NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (rangercal @ Mar 24, 2009 -> 03:15 PM) no, It's not a bash at you, more like praise and appreciation toward Kalapse. I'm just saying Kalapse is a walking baseball encyclopedia and when it comes to Sox discussion he is incomparable. No doubt.

Anyone have a Gameday link by chance? Can't find it, and frankly don't know how you guys have BEEN finding them, since its not on the scoreboard.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 24, 2009 -> 02:30 PM) Fixed. Happy Birthday!!! QUOTE (rangercal @ Mar 24, 2009 -> 02:57 PM) ^^^^^^ agreed (since this is a sox discussion site first) Happy Birthday! Are you saying I don't know anything about baseball? /threadjack

1. Getz 2. Alexei 9. Centerfielder

Assuming Colon is healthy, Richard goes to the pen. And from what the writers are saying, it seems like Marquez is a lock for the pen as well (which I disagree with, but, oh well). So the pen already will have 2 guys who can go long innings, and also 2 lefties (unless Colon is out and Richard goes to rotation). If the set part of the pen is: Jenks Linebrink Dotel Thornton Richard Marquez That leaves just ONE slot (two if Colon isn't ready for opening day) for these guys, so far (Marquez removed due to above, German hasn't pitched in a over a week so I assume he was reassigned)... Egbert (8 games): 13.1 IP, 2.70 ERA, 1.43 WHIP, 11/4 K/BB Carrasco (8 games): 12 IP, 4.50 ERA, 1.58 WHIP, 10/5 K/BB Poreda (4 games): 10.1 IP, 6.10 ERA, 1.26 WHIP, 6/3 K/BB Williams (9 games): 9.2 IP, 0.93 ERA, 0.72 WHIP, 7/2 K/BB MacDougal (9 games): 9 IP, 4.00 ERA, 1.67 WHIP, 16/5 K/BB Broadway (6 games): 8.2 IP, 5.19 ERA, 1.83 WHIP, 9/6 K/BB Russell (7 games): 7 IP, 10.29 ERA, 1.86 WHIP, 4/4 K/BB German (6 games): 6 IP, 6.00 ERA, 1.17 WHIP, 4/1 K/BB Wassermann (6 games): 5 IP, 7.20 ERA, 1.80 WHIP, 5/1 K/BB That's a big crowd for one or two jobs. I think its likely we see that group cut by half or more, in the next few days. If I had to guess, these guys get cut in the next few days and sent to minor league camp: Wassermann, German, Russell, Poreda. I'd include Broadway, except I think they are really hoping someone wants to trade for him. But he may also get cut in that group. That gives you Eggy, Carrasco, Williams (as 2nd lefty if Richard starts) and MacDougal in the running.

Well, since the last weekly update, Armstrong and Flowers were sent to minor league camp, and Stewart was sent back to the Yankees. That leaves just two candidates - Miller and Lucy. To date in ST... Miller in 9 games: 22 AB, .409/.409/.773/1.182... 49 innings, 0 errors, 1 PB, 7/10 SB Against Lucy in 8 games: 14 AB, .214/.214/.429/.643... 29.2 innings, 0 errors, 0 PB, 6/6 SB Against Miller has apparently all but won the job and is still hitting very well, though no official word on the job yet, from what I know. I assume this means that Lucy and Armstrong split time in Charlotte, and if Miller falters (which seems likely), the better of the two takes the job in Chicago. Lucy seems to have the leg up right now among those two. I'm still hanging onto a thread of hope for Lucy, but he'd need to tear the cover off the rest of ST and have Miller falter.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 24, 2009 -> 12:22 PM) I want the guy guaranteed to come up to the plate the most, to be a guy who can get on base at a high clip and get himself in scoring position for the power. A leadoff hitter is very important for those 2 reasons, at the very least. Sure, and you should arrange your lineup accordingly. I'm saying, don't take the qualities you think make a leadoff hitter (which should be OBP at the least, but speed is big for these guys apparently), and limit yourself that way. Its artificially narrowing your choices. Go out and get the best overall guys at all positions, then arrange your lineup with high OBP guys (ideally with some speed) at the front, big boppers in the middle, the rest in the back. I just think that this search for a leadoff guy who happens to play CF is logically backwards and likely to get bad results.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 24, 2009 -> 12:09 PM) He's not good on D apparently. The kid is good enough to his consistently over several seasons, but hasnt made the jump because he has no position. I'm willing to believe that, but, I have seen nothing so far about his defense other than the games this spring. He looked competent in corner OF to me (VERY small sample size), and 1B isn't his natural position so I don't care much what he does there. He has played all three OF positions in the minors, so, someone thought he could man the position. Does anyone have any good info on Kroeger's defensive abilities?

It amazes me how much the leadoff thing has been overblown as an issue. This player will hit first once a game, and after that its all random. And if you dictate your roster by hitting slot, you artificially limit your ability to get the best players all over the field. Put together a roster of the best talent you can get, then order your lineup. The problem is not leadoff - its the actual position on the field, which they call CENTER FIELD. The guy who anchors the outfield, and who hits 3 or 4 or 5 times a game. Just put in the best overall guy, then put together your order.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 24, 2009 -> 10:25 AM) Heres one for ya: Smoked Mozz with red onions and spicy italian sausage. Minus the onions it sounds good. I despise onions.

This desperation makes me ask, again, if Kroeger has played some CF (which he has, in the minors), and they are so desperate for something... why not give him a couple games out there? And why the hell was Cook not even invited to camp, when he has played a lot out there as well? Confuses me.

Seems like this comes up every spring. I doubt he's hurt, I think they are just cutting his innings here and there when they can, to keep him strong.

Not sure where else to put this... The Border Patrol sees an issue with the dense vegetation alone some stretches of the Rio Grande that are being used as hiding places for bandits. So, they want to get rid of the vegetation in some places. Now, that idea has some problems in and of itself - it will have an effect on erosion and waterflow of the river. But, national security probably should take precedence. Here is where it gets just plain stupid. Their plan is to poison the vegetation along a pilot mile stretch. Poison? Seriously? Its a riverbank, morons, you want to poison the river? These areas are high desert or chapparal, which burn over naturally every so often anyway... why not do that? Why introduce a toxin which will have unknown negative effects, instead of using the mechanism that nature does? Ugh.

pepperoni and ricotta. Perfect combo of spicy and mild, if you can find a pizza place that even does ricotta. ETA: Oh, and, sprinkle oregano on the pizza liberally as well.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Mar 24, 2009 -> 08:33 AM) Kids are walking around with multiple thousands of tunes on their iPods. Those were not paid for. I think you are way low in your expectations for a movie song. Perhaps it is different than other tunes, but when artists struggle with Top 50 tunes to have people pay, I just do not see them paying for something less popular. OMG, you are a Trekkie LOL, I actually don't own any star trek music, though I do own some other soundtracks. I guess this is my first. Some people will pay, others will try to skirt the system. Top 50 songs are identical - lots of people pay, lots also do not. Why not get the money you can?

Happy Birthday to the almost Poster of the Year! Sorry, should I not be rubbing it in? Have a fun one!

QUOTE (Texsox @ Mar 24, 2009 -> 08:23 AM) They could also make some money selling the trailer. But they do not. Wouldn't your quick, easy profit analogy hold true there as well? No business should lose focus on what it is they are selling, in this case a movie which cost hundreds of millions to produce. To sidetrack that in a quest for what will really be much less than $100,000 in profits, is possibly not worth it. Look how fast you received help in downloading that for free. You may get one in a thousand to pay for it, especially when it is free on the trailer. Think about all the hard drive and flash real estate in those iPods and etc. How much of that do you think is filled with music that was paid for, and how much was pirated, and shared peer to peer? They would have to set up a checkout, accept payments, then add customer service, tech support, etc. More than a couple hundred dollars. The trailer promotes the movie, and trailers as a standard are free. Music on the net, nowadays, is going towards pay-per-track, so you can play it later as you want to. You and I are just going to disagree here. I think its a win-win situation for minimal cost and some decent revenue, you think otherwise. Further, I think the companies doing this is one of the reasons the illegal downloading is occurring, since many of those people would do it legally if they could.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Mar 24, 2009 -> 08:13 AM) Compared with what they will make off of Star Trek, the song is mouse sweat profit. Pretty soon there will be no connection in your mind between that song and the movie. Probably even better is giving the song away, if you watch the trailer. Have it for free download on their website. But selling it? Bleh. Not worth the few bucks they would make. Cost to put an mp3 up on an already-existing website for download: a few hundred bucks in labor, at most. Potential revenue at $1 a pop: tens of thousands, or possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars, for Paramount and the artist/label. Added marketing and promotional value: value-added, for nothing. No business should turn down a quick buck at that high a ratio, if they have their s*** together. Easy money.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Mar 24, 2009 -> 07:57 AM) Good brick and mortar analogy, but let me give a movie analogy. You spend $$ to have a song produced for your movie and you now own the rights to that song. You use the song in a promotion for your movie. You allow anyone to hear the song, as long as they also download a bit of what you are selling, your product, which is the movie. The assumption is without the movie download, you will soon lose the association between the song and the movie, thus not helping the people who own the rights to the song. Your assumption is Paramount gives two s***s about the song or the artists. They care about Star Trek. Allowing the song to be downloaded also helps Star Trek, vis a vis the trailer and integrated marketing, PLUS they can make money doing it, which is ultimately what Paramount gives a s*** about. Its institutional stupidity.

I am looking forward to the day when movies can be reasonably stored and access the same way music is now, digitally. Unfortunately, the current HDD media storage and play units are too small and/or too expensive, because HD films take up so much space. Given a few more years though, this should be less of an issue.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 24, 2009 -> 07:04 AM) I don't recommend getting into this "torrent" game unless you can get invited onto some private torrents. Using public torrents for piracy, of any sort, is incredibly stupid. It's much too easy to get caught as everyone you connect too has a trace of when/where/what you did, including the RIAA and federal people who scour those sites to mine data on who's doing what. Private is ok, public is not. And just because you haven't gotten caught for using public torrents doesn't mean you won't, and it doesn't mean it's safe. I had some of the same concerns. And I don't plan on making it a habit, believe me. Here is the thing, though. I am shocked at the high level of institutional stupidity that creates the market for these bit torrents. Let's take, for example, the track I mean to download. Its a piece of music by a group called Two Steps from Hell, that specialize in music for movie trailers, advertisements and the like. It was made for Paramount, and runs in the background of the latest Star Trek trailer. The trailer is available for free all over the place of course, and I'd assume that Paramount and Two Steps from Hell would love to promote themselves in any way possible. Silly me, I thought that might mean that I could get the music somewhere. My Google searches revealed people all over the place raving about this music. I mean, its a no brainer for these guys - it costs next to nothing to put an mp3 up on a site, they could charge a buck or two for a download, people would gladly pay that, and they'd make a killing, not to mention further promote the musicians AND the movie, AND make the fans happy. And yet... nowhere to be found. How do modern media firms not get modern media? How do they not see the easy money here? I will always happily pay for music. And I think all but a couple or three songs in my entire music collection (thousands of songs across virtually all genres) have been paid for. Just let me pay for it! Here is the brick and mortar analogy. You open a music store, where you sell CD's. You pump music out to the storefront to attract customers. Only, what you play, isn't available for sale. How stupid is that?

I don't even know what you mean by "private tracker". I just wanted to download a track that wasn't available to me via the normal channels. Anyway, it worked, so I'm happy. Thanks for all the info folks.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 23, 2009 -> 07:34 PM) To answer the question. Download bitcomet. Install bitcomet. Bitcommet is the best torrent downloader. Once installed, go download that torrent by clicking the link on the page on the torrent site. It will ask you to save and then launch in bitcomet, where you will have to designate a destination folder (desktop or create torrent folder on desktop). It will then download and save there. I do this all the time. It's a good idea to have virus protection, but you can read comments from users at sites such as www.isohunt.com or www.mininova.org/ Try this link through Demonoid. The song you crave... nerd. If you have any other questions, PM me. I got the file from the original site, using Bit Comet as you suggested. Imported to iTunes, played it, transferred it to the iPod. Works like a charm. Many thanks!!!

OK so, I am trying to find an mp3 that is not in the usual places (no published CD, not on iTunes, etc.). I managed to find it on a site that is apparently a bit torrent thing. I admit it - I don't understand what this is. I just want the damn mp3, so I can put it in my iTunes. So I am looking for expertise here on SoxTalk, since I'm an old fogey who hasn't played around with such things. Here is a link to the song page on a bit torrent site. QUESTIONS: --If I download some "P2P" software, whatever that is, will I be able to get this song in mp3 or some other format that iTunes/iPod can play? --What is the best software of this kind to get? --Is this bit torrent thing some sort of trick that is going to get me into trouble? Thanks in advance!

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 23, 2009 -> 04:38 PM) I think it's a lack of focus... or maybe better explained as a pandering to the lowest common denominator kind of thing. Let me try and explain this because I dont think either of those are the words / description I am looking for. Basically, the idea is to cut wasteful spending. And both parties tend to favor that, but they define "waste" differently. Now, the GOP has taken the road of basically mocking any "pork" or "earmarks" as wasteful. When in fact, what they are probably trying to do is call the act of last second earmarks as being wrong (which I agree), but their collateral damage is that the way they attack these things is by calling all the projects themselves wasteful. When i say they are "pandering to the lowest common denominator" what I mean is they are trying SO hard to demonize earmarks and last second inserts, that they are blasting them all as wasteful in an attempt to gain grassroots support to diminish the role of government. And by doing so, they actually hurt the legitimacy of important projects. Does that make any sense? I hope so. I think it's really more of a bad tactics thing. Neither party favors cutting wasteful spending, and that is problem number 1. Part of that is the reality of their position as representatives of their districts and states, part of it is a problem that the framers didn't account for well, and part of it is the ability of Congress to rely on the lack of knowledge of the majority of the voting public.