NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) Eh, didn't Rios struggle automatically when moved to the third spot earlier this year? QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 03:09 PM) I wouldn't mess with Rios. We all saw last year. Why risk it? He is killing it right where he is at. Leave him be. I don't know, but, I don't think it is a big deal to move him 2 spots. Not like you are turning him into a leadoff hitter.

QUOTE (GoGoSox2k2 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 02:52 PM) 1. De Aza - CF 2. Youk - 3B 3. D-Wise - LF 4. PK - 1B 5. Rio(s) - RF 6. AJ - C 7. Tank - DH 8. Alexei - SS 9. Beck - 2B Jake "Bulldog" "Big Game" Peavy on the bump I know it is temporary with Dunn out, but I really would like to see them not put Dweezy in the 3rd spot. Rios needs to be there, and Wise down hitting like 7th.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 02:42 PM) 52 minutes for elementary, 46 for high school and 10 additional days according to this announcement. I believe the exact details on additional teacher hours changed over the summer, though. So that includes having the extra teachers? Even after that, they add the time too? And the additional days? Interesting. That makes for about an hour a day added, that would be like 15% increased time. Not quite the 20% I saw (and was quoting) earlier, but still worth noting.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:51 PM) The ones I've seen have all said that the city agreed to hire from the pool of teachers who were fired in 2010/2011/2012. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/dea...public-schools/ If the city went back on that plan and the current teachers are getting a 90 minute lengthening of the day, I'd expect we'd be hearing way more about that from the CTU end. I distinctly remember Karen Lewis saying at some news conference that the CTU was not happy that the hiring of the added teachers would not be done the way they wanted, not based on previous layoffs or whatever. I guess to find this I'd have to search through all the previous statements from Karen Lewis, which is only slightly higher than death-by-bear-mauling on my list of things I'd like to do. On that note, the CTU is not helping themselves having a spokesperson who is as unlikeable and pompous in her appearances as she is.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:45 PM) The CPS is the source of the 16% figure and no one can seem to figure out how they really get there. They're offering 3% and three years of 2%, which works out to 9.3% over four years. It doesn't include the 4% COL that was in their contract that they've been denied. And really, this whole way of doing things by pre-setting numbers like that is a crappy way to do things. Set a baseline set of salaries per level/seniority/degree/merit, agree on a market basket, and say in the contract they get a COLA based on that basket for the length of the contract. Then, seperately, if they want to argue for a raise beyond that, that can be up for discussing and adjustments to the original baselines can be set. But predeterming raises like that seem, to me, to be a stupid way to do things.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:40 PM) NSS, do you have any news link about this? I can't find anything Well, as I noted, if you look at the Trib articles (I've clicked on so many now), you will see they are arguing about who they would hire for those slots. So, apparently, they have not been hired. But a while back, before the strike talk got really hot, Brizard was saying they needed to negotiate how many would actually get hired and who they were - but that is vague, and I apologize, I don't have links to that stuff from a while ago. Whether or not they WILL be is apparently an open question. As I said, if CPS is really going to hire enough new teachers to make up for the longer school day and give teachers more or less the same hours, then I am in agreement that the raise demands need to be restricted to COLA as a baseline, and then the rest is up for discussion.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:35 PM) A 16% raise over four years if you can figure out where the CPS is getting that number. So about 3.5% per year and not getting their cancelled 4% COL. The numbers I've seen along the way, were that they wanted 19% originally, and came down to 16%. Now I am seeing those much lower numbers bandied about. Asking for a simple COLA seems pretty reasonable to me (leaving aside the extra hours for the moment). And if they didn't get COLA's before, then catch-up is also worth discussing. Where it gets sticky is raises over COLA numbers, and whether or not they are associated with more hours.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:31 PM) They're not working 20%+ more hours because the plan involves hiring 477 extra teachers to work those added hours. High school teachers are going to be working an extra 14 minutes. Elementary and middle school teachers will be working the same hours as before. So it's a 16% raise for working basically the same schedule. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07...-teachers-union QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:33 PM) And then they didn't hire them, and are now saying they can't. Back in July, that was the plan. Now, if they actually do plan to create a situation where they teachers are working the same hours (or close to it anyway), then I would heartily agree the demands for a 16% raise (even if over a few years) seem way out of bounds and not realistic. Also, I haven't seen this yet... is the new teacher hiring being discussed in these negotations? I have only seen mention of the CTU's disagreement with the idea that the new teacher hires would not be people previously laid off. Which means they haven't actually hired any yet. And CPS was saying a while back they may not be able to hire them at all. That should probably be part of the discussions, I would think. If the CTU is demanding more money because of added hours, then CPS should be able to counter with hiring teachers to make up the difference. The other way around works too.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:31 PM) They're not working 20%+ more hours because the plan involves hiring 477 extra teachers to work those added hours. High school teachers are going to be working an extra 14 minutes. Elementary and middle school teachers will be working the same hours as before. So it's a 16% raise for working basically the same schedule. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07...-teachers-union And then they didn't hire them, and are now saying they can't. Back in July, that was the plan. Now, if they actually do plan to create a situation where they teachers are working the same hours (or close to it anyway), then I would heartily agree the demands for a 16% raise (even if over a few years) seem way out of bounds and not realistic.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:27 PM) Yeah, but even with that overtime, they get paid, on average 30k less in Chicago than CPS teachers. I'm not sure that's true. CPD officers start in the low 40's for a base, they all get varying amounts of OT, so they are probably making 45k first year in. Then there are stripes, specialist roles, command roles, and just plain seniority, and there are guys pulling in 6 figures or close to it. I'd be the average is pretty similar. It is a good topic for debate, though - if you look at the average teacher versus the average firefighter, at say 10 years in, should they make similar money? One more than the other? I'd guess they are pretty similar as it stands now.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:20 PM) Defense is sooo important for a catcher, backup or otherwise. I have seen a lot of Willy Rosario of the Rockettes this year. Rookie catcher who is really coming on with the bat, but he is terrible at blocking pitches in the dirt. He leads the Free World in passed balls and no doubt has contributed to many wild pitches, and his staff and Mgr. has to have lost confidence in him. My only point here is that if Sox are contending in 2013, they could not have that poor a defensive catcher on the ML roster, so I hope Phegley is up to it, because he might be on the team next year, if AJ goes away. I would love to know more about Josh's defense, and his pitcher handling and game calling as well. All keys for catchers. My opinion on his future success could be a lot different based on that.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:20 PM) Well, let's be real, that "overtime" gets teachers to a normal level of working - those who actually do it. You cannot say with any breath of seriousness that 3 straight months off, plus 2-4 weeks in December, plus Spring Break while also getting weekends off during the school year is not having more time off compared to other professions. It's just blatantly inaccurate. That was kind of my point - the bolded. They don't get less time off than most people, but they also don't get tons more (effectively) than others, which is the line of reasoning I was countering. Looking at other publically-funded professionals, like say Cops and Firefighters, they do little work outside hours, they work fewer hours, and they get paid OT for when they go over. As they should, IMO, because of the conditions of their jobs. And this is coming from someone who used to work in law enforcement.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:18 PM) Both of these are solid posts, but they lack the passion of a Steve post. I don't do passion real well. I do words. Lots and lots of words. Probably should have been a lawyer.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:16 PM) Do you want to make more money?! Sure! We all do. In this age of infomations and interwebs and wireless communications...go into IT...more jobs available than people to fill them...higher salaries than most industries...with excellent benefits and vacation packages! The catch? I know you think I'm going to say there is none...but there is! In IT, unlike in any other industry, every job you apply for, including entry level jobs requires at LEAST 5 years of experience! How does that work? I have no idea! Maybe if you were born in the 70's/early 80's, and entered the Internet Age before anyone knew what the Internet was, you wouldn't have needed that experience...but you do now, suckers! This public service announcement has been brought to you by Y2HH. That's a conundrum in IT, has been for a while, but there are a couple ways to get into that door. One is, when companies are growing quickly, they will often hire recent college grads (or others with relatively little experience) and train them. That happens more when the economy is growing, of course, than it does now. The other way is to start for some really small outfit, doing the job out of multi-tasking necessity, and transition in. Anyway, its not a great comparison with teaching. Teaching is more akin to pure Engineering, or architecture, where your degree is itself a professional ticket of sorts.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:14 PM) Man, there is a lot of uninformed B.S. in here, and out there on social media. Regardless of where you stand on this, let's clarify some things people keep missing... 1. I keep seeing people mention the fact that the teachers want a 16% raise, while private industry founders, and how that is just whining and being spoiled, etc. This is so thick with falsehood it is hard to know where to start. First, a lot of people seem to forget that the extended school day means teachers are working 20%+ more hours - so a 16% raise is still an actual step DOWN in pay per hour. And oh by the way, the extended school day that will cost more money (salaries and other effects) was NOT the union's idea, it was the city's. Second, it completely ignores that both the CTU and the City officials are BOTH saying, salary isn't even the key issue here. But the money numbers are easy to throw around in some shallow attempt at discourse, so, lazy wins the day. Then there's the fact that private industry by nature is going to have lows AND highs economically, with huge opportunity for both. So where are the teacher bonuses when things go well? I mean, if they should suffer when others do, why aren't they also getting some of the success when things are going well? Can't have it both ways. 2. The fact that people here don't see the falsehood in the articles comparing MEDIAN and AVERAGE statistics against each other makes me wonder how many people ever took, or passed, basic statistics. 3. The idea that teachers can never be fired is false - let's focus on reality: teachers who reach certain levels of TENURE get big job protections. So don't go blaming every teacher, or thinking that as soon as you are hired you have a permanent job. I actually agree with those who dislike tenure job protections - I think they should be gone entirely. But that is what they are TENURE rules, not rules protecting all teachers. They in fact work AGAINST younger, less experienced teachers. 4. On the other side of the argument, I see people who support the teachers' side stating that the union is right to try to stop merit evaluation based on test scores... but then they are also fighting the ability of principals and administrators to fire teachers who underperform. WTF? Which is it? Do you want your performance based on test scores, grades, or subjective review of performance? Because this argument you are making has it sound like you want NONE, and that is a giant pile of B.S. You are working with public dollars, and people deserve to know that teachers are being evaluated somehow, some way, so that the lousy ones can be shown the door. So pick your poison. 5. I am also seeing BOTH sides get into this thing where they are accusing the other of not caring about the children involved. Bulls***. You really think that most teachers AND administrators (who usually were teachers previously) don't care about this? Come on now, let's put that stuff aside. They both care, obviously, but also NEITHER cared enough to find a way to get a good contract done. It isn't one side or the other veing somehow evil here, or wanting to hurt their students. This is the same empty garbage we hear from people saying Obama wants to destroy the country, or Bush wanted to take over the Middle East. Give it a rest. Forgot one more key one... 6. Teachers work a lot of hours outside of work, more so than most any profession. The idea that it is a job with some huge amount of time off compared to others is completely false. When you add in all the extra, unpaid overtime they have to put in, they are probably getting a similar amount to everyone else in professional jobs. And they don't get to choose when to take it like others do.

Man, there is a lot of uninformed B.S. in here, and out there on social media. Regardless of where you stand on this, let's clarify some things people keep missing... 1. I keep seeing people mention the fact that the teachers want a 16% raise, while private industry founders, and how that is just whining and being spoiled, etc. This is so thick with falsehood it is hard to know where to start. First, a lot of people seem to forget that the extended school day means teachers are working 20%+ more hours - so a 16% raise is still an actual step DOWN in pay per hour. And oh by the way, the extended school day that will cost more money (salaries and other effects) was NOT the union's idea, it was the city's. Second, it completely ignores that both the CTU and the City officials are BOTH saying, salary isn't even the key issue here. But the money numbers are easy to throw around in some shallow attempt at discourse, so, lazy wins the day. Then there's the fact that private industry by nature is going to have lows AND highs economically, with huge opportunity for both. So where are the teacher bonuses when things go well? I mean, if they should suffer when others do, why aren't they also getting some of the success when things are going well? Can't have it both ways. 2. The fact that people here don't see the falsehood in the articles comparing MEDIAN and AVERAGE statistics against each other makes me wonder how many people ever took, or passed, basic statistics. 3. The idea that teachers can never be fired is false - let's focus on reality: teachers who reach certain levels of TENURE get big job protections. So don't go blaming every teacher, or thinking that as soon as you are hired you have a permanent job. I actually agree with those who dislike tenure job protections - I think they should be gone entirely. But that is what they are TENURE rules, not rules protecting all teachers. They in fact work AGAINST younger, less experienced teachers. 4. On the other side of the argument, I see people who support the teachers' side stating that the union is right to try to stop merit evaluation based on test scores... but then they are also fighting the ability of principals and administrators to fire teachers who underperform. WTF? Which is it? Do you want your performance based on test scores, grades, or subjective review of performance? Because this argument you are making has it sound like you want NONE, and that is a giant pile of B.S. You are working with public dollars, and people deserve to know that teachers are being evaluated somehow, some way, so that the lousy ones can be shown the door. So pick your poison. 5. I am also seeing BOTH sides get into this thing where they are accusing the other of not caring about the children involved. Bulls***. You really think that most teachers AND administrators (who usually were teachers previously) don't care about this? Come on now, let's put that stuff aside. They both care, obviously, but also NEITHER cared enough to find a way to get a good contract done. It isn't one side or the other veing somehow evil here, or wanting to hurt their students. This is the same empty garbage we hear from people saying Obama wants to destroy the country, or Bush wanted to take over the Middle East. Give it a rest.

Considering their workdays got more than 20% longer, they pay has been frozen for some years, their class sizes are already way beyond average... I don't really see why asking for 19% is out of line. I think they also make good points about class size itself, needing supplies and books when classes start, and some other areas. Though I do disagree with some of the seniority rules they are pushing. Bottom line, I think they have some very good arguments, and I don't blame them for being upset and pushing things. And a strike was the only real recourse they have, which sucks for everyone. QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 10, 2012 -> 09:51 AM) The problem is that in the current system this is the only leverage they have. The entire American education system is messed up. In most areas of the country, the bulk of education funding comes from property or other taxes that are voted on at the local level. This needs to stop. I'd stop short of federalizing it, but having teacher contracts negotiated and paid for at the state level would be a start. SS2K5 and I discussed this at length in this forum before, as have others - the funding issue is a pretty major part of the problem. Although it is worth noting, the funding gaps in the Chicago Metro are actually a lot less dramatic than they were before (in terms of funding per student - not talking teacher pay here). Back in the early 90's when I was a college student, we read Kozol's book "Savage Inequalities", and it was striking the difference in funding levels between New Trier and De LaSalle (two schools he used as examples in his book). NT was getting like 3 times as much money per student. Now, NT gets about 1.5 times as much - still a lot more, but not nearly as profound.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Sep 10, 2012 -> 09:30 AM) I don't see where he exactly improved as the season when along. Great April, then sucked until a hot August. He had a sub-.700 OPS in Charlotte's bandbox. Doesn't walk much, little power. I remember his defense was regarded as spotty when he came out of college because he was drafted as a hitting catcher. I honestly don't see what there is to like here. I see a lot to like in a 24 year old catcher in AAA (drafted at 21) who got there skipping a couple stops and managed to hit worth a lick at all. He's got a decent contact rate, had an Iso OBP of 54 points last year, though it was down to 40 this year. The power showed up in August and September. Those are all indications to me he's likely to hit a lot better in 2013 in AAA, to me. Defensively, it was reported earlier this year he'd made a lot of strides at the position. Hard to say how much that means, I haven't seen him play in person. If he is given 2013 to start in AAA, and if he can draw a few more walks, I really think the guy has some value. I realize I'm in the minority, and I admit I know only very little about his supposedly improved defense, but that's what I see.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 10, 2012 -> 08:37 AM) Heck with that, after yesterday's display I want him released. I was at the game. He was awful. Not just the fielding blunder either, I mean, he looked bad defensively more than once... he couldn't lay down a bunt... and he failed to run out the sacrifice that could have resulted in not making an out. After a game like that, from a minor league veteran, he should have no place on the roster.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 8, 2012 -> 06:59 PM) Worse. The entire IF needs to be replaced within 2 years, Danks is an albatross, and Reed is nowhere close to being "a machine built to close games." There's realism... Then there's pessimism... Then there's Marty34.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Sep 8, 2012 -> 06:40 PM) So basically your argument for Phegley is that he hasn't proved he's bad due to other factors, therefore he could be good? Not sure where you get that idea. I'm saying, for a catcher with his amount of development time, I think he's done pretty well. And he is improving. I don't see how that is not proving he's bad, any more than any other performance from any other player.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 8, 2012 -> 12:19 PM) We should enjoy this because after this year the immediate future of this team does not look promising. Wha? I feel better about this team for next year, than I do for this year. Danks back, Sale/Quintana stretched out for innings, Peavy or Floyd maybe back or maybe not, Dunn is back to being himself, Beckham seems to be making strides, Viciedo developing, Rios playing up to his talent, young bullpen getting experience, a few good prospects making the minors a little better... really the only big concerns I have about 2013 are catcher and third base (and AJ may come back). Not sure why I'm taking this bait either, I should probably have just let it go.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 7, 2012 -> 06:51 PM) I don't know his views on cap gains and dividends...but odds are I agree with them, and in an actual real world conversation I could easily explain why. SS being privatized, however. How about no. Actually my views on Soc Sec are not that simple. In fact, I'm pretty sure my views on what to do with it would manage to piss off people on both sides of the aisle.

Phegley and K Smith both continuing their late-season tears into their playoffs.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Sep 8, 2012 -> 01:13 PM) No Brent Morel on that list? Does Josh Phegley give anyone hope of this organization producing a decent catcher I'm a bit higher on Josh than most. People forget that he's missed a lot of development time due to his injuries and illnesses, but he played a full season this year at AAA and stayed healthy (he's been basically healthy both the last two seasons now). He also improved as the season went on with the bat, his numbers were quite good in the last month or two. He only had 900 AB before this year, which is really not a lot, especially for a catcher. He skipped rookie ball, and virtually skipped A+. And he's 24, which is pretty age appropriate for AAA, probably even on the young side among catchers. Contact rate is pretty good, he's flashed some power a times. He really needs one more year in AAA though, where hopefully he can work a few more walks and/or increase the power numbers a bit. But I still think he could potentially be a starting catcher somewhere at some point, if he stays healthy.