NorthSideSox72

I see Figgins has played a few games at SS. Does anyone think he could succeed there defensively? Since we have a fair amount of OF talent in the system already, and it seems like finding a shortstop on the market would be tough, that would be pretty handy. Figgins at short and all sorts of options for LF.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 4, 2006 -> 11:19 AM) Even with identical numbers (avg/obp) Figgins is light years better than Pods. A, because if you put him in left everyday he'd be one of the better left fielders in baseball (with a very strong arm for a LF) and B, because he truly reaks total chaos on the bases and thats something Ozzie wants and needs. Carl Crawford would be great, but I don't see us having what it takes to get him without creating some serious holes on our lineup, but we could potentially get Figgins. I am not saying we deal Crede for Figgins. I think it would be stupid to deal Crede unless we are getting a super star type prospect in return or a very high level player in return (pitcher or CF). So, just curious... what do you think it would take from the Sox to get Figgins?

And then, the update on the House: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061004/pl_nm/poll_house_dc_1 Dems lead in 11 of 15 in these particular key races. GOP has a 15-seat advantage. No word on any of the other races, and their projections. If things fall as they are polling here, Dems would need to pick up 5 more seats (net) in the other 400-some-odd races to gain control of the House.

I don't believe the problem is that there are lobbyists. There have to be lobbyists - its political organization for a cause. There is no stopping that. The problem lies in what we allow Congress and other policy-makers to accept from them. To me, there needs to be a strict limitation (and accounting of) ANYTHING received from anyone not a family member or close friend (not just money - meals, transportation and travel, gifts, etc.). And the other side of the coin - all of them need to disclose how each of those peoples' organizations are connected to ANYTHING that the official voted on (sort of like stock pickers on TV having to say whether or not they own any of that stock). As a final piece to this, enforcement - the the GAO or OMB need to have officials whose sole job is to track all that information, make it available to the public, and investigate questionable issues.

I guess the alcoholism excuse wasn't enough... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061003/ap_on_...man_e_mails_113 Not only is he gay, but... he was molested by a priest! I don't know if its true or not. But either way, what they just did is complete a living connection between homosexuality and sexual deviance with minors. Either this is true and an unfortunate combination of events, or, they are even slimier than I thought and trying really hard to be forgiven by the religious right. This whole thing is just sickening. Can we just do a new, open vote for all seats in Congress, with no incumbents allowed?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 3, 2006 -> 02:55 PM) "And my message today to those in Iraq is: We'll stay the course; we'll complete the job." Anyway...flipping subjects here a little bit. On Friday, a previously unnamed person called up ABC News and offered ABC an exclusive on Congressman Foley's resignation if ABC would hold off on publishing the nastiest of the emails/IM's. We've finally learned today who that was...Kirk Fordham, the Chief of Staff to Congressman Tom Reynolds, the head of the NRCC (who's name has come up a couple times in this already.) So...this of course begs the question...were the Republicans in Congress trying to keep this story under wraps as recently as Friday? No, they weren't trying to kill the story. They were trying to keep things under control politically. By that time, the story was already out. They just were trying to negotiate a way to keep the actual IM's out of the media if possible. Its just politics, and I see nothing wrong with this aspect of it.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 3, 2006 -> 02:10 PM) Well, it seems the Conservative desires to not "gay bash" in all of this were short-lived indeed. Some of this bile from conservative commentators is just horrific: Well... let's seperate these voices from "Conservatives". These are not elected officials - they are just talking heads. I don't think they can be used to gauge "Conservative" behavior anymore than their lefty equivalents for "Liberals". It just polarizes the issue and obfuscates the point - that someone did something slimy, and further, Congressional officials may have ignored the problem.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 3, 2006 -> 01:23 PM) Why? Because the Speaker has (or at least should have) better things to do then follow up on a dirty email sent by one of 200+ Republican members of the House? I think the right thing would be to punish this guy, not because he's Republican, but because he's a perve. The fact that's he's Republican has nothing to do with the situation. "Dirty email"? Didn't you say earlier in this thread... twice, in fact... that this crime deserves a punishment of testicle removal? I'd call it a little more than a dirty email. The CONGRESSIONAL leadership should have acted on this earlier. GOP and Dem. If Hastert was told about it in any detailed fashion, and the level of problem was made clear, and he failed to act... then he should at least step down as Speaker. Now, here is the real problem. Someone says they "told" Hastert about it. That could mean anything. If "told" means it was casually mentioned, like "Hey, I think Foley is getting a little too close to the Pages. Keep an eye out", then I wouldn't call that something that Hastert should be necessarily expected to make a big deal of. If on the other hand "told" means multiple people made clear to him that Foley was encouraging or acting out sex crimes with minor Pages, then yeah, he'd better the heck rain destruction down on Foley. So which was it? We probably will never now... unless there is an email.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 3, 2006 -> 10:27 AM) pierre did lead the league in hits this year, I do not think PODS was anywhere close. I'll clarify... Pods will have a better OBP than Pierre. I know it isn't the popular opinion around here, but after watching him all year, I think Pods had a number of problems this year - all of which can easily be solved (and makes him likely to bounce back): 1. He never did recover from the hernia, with the lack of off-season. 2. He tried to be a different hitter, take a lot of pitches and try to drive the ball (and not bunt), but then he forced himself into 2 strikes constantly. 3. Watching him in up-close shots, seeing him take so many pitches, watching his already pedestrian defense get even worse, and seeing his high number of pickoffs and late jumps... I think he has vision problems. The guy blinks more than anyone I've ever seen. 4. By mid-year, with the pressure on, he mentally jacked himself. I actually agree with Ozzie on this - he was forcing everything (steal attempts, trying to take walks, alley hitting, etc.). All that said, I think he'll recover somewhat, but still only be a guy who gets you .340-.350 in OBP (.290 BA), 70% steals (going down as he attempts more), no power and average-at-best defense in LF. Very Pierre-like. I'd rather have a better OBP guy who also plays good D at his position and can get a bunt down. A little power is nice too.

I'll take an even bet right now with anyone interested... Pods will have a better year next year than Pierre (assuming both play regularly and lead off somewhere). But, I'd rather not have either of them. Pierre just isn't much of an upgrade from Pods, so why bother? Furcal, or maybe Rollins, would be my ideal choices. To me, OBP is far and away the #1 factor for a leadoff hitter. Heck, I'd rather have Gload lead off than Pierre or Pods. I do see what people are saying about Ozzie's ozzieball thing. He wants speed and bunts. Fine. But if we are going to bother upgrading Pods, then do it substantially - not just a wee bit more speed, but a wee bit more speed AND a higher OBP. I do have to ask, though, because I really don't know - what is Rollins' defense like?

Just to throw this out there, in regards to the "pedophile" discussion... If the page was 16, depending on where this occurred (DC, Virginia, elsewhere), there may have been no violation of law. In some states, 16 is consensual across the board. Now, its still creepy as hell for all sorts of reasons. The age difference, the position of authority, the fact that this is a guy who is on that board for missing and exploited children, the fact that he is married with kids... the guy doesn't belong in any position of authority. So now he is gone. Good. And I hope DC or federal laws make it illegal, so that this guy can go to jail for a while. Just want to put that out there - he may be allowed to go scott free (aside from losing his place in the house), which is awful. And there isn't much legally to be done about it. Here is a suggestion, though, to make it clear that people in such positions should be held to a higher standard... make the holding of an elected office a factor of aggravation for any sex-related crime. In other words, if a sexual assault occurs (for example, adult with minor), if the adult is in an elected office, it automatically becomes aggravated sexual assault (which carries much stiffer penalties). This could be done at the state level as it usually would be, or, a blanket federal requirement could be issued by Congress.

QUOTE(danman31 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 11:41 AM) Sanderson went to Glenbrook North. Eh, close. They're both CSL South, right?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 12:36 PM) I think we really have a problem with anger control in this country. Yep. QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 12:37 PM) As well as discipline. And... yep. Hey SS2K5, can you work on that for us in MC?

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 12:06 PM) At this point, only way Josh is moved is if Crede gets locked up till 2010-2011. Fields is a big key to this franchise right now. If we were to ship of Fields,now we are in the hands of Boras, and we could have a HUGE problem on our hands with not having anyone to fill the void at 3b if Joe were to leave, so we have to fork over ALOT of $$$$ to get Joe to stay. Having Fields in the wings is nice to have, no doubt. Having Fields there is definitely going to help, one way or another. I just hope it helps as leverage, and Crede convinces Boras to be only mildly awful to the Sox - and Crede gets a long term deal. I'm not saying that WILL happen, just that its what I HOPE happens.

I'd guess that, unless they plan on converting Fields to a left-fielder in winter ball, one of Fields or Crede will definitely be gone prior to Opening Day 2007.

QUOTE(MSHAWKS @ Oct 1, 2006 -> 07:33 PM) Maine South and Prospect are the only two north side schools with a championship tradition. New Trier is the most hatable high school in the state of Illinois. I'm shocked to hear that from a poster named MSHAWKS. NT doesn't deserve discussion as a top rivalry in football with anyone. They aren't a football school. They can make a case in hockey, swimming and some other sports though. QUOTE(farmteam @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 10:54 AM) They rarely compete for titles in two of the "big 3" sports (baseball being the exception). However, it's hard to argue with things like this: http://www.stolaf.edu/people/leibold/SI_Ex...May_11,2005.htm Look at #12. Yup. Just not in football. And I'd say there have been bigger individual names. I'd have to go look, but I thought Scott Sanderson went to NT. Not sure though.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 11:14 AM) I thought Mr. Crede was quoted as saying that he wouldnt let Bora$$ be an issue with him staying with the sox, and that he made the final decision. Then right after that, he decides to go to the devil's friend for medical advice. Nice. All part of the game... but Boras is not the only one playing. Crede is toeing the line, and will do so until its decision time. KW is, as usual, putting out all sorts of vague, deceptive hints. I wouldn't believe a word out of KW's mouth when it comes to personnel moves. Unless he is standing next to someone who is putting on a Sox uni at a press conference, his words should be taken with more salt than they put in that kung pao chicken you ate last night.

11716 and rising...

Latest tracking numbers available: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/BalanceofPower.htm According to Rasmussen, its looking like 49-49 in the Senate (using solids and leaners), with 2 toss-ups. The toss up category has been shrinking, and things are solidifying a bit more. But, more of the Dems' 49 are leaners, and more GOP are solid. Some leaners could sway back. Its definitely gonna be close. Note that Harold Ford, who at one time had a 12-point deficit to Corker, is now favored to win.

And the magic excuse is... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/ap_on_...sman_e_mails_79 "I"m an alcoholic!" Whatever. A**hole.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 08:28 AM) But if I, as an individual, want to take an ad out telling everyone why I think Mike would be a great school board member, shouldn't I be allowed to do that? Who should be stopping me? The candidate? I won't tell him. The government? That would be censoring me. Should this site be barred from talking about his candidacy? Also, wouldn't we be crippling some industries that get a big boost every election cycle. What happens to the sign shops, printing shops, etc. Somebody is making all that red, white, and blue paint, I'm not too worried on the sign makers. But your point about individual free speech is a good one. Maybe you have a cap on each individual and business on spending for political purposes? Sounds good, except it would be a nightmare to enforce. I don't have a perfect answer for it. Its definitely a tough issue.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 08:20 AM) I think it will be quite hard for Ned Colletti to justify giving Julio Lugo a 5 year / 40M deal (which is what he wants, and may get) when he's put up splits of .219/.278/.267 for the Dodgers (albeit it is a very small sample size). If he could spin off Furcal for say Garland though, then there's some justification right there. Or they could let Nomar go, and have Lugo rotate at 1B/2B with Loney and Kent. I was thinking more Garcia/Vazquez than Garland, but you make a good point. Seems to me LAD has a log jam of talented infielders.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 08:09 AM) How do you respond to the people that say you are infringing on my right to free speech if I privately fund a commercial for my candidate? Think someone like the Swiftees? Here is the problem with that argument (sorry, I'm totally budging into this argument)... There are some dynamics in politics and government, and their relationships with private citizens and businesses, where goal alignment creates a permanent dissonance. For example... I don't think institutional health care (hospitals, EMS and accordant funding) should be allowed to be privatized. Why? Because the goal of private business (for-profit) is to make money. And that primary goal will never be aligned with providing good health care. (***Please don't start arguing about health care, which is a whole different animal - I was just making a parallel) Looking now at the election puzzle... spending gobs of private money on electing candidates is never going to allow for true political process to take place. So, for me, the compromise (private spending caps, evening out TV and radio time) allows for fundraising and ingenuity, but it prevents big brother from meddling in the outcome of elections. Its a balance between free speech and a good election process.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Oct 1, 2006 -> 10:51 PM) I see... Since Lugo has sucked ever since he was traded to the Dodgers and will demand $8 mil, the Dodgers are going to desperately try to resign him and trade the productive Furcal. Hell, they'd surely even be willing to throw in a mil or three. Well, to cut through your sarcasm... yes. After all, they traded for Lugo. And he is probably 6M cheaper than Furcal. So like I said, if they still see in Lugo what they did when they traded for him, then this deal is a good one for both sides. The Dodgers want to win next year, and they will want starting pitching - which we can give them. If you want to disagree with my idea, that's fine. No need for the sneering.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 07:01 AM) If you really want to protect against being fed the same crap during the election cycle, this bill doesn't matter. If you really want to change things, get rid of private funding for races. Set it up so the government gives a base amount for an election cycle of a particular race, and type of office. After you have spent that amount, you are done. That way the race becomes about message and debate, instead of who can raise and spend the most money. I'd be OK with a cap on private funding in total (not the current per contributor thing that is easy to get around). So any one candidate can spend X amount of money up to the primaries, another X amount to the generals. And it should be a smallish number (say 1 million for Prez, 500k for US Congress seats, etc.). This somewhat levels the playing field, but still forces the candidates to show they can do some basic fundraising, which is not a bad thing. Here is the catch, though - what about money spent just to get on a ballot? How do you limit that, since up to that point, they aren't even officially a candidate yet? Anyone have any ideas? And to further SS2K5's point, I think that TV and radio time should be evened up as well.