NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Apr 29, 2009 -> 10:44 AM) A differnt appraoch at this point in his career against a tough leftie would not be the worst thing is what I think everyone is saying. Especially when he is slumping. He does do that. I've seen him do it a few times this season. Thome is a very effective hitter, still, at this point in his career. Why mess with that?

QUOTE (scenario @ Apr 29, 2009 -> 10:36 AM) I'm not surprised by some of the bandwagon bashing I see on Marquez because his early outings have been brutal. But he has the "stuff" to be a successful major league pitcher. His fastball is sub-par but his sinker and curve are very good. (Does Broadway have one pitch that is as good as either of those? No.) And except for last year (and the first couple games of this one), over the course of Marquez's career his control has been good. So... I don't think there is any rational reason to give up on the guy yet. I'd agree its certainly not time to give up yet. But 4 outings, all bad, is a bit worrisome. Actually, its so bad, that it seems obvious to me he's doing something odd (intentionally or not I do not know). Hopefully they are working with him.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 29, 2009 -> 10:32 AM) I am a Donny Lucy fan, but a .219 average in AAA is not grounds for a call-up, that's why I don't mention him. Obviously, his ABs are few so a good week and he's more respectable, but just like Egbert and Broadway, guys not getting the job done in AAA shouldn't be expected to get it done in Chicago. I'm not saying he is deserving - just that he is the only real option right now. The other C at AAA is Cole Armstrong, who right now has a .129/.156/.194 line for a whopping .350 OPS. Lucy's .606 OPS in limited AB this year and the .791 he put up in slightly more time at AAA last year look almost stellar in comparison.

QUOTE (shipps @ Apr 29, 2009 -> 08:58 AM) We should be no more worried about the swine flu than we are the regular yearly flu. The overreaction is amazing. I agree with you and Flash on this one. This isn't some hemorragic fever that kills 80% - its a flu strain that kills a tiny %, and the total damage will probably be waaaaaaaay under what other common flu's and what not kill in a given year anyway. The overreaction on this is amazing.

Now I think everyone else missed MY point. I am the last guy you will see defender juicers. I was only responding to that one post, which seemed to miss the idea of what happened. No doubt he should have called the hotline. Heck, if I were in the position these guys are, I'd just not take anything more than a multi-vitamin, ever. Too risky.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 11:47 PM) An 0-30 or so is just around the corner. The problem is, unless Flowers is called up, there is no obvious better option in the system and calling up Flowers to play part time is not wise. Given Flowers is still learning the position, no chance they call him up. Lucy would be the next call-up for catcher.

I'm going to have to start keeping an eye on Leesman.

Jeez, has anyone checked out Cole Armstrong's numbers so far? .129/.156/.194 for a .350 OPS. He's drawn one walk, but struck out 14 times, which is nearly half his at bats (31). I agree with Kalapse, I usually tend to give prospects some leeway based on talent, but Marquez has been awful in all 4 outings he's had at Charlotte. Anyone seen him pitch down there at all? Anything stick out as to why he'd be THAT bad?

It still baffles me that Owens honestly thought that his best use of offseason time was with a track coach, instead of a hitting coach or at least a baseball running coach. And that in Spring Training, he actually thought he just needed to stay healthy. How does he not know better? How do the Sox not tell him otherwise?

I'll admit again, at one time (after 2007), I thought it was possible that Owens would grow into a decent major league CF. Not great, but OK. Clearly I was wrong. And it should be clear to everyone else now as well.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 04:44 PM) My friend and I took his son to his first game last summer. He was 3 and a half...and he lost it in the third inning...he was hungry, but didn't want to admit it. But once he had a piece of pizza and we walked around a bit, he was better. My son is a year and I'm not sure if I should try to take him to his first game or not. I honestly think that with a little one like ours will be, who can't walk around or get bored yet, it may be easier than with a 3 year old. But I am mentally prepared for missing most of the game for one reason or another.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Apr 27, 2009 -> 05:36 PM) This will go nowhere, Romero is 100% responsible for what goes in his body. All players should check it out before crying the blues! I think you missed the point - he is saying that he did read the label, and that the substance in the supplement wasn't listed, which made him test positive. I have no clue if that is true or not, but, he apparently did in fact check the ingredients.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 04:20 PM) Step 1: Tailgate, if you have the means. Step 2: Buy peanuts OUTSIDE the park. Step 3: Buy beer BEFORE you go to your seats. Step 4: Brat with sauerkraut Step 5: Nachos Step 6: Sit back, relax and strap it down. On a related note, but not wanting to start a new thread...for those of you with kids...at what age did you bring them to their first game? We'll be bringing our new daughter to her first game this year - she'll be 8 months old at that time, give or take. We're going to buy scout seats for that game, so that we have somewhere quiet and inside to take her if she loses it. I suspect we won't make it through the whole game, but, we'll see.

I remember when Nighthorse-Campbell flipped to the GOP. As I recall, his biggest reasoning was the GOP's standing by personal freedoms and less government interference in local affairs. The modern GOP may do well to re-embrace those things.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 02:56 PM) Major? That was like a case of the sniffles. I think its also funny to label it a "democratic" recession, just as it would be funny to call this one a "Republican" recession. In both cases, sure, the party in power's policies may have contributed. But to blame this recession/depression on the GOP, or that 2001- recession on the Dems, is giving those parties way too much credit for their effect.

W-S is losing 6-4, in the 9th. Maxwell got hit around again (5 ER, 10 H in 5.1 IP), Shelton and Mollenhauer with big games offensively so far. Tonight's games: Charlotte @ Durham, 6:05pm CT, no starters announced yet B-Ham @ Mobile, 7:05pm CT, Poreda (1-2, 1.69) going for the Barons Hickory @ Kanny, 6:05pm CT, Leesman (2-0, 1.47) starts for the Intimidators

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 12:48 PM) government spending at it's current pace is not sustainable. Amen.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 12:46 PM) you should oppose these cuts, as all spending is good spending. correct? edit: and for the record i support the cuts, but demand cuts across the board. I'm all for the cuts, and they are doing it exactly the way cuts should be done - surgically, by people who understand the needs in those areas (Gates). Just going in and saying "cut everything 5%" is the plan of the lazy and people who don't understand how to run a solid business.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 12:39 PM) Certain things in the budget should be there. The loss of these two programs will hurt several major defense contractors. Mostly, these programs should not have been cut. (Technically they arent but they're on the chopping block). And the thing is, the presidential helicopter program was fine until Obama opened his mouth with some ignorant comment after fielding a question from a reporter. I, for one, have not actually ever complained here about the propsed budget, and I also will always support strong defense spending. The F-22 cut is fine because they are upping another jet (I forget which one). They are strongly supporting the new JLTV. The CSAR-X could go either way with me. The Pres helicopter I dont feel should have been cut (especially since they are so far along with it already...there's money down the drain!) The main issue with this, is we have them preaching about job creation and all that and these program cuts are going to directly lead to job loss. And these are often high paying techincal jobs too that are good for local economies. Also, it just feels these cuts were reactionary due to an unjustified outrage by those in the media and reporters, from both sides. Take your choice - job cuts or wasteful spending. Because cutting ANY experimental or R&D program results in job cuts, it has to.

Holy frijoles! Clearly this was done for his betterment. However, I am also glad to see one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in Congress point out the wreck that the GOP has become, and how far right the useless religious right has taken that party.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 05:10 PM) That could include almost anything. How vague do they need to make it so that this somehow looks bad for the US? Note it said they EXCLUDED that stuff, not included it, thus making the number looks LESS bad than it probably really is.

I'm going to pin this thread - we are now heavily into a campaign to vote TCQ in. Those of you on Facebook got a message about it - we started a new FB group for the effort, and will be doing other things. Let's vote him in!!!

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:35 PM) You and I agreed many times that the Iraq handling was a debacle. The debacle was deciding to "handle" Iraq at all. All the debacles that followed were results of the first one.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:24 PM) Not really. I remember full well after 9-11 the "CONSPIRACY" nutjobs went crazy... and this was well before Iraq. You can't be serious here. That was like 1/100 of a percent of the population. Bush's popularity numbers, political capital, and leeway with Congress, went through the roof that day.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:18 PM) Only once has the been a war between major powers since 1945 (US and China, and it barely counts), that's the longest streak in modern human history. That is actually more a measure of instability, than stability. War has changed because the balance of power has changed, as is the very concept of nation-state diplomacy, and how nations and cultures under- and overlap.