NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (IceCreamPants @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 05:57 PM) You are not allowed to use the word absurd towards a fellow admin here. That is out of line. Whatever, asshole.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 02:59 PM) Well, I'm just curious as to why you would make the comparison otherwise... I guess I was just confused as to what the idea that Ozzie knows more about baseball than anyone on Soxtalk has to do with anything. My bad. If you go back and see how the conversation started, you will see I was responding to someone who stated that Ozzie was a "stupid human being". That's why it mattered.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 02:33 PM) White Sox clearly not interested, if both Sox claimed him, we get the dibs. That's fine, at this point, I am not convinced he's enough of an impact anyway. Need a substantial upgrade, not a marginal one. I have a feeling we will put a claim in on Manny.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 02:20 PM) Things you may never see in this thread again: long excerpts from Ron Paul, with no sarcasm or ridicule involved. Wow. That was well-stated.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 02:02 PM) Anyone here? That is the threshold for a good manager? That he knows more about the game than anyone on soxtalk? Who said that was the threshold for a good manager?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 01:57 PM) That's a good post. I agree that in "the overall view of things" Ozzie Guillen knows a lot about the game. You can nitpick about his bunting philosophy and all that, but the man knows baseball whether some on here believe it or not. And he'd kick your ass for calling him a stupid human being if he saw you on the street. I'm not too concerned about him kicking my ass. That was sort of a strange thing to bring up. The reasons to fire Ozzie go well beyond nitpick stuff - the guy doesn't just make the occasional bad call (as all managers do), he's made a habit of bad calls as part of his managing style, and it has handicapped the team. His supposed strengths - keeping the clubhouse where it should be, keeping all the guys on the same page, etc. - can only go so far. They aren't enough to offset his many bad decisions, as shown not in individual situations but a season of failure in certain aspects of the game. But even with all that, he's not stupid. He's just really stubborn and refuses to acknowledge the aspects of the game he DOESN'T understand well. To be really good in managing anything, you need to know what you don't know.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Aug 20, 2010 -> 04:57 PM) This would be great, but we're still going to need an effective bullpen if we want to win the Central. We've had that most of the year. Its been a s***ty run the past week or so, but that won't last. Other than Bobby, the bullpen has been very effective this year. And even Bobby has had more good days than bad. This is still an above average bullpen.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 01:46 PM) A stupid human being? My god. I disagree. I'm going to agree with Greg here. He's shown to make a lot of mistakes as a manager, and I don't think he should have the job anymore, but he's far from a "stupid human being". He knows more about the game than anyone here, in the overall view of things.

QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 01:43 PM) Not even close to their actual hours. The principal here arrives well before 6:30 am and is still here when I leave around 5. They attend about every district meeting imaginable (*all in the evening) He is the one that opens the schools on Sunday afternoons for any teachers that need to get in. They do not have summers off. They do receive more vacation than most managers, but not the same as teachers. I don't like the tenure system and think its B.S., but I agree with your post here. School principals work a ton of hours in a hard job, and I have zero problem with someone who has attained that position making 6 figures, much like their private industry cohorts (people who manage dozens or hundreds of people and are in a very public leadership role).

Strange poll - most people I know seem to agree that Stone is an excellent color guy, and Hawk is bad and getting worse. So the better options would be Stone + someone, not the other way around. If they can pair Stoney with a decent PBP guy, I'd be very happy.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 09:02 AM) Yeah but since when did we get the ability to sweep them? Odds are we won't so we better be within a game or 2 by that point. Which amazingly is still possible. We're in long shot territory now, but that's the next check point in my mind - how far back are we when that series starts? 3 or less and we still have a decent shot. 6 or more and forget it. In between is long shot.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 08:42 AM) Teachers fought hard for these tenure rights for a reason. Throughout the 60's and 70's, the main reasons given for why teachers were fired were "immorality" and "gross immorality" in one unnamed state. Prior to the NEA forcing a strong tenure system on school districts, teachers were regularly fired because, basically, they were unliked. They had the gall to teach evolution, or to be non-white and non-christian, etc. Now maybe I'd be convinced that anti-discrimination laws have filled that hole...but you're flat out not going to convince me that without the tenure system we wouldn't be firing teachers in many places because of pissed off, rich parents. I'm not going to say it doesn't cause harm in other ways...it clearly winds up protecting teachers who should be removed...but these collectively bargained rules didn't just appear out of no where. They appeared because the alternative was a worse mess. And at this point, we need another revamping. The rules are causing more harm than good, by a wide margin, in my view. This isn't the 60's, and not every school is Little Rock Central.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 08:20 AM) My high school had 1 Ph.D. on the staff. Was kind of cute. Taught chemistry. Football player in my class. I'm sure you can tell how that ends. And it's not like I was at a highly competitive regular championship high school either. Every job has elements of risk of being put through B.S. You are swinging a sledgehammer to kill a fly. You think putting in place a system that keeps a whole lot of bad or sub-par teachers on staff at every school, is OK, because it offsets the risk that a teacher might be put into a difficult situation? Where is the value proposition here?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 08:13 AM) There's a reason why the teachers unions have fought for things like tenure and job protection though...because that setting in particular lends itself to unjust firings...in particular if a teacher is doing their job...and gives a bad grade to the quarterback just because the quarterback earned a bad grade. That is a complete load of crap. High Schools don't make a metric f*** ton of money of sports like colleges do, the situation you describe isn't going to be rampant. Besides, the teacher would turn around and sue, all would be exposed, and that would be the end of that. Teachers should be exposed to all the same stuff others are - the expectations of performance, and the rewards of making that work. Anything else is just excuses for lack of performance.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 22, 2010 -> 07:11 PM) There are a lot of overpaid teachers in this country who are content getting their paycheck and not caring about the kids in their classes. In most fields they wouldn't have the incentive to stick around with the large pension at the end of the tunnel. They also wouldn't have the union protection of being able to suck without being challenged for their suckiness. That's not an issue of paycheck, though. That's a problem of the way teachers are hired and fired, which is partially dictated by union contracts, and partially due to some really stupid "tradition" and the whole tenure/seniority system. I have zero problem with the principal of a large school or district making six figures - especially if their school is performing well.

AJ is just starting to hit now, so I wouldn't sit him any more than usual. Definitely been nice to have Castro's bat in that backup slot so far though.

I assume that I am not the one to start a game thread today. Kind of all weird with the double-header yesterday, but since there was a loss in there, I assume I lost the privilege. Someone else can start one.

I don't even know who's pitching in each game, all I know is that Joe West f***ed the Sox again. Only revenge available? Sweep the DH. let's try this again... GO YOU WHITE SOX!!! GO YOU WHITE SOX!!!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 20, 2010 -> 04:07 PM) "FOX Chicago News reported that it is likely to be juror Jo Ann Chiakulas of Willowbrook, after a second-hand acquaintance said that she has been saying since early july that she would find Blagojevich not guilty." Unnamed "second-hand acquaintance" Ah, I missed that. Seems like a pretty thin source, I agree.

Also, does it seem like AJ is finally hitting again lately? Looks to me like he's getting close to being dialed in, finally. Last seven games: .350/.381/.500/.881.

QUOTE (WilliamTell @ Aug 20, 2010 -> 04:03 PM) And Rios needs to be productive offensively. He's had hits his last three games, and crushed a couple balls that were caught. I think he's coming out of his funk (he had a bunch of o-fers before that).

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2010 -> 04:01 PM) It is in drug cases, because often times you don't have the money to use wiretaps. Here, it was pretty easy if not for the one juror. Speaking of: "Chiakulas is a retired director from the Illinois Department of Public Health. She was juror 106, college educated, is active in the Urban League and other politics, and listens to NPR." Somehow that description doesn't surprise me. And reportedly she's been saying since July she'd find him not guilty. http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro...-trial-20100818 Where are you seeing the bolded?

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Aug 20, 2010 -> 03:44 PM) I think Kenny is targeting Manny and he's gonna try and get him soon: Per mlb.com: If Manny does get by all NL clubs on waivers, the American League clubs who could potentially benefit this summer from Ramirez with reasonable shots at the playoffs probably include -- in order of claim priority as of today -- Chicago, Texas, Boston, Minnesota, New York, and Tampa Bay. If multiple AL clubs were to place claims, the one with the worst win-loss record would have the prevailing claim. Here's where it can be a little tricky: The standings are viewed for the purposes of claim priority as of the time the claim window closes, which is two days after the player is placed on waivers, not when the window opens. In other words, Los Angeles wouldn't necessarily be able to time the waiver request to steer Ramirez to the team it wants to deal with. Who will want Ramirez? If Ramirez does go unclaimed in the National League, the White Sox may very well make the prevailing claim. Recall that Chicago reportedly made a run at Ramirez on July 31 (after failing to get Washington to part with Adam Dunn) but got nowhere with its demand not only that it wouldn't give up any player of consequence but also that Los Angeles would have to cover all but $1 million of Ramirez's remaining salary. Ramirez earns $20 million in 2010, the final year of a two-year, $45 million contract he signed in March 2009. Of the $20 million owed for 2010, only $5 million is actually payable this year, with the remaining $15 million deferred without interest ($3.33 million due in June 2011; $3.33 million due in June 2012; and $8.33 million due in June 2013). Deferred compensation would be prorated based on when the dollars are earned (not when payable), and so any team picking Ramirez up for what amounts to the final fifth of the season would be obligated to him for about $1 million over the remainder of the season, and about $3 million more spread out over the next three seasons (with the Dodgers on the hook for the rest of the deferred portion). But in the event of a trade, those allocations could be negotiable. The point of the dollars discussion is that the money shouldn't be a major impediment. So if Chicago decided not to put in a claim, then Texas, Boston (surely only to block), Minnesota, New York, and Tampa Bay might find reasons not to do so themselves, but probably not fiscal ones. And again: If Ramirez were to go fully unclaimed, Los Angeles would be free to discuss a trade with any club. $4M? That's less than I thought it would be.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 20, 2010 -> 03:48 PM) No its not, youre leaving it up to Fitzgerald to make the call. You say if you want to go forward on the case you have to act now. Its not trumped up charges, because Fitzgerald believes that Blago is guilty. I doubt that Holder or Obama cared if Blago was charged or not. If hes not charged its a win, if he is charged, who cares hes a Democratic Governor from a state that is mostly Democrat. As long as the senate seat is democrat they could care less if Blago, Quinn or myself is governor. Um how? The Defense was arguing that Blago never was going to sell the seat. If you call in witnesses who say: "Oh yah Blago was going to sell me the seat" havent you just convicted your own client? There is no way to argue this without implying that Blago is guilty. It was for the sake of argument. I have no idea what Obama would or would not do. I know that Obama is a politician which makes me believe that he will do whatever it takes to make sure that he is okay. You dont think its odd that the supposed buyer has never been revealed? That its so clear Blago was selling this thing, but we have no clear evidence to who? It just doesnt make sense. You dont say that you had to act quickly because of how heinous the crime was, when the crime wasnt imminent. Theyve done a great job, no one even asks these questions, but this is not how criminal cases are usually tried. So I ask myself, in such a high profile case, why did the prosecution stray so heavily from normal procedure? Its just monumentally harder to prove. Its a crime to intend to sell drugs. But you wait until the transaction takes place, because otherwise its very very difficult to prove. Everyone asked those questions. There was all kinds of suspicion as to who it was. What procedures did they deviate on? Its pretty standard to not name other actors that are not being used as material witnesses in high profile cases, you see it all the time. No one said they acted because it was heinous crime in commission or pending, you added the heinous part. Its pretty much accepted they acted when they did for two very simple reasons - the impending Trib article, and the fact that the sitting governor was about to commit more crimes. You said it yourself - Obama will protect himself first. Therefore, your theory of him getting involved makes no sense. As for not bringing up witnesses for the defense who might have been buyers, did you not see all those ridiculous subpoenas they tried to file to call everyone and their grandmothers to the stand? They got turned down - because the defense was unable to provide reasoning for why they were relevant. Why would they try that path? Because they wanted to show it was normal, day-to-day politics at large. If they could have gotten others in, they would have, but there was apparently no real evidence of it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 20, 2010 -> 03:39 PM) Punto back on the DL. Punto, Mijares, Morneau, Nathan... you'd have to think the injuries would have to catch up with the Twins at some point. I also find it hard to believe Pavano and Duensing are as good as they've been so far. Yesterday showed us that for Pavano. And Liriano has looked less than stellar lately, same with Capps. I really think the Twins are in for a cold streak - its just a matter of whether or not the Sox can take advantage of that.