NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 11:40 AM) The major names (Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, etc.) are mostly picked for PR purposes so it's going to be someone off the NSC if not the president himself. The other names probably come from the major command's staff of whoever's responsible for the operation. I don't know how exactly they get the names, I think they have a generic list actually and they just go down the line. I recall reading an article some years back, that except for the few really high profile ones, operations are named using a random name generator. Thus, you ended up with operations with names like "tractor rose", etc.

Shirek was rated as a Grade "C+" prospect by Diamond Futures, ranked as the #24 prospect in the Sox system. This is a little lower than our list has him, probably due to the poor peripherals he put up in the 2nd half of 2009 after his promotion. Diamond Futures grade C+ is described as:

Remenowsky was rated as a Grade "C" prospect by Diamond Futures. Prospects on that site are ranked up to #32, then there are 21 in the Grade C category, so that would place him in the 33-53 range. This is significant for Dan because, with his age and NDFA background, many prospect lists don't even include him. Diamond Futures grade C is described as:

QUOTE (balfanman @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 12:48 PM) Again, personally I do not want Padilla, I am just trying to make sure that we have correct information. I know that Padilla threw at A. J. what was it 3 - 4 seasons ago now, and A. J. was looking into the Sox dugout. Was A. J. actually mad at Padilla, has he said anything, I don't recall; or was A. J. upset that his team wasn't retaliating? It may very well be that A. J. hates Padilla ( as a lot of other players seem to), I just don't remember the specifics or if this was actually stated. Padilla didn't just throw at AJ. I watched that game. As I recall, he threw the first pitch into AJ's back for no game-related reasons. Then Aj's next at bat, he did the same damn thing. It was blatant and way over the top.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 10:45 AM) Damn it, that would have made so much sense for the Sox. Now what do they do at backup catcher. I don't want Flowers on our roster if he isn't getting significant at bats. I spose Olivo is always an option. Wite: I personally don't think 1.5M is all that bad for a plus defensive back-up catcher that has hit lefties pretty well over the past couple years. I still think Flowers is a great option - backup C and learn the bigs, do some DH work to get more at bats (whomever we put at DH is probably going to be older and need some days off), he's cheap, and he can get to know the pitchers. I'm not concerned about the catcher at DH problem, which would come up only, at worst, once in a year. Unfortunately, I think Ozzie might be more concerned about that, so it may not be his thing.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 09:58 AM) In response to the idea that the Taliban would "lay low" for the 18 months between now and July '11 Gates said something to the effect that "it would be terrific if they did that" because of all the things the U.S. military could get accomplished by not being in combat. In reality I don't even think that's realistic, they say that like the Taliban can make an arbitrary choice between being defeated and not being defeated out of convenience? Sounds to me like he's taunting them a bit.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 09:46 AM) I like the upper portions of the list mostly, but the bottom part is pretty confusing. Overall however I love the list because of this part: I'd like to know a little bit more about these defensive skills and what they're comprised of, i.e. arm strength, hands, release, etc. but that alone is a pretty big statement. I have to say I really like the Hudson-Viciedo-Mitchell order to the top-3. I would go Flowers-Hudson-Viciedo, but I like Mitchell, Hudson, and Viciedo all more than Flowers, so I like that a lot. It's kind of ballsy to rank Flowers after those three (even though I can agree with that) and it's also pretty ballsy to rank Morel ahead of Danks too, which I also agree with. I'd rank Danks over Morel personally because of upside, but Morel's floor is quite a bit higher IMO and Morel appears to be the safer bet to turn into a valuable Major Leaguer. But yeah, the bottom parts I really don't agree with at all. One thing that is especially confusing is why CJ is at 11 and Torres at 16. If he's going by upside + readiness, then I understand CJ at 11, but Carlos Torres shouldn't even be on there, especially ranked above all those other guys. And of course there are all kinds of crazy rankings, like Nathan Jones at 31, Trace Thompson at 17, the entire Griffith/Heidenreich/Infante/Upchurch/Leesman group missing the top-32, etc. And it goes on. Yeah, lots near the bottom seem off to me, but its such an inexact science when you get to lower level guys. I mean, I really like what I see from, and read about, Stephen Sauer, but he's mentioned as an after-thought here.

When I think of the Blues, the north suburbs just don't quite spring to mind. Most of the ones I know are in the city. Actually, all of them are. But its possible there are some up there I guess.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 09:43 AM) New Afganistan? Are we admitting them to the union? They will become a burough of Hawaii.

QUOTE (KaneCoKeith @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 09:10 AM) A couple of anecdotal points of reference... I have been reading the stuff of the main guy over there since 2000-2001 when he was the lead writer for a site called 'Top Prospect Alert'. He caught my attention because he recognized Albert Pujols as an 'elite' talent--nearly a year before anyone else. He has been a tough read, as a White Sox fan, both because of his 'Keith Lawish' cynicism/directness and toughness on Kenny Williams and Duane Shaffer. That being said, he was an early adopter of Mark Buerhle, was high on Alexi Ramirez and Gordon Beckham last year, and I think John Danks might be his son the way he touts him. I can't speak to the methodology, because they always seem to stop just short in explaining the details behind it, but they do produce quantitative ratings that result in 'interesting' analysis that has historically produced as good as results as anyone else out there. I'd love to see someone one-day do a historical study of the accuracy of all of the, so-called, 'experts' out there. I think a study like that would reveal that any and all experts are wrong, a lot. And so are we. Nothing burns me up more than people who state future events or outcomes as fact, when clearly they cannot be. In that regard, I do like this guy you linked to, as he is very realistic in stating things as probabilities, not absolute. I commend him for it.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 09:15 AM) on a side note, i personally love those who will attack these numbers. its almost as if they would prefer if the % went up, or the number of job losses got larger. It's not great, but realize that its better than what we've been experiencing. Well, some of the numbers are, in general, easy to attack. There are any number of different ways to measure unemployment. But the fact that all the major metrics went down together should indicate a real improvement, albeit a small one. And really it IS possible this is an aberration, though there are a lot of different indicators over multiple weeks and months that seem to say things are stabilizing and even improving in some areas. Furthermore, some people believe that this stabilization can't last because it won't be accompanied with job growth - and therefore, we'd double-dip. But that's why I said the 11,000 number is so key. Also, I don't think anyone really WANTS it to get worse. I just think its a lot easier to claim DOOOOOOOOM with anything and everything, than to be more pragmatic, or even optimistic. Its the same with the Sox. If you constantly say everyone is a bum, the team sucks, blah blah blah... its a win-win. If they are right, they are right. If they are wrong, their team is good, they are happy. Same goes for anything where people take a stake. Its a subconscious thing I see a lot of people do. Put another less dramatic way, its better to be pleasantly surprised than disappointed.

Lots of Afghanistan talk in the blanket threads, so I am resurrecting this one. Let's open with this. The US military launched its first major offensive in Afghanistan since the announcement of the new troop surge. The operation is called "Cobra's Anger". Seriously? What is this, a Van Damme movie?

QUOTE (balfanman @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 08:25 AM) I've heard that Soriano is actually very likeable, way overpaid & bad, but likeable. Yeah, I meant to just say "players", not "human players", and added Soriano because he is so frustrating to watch. I have actually heard the same thing, he is supposedly a very nice guy.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 08:27 AM) the island nation of Dominica Well I'll be damned. Heh. I got that right and shoudn't have, but missed the DR because I thought that it used that name on the quiz. So I guess it evens out. Damn Caribbean, screwing me up. I only took it once - now that I know some spellings and little tricks of typing, I might try it again and see if I can improve. Also, I could have sworn I typed in Ivory Coast, and it was rejected - maybe it wants that French spelling.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 08:33 AM) Unemployment rate drops from 10.2% to 10.0% Underemployment rate drops from 17.5% to 17.2% Average work week jumps from 33.0 to 33.2 Average weekly salary up. Total jobs lost for the month drops from 111,000 in October to 11,000 in November. Yeah I saw that this morning. I am more optimistic about the economy right now than many in this forum, but even I did not expect any notable drop like that. But really, of all those numbers, the most important one to me is the 11,000 job losses. That is getting damn close to zero, which means there is some significant hiring going on, which I did not at all expect at this stage. I think the next really interesting inflection point will be in early January, when we see the December (and holiday season) retail numbers.

He'd fit nicely with the Cubs though, who in the last few years have gotten really good at signing thoroughly unlikeable human players. Bradley, Freel, Zambrano, Soriano... I feel kind of bad for guys like Derek Lee.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) They're right and you're right. However, they took a ton of fans last time. The point being is why does the commish of the conference say anything at all? There's no obligation in the Big 12 bowl agreements according to record. All the conference schools split up bowl revenue anyways. It should matter one iota to Beebe who the Insight takes. His job should be marketing the conference on a national scale, not marketing one school over another. Why does he not mention that an A&M team that is also 6-6 would also be selected to the Independence Bowl over Mizzou? Or that a 7 win OU team would get selected 3 spots ahead? Too bad the Big 10 would never take ISU. In a lot of ways, I think ISU would fit better in the Big 10 than the Big 12. Funny though, that would mean the Big 10 would have 12 teams, and the Big 12 would have 11 teams. Not gonna happen in any case.

QUOTE (League @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 07:56 AM) You can't expect the guy to know every grudge between every team/player. That's kind of my point - he either can, or cannot, say he knows a lot about some given team. He's willing to post a rumor of obvious silliness like this, but mocks a rumor that was more well-supported and logical about Adrian Gonzalez. Basically, if he can find something obscure that hasn't been wide-published yet, he'll prefer that because it makes his site look better. Something that the rest of the world got first, he'll set a higher bar to be recognized. Its just him defending his turf, which is somewhat understandable, but still hypocritical.

QUOTE (spiderman @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 10:21 PM) That sucks. I think would have preferred to have him over Vizquel. You wanted Blanco to play middle infield?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 08:53 PM) well Ross Gload is God so that makes sense I believe we have a user on this site by that name.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 11:13 PM) Did you see the original source? It's pretty f***ing funny. 1.) The information is coming from a close friend of Vicente Padilla's as if that weren't reliable enough . . . 2.) It's being reported in a Nicaraguan newspaper And as for the story itself; Padilla's friend says the Sox and EIGHT other teams have "shown interest." Meaning Padilla's agent calls up the club, asks if they're interested in his client, they say 'not right now but we don't want to rule anything out, perhaps we'll speak again closer to Spring Training' and BAM! they just showed interest. In other words it means absolutely nothing. Thank you. And if the guy running that site actually knew a little something about the Sox, he'd know immediately to question this on its face.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 06:31 AM) It took me a while to remember how to spell it correctly too. If it was a spoken word quiz, I'm fairly certain I would have gotten another 10 or so. The only areas I was truly lacking knowledge was central/southern Africa (where I got some, but a bunch I didn't), and the Carribbean (It's always confusing to me how many of those small islands are actually countries). Another thing is, countries change names, which is weird. For example, I typed in Congo - no response. Typed in Zaire - no response. Typed in Democratic Republic of Congo, and that worked.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 04:16 AM) Welcome to Soxtalk! That was a good read even if I strongly disagree with it. You won't find a better pro-Viciedo argument than they gave. Danks isn't close to ready, but I still think with his defense he can be a solid CF. He just needs to be competent offensively and I believe he still can do that. Yes, always good to read a new source of information like this. I read his descriptions of these supposed performance scores, and I don't necessarily agree with his methodology, or his resulting lists... but it was still a good read.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 06:23 PM) P-h-i-l-i-p-p-i-n-e-s. Yeah, I am sure I didn't spell it right either. I tried typing it three times, I THOUGHT I had the right one in there. Perhaps not.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 03:42 PM) A stimulus bill is, by definition, a short - medium term push, no? If it was done properly, no, it doesn't need to be just one or the other. And I am not opposed to SOME of it being immediate and short-lived - infrastructure can be both. But it needs to have its roots in sustainable job growth, and it didn't do that.