NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 9, 2013 -> 09:10 AM) They would be visible on Lake Michigan. I can see from Michigan to Chicago on a relatively clear day. There are parts of Superior and Huron that are well outside of visual range. But I still think Hudson Bay makes the most sense.

I've said this before... you want to build a big wind farm? Put them out away from shore - I mean like out of visual range - in Hudson Bay. It is the perfect spot. Tons of wind almost at all times, virtually no shipping traffic, and even if they are visible by people, there are almost no significant populations of people along most of it's shores anyway. And unlike other oceanic locations, it is not at all susceptible to hurricanes or the like. The one-time cost to set up transmission wires to run to shore would be significant. But the long term savings would be massive, and you have a ton of space to work with. Same can be said of certain portions of the Great Lakes, as long as you get far enough off shore. Though in that case you need to be more careful about shipping channels.

Thanks guys. I didn't even log in over the weekend to see this. I appreciate it!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 04:47 PM) So for the first 10ish years afterwards, they actually had shrunk the economy in real terms, not even in inflationally adjusted?? That is amazingly bad. For a country that was basically starting over governmentally and in terms of societal rules? No, that curve is amazingly good. As I said, it took decades the the US economy to start being useful after their independence.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 03:58 PM) PK is backup C, Dunn is fourth OF. Problem solved. Carry 14 pitchers I would pay to see a game with Konerko catching and Dunn in center field.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 03:52 PM) I agree, there's no reason to carry a backup 1b on this roster for Abreu when Dunn can be the emergency fill-in. Abreu should be pushed past 150 games this year. Seriously though, compare the two situations. We're so worried about backups for 1b for some reason that we have 4 different guys on the roster who can backup 1b (5 if you count Flowers). And I think that's a great illustration of why I'm still convinced this takes away a bunch of playing time from Abreu and hurts the roster. No one is worried about backup 1B's. That had zero to do with Konerko signing.

Also worth noting, in addition to the many very good things a new USA did in 20 years... 1. It also did a lot of pretty bad things (but again, just as with Mandela's legacy, that doesn't make the whole thing bad) 2. When the USA became a nation it was economically hanging on by a thread for many decades

QUOTE (robinventura23 @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 02:43 PM) They need room for Belisario and possible Rule 5 pick. Makes sense. He makes 38. Gives them two open slots. Makes me think they have something in mind coming up soon, Rule V or otherwise. Or maybe I'm just hoping for something, haha.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 02:25 PM) That chart supports my point. You have now lost the one salvaging quality of your posts - dealing in facts even if they aren't pretty. You are now trying to leave the world of Euclidian geometry and elemental mathematics, and have decided that crime going down means crime going up. You can't even see the res' anymore.

Makes sense. I don't even understand why they are keeping McDade at all. I'd much rather have Wilkins and Black get those AB's. Maybe McDade elects to not take the assignment.

Scott Merkin talked about Keppinger supposedly being able to play shortstop. He has played 178 games there, but... none since 2010. Beckham played two partial games at SS last year. If the Sox think one of them can handle SS for, say, 5 games in a year... then maybe, if you can't trade Keppinger (which I hope they do but may not be possible), you go with a bench of Keppinger, Konerko, Danks and a C. You have 4 guys to cover 3 skill IF positions, 4 guys to cover 3 OF positions, 3 guys to cover 1B/DH and some PH, and 2 catchers. Might work out OK.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 01:25 AM) Royals still need a second baseman. How bout robbing some of their young pitching for Becks? QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 07:22 AM) Gordon Beckham is 27 with 2,000+ AB's in the MLB and owns a .249/.314/.380 slash. He has 0 trade value. Only scenario I could see Beckham being traded is if its a swap of another teams failed prospect Neither of these extremes are true. He does have trade value, but you aren't getting one of KC's elite pitching prospects either.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 09:30 AM) I didn't believe the original post due entirely to that number being so staggering. It probably was true of specific tribal groups. There is significant documentation of people arriving in villages and finding it filled almost entirely with dead bodies with no signs of violence. But it certainly wasn't a holistic number. There were probably a few million AmerInds in North American when Europeans started arriving in significant numbers, and there is no way that disease took that number to a few tens of thousands in a short timeframe due to disease.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 08:35 AM) Charles Mann's 1491 includes some references to research that indicates that as much as 95% of the indigenous population in the Americas was wiped out purely from first-contact diseases without even taking into account the later genocides. Imagine the shock to your society when everyone is dropping dead from strange new illnesses. It was far worse than the Black Plague. By the time white settlers really got a foothold and started expanding, much of the native society was in tatters, almost post-apocalyptic. edit: here's a google preview of the book and the section talking about it None of that excuses the horrible things that were done and the marginalization that continues to this day, though. Just a few days ago, the Seminoles celebrated Polly Parker's escape from the Trail of Tears. They are one of if not the only native society to not be displaced or wiped out. Be careful with 1491. It is a good read and points out a lot of important historical data points that most of society doesn't know. But other anthropologists have pointed out that he stretched some conclusions too far. That 95% number is really only true of some specific tribal groups, not all AmerInds as a whole.

Pointing out that Mandela did some things, especially early in his life, that were not great... I get that. It is better to have a full picture of history, even if it is tougher to read. But... 1. That does nothing to significantly tarnish Mandela's full legacy, which was astoundingly positive. 2. Duke's view of the man's history is twisted beyond recognition, and that is sad. I won't flat out state the third point about some people's motivation for twisting history, but it makes me ill to think about it.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 5, 2013 -> 03:43 PM) I like this kid. Surprised that he said he prefers relieving. It's also an interesting look in to see why you have some guys start in the minors even though your full intention is to use them as a reliever in the MLB level. This reminds me of Nate Jones starting, throwing 150 innings or whatever, when we knew he basically was a 2 pitch pitcher with big time velocity. You need to get a feel for what you are doing on the mound rather than just throwing what the catcher calls. I'm guessing there's also some strength building in doing that too where you may be able to increase your velocity a bit. Really, really pulling for this guy. Yeah, we've known for a while about the Sox doing this - taking a guy who is very probably a reliever, and making him start for a year or two. Chris' indication is that this is done to move them from being throwers to pitchers. What's different about Chris though, compared to say Jones, is that Chris has 4 pitches, or even 5 if you count both fastballs. Also, unlike Jones, he did pretty darn well starting. His arm held up well to doubling his innings too. This makes for a tough decision for the Sox, though I'd bet they have him start in 2014, and then not make him a reliever until either he struggles or he's in Chicago.

Article here. Discuss.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 5, 2013 -> 10:22 AM) Who was the Sox legend in 2011 that was also a left-handed hitting 1B/DH just like Adam Dunn on the roster? Were there 3 guys on the 2011 roster that could only play 1b/DH? I don't even know what that first sentence means. Second sentence is irrelevant. I know you'd rather think Abreu fits in the category of Santiago/Anderson and some others, but he just doesn't. Look at Dunn in 2011. He was so bad, that really just about any bat would have been better - and they kept playing him most of the season anyway. There is your example.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 5, 2013 -> 10:14 AM) If he came out and hit .100 for the first 2 months of the season, I think they'd consider sending him to AAA for a short period of time at that point. I don't foresee that happening. Yeah, that's why I said he'd need to be epically bad. And even then I think they've give him a little longer than that. Barring that or injury, he's playing 130+ games. And even if he's demoted, he's still playing full time, but again he'd have to be REALLY bad.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 5, 2013 -> 09:59 AM) It's not paranoia. It's a lack of faith in an organization that has made many bad personnel decisions and has not been very successful recently. From Mackowiak in CF, to letting Ozzie keep Tank in the minors, Kotsay/Thome, Sale back to the bullpen, Santiago as closer, etc. Add to the fact that the owner forced this move upon the young, new GM and I don't like it. The Sox don't owe Konerko a damn thing, as his 16,000 square foot in Scottsdale can attest to. I don't buy that such loyalty moves help in free agency either, money talks, that's what matters. The Marlins treat their players like crap, yet they managed to sign the second best catcher available. It is paranoia because none of those examples is the slightest bit like Abreu. You want a good comp? Because there is one on the team - his name is Adam Dunn. Dunn was signed as a free agent 1B/DH for 4/56. Abreu was signed as a free agent 1B/DH for 6/68, so even more years and money. Now, Dunn started 2011 OK, had his illness and surgery, then came back terrible. Stayed terrible throughout the year - like epic-level terrible. And it wasn't until very late in the season they even started to cut back his play, and that was by just a little bit. And he still came back as a starter the next year. That is what you should use as the analog here. Abreu would need to be epically, historically bad, and even then his playing time won't diminish much until very late in the year.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 5, 2013 -> 09:04 AM) You have more faith in the White Sox organization and management than I do. Zero to do with faith. If you want to choose to believe some wild, unfounded conspiracy theory about this, go right ahead. But you cannot find any fact in evidence to support it. Again, we are talking about the Sox having paid the largest bonus and contract to an international player.... EVER. On a long term contract, at age 26. Any comparison to someone like Brian Anderson or Hector Santiago are ridiculous. Viciedo was 20 friggin years old and considered raw. None of these are in he same realm as Abreu. Find me a guy the Sox signed for 10's of millions of dollars, then sat in favor of some old guy. Heck, find one instance of that ever in ANY organization. You can't. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 5, 2013 -> 09:07 AM) The White Sox have been more than happy to screw around with "Key long-term players" in the past. Repeatedly. Viciedo's callups and position shifts are on that list. More so is the Chris Sale bullpen garbage. Not just sticking him there for 2011, but going so far as to try to push him back there in 2012 only a month into making him a starter. We tried to put the most important long-term piece for the organization in the bullpen forever because of a tired arm, he publicly said "No" and forced his way back into the rotation where he nearly pitched the team to the playoffs that season leading to the remarkable circumstance of a pitcher publicly disagreeing with statements by his manager about how he would be used...and I'm supposed to just trust that we'll treat this piece right because he's an important long term piece and it'd be completely insane to screw around with that important of a long-term piece...which we have a record of doing. See above. You have no related comparison to make here. No organization has ever done what you are suggesting will be done here. There is no foundation in reality for the idea that Abreu struggles and Konerko becomes a starter as a result. Such an occurance has zero chance of happening, and has never happened in any similar way before. The paranoia of some Sox fans astounds me.

I find it amazing there are people who actually think Konerko is going to take significant at bats away from Abreu. Or even more hilarious, that they think Konerko will take over starting time if Abreu struggles in April/May. There is no foundation for this in reality. We are not talking about a Brent Morel, or even a Brian Anderson here - this is a guy with a $63M contract. There is zero chance he sits in 2013. He'll play at least 130 game, probably more like 130-140, maybe even 150. Konerko's being on the team has zero effect on that - that is what would have happened either way. There are plenty of good reasons to dislike the PK14 signing. Irrational fears about benching a guy they just signed for $63M is not one of them.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 4, 2013 -> 03:34 PM) Easy choice: Trade Keppinger and get nothing back He provides little to no value for this team as constructed, and eating part of his salary is a small amount of money. Him leaving doesn't create nearly the whole trading Dunn does. Keppinger is owed $4M in '14 and $4.5M in '15. Trade him and send half his salary, someone will take him for 2/4M, get back a nothing prospect to make it look patent. You save a couple mill each of the next two years, and lose nothing you need. Dunn is owed $15M for '14. No one will pay that, you probably have to send say $7M with him - and get back a B level prospect. Meanwhile, since PK doesn't want to play a lot, meet Andy Wilkins: your new DH. Not pretty. The most you save is maybe $8M, as opposed to $4M... but with you are removing THE SECOND BEST HITTER FROM LAST YEAR's TEAM. And doing next to nothing for the future, as you are only saving an extra $4M and not getting any significant prospect in return. Remember, their plan here is to rebuild while not completely destroying the current team. I'll take Door #1.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2013 -> 03:31 PM) We've got 4 choices. Trade Dunn and get nothing back. Trade Keppinger and get nothing back Have either no backup OF or no backup SS on the roster. A 6 man bullpen. Take your pick. I don't like any of those, but we have to chose one of them. Easy choice: Trade Keppinger and get nothing back He provides little to no value for this team as constructed, and eating part of his salary is a small amount of money. Him leaving doesn't create nearly the whole trading Dunn does.

QUOTE (LVSoxFan @ Dec 4, 2013 -> 03:16 PM) I've seen "Now if we can just trade Dunn!" appear numerous times here in this thread. Who in their right mind would ever shell out for Dunn? More importantly, who in their right mind would trade him, knowing you have to send money and get basically nothing back? He was one of the couple best hitters on the team, and you don't want Paulie getting 600 AB. He doesn't even want that.