NorthSideSox72

Anderson is the best choice of the three, no doubt in my mind. But as for Owens or Wise... Owens will not only give you a higher OBP, but a substantially higher one - probably 50 points or so higher, judging by their career numbers in both the majors and the minors. Also, while Owens has a lousy arm, he's better defensively in the OF than Wise in every other aspect. If I have to have one of those two in the outfield, defensively, I'll take Owens every time. And as was pointed out earlier, Wise's career SB% is similar to Owens'. The only thing Wise has over Owens is the ability to hit 10 or 12 HR, when Owens will hit 2 or 3. And, despite the fact that Owens is 27, he still has only one significant major league season under his belt and is still learning. Wise has played 6 seasons in the majors and proven he sucks. So if either one is going to improve, its likely to be Owens. Anderson >>>>> Owens > Wise.

I'd rather have Owens leading off and playing CF than Wise. There, I said it. Still though, neither should be in the discussion.

QUOTE (lakervin @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 05:37 PM) i say go with the best defensive center fielder,the lineup has enough offensive,i used to love ken berry patroling the outfield and he never hit. welcome aboard! Are you friends with shipps?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 04:21 PM) German comes in. Crisp with another walk, he's pinch-run for. Teahen homers to RF. 4-3 Royals. DeJesus singles up the middle. Pinch-run for by Costa. German getting bombed pretty hard by the RAF (Royals Air Force). QUOTE (SoxAce @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 04:25 PM) God damn Wassermann is f***ed up mentally since his re-callup last season. Wait, who is pitching?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 03:57 PM) Wasserman breaks Pena's bat, he lines it to Wasserman, Wasserman throws to third, 1-5 double play, inning over on 1 pitch by Ehren. This, by the way, is one of the two things that Wassermann needs to do to be successful - get in on people's hands. When he is doing that, and only using the outer half with the occasional out-of-the-zone breaker, he breaks a ton of bats and is very effective. When he loses his courage and goes away from the hitters, he's awful.

QUOTE (SouthsideDon48 @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 03:21 PM) I've been reading newspapers since I was 8 years old. I used to always read the newpapers my dad brought home from work, and I still read a newspaper everyday at 23 years old. I like reading a fresh copy of the Chicago Sun-Times on my lunch breaks at work. It's something that I think cannot change with the times, because reading a paper on your lunch break is as timeless as you can get. Why should anyone lug around a laptop computer on their lunch breaks for the news? I'd rather have an actual newspaper in front of me. There will always be some people who want that. There is some appeal to it, I admit. I used to have a routine with the papers - I read the WSJ on the way to work on the train, and the Trib on the way home. But once you start having so many people having instant internet news everywhere they go, the hard copy crowd will diminish to the point of being marginal.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 03:23 PM) Getz doubles down the RF line. The job is his at this point, I am pretty sure. Unless he absolutely looks terrible the rest of the way, and Nix or Lilli go big time.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 02:59 PM) Actually, I'd disagree with that too. There needs to be a little bit of contraction within the industry as a whole to account for the fact that people have other news sources, but a lot of these papers are still profitable and are even becoming more so as they cut back on things (i.e. my LA Times weighs half as much as it did last year). What's killing these guys is that, like a lot of businesses, they over-expanded and bought up everything they could on credit at the peak of the market and they just assumed that nothing would ever go wrong. Suddenly now though credit is a lot harder to get, and these guys like Zell who bought up the Tribune entirely by taking out loans are having those loans called in, and they can't get new financing to keep going. The Zell deal and LAT were certainly main reasons for their troubles as well. But that isn't what I'd call overspending, institutionally, like Y2HH was (I think) getting at. That was the new owner (and old owners) making some colossally bad decisions with the business. Their internal, running cost structure is actually quite tight. But look at the various things that happened in a year or two: --Buy LA Times --Find out that LA Times owes a HUGE chunk of bad taxes that the Trib thought was taken care of --Economy goes to s*** --Media technology moves further away from print --Cost of paper rises dramatically --Cost of ink rises dramatically --Oil/gas transportation costs rose dramatically, though now have come back down somewhat --Zell buys the Trib via a HUGE overleveraged deal, putting the Trib in dire financial straits That's a whole pile of bad s***, some under their control and some not, that they were not able to adapt to quickly enough (some their own fault). Its not a spending problem per se, its really bad strategic business decision making, and lack of agility.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 11, 2009 -> 10:44 AM) Sounds like a solid argument. There are defiantly print media companies still doing very well, but the big ones, like the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Sun Times have become wasteful over spenders and this is their reward. They need to retract, refocus their efforts and they would be fine...but keeping the course they've been on is the road to bankruptcy. It's still not my job to keep them in business, that's their managements job. And although print media isn't dying right now, it's future isn't very bright with most technologies being able to deliver these same articles/papers via wireless. Easier to carry one device that constantly updates than buying a new paper every day. Its not the overspending that is the issue, at least not for the Trib. Their reporters and staffers make very little, they actually spend too little on technology. They inability to adjust and adapt quickly enough to modern media is the problem.

QUOTE (shipps @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 02:06 PM) Are you still calling Soldier Field, Municipal Grant Park Stadium? I ain't THAT old.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 01:53 PM) Is the Rosemont Horizon still called the Allstate Arena? I still call it the Horizon. I am apparently behind the times on Chicago buildings.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 12:12 PM) I don't know about that. How many of us still refer to the Aon Center as the Standard Oil Building? I never hear that. I still call it that. Actually, I didn't know it had become the Aon center until I saw your post.

QUOTE (shipps @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 01:28 PM) Yemenanianite Wow.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 12:37 PM) Unbelievable. Yes it is. I don't believe the 570 foot measurement for a second. But still, this kid sounds like a gigantic talent. Impressive.

This is why any predictions as to season results done before late March are silly (and yes, I did one in here, for fun). This team looks different now than they did in mid-Feb.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 11, 2009 -> 10:54 AM) I really want to see Nix get some more AB's. He's been hurt for a few days, supposed to return today.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 11, 2009 -> 08:07 AM) Three things. #1 Its not just about Jim Cramer. He's just an easy target because of what he does. It's about a stated strategy by the White House to target individuals and make them into scapegoats. Its about taking a conceptual false pretense and using it to further your cause, like the Bush's (well and it appears the Obama's) did with "patriotism". #2 Turning one person into a reason to demonize an entire sector is BS. It would be akin to taking one guy who predicted the exact date an asteroid would hit the earth, who ended up being wrong, and using that to discredit all of work of an entire field. #3 Taking things out of context and turning them into something they aren't is cheap. I agree that this White House has a habit of #1, that I don't like either. Also agree that #2 is bad, I wasn't doing that (obviously, since I am IN that sector), and I don't think everyone is either. Some people are. But #3 is an obfuscation, in my view. If you want to pick nits on what Cramer did or didn't do (which is a losing game), the guy did indeed recommend buying Bear stock multiple times on its way down.

The Obama administration has f***ed up by allowing themselves to be drawn into "discussions" with some people that don't merit the attention. That was a mistake. But I also think that bmags' post here is right on... QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 10:38 PM) Jesus Christ, this is not about assassinating the "messengers of Barack's failures" this is about media irresponsibility. You usually love this stuff. You don't even like Jim Cramer. You are defending him for really just argument sake. He's terrible at his job. CNBC is awful at analysis, and makes up for it with bells and whistles, unfortunately, this is LITERALLY BELLS AND WHISTLES. They report to a less educated financial crowd in a way that is not educational, but irrational, mob like and irresponsible. Is anyone here after Crain's? Is anyone out here after Bloomberg news? No, we all love them. They are just miles and miles above CNBC. Bloomberg dominates CNBC in Europe, in wire services and in business subscriptions. But CNBC has TV, and they got there with sensationalism. They have more shallow coverage than headline news, except they are dealing with people's money. They just parade CEOs up there and the CEOs all just say "we're doing great" and they say "oh that's excellent" and then BUY BUY BUY, or now SELL SELL SELL WE'RE F*****. Meanwhile, poor bloomberg news tried to make a network based off of no frills, all content. Bloomberg must not have researched broadcast news, people don't want quality information with context! They want a screaming man giving out information, good or bad. Okay, I'll give poor poor Jim Cramer a break on Bear Stearns. How about his nationwide lectures telling people to buy Sears when they were like triple their value, or to buy google at the height of their value. He's. Not. Good. At. His. Job. And its worst for him, because he's causing people to lose money. Cramer is worthless, he is just a blowhard who isn't good at his job. And while the exact quote was taken out of context, he did indeed recommend buying Bear stock even when there were concerns out there. I really am stunned that people here with the financial knowledge they have are actually defending Jim f***ing Cramer.

Fortunately, we still have some time. If Kroeger can continue to show well with the bat, and be at least competent on the corners and maybe not horrible to spot start at CF, then I'd love to see him get the 4th OF job, with Anderson starting. Anderson falters, Kroeger steps in. Both falter, and we have Lillibridge as an option, and whomever is in Charlotte (Owens, Cook, etc.). For the poll, if it had to be now, I went with BA in CF, Getz and 2B and leading off.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 09:31 PM) The problem with that argument is that so was Jerry Owens... Between his bad reads/jumps and noodle arm, he's definitely in the bottom 33% of CFers defensively, overall. If he had an average arm, you could argue he's close to the middle of the pack. There has to be SOME reason all these teams have never tried him in CF in recent years (like the DBacks, Cubs and now Ozzie in ST)...and why's he being referred to as a possibility for back-up corner infield and 1B (Ross Gload-ish) instead of as a competitor for the starting CF job. I thought Rock was being sarcastic, referring to the Owens logic.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 08:03 PM) If you read the thread Scenario started I don't think any of this is true. Looks true in that thread. BP calls his an at least average defensive SS, played a bunch there, whereas he only played 2B occasionally according to Cubano. The only contradictory evidence I saw in there was Alexei's range rating last season at 2B, which is admitedly a concern.

QUOTE (GREEDY @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 07:56 PM) Our current projected starter's defensive breakdown: 1B Konerko: Below Average and trending towards bad 2B Getz/Nix: Average. obviously this is just speculation but AVG has to be best case scenario. SS: Alisssaaay = Flashy but most likely will be Below Average overall 3B: Fields/Betemit = Bad LF: Quentin = Average CF: Wise/Owens/Kroeger = Bad RF: JD = Bad! Believe it Hawk! C: AJ = Bad Not an "above average" defender in the bunch, let alone a good one. I am not an Anderson fanboy, but I really hope management goes with the best defender at every position up for grabs. This team can't afford another weak defender. Ever since our CF defense cost us the playoffs in '06 I am obsessed with D.... and the '09 WSox defense is going to pretty raw. $10 says we blame a poor season on the pitching, but the main culprit will be the defense. Nix is a plus-plus defender by all accounts, not AVERAGE. Alexei was hit and miss at second but still solid average, in his first year in the MLB and at a non-native position, so I'd be surprised if he was below average at SS (where he played in Cuba) for a full season. Fields is not bad, he's just not Crede, he's average out there. You have no idea what Kroeger is out there. And AJ is lousy at throwing out runners but is otherwise a serviceable defensive catcher. Other than that, right on.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 07:50 PM) How about we put Kroeger out in CF for a while and see how he does? I guarantee he's better then Owens defensively, and probably Wise as well. Second time, same thread... how could you possibly know this? Have you seen Kroeger play CF? Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see him out there for a few games too, and MAYBE he's good out there. Or maybe he's not.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 04:58 PM) ah yes the inevitable "The organization (aka Kenny Williams) wants jerry owens to play CF, but he sucks so we can't keep him there" article. I love KW and think he's a great GM who makes alot of astute moves, but i'm gonna criticize him a bit here, because I think this is all his doing. He didn't pursue a CF after we dealt Swisher (though I blame Ozzie for swishers departure), because he liked what we had. We have jack there. There is absolutely 0 excuse to not look at Alexei there now, especially now that it appears that SS isn't quite his "natural" position and CF might be. I'm still worried Owens will be handed this job, as ozzies comments certainly look like he is trying to light a flame under his butt to go out and win it. How could you possibly know that this is the case? You can't. I'm not happy with CF either, but he probably looked into other options. Can't know for sure, but, it makes ense.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 02:12 PM) That would pretty much force either Getz or Lillibridge to be the leadoff man, and I think the Sox are 50-50 on that scenario ATM. Best case scenario they're hoping is that Owens claims the job, but to do that, he's really got to pick it up from here. I think Getz is the best case, and I'd be all good with that.