NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 09:44 AM) I know someone mentioned this the other day, but here is an interesting write up about the state of Iran's oil industry. I think the nuclear power play, is a straight up Kim Jung Il move to try to get concessions out of the rest of the world before Iran's economy circles the drain. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...1&cset=true So we're seeing this as a good thing here, in a way, because we may be able to avoid military conflict. And that is good. But here is a theoretical to consider - what if the Saudis or some other country in the region elect to help Iran get their infrastructure at least semi-functional, in exchange for financial gains from those operations? Maybe we shouldn't be so worried about a political or state-based regional power, but instead focus on the possibility of energy companies' breadth of control over the supply in the region.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 09:38 AM) Looks like John Edwards is going to officially announce his run for President from the 9th ward in New Orleans. We talk a lot in here about Pelosi's 100 hour priorities, but it seems the real push from the Dems in 2008 is going to be as crusaders for the poor and the middle class. They plan to use the expanding wedge of rich and poor in this country and paint themselves as the best hope for working folks. Not sure if that will work, but that does seem a major theme for them, and especially for Edwards.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 09:36 AM) http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/27/0...8.b06l9tc6.html Car companies more and more are becoming knowledge centers. They all build cars, but each of them now tend to be leaders in certain pieces of technology. Toyota and Honda are those knowledge centers for hybrid engines, for example. Fuji Heavy (makers of Subaru) are the same for differentials for AWD cars, which are used by companies like Saab (GM) and others. Even traditional competitors are starting to cooperate with each other I am sure Ford sees an opportunity here for their future. GM has been slower than expected in getting hybrids out the door, and when they do, they aren't even real hybrids. Dogde/Chrysler/Jeep doesn't even do any hybrids yet, I don't think. Ford on the other hand had the first hybrid SUV. I am sure Ford wants to leverage that and be the American car company known for hybrid vehicles.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 08:58 AM) Good analysis. The fiscal conservatives have been all but squeezed out during the Bush admin. The tax cuts were about the last real thing he did that was what we were looking for... He hasn't even made an attempt to rein in spending, even if you excuse the extra spending in the couple of years after the Clinton recession. Just one clarification. I don't think there was a "Clinton recession", nor was there a "Bush recovery". Presidents generally have minimal effect on the economy. Bush's dad said that once in a speech, and he was right (even though he should never, ever have said it in front of a camera). The recession was due mostly to market forces not under the control of the government - and Clinton deserves only a small part of the blame, just as he only deserves a small bit of credit for the 90's boom. Similarly, the quick recovery in 2003-2006 was due to many factors, only a small part being anything that Bush had material influence over. Presidents have only a small effect on the economy, except in extreme circumstances like FDR and the Depression era programs.

The title of this thread is funny. Mixed signals from KW. Why not call it "The sun rose this morning." Kenny is a poker player. Let's see what his pot looks like on April 1.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 08:47 AM) Sorry man. Boss brought it up this morning, and I didnt hear anything about him before. Hope the picture is updated at least! Also, here is a link to the original discussion thread. I think we can close this one.

Hangar, not only was this already posted, but I wrote the AAP page on the guy, which you are welcome to go check out.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 01:17 AM) For the GOP? I could see Mike Huckabee from Arkansas get the nod... I just don't see McCain keeping his momentum.... He's become a worse shill than John Kerry in the last couple years, and I think people will get exposed to it. Guiliani's campaign will be a mess the more he opens his mouth. I see an Obama nomination a distinct possibility, but I think theres a decent shot that Edwards or even Gore could get in there. I doubt Hillary has the nomination. My VP nomination lock: Former Gov Mark Warner. Huckabee? Really? Interesting. I know virtually nothing about the man. Now I need to go do some research. QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 01:33 AM) I don't see McCain getting the GOP nomination. I believe he's too moderate for the tastes of the mainstream in the GOP. Which mainstream? With the Bush administration losing its grip on the party, we are seeing a continued fracturing there - the GOP is becoming two parties. The religious/social crusaders (further right), and the small government business-focused conservatives (more moderate socially). And I am not convinced about which one will win out for the voice of the party in 2008. The crusaders are still very powerful, but as strong as their rise was in the last decade, their fall looks like it is going to be even faster.

So, I thought W told us months ago that the Iraqis had nominal control over military presence in Iraq. If Talabani says let them loose, do they get let loose? It will be interesting to see what happens here.

A lot of people on this site seem pretty down on Owens, but his numbers, and the few times I saw him play, seem to say otherwise. I think there is a lot of potential there. What do people think about him? Is he a possible Pods replacement in 2007, if Pods falters and we don't replace him with MLB talent? If not, is Owens a solution for somewhere in the OF in 2008?

Biden is officially in the race. He had all but said so before of course, but this was his coming out party.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 07:20 AM) Ah yes, the read and insert words here.... I have never, and will never, be in favor of artificial wage rates. The market will support, what the market can support. Everytime the government screws with things, they get messed because there are unintened consequences that come from moving wages away from their equalibrium point, which often makes things worse than if they had just left things alone. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 01:53 PM) Here's one of those places where you and I are going to fundamentally disagree. The problem I see is that the market will support things that are actually worse for people than they should be, because the market is an abstract thing. The market has a different goal from what the government does; the market's goal is to turn a profit. The government on the other hand has the goal of, or at least should have the goal of doing what is best for the American people. Luckily for us, in a decent number of cases, those 2 goals line up. But in this case, I contend that they simply do not, and the American people and the American system are better off if there is some sort of wage floor. You both make excellent points here. But Balta, the market's goal is not just profit - its efficiency, which involves the consumer. If a firm gets too profitable, market forces tend to correct it in the form of competition. That does not always work, but often it does. That said, the markets are not perfect, and they need "curbs" from the government to handle the outliers. That is why there is, and should be, a minimum wage. Its a safety check. And businesses can go around it (and do) all the time, usually by way of foreign labor. Which is, in my opinion, just fine. Keep the minimum wage, increase the rate as proposed, build in a COLA, and then we don't have to mess with it ever again.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 01:58 PM) Hell, in the event of 4 starting pitchers going down, I think we're probably in better shape than just about anyone in baseball. And I call that depth.

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 01:45 PM) Let's make sure we get our stats correct. Danks pitched extremely well at high-A Bakersfield (2.50 ERA). Then he struggled when called up to AA Frisco for the remainder of the 2005 season. Then he started the 2006 season in AAA and pitched better, but not great (4.15 ERA). Then he was called up to AAA Oklahoma where he struggled before finishing strong. So he has had two months of AAA success. I think I need to see a bit more than that. I'm not going to say he's major league ready because of a good two months. You are correct on the year-long stats in 2006, I got those from the wrong year. The stats from Aug-Sep in AAA are still correct, though. There is a distinct pattern there - he goes up a level, gives up a lot of hits, settles in, and then gets strong.

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 01:12 PM) There certainly is a continuum. I've looked at the performances of these young pitchers. Only Haeger and Phillips have ever pitched particularly well in AAA. None of the rest of them have. If you can't succeed in AAA, then I think it unlikely that you are ready for the majors. And from everything I've read about Phillips, he isn't exactly a top prospect (he isn't even on BA's new top 10 Sox prospect list). The rest look like they need more minor league experience and/or a big fix from Coop. I've had this debate with people here before. How much do the final, statistical results matter at each level in the minors? How much do peripherals and more focused stats matter? And how much do you rely on subjective scouting reports? There are people on this site all over that spectrum. Some feel the actual basic stats mean nothing, and its all in the scouting reports (these people, for example, would say Phillips is going nowhere). Others, the opposite - they see success as a skill in itself (these people feel Phillips can be an ML starter someday). Some focus on peripheral stats and other more narrow statistical analyses. Danks pitched extremely well at AA (ERA 2.50), then struggled a lot at AAA, before finishing strong there too (Aug-Sep he had a 2.33 ERA). So, he seems to be able to succeed at the AAA level as well as others. Scouting reports and more subjective analyses put him as a very high-ceiling prospect. And narrow stats like K/BB ratios appear very good (53-16 in AA, 85-34 in AAA). So, in all three areas, Danks seems strong. Would he succeed in 2007 as a starter on the Sox? I think he has as good a chance as B-Mac does.

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 12:59 PM) Agreed. I think that depth is players ready to play well at the major league level. We had 6. Now we have 4. So its just an on an off switch for you? Ready or not ready? No continuum there? Seems to me there is a scale.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 12:52 PM) Again, I don't think this is who KW had in mind when it came to upgrading the big league team this offseason. With that in mind, I think we'll sign another outfielder in the next month. That might be true. And maybe that makes the team even better. But I'd be OK with Terrero as the 5th bench spot, to cover CF every 7th game or so.

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 12:50 PM) In 2006, we had McCarthy as the #6 starter to step in if any SP went down. Now, who do we have? The losers in the #5 starter competition. NONE of these guys is major league ready. Actually, maybe Haeger is ready, but he's no Brandon McCarthy. These guys all have talent, but do you think they are ready to shine in their rookie season? How often does that happen? Even for pitchers who eventually become great, they rarely show that in their rookie season. This team has great pitching prospects for the future, but crappy pitching depth (as compared to 2006) for the present. Can you imagine if Contreras goes on the DL and we have a rotation of: Buehrle Garland Vazquez Haeger Floyd *shudders* Does that look like quality depth in 2007 to you? No MLB staff in baseball would be 100% OK losing a starter, even if we kept all 6 of those guys around (which everyone realizes would never have happened anyway). But honestly, that rotation but with Danks instead of Floyd doesn't look awful, for a team who lost a starter to injury. If you can't see that we have more depth in the pitching staff than we did, then there is not much point in discussing this further. You and I apparently have a different idea of what Depth is.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 12:36 PM) Who is this mysterious back-up we've acquired? And I hope no one is considering Danks for a starting spot with the big league team in 2007. Not acquired - someone in-system. Terrero. Is he starting material? Probably not. But he can defend the position, which is what I am looking for right now. And the write-ups I have found indicate he has a strong arm and is a generally good defender, though has some issues to work through. Plus he has a bit of speed, and some power. Seems about ideal to me.

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 12:28 PM) That makes no sense. Now we only have 4 good SP's and no depth. By that I mean depth with guys who are ready to step in and pitch like at least mediocre major league pitchers. That is an obvious and significant downgrade. No depth? We have more depth, not less. Without these moves, beyond B-Mac, the cupboard was bare. Its not anymore. No one stocks MLB starters - you have room for 5, maybe 6 if you stretch it and screw up someone's development like they did with B-Mac in 2006. But now we have an enviable, deep list of guys who are at, or close to, MLB quality SP level. That is an improvement, not a downgrade.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 12:24 PM) We're making the same exact mistake we made in the 2003 and 2004 years, when we thought we could just fill in (name pitcher) for the 5th starter position, and it would work out. Besides for adding Hall, we've done nothing to help our offense. We're putting a lot of hope into Thome, Dye, PK, and Crede staying healthy the whole season again (besides for Thome's little injuries). Also, even though we've added some guys to the bullpen, I don't think that's what KW had in mind when he said we were going to improve it this offseason. I think he thought he'd be able to get guys like Speier and Walker, but their contracts were a lot higher than he thought they'd be. All I know is that if I sit back and take off my White Sox goggles, we're not an improved team ON PAPER!. I don't agree. We improved, without much debate, at the following positions: Backup C, bullpen as a whole, backup CF and bench generally in terms of how we use them (Gload was a loss, but we now have the RIGHT bench personnel lined up). That leaves the highly debateable 5th starter slot. Even if you think B-Mac would be better in 2007 than Danks, we are still improved in a few spots and even or maybe down a bit in that one. So to say this team is somehow worse off, I just don't see it. On paper, the team is better. Not overwhelmingly, but still better. This team did not need an overhaul. Give me a solid guy in LF, ideally a leadoff hitter, and I'd call this a huge success of an offseason. Right now, I'd say its pretty good, and we're on the right track. As for the hope in Thome/Dye/PK/Crede, that is a reality that has not changed since 2005 (sans Thome). That's the deal when you have superstars in the lineup.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 12:21 PM) Felix Diaz and Scott Shoenweis? OK.... Maybe you want to put Sisco and Masset up there instead? Or Phillips or Gio...

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 12:14 PM) An improved major league team. And this isn't an improved team. We've "added a lot of talent"? Not major league talent. Adding guys like Terrero, Sisco and Aardsma is only technically filling holes. Those aren't upgrades. Actually, maybe the bullpen is a little bit better. But only a little. KW signed a good back up catcher. That small hole was filled. The nearly automatic outs in LF, CF and SS remain. We also lost 2 of our 6 good SP's. Now we have no good, major league ready #5 starter and if/when a SP goes down, we have no depth to fill that spot. The 2007 major league team hasn't been improved. Let's see. Holes to fill on 10/1: LF, Backup C, a couple bullpen spots. I see only LF left on that list. We had 5 good SP's and a possible 6th - now we have 4 good SP's and possible 5 thru 9 (some may see this as a downgrade, I do not). Defensively, the team is solid. Bench is fine. The 2007 Major League team has improved. The offseason is also still not over. And meanwhile, the 2008 team is looking a lot better than it was. LF is the only concern left worth noting, I think. Any other upgrades would be good if the deal is value-positive for us, but are by no means necessary. QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 12:17 PM) I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise right now. Seems pretty obvious to me the team is better than it was.

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 11:45 AM) If the Sox again don't make the playoffs, the I-love-KW crowd will give Kenny no blame whatsoever. They will say: 1) We wouldn't have made the playoffs anyway, even with Garcia and McCarthy. and 2) Thank God Kenny loaded us up with pitching prospects because next year we're going to have at least 3 young aces in Danks, Floyd, and Gio. And if they don't pan out in 2008, it will be "wait until next year, they'll surely arrive then." And if they don't pan out in 2009... Meanwhile, the I'm-just-here-to-complain crowd will tell us all offseason, and all season long, no matter what the Sox are doing in the standings, that the team is worse than the 2006 Cubs, KW is an idiot, blah blah blah. See how easy it is to just make sweeping generalizations? While I still like this trade, I can see some logical arguments otherwise. I can also understand stating, as Fathom did earlier, that we haven't plugged all the holes yet (LF particularly, though we HAVE addressed backup C and part of the bullpen). But this idea that the team is worse than it was at the end of the season, I just don't get. We added a lot of talent and plugged some holes, all the while setting us up to deal for a replacement in LF if we want it. In fact, if we do find an upgrade in LF, I think we've pretty much plugged all the significant holes. What else do you want?

Update. How weak must Somalia be to be routed by Ethiopia?