NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 06:12 AM) http://www.rotoworld.com/player/mlb/6848/deunte-heath He was a starter at Charlotte all last season...did anyone see him pitch there? He was protected over a lot of guys that were more "famous" in our minor league system with the resident experts. This was discussed ad nauseum a few weeks back around the Rule V draft. People (including me) were puzzled (at the least) that we protected Heath, but let Terry Doyle sit out there and get picked off.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 06:54 AM) Signing Danks strengthens both the rotation and bullpen. It's likely one of Stewart, Axelrod or Molina can be in the sox bullpen, where they could be more effective than in the rotation. Molina will prob. be a SP in the minors. Yet could slide into the pen if the sox need him. I don't see Gavin around. The sox should get a decent return for him that allows the sox to compete next year but also builds for the future. Molina will be nowhere near the bullpen. They did not acquire him to be a reliever, they seem him as a mid-rotation or better starter. Zero chance he is in the pen, unless he fails at starting for multiple years. Stewart though, does seem to profile better as a reliever, so I agree there. Axelrod, I am probably in the minority, but I actually believe he can be a solid major league starter. Probably no better than a 3/4 if that, but still, that has a LOT more value than a middle reliever. So I'd rather he be at the head of the rotation in Charlotte, ready to jump in as a starter if needed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 05:44 PM) They already got that. I'm pretty sure if the Sox got three more, Marty would still say we need a couple more.

I'll say what I've said before, I do worry a little about injury with Danks. He just looks like he's high effort on delivery, and has too many dead arm periods.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 04:11 PM) I can't stress how much this mindset angers me. I can't blame JR and KW for doing what they're doing, because it takes so little to draw fans back in. This team was f***ing terrible last year, and with almost no changes (and mostly for the worst), people are already willing to jump back on board. I don't mean this directly at you, NSS, as I've already spoken to a couple of friends today about this rumor and they're all already happy to go into next season as is. If we won't demand better, we don't deserve better. I hear ya. And you are right that the Sox brass understands that a full-on, multi-year rebuild isn't really possible for multiple reasons. I'm not saying I'm all excited for 2012 or anything, I am just saying... if Danks is willing to sign a reasonable extension, that changes the landscape a bit, and I am less worried than I was about how this will play out. Still want to see what happens the next month or so. I'm not jumping off a bridge yet. And as I've said, you have to realize that KW's version of a rebuild doesn't target 2015, it targets 2013 at the latest. In that view, this could be a good move, regardless of what happens in 2012.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 04:06 PM) Read your bullpen again, that's a bullpen with a rookie closer, a Loogy, a guy who struggled badly with us last year, a guy who was genuinely good with us but has been inconsistent in his career, and then Matty. And it's only 5 deep, which means that spot 6 goes to rookie X. Really, that bullpen setup is a mess. I disagree on the bullpen, I think it looks at least league average as it stands right now. Reed, Crain, Frasor, Thornton*, Ohman, Stewart. But I actually believe Reed is going to be quite good, and Stewart can excel as a reliever. I could be very wrong.

Really? I suppose if after this they trade Quentin, and they are willing to stick with this level of player payroll... this team doesn't look so terrible for 2012. Danks/Floyd/Peavy/Humber/Sale with Molina, Stewart and Axelrod in the wings looks reasonably good for SP. Santos is replaced by Reed in the pen, which I think is probably going to be an even deal. Players like Dunn, Beckham and Rios all coming off almost impossibly bad years for their talent level, and I'd bet serious money at least 1 and likely 2 of them bounce back. Viciedo, Morel and De Aza developing, Ramirez and Konerko consistent. That's really not an awful looking team to me. But one random dude with the rumor, I'll believe it when I see it.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 12:23 PM) maybe KW found someone to take Rios..... That would be nice, even if paying a big chunk. But more likely... QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 12:24 PM) If they can sign him, TCQ gets given away. Yeah, probably. This all still seems like an incredible long shot to me though.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 12:18 PM) I heard last night on MLB Radio. I believe it was CLiff Floyd reporting that the White Sox will go all out and try to sign Cespedes. Have to admit, wasn't expecting that. At all. If the Sox can't trade Quentin, it seems to me this is an impossibility. Even if they do, the bidding is likely to be sky-high, so I still highly doubt it.

Sniping over staffing levels is kind of pointless here. The system they work within needs changing. Adding a small % or removing a small % does next to nothing either way. I personally think they should at least stay even in funding vs inflation because of how key they are (and yes, even when problematic, they are still important and still prevent some problems). But fundamentally, they need to be changed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 05:35 PM) Yeah, the part whehre things are changing for the worse is the part I'm concerned about. In a Citizens United world, now it's so much easier to own 3/4 of Congress. Companies still don't vote, and anger still reigns supreme. If nothing is done to fix glaring issues (even if the fix is weak at best), heads roll at election time, that is still a basic truth.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 04:34 PM) The only part of this I agree with is that the Pres's odds seem better than 50/50 right now. The Democrats aren't going to push something that hurts Wall street if they somehow get into power, especially with Frank being gone (who would be about the only one who could drive something like that). And the Republicans aren't going to bring anything even resembling a strong bill that would limit Wall Street's activities. I think your view of the political situation is far too static. Things are changing rapidly (not necessarily for the better, but, change nonetheless). We'll see.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 03:21 PM) Hasn't Volcker disowned whatever bastardized version of his rule was included in Dodd-Frank? Yes, because of its bastardization. But there wasn't the groundswell behind it then, that there may be now. Different world. If Obama is re-elected, which at this point seems better than 50/50 to happen, I will bet you right now that a stronger or more complete version of it will come up for votes in Congress. Whether or not it passes Congress depends on a lot of things. ObamaCo may also see if they can get it done without Congress, though I am fairly certain that can't work.

What Man did was illegal. The loophole scared me too, but I looked more into it, and we now know more of what went on. Here are some pieces of info to help clarify for you and others... 1. The CFTC rule in question is about reinvestment on behalf of client cash, and does not apply to taking the money out of customer accounts. That law - the one with the big fat wall between customer and prop accounts - was clearly and demonstrably violated. That law may need changing, I'd agree there, but it didn't matter in this case. 2. For as much gruff as SOX gets in this forum for being burdensome, I'd like to point out that violations of SOX one way or the other may be the lynch pin in getting Corzine in fail. Basically, for money movements on this scale of any kind (even if spread over multiple transactions), Corzine and the CFO and probably others would be required to directly sign off on it. So even if Corzine claims he didn't know (see #3 below), it doesn't matter, because he had to know legally. Either he knew, lied to Congress and tried to cover it up... in which case he is going to jail. Or he didn't know and was signing s*** left and right not paying attention to major stuff, he violated the law, and... he is going to jail. 3. Corzine not only knew about this, he was one who was materially pushing his strategies and even doing some of his own trading. So he has personal, trader-level responsibility here for these actions, legally, and beyond just his role as CEO. He's in deep s***. 4. No one will like to hear this, but, when Terry Duffy (CME Group head) goes out there and says the system isn't broken, he is sort of right. He's wrong on a macro level, but in terms of this exact situation, he is right. CME Group was in the offices of MF Global on Wednesday, doing an in-person audit, and everything tied out. Thursday and Friday the money movements started occurring, and the daily reports sent to CME by MF were incorrect (can't say yet if they were falsified, missing data, whatever, but they were wrong). IB discovered Thursday and Friday the money was missing, which is why they pulled out of the potential buy. The movements made by MF were seen as temporary by the people who did it, either because they wanted to just get the sale done or they thought they could dig back out of the hole. Either way, since MF checked out on the audit, looked OK on the reports for two days, and was meeting its capital obligations to the clearing house and counterparties, there was no reasonable way for CME Group to know what was going on. This was multi-level, short term criminal enterprise, and all the laws and rules in the world would not have stopped it. 5. Here is the really s***ty thing for the futures world that a lot of people aren't seeing. All throughout this financial crisis of the past 3-4 years, all sorts of parts of the financial markets were getting slammed - swaps and OTC derivatives, mortgages and MBS', equity options, indicies, bonds... all had their crises, all looked terrible, and all now look like the bad guy. Listed futures, meanwhile, stayed remarkably clean and stable throughout. In particular the FCM's, who weren't entangled like the big IB's, were real winners in all this. And then, MF Global happened. Of course, the thing that destroyed MF was their prop business, not the futures brokerage. But that doesn't matter to much of the public. Futures are now evil. 6. One thing that WOULD have prevented this, is the Volcker Rule. I'll bet that rule is in place within 2 years in some form. Please go back to your regularly scheduled sniping.

Went to a movie Friday night, decided to see the MI movie because hey, I get to see the prologue trailer. Except, no, I don't. To say that the prologue is showing on the same screens that MI in IMAX is showing is false, turns out it is only at a couple theaters in the area. Not the one I went to. Did get to see the new preview, but not the 6 minute prologue one. MI was actually a fun watch. Believability factor near zero, but entertaining, great stunts and camera angles.

OK, I give. Can someone PM me a link to a still-up video of the prologue trailer? If they have one? Google isn't finding any that are still up. I'd appreciate it!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 16, 2011 -> 08:50 AM) Well, since they published the same garbage last year or a few years ago. It's a pretty regular report for them. But this study didn't specify HDTV's or smartphones. Just "television," which could be a $100 set from Walmart, or maybe a $50 Goodwill pickup. A "gaming console" could be a Nintendo 64. It just said "cellphone," which could be a cheap pay-as-you-go thing. The poor have the audacity to own cars (old beaters to get to their jobs that are probably 20+ miles away from their homes and for which there's no public transportation available). The reporting on this study by idiots like Hannity, though, will feature lots of images of fancy 60" LED TV's, PS3's, iPhones, etc. to drive that deceptive slight-of-hand home. Being poor is about a lot more than not having the latest electronics, and having some relatively cheap entertainment devices to distract you from your otherwise grinding existence doesn't make you suddenly not poor. That's where the fundamental problem of these studies lies: focusing on a few material trinkets that do not actually reflect what poverty is or isn't. I agree with this. However, I'd also agree with what kap is getting at - which is that for some significant % of people that are poor or low income, part of the reason they are there and not finding a way out is going to be their own choices. Note I said PART, by the way, and for SOME people. There are people who are low-income that buy a lot of stupid things. This also ties back to one of my favorite causes - financial education and the lack thereof. Anyway, really, you are both right on this one. You can argue as to how many poor or relatively poor people have what % of situational fault their own, and how many of them make things worse by making stupid purchases, and no one really will have numbers to provide. But it isn't as simple or noble as you make it, nor is it as simple or completely self-driven as kap makes it.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 15, 2011 -> 03:10 PM) thats cuz you guys are brahs Its true. They both like holding boobies.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 15, 2011 -> 03:33 PM) That's true, but I'm sure Obama would much rather have run against Cain or Perry or Bachmann. On paper Huntsman presents a stronger challenge than Romney, but I don't see any of the other candidates really offering a strong shot at Obama. Which is why I doubt that Romney is who Obama prefers out of this crop. Agreed. ObamaCo would much rather any of the significant candidates over Romney, who polls better against Obama than anyone else.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Dec 15, 2011 -> 11:33 AM) The hatred toward Cowley on here, it's as if he said something disparaging about Soxtalk. Well, actually, he has. But aside from that... it isn't that he made something up entirely in this article (though he has done that before). It is that he does exactly what a reporter is not supposed to do - he took a few facts and quotes, and characterized and twisted them to appear to be something else. Joe Cowley is not a reporter. He is a columnist (thankfully, now, not a beat writer) who can't even come up with good evidence to support his obvious bias.

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Dec 15, 2011 -> 11:13 AM) You're right.. The tax cuts worked out great... Not everyone is in Poverty.. they move up to Low income above Poverty! Pretty soon they can be 1%ers in what 150-200 years? Why bother posting? Seems in your world, either you have to delude yourself into believing something manifestly false (as stated in the very article you cited), or else that means you think poor people have it great. Most sane people are in between. You will trigger some real, actual discussion if you don't twist the words of other posters, and defend it by outright lying about the words from a published article.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 15, 2011 -> 11:01 AM) Besides, they have microwaves and ceiling fans, so they're not really poor anyway. Oh come on, when have you ever seen me post anything even remotely like that?

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Dec 15, 2011 -> 10:13 AM) 1 in 2 people are in poverty... So much for the 01/03 tax cuts helping the everyday American... Read the article more carefully. What you typed is not true. 1 in 2 are in poverty OR low income above poverty. Still not a good thing, but, let's get the facts straight before discussing.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 14, 2011 -> 04:21 PM) so I just saw a bootleg of the prologue. HOLY s***. quality was horrible, but wow I'm tempted. But I think I'll wait until a reasonably decent version hits the interwebs.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 14, 2011 -> 09:42 AM) He has been off of the Sox beat for a while now. He is a columnist. Instead of getting baseball news, we get who is mad at each other. Maybe next he will tell us who trims AJs beard or who Gordo is dating. Heh, apparently I have been away from the Sun Times for too long. Who is the Sox beat writer over there now? Obviously I'm not surprised he is off the beat now, if that is the case.