NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (flavum @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 02:55 PM) There's a lot of hitters in tonight's lineup that have success against Pettitte. Pierre is 7-15. That probably explains Pierre being in there then. I'd be curious how the others in the lineup have done against him, versus the ones like AJ that are sitting.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 02:23 PM) Reconciliation isn't an option with this one, they didn't include it in the Budget resolution last year like they did with Health Care. Won't need it. It will pass.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 02:16 PM) Alexei and AJ are 2 players you never want in the top third of your lineup. They see very few pitches per AB, never walk, and are terrible situational hitters. (Yes I realize AJ is not in the top 3rd tonight. Just making a point.) AJ is not a bad #2 hitter when he's on. High contact rate (few K's), hits for good average, pulls the ball when its on the ground, knows the game situationally. Not so great with the bunting or speed though, or the walks.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 01:56 PM) Is that even happening? Climate bill will pass, in some form, in the next couple months.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 02:05 PM) Ramirez SS (1:12 BB:SO) Beckham 2B Jones RF Konerko 1B Rios CF Quentin DH (LIES!) Teahen 3B Lucy C Pierre LF (LIES!) Garcia P LOL

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 01:09 PM) It's called a compromise. I hate is much as anyone. But sometimes you need to do it. MAYBE, just maybe this whole incident will change a few "drill, baby, drill" minds while they actually see the consequences of their actions. That's the good news. The country has already moved more and more towards a concensus understanding that renewable energy is the future. That wave subsided a bit when the economy went south, but this incident will help get awareness back in the right direction. Add in the fact that we'll likely see $100/bbl oil this year, and we'll be back where we were in 2007 in terms of support for a future of renewable, clean energy. Then hopefully we push it further, until the majority of the country realizes how incredibly stupid it is to ignore the future and stick with oil and coal.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 01:04 PM) Story on npr said the administration included the offshore drilling in the proposed legislation purely as a deal to get some republican support. Boo. Well yeah, we all knew that at the time. I'd love it if we spent half or more of the Stim Bill money to directly push us away from oil. I'd have loved it if we didn't waste $1T on the unfounded, poorly execited and useless war in Iraq, since that same $1T could have gotten us ENERGY INDEPENDENT in a decade. I'd rather that all subsidies to oil companies stop, and I'd rather that we spend that money purely on alt, renewable energy. Unfortunately, at least at this point, that plan goes nowhere. Compromise is a necessity to achieve anything in Congress, even when its doing things well (which isn't often). So while we're all upset about this - and I am, believe me - the question you need to ask is, would you rather we do nothing? Or allow for a small increase in off-shore drilling in exchange for hundreds of billions going into the real future?

This requirement has obvious problems for subjectivity. BUT, I DO think that anyone who is hired to teach at any level to any students, should be fluent English speakers. If they can't speak English passably, they shouldn't be teaching.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 09:36 AM) How is it a reach? If he believes it, what else does that mean? Because its quite clear he doesn't believe it. Like I said, I don't like what he said either. But the idea that he doesn't believe in the phrase you quoted is absurd. He said nothing even approaching that. I just want the discussion to come back to reality, without all the ridiculous hyperbole that I'm seeing on both sides of the aisle here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 09:26 AM) And considering he's already turned down what, $3-$4 million for the year from the Nats... But now the season has started, and I think that changes the picture a lot. If TCQ has a real injury of some kind, I say you call up Dye and offer him 550k pro-rated, and a slot in the OF/Dh rotation, if/when he can pass physical, and do a few minor league games to get up to speed. If he is unwilling to sign under those conditions, fine, see ya. If he is, great, we have another option.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 09:10 AM) Anyone have thoughts on the Dye article in the Sun Times today? "Where would he play?" seems appropriate. If TCQ goes to the DL, or any of the OF/DH rotation guys appear to have an injury, then I'd be for it, if its a cheap deal (like the Jones deal). Otherwise, no.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 08:35 AM) Read the statement again. He pretty clearly stated he believes that people should only be able to make so much money, and they should be forced to give their own time and efforts to things they aren't obligated to. Yeah, that's not what he said. You made a fairly huge leap there. I don't like what he said, but to say he doesn't believe in that phrase is a huge reach.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 08:18 AM) In Democratic societies, that doesn't matter. When you have the President flat out saying that he doesn't believe in the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness part of the constitution, it worries people, as well it should. Again, no one in this country constitutionally has the RESPONSIBILITY to grow the economy. Not individuals, not business, not the government. There are morals and ethics to where they should want to, but they it is pretty clear that they shouldn't have to. The fact when the President isn't reading from the script goes off of such anti-individual rants should scare people. What scares me most is that so many people in this country don't see a problem with these sort of statements. If these same sort of statements had been made in context of race, sex, et cetra, there would have been an uproar. But because this is class warfare, no one cares. It is a travesty. Wait, back up the bus. He said what?

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 08:10 AM) I'd bring up Gartrell, especially since he probably wouldn't be playing every day. Let Danks continue to play, and hopefully improve, down in Charlotte some more. I agree. Sort of the same thinking with having Lucy replace Castro, instead of Flowers. That said, I doubt this is a DL trip for TCQ.

QUOTE (hogan873 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 07:59 AM) What if Quentin goes to the DL, which is not out of the question considering his history. Who would the Sox bring up? Danks2? Or Gartrell, or De Aza. One of those three.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 07:48 AM) Outside of two months last year, Pierre has been the decline for the last few years. A year like this wasn't out of the question. Especially, in the A.L. A bad year, yes. But no one would have projected he'd drop off a hundred damn points from his career average. Glad to see him moving to 9th, and unless he's hurt, I am 99.9% sure he'll start hitting fairly soon.

Bellamy had his first bad outing of the year. Always a fan of weird box score lines, here's one from Garrett Johnson (Kanny reliever): 2.0 IP, 0 H, 2 R, 1 ER, 1 BB, 0 K

I really like that Gavin seemed to be getting back to form.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 04:04 PM) We got three in the seventh, one in eighth and two in ninth. Why can't we score like that on a moderately consistent basis? Actually, in the past week, scoring late has become the rule. Last night scored all 5 runs late, the SEA series was three straight late wins.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 03:29 PM) but it's so early that if he has 2 good games those numbers could be the same as Danks. Its not THAT early. He'd have to go 4-for-4 twice, even then I'm not sure.

Wow, D-Backs currently up on the Cubs 13-1 in the 7th.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 01:46 PM) Dear God no... I would stop watching baseball. Why not? I don't know a ton about how he'd manage, but from what I do know about him, I think he'd probably be a good manager.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 01:57 PM) Great moments in legislative acronyms. Copied from email press release: Seems like a good start.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 01:17 PM) The first is federal employee versus private sector employee, the second is federal/state/local government employee versus private sector employee. That would mean that state/local employees were making a very small fraction of what private sector does. That seems as hard to believe as the 119k avg federal salary number, which is highly suspect. Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if gov't employee compensation is above private sector now. That is entirely plausible.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 01:08 PM) Well that's cool, public jobs outpay private jobs now Interesting, but, explain this to me: The article first states that the average federal salary is like 119k, then quotes the commerce department saying its 52k. Sort of makes me question the validity of the data.