NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Jan 15, 2010 -> 09:09 AM) But that's how they won it. With power. Well, no, if you had to pick three things, they won it with pitching, pitching and pitching. Then power, defense, timely hitting, and finally, the ability to occasionally manufacture runs.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 03:37 PM) I don't. And Daniels is a snake oil salesman too. That list just flat out sucks. Gingrich is a very smart dude, who has had some good ideas. He's also a raging asshole, though.

Threets to compete with Williams for the LOOGY spot?

OK, Merkin's list shows Phegley as well, so that's 15.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 03:06 PM) Maybe Alejandro De Aza? He's on the 40, I thought.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 03:03 PM) List on whitesox.com: Pitchers B/T Ht Wt DOB -- Greg Aquino R/R 6-1 190 01/11/78 -- Ryan Braun R/R 6-1 220 07/29/80 -- Daniel Cabrera R/R 6-9 260 05/28/81 -- Charles Leesman L/L 6-4 210 03/10/87 Catchers B/T Ht Wt DOB -- Miguel Gonzalez R/R 6-0 200 12/03/90 -- Donny Lucy R/R 6-2 205 08/08/82 Infielders B/T Ht Wt DOB -- Freddie Bynum L/R 6-1 185 03/15/80 -- Brent Morel R/R 6-1 220 04/21/87 Outfielders B/T Ht Wt DOB -- Jason Botts S/R 6-5 250 07/26/80 -- Jordan Danks L/R 6-4 210 08/07/86 -- Josh Kroeger L/L 6-3 230 08/31/82 -- Jared Mitchell L/L 6-0 195 10/13/88 Threets and Retherford not mentioned on the site, but are in the article. Those 12 above plus those two makes 14, so I am missing one.

Lucy? That's surprising.

List on whitesox.com: Pitchers B/T Ht Wt DOB -- Greg Aquino R/R 6-1 190 01/11/78 -- Ryan Braun R/R 6-1 220 07/29/80 -- Daniel Cabrera R/R 6-9 260 05/28/81 -- Charles Leesman L/L 6-4 210 03/10/87 Catchers B/T Ht Wt DOB -- Miguel Gonzalez R/R 6-0 200 12/03/90 -- Donny Lucy R/R 6-2 205 08/08/82 Infielders B/T Ht Wt DOB -- Freddie Bynum L/R 6-1 185 03/15/80 -- Brent Morel R/R 6-1 220 04/21/87 Outfielders B/T Ht Wt DOB -- Jason Botts S/R 6-5 250 07/26/80 -- Jordan Danks L/R 6-4 210 08/07/86 -- Josh Kroeger L/L 6-3 230 08/31/82 -- Jared Mitchell L/L 6-0 195 10/13/88

Where did you get that partial list?

QUOTE (rowand's rowdies @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 02:48 PM) and to get this back on white sox baseball, although staying in a negative light, i sometimes think we have cubs fans on this board pretending to be sox fans. at least that is what some of your baseball opinions show me. juan pierre is not the worst hitter on this team. period. you can throw all the stats at it all day long, but he will be a valuable member of this team, and at worst a disapointment at $4 mil a year, which isnt going to kill us. pods is one injury away from being done and one bad streak away from being back looking for a minor league job. not to mention he's 20 feet away from the fly ball about to hit the ground he misplayed. i love the guy and what he's done but im sure they gave him a reasonable offer to come back, and he decided to move on. what he took on the market now doesnt mean the sox didnt offer that much. look at what polanco got, if he signed now he might only get half that, and he signed about 2 months ago? if it's true that dye is looking for 3 million 1 year, then I say we take that route. i dont see him being through and he's perfect for the cell. he wants to play some field...earn it. you're gonna have to beat out some decent fielders, JD, so earn it. otherwise we've got a rotating DH. i ask this next thing for all sox fans who understand the game. please stop pretending that you know something because some computer stat system or projection method tells you something. the making of a successful team is much more complex than you think it is. let kenny and ozzie, who have more GM and managing experience than the rest of us will ever have, COMBINED, do their jobs and try to bring us another world series. go sox This is only as stupid as the other side. You can't dismiss stats and what they tell you, nor can you say stats tell you everything. You saying people "pretend" to know because they use stats, is just as narrow minded as what you are accusing them of. Its also a little insulting.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 02:47 PM) Gingrich says he is among 7-8 GOP candidates seriously considering 2012 for the Presidency. His read on the current list:

Gingrich says he is among 7-8 GOP candidates seriously considering 2012 for the Presidency.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 02:37 PM) Stratfor reporting White House and NSC may come out with new AQ threat agiainst America. Report titled "Al Qaeda Attack On American Soil Possible."....FWIW I saw something about that this morning. Supposedly, they have intel that is unusually specific, including a time frame, and that it involves aviation, from AQAP. But no location info. Seems odd to release that much detail.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 01:30 PM) She's going to be running against an incumbent with probably at best 9 % unemployment. She's also going to be running against an incumbent who is probably on the upswing of an economy. Note that I did NOT say the GOP can't win the race in 2012. They might. But Palin will spend so much time tripping over herself, she couldn't possibly win.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 01:25 PM) First off, if Vizquel is needed to be a teacher for Ramirez and Beckham, what the hell are Joey Cora and Ozzie Guillen doing? Im pretty sure they played plenty of MI in their MLB careers, and they are being paid to guess what, COACH! Second off, Vizquel is no longer a GG caliber defender, and is an awful hitter at this point in his career. Nix plays great D at 2B and showed to be solid at SS and 3B. Plus, Nix provides much more offensive potential than Vizquel off of the bench. The only thing that Vizquel provides is the fact he is known to be able to bunt, but thats sad that we need a designated bunter. If we were talking about Vizquel from even 3-4 years ago, I'd agree with you. But at this point in his career, he'd be more useful to a team as coach and not as a player. Vizquel's UZR/150 numbers at SS the past three seasons: 32.6, 13.1, 20.6 (2009, 08, 07). As far as 3B is concerned, the position you are endorsing for Nix, Nix had a 4.9 in limited play in 2009. Vizquel in the same year? 56.1. Vizquel is still a GG caliber defender at those positions. At 2B, Nix is better, 14.1 last year. Vizquel has a career 0.3, making him average, in limited play. As far as hitting goes, the offensive juggernaut that is Nix hit .224 last year, with a .716 OPS (which works more in his favor, as a power guy). Vizquel? .660, on a .266 average. And as far as Nix developing, keep in mind he struck out 64 times in 255 at bats - the equivalent of 150 times in a full season. Vizquel has never struck out more than 64 times in a full season, with 27 last year in 177 at bats, and still has speed (as Nix does), and can bunt with high effectiveness (Ozzie's favorite). Vizquel is far and away the better fielder on the infield as a utility man, and pretty equivalent as a hitter. Plus all his added benefits as coach and mentor. I'll take Omar.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 12:44 PM) I really dont understand why. He's versatile, plays really good D in the infield, and was actually able to hit left handed pitching. Personally, I would give him a lot of reps at 3B in spring training and see if he could be a solid backup there. I really dont understand why we would keep an old relic in Vizquel over Nix. Because Vizquel is a GG caliber defender at 2 or even 3 infield positions? Because Vizquel is an ideal teacher for Ramirez and Beckham? Because Nix' defense is OK at 2B and less than that at SS and 3B? Because nix isn't a very good hitter, and if we want another bench guy, we want a better bat?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 12:41 PM) After reading Sullivan today I'm starting to rethink that possibility. Nomination is an outside possibility, but still highly unlikely. Presidency? Zero chance, barring an epic public collapse of some kind from not only Obama, but also a number of Republicans.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 12:42 PM) The problem with those suggestions you make is...what happens when the numbers of people on disability grows relative to population (has been happening at least the last 15 years), or when people take early retirements because of a bad job market, or when unemployment is rampant amongst students who want to work? I didn't say it was a perfect number - I'm saying its closer to reality than the commonly reported number is.

I believe in energy. Human beings have some sort of resident energy, some might call it a soul. I don't think that vanishes completely when someone dies - the energy goes somewhere. How coherently, I don't know. But I will say, I've had a few experiences where certain places have a certain feel to them, which I attribute to those energies. Beyond that, I just don't know, but I wouldn't outright dismiss the possibility of "ghost". I just don't think I believe in the human apparition type stuff, or physical encounters.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 09:53 AM) And how do you deal with companies like GE that had 200+billion in commercial paper backstopped? They should have to pay something too! But what? Also, GS and MS SHOULD NOT be bank holding companies any longer. What exactly was the backstop for GE? I am not familiar with the details of that one.

Here's a question... who here has a particularly favored unemployment number they think is most accurate? There are a few (or more) different rates bantered about, which include or exclude different groups. It seems like an ideal number would exclude retirees, students and people under 18, and those on some sort of government disability. Leaving the rest as the true picture. Is there a number that shows that, specifically?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 09:17 AM) The problem with that approach is how Paulson did TARP originally. He brought a bunch of banks into the room and insisted that they take the money, so that investors wouldn't learn which banks needed the cash and flee those banks. Turned out that Citi and BofA were in even worse shape and needed a couple hundred bil extra so investors got past that pretty quick, but the objection there is obvious; you can't punish people for taking TARP money when they were forced to take TARP money. Sure you can, just like you could force them to take it - but if you look at the companies that took TARP money, they needed it. Show me a large bank that took TARP money who didn't need it. You seriously think its more fair to make everyone pay for some peoples' mistakes?

Obama wants to cover the $150B or so from TARP that the gov't is likely to actually lose, but adding a liability levy of 15 mills to financial institutions with assets greater than $50B (about 50 or so banks fall in that category)... whether or not they received TARP money, and whether or not they have paid it back. So, I'm all for making people pay for their mistakes. But doing this across the board is business-stupid. It says, hey, you banks who were actually pretty responsible? Yeah, you have to pay for the mistakes made by your risk-taking cohorts. Not a good approach. Better approach: Highest levy on firms with biggest TARP bailouts and/or those who still have money unpaid, smaller amounts for those who used TARP but repaid it, and ZERO for those who took ZERO. Article.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 09:03 AM) One other thing to keep in mind is the bench situation. If Kotsay and AJ both start because we're facing a RHP, then that leaves zero LH bats on the bench, assuming the final bench slot goes to someone like Nix or CJ. I find that to be a very, very, very small concern (that specific scenario). I find it more a concern that, without another serious lefty bat, the every day lineup is too RH heavy.

Interesting note on this topic... One of the natural flaws in corporate governance via the public markets that I (and others) have pointed out before, is the fact that Boards are too intertwined with the companies they are supposed to control. Another is that shareholders weren't doing what they were supposed to do in the ideal market - keep corporations' over compensation of their executives in check. These two things combined to give us executives that have pay which has risen far more than would be natural or expected in the past decade or two. Well, with executive pay getting SO extreme now, there have been signs lately that shareholders are finally holding their companies to the fire. Not often, but occasionally. Yesterday's example: John Deere.