NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) You can't have it both ways on just the things you like. That's what bothers me. The same people who want all elections to be 50% +1 are the same people who want to take away the referendum process. Either we believe in a majority or we don't. Well hold on there. Some things should just not be a majority vote - civil rights, military strategy, etc. But that doesn't mean that referendums don't have value in some cases.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 12:11 PM) http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wildernes...to-swallow-city This has been coming up a lot lately - practices of oil and gas companies running high pressure gasses or liquids underground to root out what they are looking for. I think Colorado was considering a state ban on the practice. They should. This is yet another reason to get us off oil, and yet another example of governments acting or allowing actions without giving a s*** about the long term consequences.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 10:33 AM) Good point. You don't hear many who are excited by leaving anymore. Boy has that changed. Yeah, the only ones I can recall in the KW era are Orlando Cabrera and Bobby Howry.

From an outside perspective, I disagree with the death penalty. Not because some don't deserve death, as I think some do, but because the system is flawed (it is human), it will make mistakes, and you cannot undo death. But if I were a victim's family, I agree with SS2K5, if given the chance, I'd probably be fully in favor. But I guess I can't say for sure without being in that situation.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 08:06 AM) Guys, if we could land A Gone for Hudson, Retherford, Morel, Shelby, Ely, Torres and Hynick, i'd say shiny and go about our merry, but Danks, Viciedo, Flowers, and Hudson? A-Gone is a special player, but i don't really know how i feel about desecrating our farm system for him. I'm conflicted. A-Gone is the player that you do that for, but still.... i think i'm just too attached to some of the minor league kids. I've seen you use this phrase more than once. Firefly fan, I assume? On topic... for Adrian Gonzales, I'd have no problem giving up ANY of the prospects you mentioned, even half of them or more, and the only one I'd even slightly hesitate on is Hudson.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 08:50 PM) Also you would have to take in account full time player naturally regresses once they are moved to the dh. A regressing offensive konerko would regress even further. Then we have to hope dye bounced backed to more respectable numbers . Such an idea should never put into action, and thankfully it won't. We still need two bats as far as i'm concerned (i think we will be pleasantly surprised this off-season) and dye is simply no longer in the equation. Bolded: This is not something I would have guessed. Are you saying that most players' offensive numbers get worse when they move to DH? I would figure they'd tend to improve, or at least offset the natural time-related regression. Dye's numbers aren't regression, however, in any common way. He went from scalding in the first half to dreadful in the 2nd - that can't be just natural regression. Way too steep. I think there is a good chance chance that his 2010 overall numbers will beat his 2009 overall, barring injury (which is of course a risk). Also, on your last sentence, as I said above and have said numerous times, I agree on getting two bats. I was saying simply that, depending on who else we get, I might be OK with Dye being one of those two, if he was willing to play 1B or DH. Though I do also share Kalapse's concerns about defense. Let's just say, it wouldn't be my Plan A.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 07:27 PM) The real issue is, and where he's right is...every one of them is a gamble. The way that lineup is built, with both D2 and Pods, you need to basically win every gamble for it to be an average lineup. Even if Rios is a 90/10 shot at a win, and teahen is a 75/25 shot at a win, and Quentin is a 90/10 shot at a win, the odds of winning 9 times in a row are pretty low. You put another solid OPS in the middle there, instead of using D2 or instead of using Pods, and suddenly you can afford to maybe lose one of those gambles. QUOTE (Kalapse @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 08:23 PM) He was no where near top flight last year, he was in that blob in the middle between the good offensive SS and the no stick all glove SS (his .319 wOBA put him with Theriot and Everth Cabrera). When your DH is Podsednik and your RF is Jordan Danks you need to make up for that offense elsewhere, while Alexei should be able to meet at least the league averages for a SS that's just not good enough. He's basically put up identical production to that of Ryan Theriot the past 2 seasons. Every player is a gamble, that isn't much of a statement. I think you guys missed the main points of my post - I actually agreed about the lineup generally, as well as D2 and Pods. Never disagreed with that. I was specifically talking about two lines in Kalapse's post, which I still disagree with. Also, I have been saying the very same thing as the bolded in Balta's post as well. You seemed to take my individual points and try to project that I was approving of that lineup - I definitely was not.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 07:02 PM) That's because you're assuming everyone lives up to their potential in 2010. It's a lineup full of question marks with a few key figures looking like poor best in 2010 and some unrealistic expectations on your part IMO. Podsednik is 34 years old and has averaged a .340 OBP and .700 OPS over the past 6 seasons, given that he's also an awful baserunner that's some terrible production from the DH spot. Beckham should have a big year. Quentin in my mind is a mid .800 OPS hitter not the .950 guy we saw in '08 that you expect to reemerge in 2010. Konerko is a marginal 1B who will top .830 if we're lucky. Pierzynski does not have 20 HR potential, he'll hit 13 or 14 like he does every year with a good AVG and awful OBP. In all he's a decent catcher. Alex Rios has the potential to put up 25 HR and a .800+ OPS but given how horrendous he was last season he also has a good chance at being a complete disaster. Mark Teahen has been bad for 3 full seasons in a row, excuse me for not getting overly excited about him. Alexei has one good offensive season under his belt and one bad, these aren't exactly proven hitters we're dealing with here. So do people think Jordan Danks is as talented or as far along in his development as say Colby Rasmus (I don't)? They sport similar K% (with Danks' being higher) and Rasmus barely topped a .300 OBP in the bigs last season. Like I said, that lineup has the potential to be terrible, keyword being potential, it also has the potential to be pretty decent though with not a single sure thing in the lineup I'd lean heavily towards bad. I don't agree on the bolded. I think everything in Rios' career says 2009 was a flukey bad year, and I think Alexei is pretty consistently a top flight offensive SS (relative to position is important here). And I know I'm in the small minority, but I think Teahen looks like a good candidate for somoene who will benefit from this change of scenery (ballpark and all else). I agree on everything else though.

Interesting that Dye brought up 1B. That might be a possibility with the Sox, with PK at DH. If we pick up a LH hitting OF, the balance wouldn't be as bad in terms of the lineup handedness (though ideally I'd still prefer more lefty hitters, but that isn't a huge issue IMO). PK can then DH and stay in better playing shape. I wouldn't be opposed to it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 05:24 PM) One of the remarkable things about a lot of parliamentary systems as well is that they tend to naturally consolidate towards 2-3 parties as-is, because otherwise, they wind up so fractured that the country becomes ungovernable. The case to imagine is the Kucinich led party getting 5%, the Dems/Reps each getting 44-46%, and the Palin party getting 5%. Whichever side "won" the most votes can't form a government without the partiticipation of one of the extremes, and that gives the small group substantial negotiating power. The more parties you have, the worse that can get, and so naturally there tends to be some gravitation towards stable, longer-term parties in a lot of those countries with time. Only partially true. Lots of countries have more than 2 parties with significant seats, and do just fine. The US happens to be one that settled into 2 parties long ago, and has stayed there. and honestly, that had worked OK, until about 10-12 years ago. The dynamics of the US House and Senate changed dramatically in multiple ways since then, and its exposing the weaknesses of a 2 party system in a big way.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 03:53 PM) there is a true danger in having too many political parties in our currently designed system. you get 3rd party candidates, many of which don't have primaries. So you get say 35 candidates on a ballot to run for Governor of a State. If 32 of these draw a significant amount of votes away from the Major 2 and you get 1 Fringe 3rd Party who is uber-radical, say the KKK Party, you could have a race where in the popular vote counts... KKK Party= 4% Democrat= 3.9% Republican= 3.9% The remaining 32 parties (2.75% each) Now, this would certainly be a stretch, but its mathematically conceivable. Certainly at a local or state level. From a Presidential standpoint, probably not due to the requirements of getting on a Ballot in all of the states. (just ask Ralph Nader about that) Also, imagine a debate with 35 participants. (all within 2% of each other in polling) That's not a 3rd or 4th party scenario, that's Russia circa 1994 scenario, and that ain't gonna happen.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 02:02 PM) Couldn't disagree more. Look at the coalition governments European countries have to make majorities out of 5 or 6 parties, you end up with 25-30% of the population dictating policy as opposed to our 50%+1. Not that there can be 2 or more viable parties in America to begin with. Structurally its impossible. I don't know where you are getting any of this. The governments in European countries come to better compromise specifically because they have 5 or 6 parties with seats at the table. Because 20% can't pass anything, but two or three of those can. That means the majority of moderation gets a more real say, instead of the gutters of two parties doing so. And as for it not being structurally possible, I think that is only partially true. There are significant barriers. But it was only 5 or 6 cycles ago we had a 3rd party Presidential candidate who had a serious shot of winning, and may have, if he hadn't stumbled over himself on a few occasions. The possibility is there.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 12:32 PM) Tony posted that Merkin Tweeted it last night. Ah, I must have missed that.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 09:55 AM) They're a lot farther to the right economically. Borderline anarchy. There really is no "medium government" party. Yeah, I'd actually line up well with some of the liberterian ideals, but many of them take it to an extreme that is beyond realism.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 09:40 AM) Relinquish your moderator status here and get to work. All part of the plan.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 09:05 AM) it'll be the Republican's version of the Green Party. I don't think so. The Greens have been around a long time, have a sustained but very small support base. This thing is more likely to get a much bigger wave of initial support, then die off completely. I'm actually happy with new parties joining the fray, I think its healthy for the system. Heck, if someone had the balls to form a party of fiscal/business conservatives and social liberals, I'd be all over that.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 09:23 AM) Good lord Kenny, please stay the f*** away from Pods already. You were just talking about defense, now you're talking with Pods again. Leave him alone. Where are you reading that?

Get me the best LH hitting OF with at least some power they can trade for or buy within budget (and not trading away any of the starting pitching), pick up Ka'ahuie from KC to play 1B and move PK to DH. Flower as backup C and sometimes DH. Nix, CJ, Flowers and some 4th OF (maybe even Pods) as the bench. Garcia for 5th slot and Hudson in the pen, to slide into rotation if Freddy falters. Gives you a bullpen of Jenks/Thornton/Linebrink/Pena/Hudson/DJC/???. Leave everything else intact, except maybe picking up a bullpen arm that might fit the bill (though I think our bullpen isn't as bad as some portray it, and I think Jenks has a nice comeback year in 2010). Trade Linebrink if you can in that case, but I think he's likely to do better in 2009, maybe you trade him at the deadline if he has a solid 1st half. I honestly think that club will be a winner. I see a lot of players in there likely to improve in 2010 over 2009 (TCQ, Beckham, Ramirez, Teahen, Rios), and I think Flowers and Ka'ahuie have serious power potential that will develop nicely as rookies. The only guys who seem likely to regress are PK and AJ. Add that to what looks like a great starting rotation, and the only worries I'd have are defense and, to a limited extent, the bullpen (but the bullpen is ALWAYS a question mark). Flame away.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2009 -> 03:06 PM) If CJ's on the roster then we have the emergency backup so that we don't have to worry about that. Really, it shouldn't be a worry to begin with. Its something that MIGHT happen once a season. Not something worth screwing with your roster to deal with. But, Ozzie may be one of those managers who wants that risk mitigation anyway.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 9, 2009 -> 03:17 PM) Gays don't have some holy Gayble that says to kill the straight man if he doesn't believe in gay marraige. I haven't seen a gay person yet start shooting into a crowd of straight people shouting "Gucci is great!". I don't see gay people starting riots because someone made a bad cartoon of Liza Minelli. Kap, was it me, and was this it? Neither do Muslims. The ones who do this sort of thing just use it as an excuse.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 9, 2009 -> 02:40 PM) Why not? Didnt Flowers say he was learning alot from AJ? I dont think AJ is that bad of a guy to be honest. I don't think AJ is a bad guy, I think he's just a survivor. And that wouldn't mean going out of your way to train your replacement. I mean, sure, if he was 40 and about to retire. But I'm pretty sure AJ sees himself as still a starter, for quite some time. And I recall a quote from Flowers describing his time talking with some of the Sox, and he said something to the effect of "well, AJ is AJ, what can you say?" I just don't see AJ being much of a teacher in this scenario.

QUOTE (ChWRoCk2 @ Nov 9, 2009 -> 01:23 PM) Ok. I definitely didn't want Castro back. I would also let Flowers learn from AJ. Its a nice idea, but somehow I doubt AJ will be very interested in helping his replacement.

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Nov 9, 2009 -> 01:21 PM) Guillen has stated before that he will not use his second catcher as a DH. I've seen people here ASSUME that to be true, but, I've never seen Ozzie quoted as saying that. Has he actually said that? Also, if we have CJ on the team (which may happen), or some other utility guy that could catch in the very long shot chance it became an issue, then Ozzie should feel better about it.

Flowers should back up AJ and, probably, spell whatever LH DH we go get, to get more AB's. No reason to go spend significant money on a backup C.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Nov 9, 2009 -> 12:13 PM) Simple ignorance was the bext explanaation. They had no reason to bring in Mike Jacobs, when they already had Kala, Butler, Gordon, and Teahen in their system. Not to mentioon have just drafted what was supposed to be a fast rising Eric Hosmer, and declaring that their stated goal was OPB. I really see a parallel here, with the Quentin acquisition. Here is a very talented player that fits our needs quite well, who appears to be blocked with his current team, just as he reaches the cusp of his breaking into the majors. I really like the idea of going after players like that. I am not saying he'll produce like Quentin did, but I think if you consistently take shots at players like that, some will end up working out very well. If he can be had for a prospect at a position of need for the Royals, as long as the prospect isn't among our top handful, I think you go for it.