NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 12:29 PM) Lower as in? His attraction with Liberals is why I think he'd have a chance against Obama as long as Republicans would support him. Problem is, the liberals who like Paul are the ones on the far left. Yes they are disaoppointed with Obama, but I don't see them voting for any GOP candidate over Obama when it comes to it. I've said before, the support game for the GOP is pretty simple. They don't need to worry much about the base, because the base is in it to get Obama out, and they won't care much who the GOP candidate is (unless it is Paul, who will scare away some base Republicans, which is another reason why he isn't electable). Their main worry is the moderates, the swing voters if you will. Whomever wins the nomination will have to swing back towards center to get a cut of that. Also, the electoral numbers right now still look awfully good for Obama. He's got a big advantage right now.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 11:37 AM) Depends on what languages you know. I've read the requirements for some programming positions and never even heard of some of it. Here's one for example that I just got in my email: I couldn't even start to tell you what half of that is much less have any experience with it. I know what virtually all of those are. And I thought you were an iSeries programmer, right? So most of the upper section should be pretty familiar for you. Are you an RPG guy, or COBOL, or something else on the 400? I worked in the iSeries world for a long time, if you want any info send me a PM.

With 81% reporting, GOP results, for those who care... Romney: 38% (5 delegates locked) Paul: 23% (3 delegates locked) Huntsman: 17% (2 delegates locked) Gingrich and Santorum: 10% (0) Perry: 1% (0) One more delegate to go to someone else based on final 19%. Remaining open precincts seem to lean a little more Paul and Huntsman than Romney. -- NH was a firewall for Huntsman, needed at least 3rd to stay alive, 2nd to have any decent chance. So he is moving sideways. Romney needed to win big, he did, but not big enough to completely ice anything. Paul got what he thought he would, maybe a tad better, he is starting to feel good about things. Gingrich disappointing in fourth, and he's not polling well lately in SC either, I think his campaign is dying. Santorum's Iowa victory didn't seem to help much in NH. Now onto SC. Romney doesn't even have to win, but if he does, this thing might be over. Perry has SC as a firewall, he needs a huge leap into 2nd, or he's toast IMO. Gingrich needs to stay top 3 to stay alive. Paul is Paul. Huntsman needs to look relevant in a state he didn't bombard, same goes for Santorum, so they both need to target Top 3 as well to even say they are reasonably in it. So... who drops out first, of these remaining 6? I predict SC ends up a close-match bloodbath, and goes like this: Romney 30% Paul 24% Santorum 20% Perry 12% Gingrich 8% Huntsman 6% Huntsman doesn't profile well for Florida, so I think SC breaks his back and he's out. Perry can't do better than 4th in what should be a wheelhouse state, so I think he finally drops out too (I actually think he's only staying in to raise more money anyway). That will give Gingrich an excuse to stay in. Santorum's social conservatism plays well and he surprises high in SC. So that leaves four for Florida. Gingrich will go balls-out in Florida, and run out of money in addition to finishing near-bottom, so I think Florida is his end, leaving Romney, Santorum and Paul to duke it out for who knows how long.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 01:52 PM) HW begat W. Yes and no. Yes for the obvious reason. But no, HW is well known to have steered almost entirely clear of W's decisions as a President. In fact the few times he did give advice, it was about NOT going into Iraq, which W did anyway.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 01:01 PM) H.W. gets a bad rap. I tend to agree. Certain Presidents seem to look better or worse years after they left office. For me, both HW and Clinton have looked better over time... Reagan and W worse.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 11:37 AM) Theo is bringing in many players to the Cubs for this season as well as for the future of that crappy organzation, So why can't KW do the same. Besides Reed & Stewart, I don't see any people who can help us this season that is our minor leagues. KW is doing that. The Cubs got a guy who is past prospect status but may turn out to be a very good 1B... the Sox signed one of the best LHSP's in the game to a reasonable contract. Now look at the rest of the prospects the Cubs have gotten, compared to the Sox... Sox, so far, are doing better, IMO.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 11:19 AM) I'd rather have the Sox trade many players for great prospects but if KW isn't going to do that than go for it all.. Instead of a season where we might finished in last place and with NO prospects for the future. This organzation needs direction of where to go.. Right now our minor league system is a laughing stock and our major league team is in shambles See below... QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 11:24 AM) Actually I think we have a pretty clear direction right now. We aren't going to invest anymore into this year's team, we are only investing in players who can contribute for the next 4 years or so. We just have so many bad contracts that a full rebuild is impossible. And Beane can never commit to going for it, which may be him or A's ownership, but that's why they can never really win. This team definitely has a direction and a plan, it is right in front of you. It just isn't one extreme or the other, because one extreme (go for it all now) isn't financially possible, and the other (complete rebuild) makes no sense with the way the organization (contracts, minor league talent) is currently constructed.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 10:54 AM) AJ PK Thornton Crain Ohman Beckham Floyd Alexei Danks I'd hope for some of these players we would get some great young prospects into this organzation. I already broke down AJ and PK for you. You are not getting any Top 100 names for either. AJ gets you nothing at all, if you can even move him. PK, if you eat a bunch of salary, might get you a couple decent prospects. Crain and Ohman get you nothing because they are basically paid at-value or above. Danks just got signed to a long term deal, at-value or so, so he gets you maybe one decent prospect. Beckham has been a huge disappointment and you would be selling low, getting not much in return, which would be idiotic. Floyd and Thorton are the only two you suggest that make some sense, and for the two combined, you might, maybe, get one Molina-like spect, but probably not even that. So you trade all those guys, you eat half the salary in the group, and you get back one or two 75-125 overall level prospects, and a handful of ones below that. And oh by the way, you no longer have any core to the team to build around whatsoever, and have massive holes to fill this year and in the future, so you end up re-spending the money you saved anyway. Sounds awesome.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 10:43 AM) If we aren't competing than trade about 9 players from this current roster List the 9 players, and tell me what you think the team would get for them, how much money would have to be sent, etc.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 10:39 AM) I am sure PK & AJ would gladly accept a trade to a real contender.. You really don't seem familiar with the realities of baseball as a business. AJ? He's owed $6M this year. No one wants him for that salary, especially with the concerns of overhead that comes with him. You'd have to pay most of his salary, save maybe $1M... and trade away one of the two or three most popular players on the team, thus some of that million vanishes in diminishing fan support anyway. And then you lose the ability for Flowers to watch AJ and develop. So trading AJ saves you basically no money, gets you no return, and makes some things worse. And he may not even accept it anyway, depending on where you send him. Trading PK? Sure, teams would like PK, but he is a guy whose contract has a little scary to it. The return on a PK trade, with his current contract (which is at-value or slightly better now, but may be above value later), will not net you the type of great prospects you would like. Meanwhile, such a trade would absolutely have an effect on the fanbase, a very negative one, dimishing your monetary savings. You leave a giant hole at 1B because the Sox don't have any decent 1B prospects right now, so that hole will persist for years. And then you do what with the money you save? Sign PK back, which is exactly what you need anyway? That makes zero sense.

I don't normally post videos, and certainly not inherently partisan ones, but this Daily Show clip about the GOP debates cracked my s*** up. I particularly like the bologna bits...

QUOTE (MAX @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 10:12 AM) I think you are overlooking the purpose of this season. It is to find out what we have in our major league ready prospects, to give some of our major leaguers an opportunity to bounce back, and to allow the other recently acquired prospects to grow. The bullpen does not need any veterans in it, not does the bench for the white sox to have a successful season considering those goals. I think this is right on. People keep wanting to put the Sox into one of two camps: a complete crash-down rebuild that takes five years and may never work, or go sign a whole bunch of expensive players and compete in 2012. KW is doing neither - he is retooling for 2013, and I think he's got the right idea, given the parameters he has to work within (payroll, attendance, talent in minors, tradeable vs untradeable major leaguers, contract lengths, etc.).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 09:52 AM) If you're looking for a centrist Republican, vote Obama! LOL, I get your point, but I'd still call him center-left. Not even mainline Dem, slightly centrist from there. I'll probably get some Republicans in a rage with this, but someone like Reagan policy-wise would be to the left of every candidate in the current GOP Prez field. Huntsman is the closest to center, and even he is probably just to the right of Reagan.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 09:31 AM) The team on the north side looks to be bringing in 2-3 top 100 prospects in baseball.. What? First of all, so far they have traded away more prospect value than they have gotten back. Second, the Sox are the team who has begun raking in good prospects so far, not the Cubs. And as for the bullpen, the reality people keep forgetting is that there are very few truly consistently solid non-closer relievers in baseball. And they cost a lot of money for a guy who pitches an inning every few days. When on the other hand, one thing the Sox farm system actually has is some degree of RP talent. It really only makes sense to open up 2 or 3 slots for that crowd I listed in the Bullpen thread, and see who handles it well. They'll be cheap, and you can cycle through a few of them until you find the right mix. I think the 'pen will be extremes in 2012, with some really bad moments, but as the season goes on I think we'll see the rise of 2-3 darn good relievers who are cheap and under long-term control.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 10:17 PM) Where do you stand? I know it's probably somewhere in this thread already, but I'm pretty damn lazy and not going to go back to find it Pretty sure he hates on Huntsman mostly to egg me on. As for Ron Paul, I can't believe I am defending the guy again, but need to clarify yet another falsehood from Reddy... Paul served ACTIVE Air Force as a surgeon for 2 tours of duty. Then he went to the National Guard. Reddy has this odd tendency, when he hones in on something he doesn't like, to try to add to his position by making things up and/or being selective in his acceptance of which facts he likes and doesn't. If Huntsman were to somehow win the primary lottery and win the nomination - which is incredibly unlikely - he would definitely have my vote. Romney I am on the fence about, I don't like the guy, but I think as President he is likely to be more like the centrist version of Romney than the far-right one he acts like in the primaries. And I'd be OK with that. Paul is intriguing, but he just has too many bats*** crazy ideas for me to vote for him. Anyone else from the GOP field wins, and I'm voting for Obama.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 04:19 PM) ie: He COULDN'T have been drafted into the Air Force. He was drafted into the Army but SOMEHOW ended up in the Air Force. Interesting... He did nothing different than GWB did. He dodged actual combat just like Newt did. He's just doing typical politician spin and trying to make Newt look bad. And NSS, I feel like outright lying and knowingly distorting the truth are the same thing. I think that you are being incredibly selective in your choice of what you see. I think you are just dead wrong on this, and I can't change your mind.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 03:02 PM) lol really guys? THAT's considered offensive on this board? gimme a break. here's one: http://stevebussey.com/wp/2011/12/did-ron-...-being-drafted/ about his being "drafted" while hammering Gingrich for deferring. If you read what happened, he did indeed get a draft notice, and went to war. He didn't defer, he took the option that he wanted of the choices given FOR GOING TO WAR. QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 03:02 PM) here's another one: http://www.thehotjoints.com/2011/12/16/iow...raq-war-deaths/ He said Iraqi troops, so he's incorrect, but if he said Iraqi people he would be pretty close from what I have read. I'll give you this one, but I think it was a misstatement more than a lie. QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 03:05 PM) and the BIGGEST is all that BS about earmarks. I'm sorry you CANNOT claim to be anti-spending if you're tacking on earmarks to a bill you then VOTE AGAINST. Are you kidding me? That's pathetic. That doesn't involve a lie at all, so no. But it was pretty crazy, I agree with you there. QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 03:08 PM) and i'll leave you with this gem: Already covered above.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 02:48 PM) Personally I think Bonds is the most deserving and really hope he gets in. He likely won't, at least not on his first ballot, which makes me happy. But we both know where this discussion goes, so, might as well leave it there. Some people are very fired-up on this topic. If nothing else, 2013 will be a very interesting test about the steroid era stuff.

How is it that people like Brad Radke and Eric Young got votes?

Larkin in, good. Morris and Raines should be in. And I'll continue hammering that Dale Murphy should be in. He has a better case than Jim Rice or Andre Dawson, IMO.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 12:51 PM) after watching that debate, what is it about Ron Paul that you LIKE? the other candidates are right - he lies constantly, makes s*** up, and is just a senile old man... Not only inaccurate and offensive as Balta stated, but really, I think Paul is more honest than probably all the rest of the GOP candidates. I have yet to see him caught lying about anything or making stuff up in this cycle. Care to elaborate on your claims? I think his libertarian views are far too extreme to be realistic, and I don't think he has any real chance at this thing anyway. But your analysis of him frankly seems completely apart from reality.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 8, 2012 -> 11:37 AM) you can't really argue that the GOP candidates' version of history is noticeably detached from reality. I noticed something funny along these lines... after the debate, as usual CNN ran a "Truth Squad" article, checking into various claims by the candidates. It only found 2 or 3 false or somewhat false statements. I seemed to recall there had been typically 10 or 12 in each of those articles before... then I remembered that Bachmann had dropped out of the race and wasn't at this debate.

Just confirmed, Bruney DID re-sign, per CSN Chicago: Brian Bruney: The Sox brought Bruney back on a minor-league contract with an invite to spring training after the righty posted a 5.87 ERA with the Sox in 2011. He had some decent results in the majors before regressing hard in his final few games, after which he was designated for assignment. He doesn't have much upside, but at least the Sox will be aware of what they're getting if he winds up in the 2012 bullpen.

QUOTE (CWSpalehoseCWS @ Jan 6, 2012 -> 10:41 PM) Socolovich is no longer in the organization. And I don't think Bruney was resigned. You could add Stults to the LHP group. Either way that's a big group of mediocre pitchers I've ever seen, and I bet this team has a revolving door of sorts for some spots in the bullpen. Wait, I thought Bruney did indeed re-sign? Maybe I am hallucinating. But thanks on Socolovich, I missed that one.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 6, 2012 -> 10:39 PM) Hernandez, Stewart and Castro all might factor into the bullpen equation as well. Most want Stewart and Castro starting in AAA/AA, but Hernandez has a better shot than anyone but Santiago going in at the 3rd LOOGY role.... Did you miss the part where I listed Stewart? And I don't see them putting Castro in the bullpen, they want him starting, I'd bet on it. I did forget about Hernandez though, I will add him to my post.