NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 03:55 PM) Kinda hard when every thread ends up turning into the same thing... BrianAndersonRulezScottyPodsSuckzPanicInDecemberSoxHave50CentsToSpendOldAndSlowSuckzWantFastWantPowe rWantPerfectBullpenMyGodWeSuck.

QUOTE (Bern Danstein @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 03:46 PM) Why? I admit my avatar is not nearly as clever as your screen-name (or thoughts, for that matter), but I think I'll live. You have the air of familiarity about you...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 02:32 PM) So, if you you were one of the people rebuilding in NO after Katrina, you'd have no problem with the 26th, or the 51st ranking member of the Army Corp of Engineers coming to tell you about the plans, because the top ones all quit? Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, I'd want to get rid of the ones who f***ed up, and find the best available next in line, or from elsewhere. I'd have no problem with that.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 10:04 AM) I dunno. I seem to remember there being reports in the last few years that he was suffering from some ailments. Is death an ailment?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 01:05 PM) That is like a 2 1/2 negative isn't it? Which makes it a half negative. Kinda like the Sox offseason so far.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 12:47 PM) When a company is going bankrupt, they have a choice. If it were really an option, SOMEONE would have done it by now. When you are talking about millions of dollars being hemorraged, and the big factor is a companies stock price at the board level. They want that price up to protect their own investments. If they really thought it would fix the company, and save it money, they would have done it. Seriously the suggestion you are making is akin to the White Sox releasing their entire team and calling up Birmingham to replace them because they are "professional baseball players" who are only two layers removed from the level the White Sox are at. No, the suggestion I am making is firing a good bulk of the Nationals' roster (since we are, by nature, talking about utter failure here), and replacing them with the bext minor leaguers and major leaguers they can find, in their system OR others. And you are damn right they would do better. Another analogy that works here, is Katrina. In both cases, some disaster occurs, that is partly caused by leadership failures within core companies or agencies, but also partly systemic (financial system, or environmental). Now, in a disaster like that, do you want the rebuilding done by the same people who caused the situation in the first place? No, you want new thoughts and ideas. You want the guy who leads the Army Corps of Engineers (or the company in question) to come into your office... see if they have a plan and will execute it within the difficult parameters set (pay, resources)... if they can't, you fire them, and get the next best guy available, and task them with the same thing.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 12:34 PM) If it was really that easy, why aren't boards dumping entire executive teams and saving millions of dollars? For the same reason they aren't kicking out executives who pay themselves too much. Boards and executives are like a fun little club, often so intertwined that there is no real check and balance there. Furthermore, as I am sure you know, the markets have pretty much decided that executive pay is not something worth worrying about when dealing in stocks. So, the Board generally has no motivation to boot them. It is, IMO, an inherent weakness in the system.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 12:22 PM) With the specialized knowledge of this specific field? I don't buy it for a second. I buy it all day. You really think, if you work your way down the org chart, at a large financial firm, that there is some ginormous drop off from C-level to Senior VP level? Or from CEO to ther C-level? Or from SVP to VP/JVP? No way. They all moved up the chain at some point. Its not a giant step after level ground, its small steps at each level. In fact, I'd say the transition we are talking about for, say, an SVP to a C-level job, internal to a firm, is usually going to be faster, than hiring a similar C-level guy from elsewhere.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 12:00 PM) How many executives do you think could handle this job, seriously? And oh yeah, they have to be willing to work for $500,000 a year and very little bonus incentive. Anyone in their right mind is going to find employment somewhere they can make more money for themselves by multiples of total dollars. We are talking 10 X's or way more in many cases. You are seeing the exactly flight of quality that was warned about before. Quite a few, actually. Look at any large organization - for every level of executive, there are 10 in the next level down for each one in that level, who would LOVE to do the job. And those people didn't get to that next tier by being slouches either. They are all qualified, and some would do a good job. There is no magic executive thing here. They all started somewhere else, and moved up. So really, a handful of companies, can't find new executives for $500k a year and an ENORMOUS resume boost for being part of repairing a company and having a C-level title? That's ridiculous. Now, I will certainly say that I wish they had made caveats on the executive compensation restrictions with TARP firms, that allowed for larger payouts much later that were directly performance-related (i.e. stock grants or options). But that isn't really huge thing to me either way. Also, if your firm did this horribly, you SHOULD be looking for new blood, not recycled executives.

The system is f***ed up when you have 4 or 5 undefeated D1 teams and none of them get their shot at the title.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 09:30 AM) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1260152381...14353:b29231116 Eh, go ahead. Quit. I don't personally believe this garbage about there supposedly not being quality executive candidates available who can do these jobs. I think there are plenty. And in fact, having new blood is probably better for the company than the same old crap. Best thing for them is to find people, internal or external, who are willing to be part of rebuilding a company. I have zero doubt you could find some very smart, very capable people willing to do that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 08:13 AM) It's in the WSJ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126015136036479479.html I didn't get a chance to look at the online news this morning yet, other than a couple line items from my blackberry on the train. Thanks for the link. That's weak s*** on Baucus' part, not sure what he was thinking.

QUOTE (azsoxfan1 @ Dec 6, 2009 -> 01:53 PM) From The Hardball Times, an interesting article about Jones. "I am, however, bringing up this comparison to note two things. The first, and the most obvious and talked-about in the past, is that perhaps Jones isn't completely done after all." "The second point of the comparison is to say that Jones may have positioned himself not only to succeed in 2010, but to market himself as a starting option in free agency next year." Full article: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_art...sing-white-sox/ Welcome to the board! I think Jones is a strong candidate to have a major comeback year in 2010, and he may end up being the majority or full time DH. And if he shows up in shape and is raking, I am OK with that.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 6, 2009 -> 09:41 PM) Max baucus has sex with a woman whom he helps to get 'promoted'. I wonder if someone who also couldhave been eligible for that position would have legal grounds to sue over not getting it? if i didn't get a promotion because my competition was screwing someone with influence, I would sure be pissed. The rallying cry could be "He got head, she got ahead!" Source? What are you talking about?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 6, 2009 -> 03:47 PM) The main stream media orgasming over the numbers being "so much better!!!!!!" droolz! I really have not seen anything of the sort. I suppose it depends where you get your financial news, and what you call the "Mainstream Media". For financial news, usually for me its a combination of WSJ, Crain's, CNN-FN and Yahoo Finance (just a news condenser, really). But I have seen a pretty consistent theme of "looks like we are finally going the right direction, but we have a long way to go".

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 04:01 AM) Remenowsky needs to succeed in AA next year to be taken seriously as a top prospect. He needs to succeed next year, regardless of where. The Sox organization does indeed see potential in him - they signed him, and according to Dan, they have a "plan" for him. So whatever the plan is for 2010 - High A all year, High A then a mid-season promotion to AA, or maybe straight to AA - he needs to succeed within that plan.

I guess this means that he'll be on the Sox around 2013 then, right?

QUOTE (3E8 @ Dec 6, 2009 -> 01:38 PM) Everyone is saying the economy is all ok now? as far as I can see, no one is saying that. Not sure where that came from.

QUOTE (bighurt4life @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 08:08 PM) I definitely enjoyed reading some different opinions about our prospects. I disagree with his assessment of Flowers defense, it's no secret that he was voted the best defensive catcher in the SOU league by the league managers. That tells me all I need to know about his ability behind the plate. Also, he's only been a catcher for 2 or 2 1/2 years, if he can improve that much in that short a time then he's definitely got the goods to stick behind the plate. Some of this other picks were surprising too, for one, I don't think that Santeliz is really that highly regarded by our front office, If you want a guy with a dynamite FB and nothing else then look at Sergio Santos who can pump it in at about 99mph. Also, having Remenowsky and Jones rated so low is crazy. Remenowsky absolutely dominated this season. Remenwsky was indeed dominant, but keep in mind he was an NDFA signing, and he was 22 when he started. 23 this past season, in A ball. No doubt he has some potential, and I do think he's a prospect worth watching, but a lot of prospect guru types will tend to dismiss or downgrade such a pitcher based on his age and not being drafted (the latter actually is something I agree with, but not so much the former). If he dominates again in 2010, in High A and/or AA, you will start to see more people take notice. For now, there seems to be a wait and see approach.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 10:05 PM) lol too bad 100% of the dollars were US tax payer funded. it was about US 'green jobs' government money being spent. We are being passed up. It bothers the s*** out of me.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 03:00 PM) I'm really pissed that the useless road construction money didn't go to help cities with capital improvements on mass transit instead. There isn't any one person to blame for that so I'll just blame Congress collectively. Without a doubt Congress gets most of the blame. Obama gets some too, though. For all the focus we have put on Obama and Bush though, if you leave the war aspects aside, most of the major f***ing up in the last decade or so can be much more attributed to Congress than either President.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 02:52 PM) Not as much short-sighted as unfocused on the main problems. It would have been nice to have that other 90ish percent of the money still to come in that bill to be able to adjust to this recession on the fly, instead we have to sit and wait, and hope... And, oh yeah, pass another jobs bill because the first one isn't working right. I think the better plan would have been to have been both short term AND long term addressed. Tax breaks in the short term that would add jobs - like house greening stuff and appliances (Cash for Clunkers was actually a good one). Also some of these quick construction jobs, but, ones that pay off longer term, like new bypasses and connector freeways that cut down travel times, etc. But at least half, or more, should have been investing in long term thinking. Engineering jobs created in alt energy, efficiency built up by improving rail transit, etc. Instead, we got a whole lot of re-paving roads that already exist, which is really not what we needed (or at least, not needed as much as other things).

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) Who are we kidding? That cheap DH is going to end up being Thome... Ho hum... Yeah, that .900-ish OPS, big fan favorite and a guy who'd be willing to sign for cheaper here than elsewhere... Ho hum.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 12:36 PM) Slate recently had a Write Like Sarah Palin contest. This one in particular is so full of win: Amusing, but its not really Palin's style to use that many fancy words.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 12:25 PM) There is also a lot of ground to make up. 7+ million jobs lost is going to be hard to reconcile. Will a jobless recovery still be a recovery when the numbers were this big? 5 months after the recession formally ended there are still jobs losses. At this stage in the jobless recovery in 2002, jobs gains were being seen already. It will be interesting to see what happens in 2010. But November was very good news, only 11k jobs lost. Oh there is a LOT to make up. I think everyone has known for a while this is a much deeper and longer recession that what we saw in 2002, or in the early 90's, or really any going back to the 30's. And while this is good news (this recent month's picture), you really need to build bigger ongoing momentum to start eating away significant chunks of that job loss. It will take years, even under the best case scenarios. This is one of the reasons why I keep harping on the Stimulus Bill having been far too short-sighted.