING. Yet, people spend more time trying to find reasons why George W. Bush and his adminstration sucks, and this is killing people, and and and... when the truth is the entire government is a part of the "plot", if you will. They all swing off the teat of the cameras and $$$$ being handed to them, and NOTHING else matters to them but staying in power. Anyway, I'm done. It doesn't matter, because no one changes their minds about anything here anyway. Oh yeah?! Well... Fine.

QUOTE(retro1983hat @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 01:14 PM) No, no, no, no, no, please not the dreaded SUNDAY LINE-UP. Oh how I hated sitting down on a Sunday afternoon to see: Ozuna Mackowiak Gload Cintron Widger All in the lineup at the same time. On top of that, the only regulars would be Uribe and Anderson. Do I have to be the one to point out that four of those five guys were .285+ hitters, two we well over .300, and three had better than average speed? And those were the BENCH guys? Though I agree that Widge sucked, and Mack in CF was a nightmare defensively. The "Sunday Lineup" isn't what killed us last year. You can put starting pitching, much of the bullpen, a lack of drive, some of Ozzie's decisions, Mack in CF, hitters trying to go yard too often, and a few other things ahead of that lineup.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 01:04 PM) She definitely walked RIGHT on that line. But she'll get a free pass (see Sandy Turdburgler), it's ok. Or, maybe she told the truth. She is under oath after all. What's the proof she lied?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 12:48 PM) Any usage based tax would be a tax increase for the lowest tax payers. Not if you do it right its not. I understand the idea that if they are paying virtually no income tax anyway, that would be hard to do. Frankly, it would require a re-working of how sales and use taxes are done across the board, at all levels of goverment. And becuase of that, it will probably never happen. But it COULD be done in such a way that it is not a tax increase for the lowest earners, who do already pay sales and use taxes.

Why on earth would we keep Perez and get rid of Mack? Other than his defensive play in CF (which is 100% not his fault), he was pretty much exactly what the Sox wanted him to be last year. People seem to forget that, and get lost in his problems playing a position he himself said he should only play in an emergency.

A lot of this argument could be eliminated nicely if we went away from income taxes entirely, and went to use taxes. Even better, make those use taxes proportionate to two dynamics - level of need (i.e. clothing and groceries should have lower tax rates than entertainment), and total cost impact (i.e. as pollution gets worse and our dependence on oil gets more dangerous, taxes on gas should go up). Use taxes put the tax ball entirely in the court of taxpayers and their decisions. And as for the forthcoming argument that this takes much of the highest earners' income out of the system, I do think you need to keep capital gains and interest taxation in the puzzle, at least for now. Just don't raise those under any circumstances.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 11:24 AM) No it wouldn't have. And this is exactly the type of s*** that Mrs. Bill Clinton's adminstration will get away with all day long should she take office. Republicans are transparent at the crooked s***, and the Democrats are not (they lie and cover up better). Again, /thread Dems suck, the poor victim GOP always gets the shaft, the media loves all Democrats, GOP are just too honest, etc., etc., /thread. This is the kind of garbage that made the Gore thread such a mess (well that and my blowing my top). Ignore the factual material at hand, claim the victim's ground for your side, point out that someone else is scuzzy too, and then your opinion is the end of the discussion. How about we point out that Clinton's questionable choices were bad, Bush's were similar and maybe even worse, and none of them are OK nore are any of them the damn victims? And how about the fact that, regardless of party, Gonzalez has stepped all over the Constitution waaaaaaaaaay more than Reno or any other AG I can recall has done (in my adult life, at least).

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 01:43 AM) There are now four GOP US Senators that have said "no confidence" or "he should resign" regarding our current Attorney General. John Sununu - NH Norm Coleman - MN Gordon Smith - OR Chuck Hagel - NE But I thought Hagel always agreed with the President outside of the Iraq War!!! Sorry, couldn't help myself. Seriously though, this AG was garbage from the start, so I tend to agree on his resignation. But there are a LOT of things he's done that are a LOT worse than this particular fiasco.