NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Sox1422 @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 12:09 PM) Just got this email back after inquiring to Brooks: Here is a look at the beers we will be offering at our Midwest Brews locations: Minnesota - Michelob Golden Light Wisconsin - Leinenkugel (various flavors) Illinois - Goose Island's Honkers and Chicago Beer Company's Windy City Wheat Indiana - Barley Island's Bar Fly IPA Ohio - Great Lakes Brewing Company's Dortmunder Gold Michigan - Bell's Oberon (we will also have LaBatt Blue representing this area and the Canadians) I hope this makes you want to stop by even more now! They will be cold and waiting for you... Joey Nigro, General Manager Sportservice - US Cellular Field 333 W. 35TH Street Chicago, IL 60616 LOL @ Michelob being characterized as a local brew.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 12:10 PM) In case you hadn't heard, Drunk Driving Laws are killing Small Businesses. http://coloradoindependent.com/81829/video...illers%E2%80%99 Look at that guy's tie.

Some of those bazillion relievers you have in Charlotte will end up in B-Ham. And wasn't Zaleski released?

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 30, 2011 -> 07:11 PM) Opening Day Team Rosters: Indians Lineup: Brantley CF, A Cabrera SS, Choo RF, Santana C, Hafner DH, O Cabrera 2B, Kearns LF, LaPorta 1B, Hannahan 3B Bench: Everett IF, Buck OF, Duncan OF, Marson C Rotation: Carmona, Carrasco, Masterson, Tomlin, Talbot Bullpen: Durbin, Pestano, Herrmann, Germano, Sipp, R Perez, C Perez Royals Lineup: Aviles 3B, Cabrera CF, Gordon LF, Butler DH, Ka'Aihue 1B, Francouer RF, Escobar SS, Treanor C, Getz 2B Bench: Maier OF, Dyson OF, Betemit IF, Pena C Rotation: Hochevar, Francis, Davies, Chen, (Vin Mazzaro will be called up in a couple weeks) Bullpen: Crow, Adcock, Collins, Jeffress, O'Sullivan, Texeira, Tejeda, Soria Tigers Lineup: Jackson CF, Rhymes 2B, Ordonez RF, Cabrera 1B, Martinez DH, Raburn LF, Peralta SS, Inge 3B, Avila C Bench: Kelly OF, Santiago IF, Boesch OF, Wells OF Rotation: Verlander, Scherzer, Porcello, Penny, Coke Bullpen: Thomas, Perry, Villareal, Gonzalez, Schlereth, Benoit, Valverde Twins Lineup: Span CF, Nishioka 2B, Mauer C, Morneau 1B, Cuddyer RF, Young LF, Kubel DH, Valencia 3B, Casilla SS Bench: Thome DH, Tolbert IF, Repko OF, Butera C Rotation: Pavano, Liriano, Blackburn, Baker, Duensing Bullpen: Slowey, Manship, Perkins, Hughes, Mijares, Capps, Nathan White Sox Lineup: Pierre LF, Beckham 2B, Dunn DH, Konerko 1B, Rios CF, Quentin RF, Pierzynski C, Ramirez SS, Morel 3B Bench: Teahen IF/OF, Lillibridge OF/IF, Milledge OF, Vizquel IF, Castro C Rotation: Buehrle, Jackson, Danks, Floyd, Humber Bullpen: Pena, Ohman, Santos, Sale, Crain, Thornton Sox the only team carrying 5 on the bench and 6 in the pen, as opposed to 4 and 7.

I've tried to get some scouting reports on Charlie Shirek, to shed some light, but nothing recent comes up. He's a mystery to me. He's a guy with excellent control who can hit 95, and supposedly has a decent curve and change. Yet, his K numbers keep dropping. Anyone have any idea what his deal is? He did have some injuries last year, so maybe a healthy 2011 will see him improve.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2011 -> 09:55 AM) That is exactly where most small business falls. Small businesses are not taxed anywhere in the vicinty of 50-60%. And if they are being taxed at the same rate as high-income individuals, then either the business was set up stupidly, or the tax code needs to be tweaked to seperately classify business better, or both.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Mar 29, 2011 -> 07:39 PM) Really?! Yeah, I thought for sure he'd be in B-Ham this year.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 29, 2011 -> 07:07 PM) Let's be clear, this is about EU oil, not US oil. Just sayin'. You know as well as I do that it doesn't work that way. There are a lot of people who feel we shouldn't have gotten involved in Libya, or Iraq or even Afghanistan for that matter. They feel that the US military should be for national defense only, or maybe something really gihugic like a World War, but that we could spend the billions or trillions of dollars from these wars on US domestic problems and be better off. But what you just said illustrates exactly why we can't do that. People who feel this way - that we should not get involved - are working an a patently false assumption. That assumption is that the US is truly independent. It is not. We are highly dependent on other countries for our oil, for some of our food, for our own financial stability... the list goes on. We are so fully intertwined in the global economy that, if we simply elect to never get involved in this sort of thing, our own interests would be devastated. People are upset that oil is a factor in Libya and Iraq? Not sure if you noticed, but we kinda need a lot of oil. And no, Kap, Libya's oil being suddenly shut down would not only effect the EU, because oil is priced globally. This would effect us just as much as it would any other oil importer. Now, if you wanted to make the assumption of the isolationists correct, then you need to get us energy, food, financially and otherwise independent, or close to it. That means spending a T or 2 on energy over the next decade, paying off a good chuck of a $13T debt, fiscally supporting a bunch of unprofitable agriculture, and so on and so forth. Unless you have a way to do all of that, then let's not pretend that being an island is realistic. Its no more realistic than saying we can go into every awful situation like this, because we can't do that either. We'd be fighting 20 wars at all times. What does that leave? Reasonable choice. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are three very different wars in pretty much all the key ways. Then there are the wars we could fight but are not - Yemen, North Korea, any number of African nations that are in collapse, etc. You can't do all, and doing nothing for any of them would only cost us in the long run, so you choose the highest value targets, where chances of success are highest, political capital is used most efficiently, and where it helps our interests. Libya, particularly the way we are doing it, fits that bill, IMO. Afghanistan not as much, but that was a war you pretty much HAD to fight for non-financial reasons. Iraq was idiotic from day 1.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 29, 2011 -> 02:42 PM) Lol. No, I meant for that link to be there. Goes back to my earlier argument that instead of spending 600 million and counting on this Libya situation, we may be better suited to spend that money back here at home, where, you know, people still get shot at by rogue gang members. This argument I get. I can see a real strong case for not doing anything, and putting that money to use here instead. Of course, I've suggested that the $1T over 10 years we have spent on Iraq could have gotten the US energy independent (and without all the death, destruction and hatred of a war), but I was scoffed at for that idea.

No shocker there, he was pretty much a non-prospect at this point. Just never lived up to the tools.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 29, 2011 -> 09:14 AM) It's not comparable to Iraq because the size, scope, reasons, costs, lives lost, or any other possible quantitative measure shows that it's a s*** comparison that people who were gullible enough to support the Iraq war are trying to use to bolster their failed positions. Thank you.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Mar 29, 2011 -> 08:14 AM) It should be Home Run Inn or the sort, at least a local brand but still can taste good after being frozen, IMO. I always thought Home Run Inn made the most sense, being such a south side institution, and since they had already mastered making frozen versions of their pizza taste decent.

Whatever the DiGiornos ends up tasting like, it can't be a whole lot worse than the Connies they had before. QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 28, 2011 -> 04:28 PM) Polish Grilled Dog Elotes Brisket Add: Churros.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Mar 29, 2011 -> 07:46 AM) And if he does it's still not a big deal. We're responsible for providing Charlotte with bodies as well. Crazy talk I know, but if he does pass through waivers and goes to Charlotte, I predict Marquez ends up looking pretty impressive there.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 29, 2011 -> 07:57 AM) Except for the large, noteworthy fact that neither one of those campaigns would have existed without black gold. (And anyway, there's still a lot more valid comparisons. Lack of exit strategy. Lack of planning for things going wrong.)_ That's true on the oil part, no doubt. I should have mentioned that. But I have no idea where you are getting the idea on the other stuff. Exit strategy? We haven't entered, for one thing. For another, the goal itself tells you the exit strategy: pressure continues to mount on Qaddafi until his administration breaks (which it is already doing). Then the air raids stop. The obvious step after that will be the humanitarian aspect, which they have stated as well (though perhaps not as clearly as they should have). As for planning for things going wrong, what exactly do you mean? If by going wrong you mean Qaddafi somehow overcomes this and then starts taking back more areas by force (which is pretty unlikely), then you have to address that situation as it comes. Now ask yourself the same questions about Iraq, since you so enjoy making that very loose comparison. Lack of exit strategy? Certainly, they not only didn't have one, but hell they didn't even have a middle strategy for taking control of the country. And as far as things going wrong, it wasn't that they needed specific plans for every possible outcome, because that's not practical. The problem was that they assumed everything would go perfectly, even when most of the international community was sure it wouldn't. Here, I see no such assumptions, but more importantly, even if it does go wrong, the consequences are much, much less severe than in Iraq because we didn't invade.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 29, 2011 -> 05:58 AM) Gingrich fears the US could become "“a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists" wtf This is where the GOP has gone even more bats*** crazy than the Dems, and why my formerly pretty reliable GOP votes have migrated somewhat left in recent years. People make cartoonish statements to characterize politicians in the extreme here in The Buster, and its done from both sides... but the actual "leaders" of the current national level GOP are a lot closer to those caricatures than their Dem bretheren.

So far, my only criticism of ObamaCo on this Libya thing is that, at least until last night, they failed horribly and stating and describing a clear picture to the American people of what they were doing. I mean, for those of us who pay deeper attention to what is going on, we figured it out. But for most people, he needed to get out there in a prime time speech BEFORE this occurred, explaining what the plan of action was based on Qaddafi's future actions, why we were doing it, what the end goal was, etc. He's done that now, but he let things fester too long. This is odd because, going into his Presidency, I figured Obama would actually be good at this communication and connection thing. Apparently not so much. As far as how he has actually handled the situation from a policy, plan and action perspective, I think they've done superbly well. The goal was to destroy Qaddafi's air and air defense capabilities, take out as much heavy armor as possible, help transport people out of the country, and set the table for the populace to take control of the government. So far, it's moving in exactly that direction. I'm guessing that if (more likely when) Qaddafi's government falls, the coalition forces will also jump in to help get basic services back up and running, provide humanitarian aid, etc. And really, this has next to nothing in common with Iraq. The similarities begin an end with: US military involved in campaign in EMEA country run by a bad man. Everything else is night and day. So please, stop with the comparisons. This is how you handle this sort of situation from a foreign policy perspective. Unfortunately, he screwed the pooch on the domestic side of it.

We don't generally start whole new threads for a marginal player who was on the Sox years ago signing a new deal somewhere. You can just post this sort of thing in the catch-all, or since he hasn't been a Sox in a while, put it in the Diamond Club MLB catch-all (which I will do for you in this case).

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Mar 28, 2011 -> 01:05 PM) You're probably right. It's hard to project pitchers, I was thinking they'd want both Infante and Carter to close and Infante spent less time at AA. Justin told me last summer that he would be ready to pitch by now, so I don't know what's up with him. If Mitchell, Ciolli, Shoemaker, Martinez and Colligan are all at W-S, then somebody's on the bench. I would think Martinez would be there, but it's not impossible that he could move up to B'ham. JMHO, but... I think Ozzie Lewis doesn't start in B-Ham, he's on the bench. Loman will DH, Marrero at 1B and some OF, but that leaves an open OF slot, which I think Martkiez is in. Then at W-S, you have Mitchell/Ciolli/Shoemaker/Colligan at the 3 OF and 1 DH positions, rotating.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 28, 2011 -> 12:31 PM) Oreally? Link me the vid of Obama asking other nations to step in. Hell, link me the video of Obama talking about this issue at all in the days after MG went after his people. From what I saw the French and British were the first to call for UN involvement. So what you really wanted was for Obama to talk about it more, addressing the country. I actually agree there.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 20, 2011 -> 12:20 PM) The age old IT conundrum...the problem with the IT industry is experience trumps education...always has, and this is a problem. You will often see IT jobs go to people without degrees, simply because they knew the right person to give the hands on experience. I don't think that's a problem at all - I agree with that philosophy, when we are talking about people who have been in the workplace for a while. If some person has 10+ years of experience, I really could care less whether or not they have a degree, or what it was in. Its a minor factor at that level. Now, if you are looking to high someone more junior, then obviously their education is key. I tend to favor a hybrid strategy with hiring in IT. Bringing in a bunch of young folks with just a degree or mininal experience, who are cheap and who you can train quickly into your company's way of doing things... and mixing in some experienced hands who know the industr(ies) they are coding for. For the former, degree and academic training are everything. For the latter, it is minimal to nothing.

I'm willing to bet that Nate Jones is a reliever this year, not a starter. Infante will be in AAA is my guess, not AA. I am also thinking that Justin Cassel will either be released or traded before the season starts. I'd also bet that Kyle Colligan will not be a bench player. He's very toolsy, and I think the org is not that low on him.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 28, 2011 -> 09:29 AM) I'm guessing the general consensus is the Iraq became a debacle, despite the intentions in the beginning, which is why many think that Libya will also become a debacle. But, at least with Iraq there was a goal. At least the President spoke to the country and the world about that goal. Here was have nothing. We started bombing and a week later the President decides to hold a press conference to defend/explain his decision. I'm guessing it's going to be some confusing tirade about all sorts of topics, so that people can latch onto one sentence and define it as the Obama Doctrine. I'll be going with a we bombed because there's (1) an unstable leader, (2) in a bad part of the world, (3) doing bad things to his own people, (4) and there's American interests at stake. I'm sorry but, that's ridiculous. In Iraq, they had a goal - but it wasn't the goal they stated. They first said "ZOMG WMD WTF BBQ!!!", then it was "Al Qaeda!!!", then it was "Well Saddam was a bad man". Lies, all of them. The real goal was to attempt to take the war on terror to a central location, and in the process, create a democratic allie and stronghold in the region. Basic neo-con stuff. In Libya, the goal is right there for all to see - bomb and patrol to attempt to level the playing field for the rebels to overthrow Qaddafi. Now, people may think that not achievable - I can see that being a good argument. Or they may think we should be doing more, or less. But make no mistake, with Libya, the goals and reasons are much more forthright, and we did it the smart way (actually getting international support, instead of throwing away political capital such that we handicap our future work).

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 26, 2011 -> 01:01 PM) http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/artic...1cc4c002e0.html Pat Quinn's tax increases driving out business. I guess he'll just have to raise taxes again to make up for this. I'm not sure which is worse. Illinois posting a sign saying "stay if you want, but the tax man cometh" or Indiana posting a sign saying "dear heavy polluters - we want your business!"

I just can't see how anyone can say with a straight face that this Libya thing is a debacle, but Iraq wasn't. I can see the argument that both are, or that Iraq was but Libya perhaps isn't.