NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 02:44 AM) Sixth Sense = 4 stars Unbreakable = 2.5 stars Everything else... s***. I thought Signs was as good as Sixth Sense, maybe better.

QUOTE (Jillian Michaels' Abs @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:48 PM) Apparently, the Sox released Tracy... since the Royals just signed him to a minor league contract. *shrug* Tracy? Who is Tracy?

For all the complaining I do, I figure it is only fair to point out the rare occasions when something right is happening in Congress. Harry Reid has decided he is going to get rid of the procedural filibuster in the Senate (the rule of 60). Normally, it takes a 2/3 majority of the Senate (67) to to change Senate procedural rules. But there is an exception for the first day of a new Senate seating, when only a simple majority (51) is needed to pass rule changes. Reid is going to take advantage of that. He and Mitch McConnell are in negotiations on how to come up with a compromise, since the GOP is of course against removing the rule (because they are currently in the minority). But through a procedural trick, Reid will keep the Senate gaveled in on Day One, single session, for as many days as necessary, to keep his leverage. If no compromise can be found, he will simply call the vote to change the rule. If you want to filibuster, you have to do it the old fashioned way, get up on the podium and make your case. Now, of course, Reid isn't doing this out of some sort of wonderful sense of patriotism. He's doing it because he has a 55-45 majority. Just like the GOP is against it because they are in the minority. But whatever the reasoning, the result is a very good one - so I applaud it. CNN updated on it yesterday. We'll see where this goes. The best part of this is, once it has been changed, it will probably stay changed forever. Because once a party is in the majority, why would they want to change it back?

So, we all know about M Night's collapse - after three very solid movies, his stuff went downhill fast. I've been saying for years (as have others in this very forum) that he is a masterful director, but he needed to get away from doing any of the writing, and just direct. But he kept refusing to do that. Now, apparently, . The screenplay is written by Stephen Gaghan, who also wrote screenplays for Traffic and Syriana, both of which I liked a lot. So I have high hopes we may finally see Shyamalan get back on top with this one.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 10:57 AM) I actually have relatively few concerns about Sale's durability, and I think he ultimately wins a Cy Young award. If I were the Sox, I'd try and get his first two years of free agency bought out at this point. I'd make sure he can handle 200-ish innings a year first. If he does that in 2013 without a huge drop-off, then I think they've got someone they should extend as soon as possible. Of course he's more expensive then, but still nowhere near free agency, and I think the lost money to wait a year is worth it in this case.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 07:54 AM) The wierd thing about guys who get the shift...a lot of times, they do spray the ball to all fields in the air, but it's only when they hit it on the ground that it is biased to one side. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 11:46 AM) They had a similar shift for Baines, but the outfielders played him the other way. Its bat angle on impact. Thome was the same way too. And tall guys like Dunn have that happen more often, as well as guys who start hands-high. Will Clark is a more classic example, though he was good at spraying line drives the other way on occasion. The head of the bat is lower relative to the grip on the way through the zone, so if you think about the physics, it makes sense that if they are on top, it will go pull-side, and underneath will go push-side.

I'm a little surprised on Castro as well - I think he's still Top 10 in the Sox system, even if just barely.

QUOTE (TomPickle @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 09:18 AM) Fangraphs top 15 prospects I'm starting to see more optimism in multiple articles from sources like this now, about improvements to the Sox system. That's nice to see. Also good to hear about fall league improvements for Beck.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 1, 2013 -> 02:57 PM) I could respond to some of the remainder, but I'm just sort of jarred that you'd say this. The government running a deficit is almost the definition of an inflationary act. The government running a surplus is a deflationary push. They can, of course, be overwhelmed by other actions, since there are other players (the federal reserve, international currency exchanges and international economic policies, occasional implosions of the entire financial system). But they're completely intertwined. Sorry yes, I misstated that one. They are obviously very related, what I was saying was, your focus was wrong, and you used the focus on deficits to somehow imply that meant I liked the result of the fiscal cliff. You repeatedly conflated different concepts.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 08:51 PM) Nss, haven't you been one of the many saying how terrible, awful the deficit is and how we need to solve tht immediately because of the imminent enormous inflation spike that was supposed to happen in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012? Not at all. The deficit and inflation are unrelated. Who would say that? QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 08:51 PM) The fiscal cliff gets rid of the deficit. Sooner, yes. Just not in a way that makes sense. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 08:51 PM) The biggest problem with the fiscal cliff is the deficit rapidly shrinks in the middle of a minor depression. No... the biggest problem with the fiscal cliff is the combined negative impact of a whole bunch of tax increases all at once, and a whole array of broad-based and untargeted spending cuts also hit all at once. The problem is not about the deficit. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 08:51 PM) But anyone who has complained about the deficit...should have very little problem with this. So if you complain about the deficit and debt (which I sometimes do), you must inherently like the idea of the fiscal cliff? How does that make any sense? That's like saying, because I want to reduce my household debt, I must like the idea of stopping buying groceries. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 08:51 PM) And finally...you accuse me of denial about "overspending". Yet you ignore the fact that spending has gone up over the past presidents term by the lowest admount in decades and the yearly deficit has shrunk more rapidly since 2009 than at any point since 1946. Yet again, bringing up two seperate things and conflating them. Did you see me say, ever, that the deficit is Obama's fault? Find where I said that, once. What I said is there are Democrats - including you - who have made the argument that the government should be doing even more deficit spending, and that will not have a negative impact. It will, and I've explained many times why. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 08:51 PM) Anyone who is not in denial about the long term budget will talk about health care costs growing at 8% a year, because if Medicare grows at 5% a year, it eats up the entire budget...at a time when 50% of our economy is health care costs. The PPACA bought us maybe a 5-10 year delay, but that is literally the entire long term budget gap (assuming we can get back to 6% unemployment). 50% of the economy is not health care costs. That is an absurd number and you know it. And besides, your overall point here only reinforces one of the reasons why running large deficits has dangers. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 1, 2013 -> 11:54 AM) why should the process of governing be less democratic and less represenative? Why shouldn't everyone's Senators and Representatives have input into the process instead of just a select handful? I was kinda joking with the room idea, just expressing frustration. I think you may be overanalyzing a bit here. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 1, 2013 -> 02:33 PM) Within the last hour, House Republicans are now saying they will offer up an amended bill and send it back to the Senate (assuming they could pass it in the first place, of course). Presumably containing more spending cuts and maybe more tax cuts. That would effectively break whatever agreement the Senate had in place. Is there anyone who still doesn't see that the Republican Party has effectively fractured into two? And that the Tea Party crowd has made it impossible to for the GOP in the House to truly compromise en masse? Whether you like that or not, that is the reality. This is happening, most primarily, because of the Tea Party crowd, for better or worse. Meanwhile, at least in the short term, the country is being f***ed over.

Looks like we're going over. Also looks like a solution to hit the big stuff will be done pretty quickly after, though. Forgetting what side I'm on with any one of the many cliffs coming up and/or their solutions (income tax rates, high and low earners, UE benefits, Doc Fix, AMT fix, Farm Bill, defense cuts, social security changes, medicare changes, discretionary spending cuts, tuition and child tax credits, etc.)... I am embarrased for our elected officials right now. And it is NOT the system, per se, that is the problem - it is the people elected to run said system. It is just 100%, outright unprofessional and a stunning failure on their parts. They are acting like addicts - even when they set a deadline for themselves that results in a severe beating if they can't get it done, they STILL can't get it done. Now the partisan bits... Democrats continue to be in denial of the impact of overspending, and Republicans continue to be in denial of the reality that compromise is not a sin. The entry of the Tea Party crowd - once Libertarian and now mostly just an angry, incapable mob - was the straw that broke the camel's back. We were headed this way anyway, maybe, but the trajectory took a steeper dive due to their involvement in things. Maybe in the long run that is better, but for now, it sucks. And there is no guarantee that the impacts will result in longer term gains. Don't get me wrong, ObamaCo has plenty of blame here too, as does the Dem party as a whole. Stick the President (not his advisors), and a few leaders of each party from each chamber (not THEIR advisors), in a room, with food, water, computers, pens and papers (and maybe a port-a-potty), and don't let them the f*** out until they have come to a solution on ALL the things in the cliff list I mentioned above. And not something for a year - I mean non-time-limited changes for all of it. That's what I'd love to see. Yes, I know that won't happen. I'm just pissed. Meantime, Joe Biden can keep the ship running, which should be motivation enough for all involved to get it done as quickly as humanly possible.

@DKnobler now saying: White Sox have talked about Kubel. Also had talks about Upton earlier in winter, when Diamondbacks asked about Alexei Ramirez.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2012 -> 10:00 AM) A career year for a catcher at age 35 is not something that will be repeated. This is a great time to move on. Exactly. People are emotionally attached - which I totally get, I'll miss him too - but logic says otherwise. QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 21, 2012 -> 10:14 AM) And I was in the stands. As was I, way up in like Row 18 UD, out near the RF foul pole. Fantastic game.

At 1/$7.5M, I am perfectly happy they didn't sign him. Despite what B>W and others have said, I actually do think Flowers is likely to be a better player than AJ in 2013, and even more confident in that in 2014. If you look at AJ's career numbers, 2012 was highly aberrant. IF he puts up the more likely OPS of high 600's, which is slightly below his career averages (he's 36), with his terrible defense... Flowers will very likely beat that. And for $500k instead of $7.5M. It is POSSIBLE Aj has a 2013 like his 2012 offensively... but very, very unlikely. You aren't deciding between 2012 AJ and 2012 Flowers, you are deciding on 2013. QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Dec 21, 2012 -> 09:32 AM) Computers do not agree with you guys and say Sox are one of the least improved teams this offseason. See table in this article. Over the years, many of the heavily reported computer projections from various publications have been less able to predict the Sox than any other team. I seem to recall B-A or B-P even penning an article about how wrong they amost always were about the Sox, for whatever reason(s). I'd bet if you look at the pre-season polls taken on SoxTalk every year, using the average win total, this site would be better correlated to reality than those publications. I think the really interesting question is... WHY are the Sox specifically so hard to predict?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2012 -> 09:35 AM) Removal of one "AJ Pierzynski" from the White Sox roster. I guess I don't see how that changes anything for Phegley (at least in the short term). Either case, he was going to be the starting C in Charlotte this year. It was either going to be AJ/Flowers, or Flowers/Gimenez, or Flowers/Veteran backup. I suppose if Flowers flops in 2013 (and I'm pretty sure they are going to give him at least a full season shot at it), and Phegley puts up big numbers in Charlotte, he might get a chance at the job in 2014.

Did I miss something? What opportunity?

We never had major league team names. I played from Tee-Ball all the way through Pony. Super-young leagues, we just had colored jerseys. After that, it was local business sponsors - I remember playing for teams like Ambrecht Jewelers and Kelly's Appliances. But the Sox are a business too, so if they want to sponsor a team, I think it makes perfect sense to ask for uniform control like that.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 07:02 AM) Sounds like this kid has a great attitude, and we know he has great wheels. If he has no setbacks, he might get as high as AAA next season. I hope he continues to give updates via SoxTalk. Is he a member here that we are unaware of?

1/$4M sounds about right, though I'd go a bit further and add an option year with a buyout. If he can get a 2+ year deal elsewhere, hey, go right ahead. That money can be used elsewhere to more effect.

Confirmed by Sox. Shirek given unconditional release, headed to Korea. Closing thread, sending to archives.

Please, something happen with the Sox soon. Please. This thread is like a bunch of people trapped on a ship that lost its engine. We need food!!!!!

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 06:48 PM) Hey, consider yourself lucky. I got banned in the aftermath of being wrongly accused of trolling. Uh, no. You're still here, aren't you? The woe-is-me routine isn't getting you anything, and I'm pretty sure you don't want to hitch your wagon to this particular horse either.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 15, 2012 -> 04:26 PM) Not at $12 million for 2 years. Adams' numbers dropped quite a bit last year. There is also a 3rd year vesting option for another $6M or so. I'd pass on that.

I'm hoping that instead of only focusing on guns, we can put more focus on how we treat and handle the mentally ill. Any number of these mass shooters had previous diagnoses and/or medications and/or instutitionalizations for mental illnesses. There are solutions to be had in this area. You can add a requirement for mental health professionals to log diagnoses or medications in a database to be access when purchasing guns. You can start looking at over-crowded prisons and invest in taking some of those who are mentally ill out of them, and putting them in (secure) facilities where they can get real help. You can crack down on gun dealers in the US who sell without the proper checks. You can require the checks to include that database of mental issues. You can disallow all imports of guns to US, even to those who can otherwise legally own them. Lots of ways to go about this before you even talk about infringing on gun ownership rights for the majority of Americans.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2012 -> 09:20 PM) $10 trillion housing bubble that exploded = urban legend. Did I miss this part? How did his "guys" create the housing bubble? Plenty of blame to go around on that, very little of which falls to listed equity markets.