NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 11:54 AM) Law's top 100 is up. No Hudson, Flowers at 58 and Mitchell at 95. Hudson not even in the Top 100? Yikes.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 11:48 AM) BBC They are actually damn good, I have to agree. BBC and PBS are quite good. If I had to pick a "mainstream" network, I suppose I'd go CNN.

PBS

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 10:22 AM) In a surprise to no one, Elizabeth Edwards is leaving John. Good for Elizabeth. I am sure she deserves better.

The SCOTUS call out was interesting, but I don't really blame anyone on SCOTUS for reacting a little bit. Seems like this is much ado about nothing. SCOTUS decided, Obama disagrees, and asks for better laws to work within the confines of Constitutionality. Why is this a problem, for either side?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 09:07 AM) And as i said, it's sad how it takes a policy that's a total waste of money to get that moving. This can be applied to corn ethanol as well. I'd rather go with nuke plants than core ethanol, if I have to choose an evil.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 09:00 AM) There's a simple reality out there. Nuclear power is simply not cost effective. Even a carbon tax doesn't do it. When a utility wants to build a nuclear plant, local rates skyrocket. No intelligent bank will fund the things, with good reason. You are missing my point. I'm not saying nuclear plants are a good idea - I'm saying solar/wind/geo/hydro/other are good ideas, and if a few nuke plants allows us to move forward on the real deal, then its a no-brainer.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 08:48 AM) Just like to note how sad it is that in order to get policy changes, we need to do things that are absolutely idiotic to appease one side. Sigh. I wouldn't say idiotic, I'd say less than ideal, and certainly not good long term thinking. But if building a handful of nuclear plants, and allowing some more regions for offshore drilling, allows this country to move forward on alt energy sources that actually make sense... then you do that.

OK so, its been getting a little bit tetchy in here lately... cool it, please - everyone. No more ad hominem stuff, no insults to other posters. We thank you for your support. Putting this in both threads.

OK so, its been getting a little bit tetchy in here lately... cool it, please - everyone. No more ad hominem stuff, no insults to other posters. We thank you for your support. Putting this in both threads.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 02:39 PM) The one month treasury bill yield went negative again today, first time since the plummeting stopped last March. That means investors think that there's likely to be a sell-off in the near future, if I understand these things at all, and they're willing to lose money on treasuries rather than keep money in stocks. Its an indirect indicator, and only one indicator at that. But yes, all else equal, that is the bias that typically shows in that number. Typically.

Overall I liked the speech. He used a populist, campaign-like tone, but he also called out both parties numerous times, trying to put things on Congress' lap. I tend to agree with him doing that, its needed. Congress is a far larger problem than the Presidency, in terms of not being able to move forward. Negatives: --Tried to do too much, speech was quite long --The comment about how budgeting works was lame and unnecessary --No way the non-renewal of upper income tax cuts by itself will pay for all the new programs he discussed --No way that all that can be accomplised --Completely vague as to how he plans to meet that export goal, which I don't think is possible Positives: --I didn't disagree with any one idea - all good ones, though a couple (bank fees for TARP, nuke/oil allowances to the right) depend on implementation --Glad he put such an emphasis on clean energy and the future of the economy, I agree that those are keys --Glad he punched back on the fiscal discipline thing - the political right has made it seem like the GOP can control spending while Obama is a spend-o-matic, which is just not founded in fact. Congress is the major problem with spending, and the GOP has been no better (in fact, including a useless Iraq war, they were worse) at keeping spending under control --Love the idea of taking the TARP fees (again, as long as they are executed correctly and fairly) and putting them towards small busienss lending --The spending freeze is a nice little start --The targeted tax cuts should be useful --You can tell he's serious about clean energy, since he gave a couple huge carrots to the GOP - drilling and nuke plants Overall, a rambling and overlong but still pretty solid speech, IMO. Now let's see how much of this he, and Congress, can actually accomplish.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 02:02 PM) Wait, you thought the Sox system was top half a year ago? At this point, while the Sox do have some talent in the system, besides Beckham it really hasn't amounted to anything. I think people don't realize how much talent there is in other systems. I think at one point, I'd have said 10-15, yeah. I'm more inclined to go 20-ish now. And I don't claim to be a huge expert, its obviously some guess work on my part, from what little I know.

Sox system has fallen back a bit in the past year, so I'd say they are no longer top half. But #30 is a joke, and its Keith Law, so take it with a gigantic grain of salt. One thing I think I disagree with, is about pitching depth. I think the higher levels seriously lack in that, other than Hudson. But look at what we saw in A- and A+ last year, and how good those pitching staffs were - I think there is a lot of talent there, and a few of them will break out in 2010 in A+ and AA. That's my read. Check out this FS piece about the 2009 Kanny pitching staff, to see what I mean.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 12:37 PM) With those 4 to go along with Viciedo/Morel/Thompson I definitely dont think we belong ranked last, yes there isnt much depth outside of the top10 or so but I think the Sox should be closer to 20th. Law has always been rabidly anti-Sox, not sure why.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 12:39 PM) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0012701601.html I know, I always point out negative news. I've said for months, the best thing for the long term health of the housing market is for NEW home sales to stay weak, but existing home sales to be stronger. That's the only way we can reduce, relatively, the supply side, to support prices.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 11:51 AM) Hah. Just look at the percentage of physicians themselves who smoke cigarettes. I used to volunteer as an EMT in college, and probably half the paramedics and EMT's smoked. I found that amusing.

I'm starting to think more and more that Blalock will continue to fall through the cracks, and we'll sign him for cheap just before ST starts. LH bat for DH, occasional relief at 1B and 3B.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 08:14 AM) That is awesome. THey are going to put him with the hat of a franchise that is long gone, instead of a Cubs one. It was really a no-brainer, the only reason there was even a question was that Dawson wanted the Cubs. But its not up to the player. Expos in the HOF: Carter and Dawson.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 09:25 AM) He'll get the bulk of them? LOL, and who is he going to sit then? Kubel? I bet Thome doesnt play more than 20 games at DH tops. I'll take that bet - over/under at 20 games at DH, I'll go the over. What's the stake? Sig bet?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 07:54 AM) A better "Meet the parties halfway" guy is Hudson. If Hudson were willing to take a part time role for cheap, he'd certainly seem to be a good fit for Ozzie's bizarro DH/IF needs.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 10:08 PM) Gardenhire just contradicted this. He says Thome's going to get his reps. That's much more likely. No way they signed Thome just to be an occasional player. He'll get the bulk of DH at bats.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 04:14 PM) I assume he meant that 90% of the value of the stock market would be lost and we'd enter a new dark age. (Probably means 90% of the publicly traded stocks go down). The latter makes sense. I was hinting about the former, which I'm sure he didn't mean.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 03:09 PM) We should have a 90% down day this week if not tomorrow! 90% of what?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 11:25 AM) No he was a full time starter in 2007 he was just injured and underwent surgery in ST. Mark Kotsay was acquired by the Braves to be the starting CF. He played 88 games and had 345 PA. That averages over 4 PA per game. That is the definition of a starter. So contrary to your "opinion" Kotsay has been a starter through 2008, until his trade to Boston to be a bench player. Steve, No I dont like lies. How can you say 88 games and 345 pa's is not a starter? Or that when Kotsay missed 2007 due to injury and then came back to start, he wasnt a starter? (56 games 226 Pa's, averaging over 4 per game) I hope that you were being sarcastic. Last I checked, there were 162 games in a season. 130-150 games would be a starter. 88 games is a roving OF, and if you look more closely, you will see he did in fact play multiple OF positions that year.