NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (scenario @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 11:40 AM) I think major league hitters would light him up like a pinball machine. Perhaps. I just know nothing about him, other than he's old (33), and has put up very good numbers so far in Charlotte.

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 09:54 AM) Well we had a good time down there. My main gripe would be getting around in the city. We ended up spending around $30 each just on Taxi's (in a group of 8) just to get around the city and to the airport and back etc. Beale Street was good fun though, people doing flips in the street, 32 ounces of beer for $4, definitely something that I hadn't experienced before. We tried going to Rendezvous on Sunday but it was closed. Had to settle for Corky's at the airport on Sunday Night. The Flying Saucer was a great bar as well Northsider. 120 different beers, I could have stayed there a LONG, LONG time. Cabs? Why didn't you take the trolley??? It costs like 50 cents and gets you around most places you need to go, other than Graceland and the airport. Glad you had fun though.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 10:31 AM) So when a cop pulls someone over he writes the ticket to person who owns the plates on the car, not the driver? Really? Huh? I didn't say the event was the same - I said the appeal process was the same.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 08:14 AM) That's bulls***. Why should I have to take the time out of MY hands to fight someone else's ticket becuase of a flawed ticket? What if this happens in another county? What if a parent down in Central or Southern Illinois loans a car to their kid for a trip to Chicago and they get one? You think it's "easy" for the parent to drive 6-8 hours just to come in and say, "that's not me in the picture?" Hiring a lawyer or burning the gas is still a big waste of money one way or another. The sad thing is most people won't care and will just pay the fine, or go into court asking for supervision on it (more $$$ for the government) just becuase they don't want to deal with the hassle of the courts. Its not bulls*** b/c its exactly the same with an in-person ticket. I don't see the validity of an argument that says you don't like law enforcement because it may be flawed, so it shouldn't be enforced. These same issues come up with a real live cop too, so, the process has to exist, but the laws also have to be enforced.

Danks on the mound, first place, and a series win on the line. I like it.

I'm sort of surprised we aren't seeing Childers come up.

I wonder who we gave up.

I have no problem with camera enforcement of traffic laws, under the following conditions: 1. The laws being enforced are reasonable. Red light cameras are always reasonable. Speed cameras are fine, but, as some have pointed out, the speed limits are arbitrary some of the time. I think there needs to be a little more leeway there. 2. There is a relatively easy appeal process in place - nothing more difficult than appearing in a courtroom or similar. 3. Camera enforcement should be used as a deterrent in areas that need it, specifically. Bad intersections need red light cameras - not EVERY or ANY intersection. School zones need speed cameras - not EVERY STREET.

Miranda with an 11 game hitting streak, hitting .425 during that stretch.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Aug 10, 2008 -> 05:46 PM) He doesn't throw enough strikes. A one or two inning guy is where he will be most successful. Thornton had trouble throwing strikes lately, but that's not why he's a bad choice to start. He's only got 2 pitches - that's a big problem #1. Problem two is that a guy who throws 97 and has been in the pen for years, probably isn't going to be able to keep throwing 97 as a starter for a 5 or 6 inning stint.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Aug 10, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) Seriously, I would like some more of a liberal telling me about being accountable for my own actions. This stuff is gold. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Aug 9, 2008 -> 07:30 PM) Actually, he needs to not face lefties, at all. Lefties vs Wass since his callup: .272 Avg Righties vs Wass since his callup: .291 Avg Lefties vs Wass at Charlotte: .160 Avg The current version of Wassermann is a slightly different pitcher than he was in 2007. He added a new pitch and changed where he toes the rubber. He's actually not a ROOGY at all anymore. He was better against lefties than righties this year at AAA and at the major league level. The problem is him hanging his breaking ball.

QUOTE (griffey17 @ Aug 9, 2008 -> 04:41 PM) Like to see him get into a better pitching rhythm...i was at the game Tuesday, and it seemed it took him at least 1 minute between pitches... He doesn't seem to believe in his breaking pitches anymore. For Erhen to be successful, he has to use that sinking fastball inside, AND the breaking ball outside, to righties. He then needs to put fastballs and breakers on the hands of lefties, and throw in a change up. Without the breaking pitch, he really just has the fastball, and the throw-in occasional 3/4 arm pitch. That's not enough for him. I'm hoping he's just over-throwing the breaker, or maybe he just has something mechanical going on with it. If that's the case, he'll figure it out and get back to being the guy who was up in 2007. If on the other hand, he just can't throw that breaking pitch consistently anymore, then he's destined to be a AAAA pitcher at best.

Being the token Wassermann fan on the board, I'm sad. I think he's better to keep around than Russell. BUT, while Wass was better this time up, he still couldn't get his breaker consistently. Hung it too many times, and the last time was Magglio's triple, which was the death nail. I'm pretty confident that Ehren will be a solid middle reliever for a team somewhere, maybe even this one next year. But for now, this move pretty much had to get made.

QUOTE (bighurt4life @ Aug 9, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) I doubt that we're as high on Miranda as Escobar. Also, Escobar is a few years younger I think Miranda turned 21 in March. Escobar turned 19 in January. They are about 2 years apart, but its not as if Miranda is old.

Interesting that Charlotte is playing the Red Sox AAA affiliate, while we play the Red Sox. Sergio Miranda: hitting .469 his last 10 games, now hitting .310 on the season with an OBP approaching .400, and has as many walks as strikeouts. Meanwhile, Escobar is hitting .229, and yet continues to start at SS and lead off every game (Miranda playing a lot of 2B, 3B, DH).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 8, 2008 -> 04:30 PM) I love him, but cheap is something he won't be. It makes absolutely zero sense Philadelphia would pay more money if 3 seasons after the trade, the White Sox loved his play so much they picked up his option. It makes no sense that the better a player you trade away plays, the more you have to pay. Its been widely reported that PHI will pick up part of that option.

This is ugly. Here is a main story about the situation in South Ossetia. Here is an update - the Russians have started bombing the Georgian capital, Tblisi. Things are already spilling over.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Aug 8, 2008 -> 04:20 PM) Thome out, Griffey DHing. I assume the lineup will look a little something like this; OC - SS AJ - C CQ - LF JD - RF PK - 1B KG - DH NS - CF AR - 2B JU - 3B I bet Fields gets a start.

QUOTE (Brian @ Aug 8, 2008 -> 03:12 PM) Ortiz and Lowell hurting, Drew struggling. Lets take Game 1 and get momentum. Are Ortiz and/or Lowell on the DL? Or sitting for a bit? Or playing hurt?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 8, 2008 -> 03:14 PM) The bigger news of the day is what is happening in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. I was surprised no one started a thread on that. Russia and Georgia are in a de facto state of war - that's pretty big news.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 8, 2008 -> 03:03 PM) I think that would be absolutely fascinating honestly. Primary Colors II?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 8, 2008 -> 02:42 PM) Just another reason why politicians shouldn't moralize about the sanctity of marriage. I care about politics. I don't care about this. Do I think its shameful that Edwards used his wife as a campaign prop? Absolutely. Should he be crucified for it? I guess, if you have nothing better to do than wasting time on a person who hasn't been in elected office in four years and never had a serious chance at getting elected this time around either. What I think is awful is what's endemic to our elected officials. In so many cases, we expect politicians to do things like use their family as a campaign prop. And we act astounded, surprised and ashamed that the image we want to believe about someone is shattered when it turns out to be untrue (and in most cases, it's untrue.) But what happens when a candidate refuses to use their spouse as a campaign prop? Let's ask Howard Dean and see how well that worked for him.... If a candidate lies and panders and creates a picture for you to see that's pretty - even if its not true - voters, sadly, reward him or her. If a candidate is honest about his relationship with his spouse, and refuses to use his personal life as a prop, its used as a way to vilify the candidate. And the worst part is that in either case, it's not our business. I see what you are saying. I do think that candidates for high office have a very difficult road to travel, and certainly there is no good answer on how they choose to use or expose their family. It would seem that there is no truly good option there. This is why I don't tend to concern myself much with those decisions. But I disagree that its not our business. For me, I expect elected officials to be trustworthy. I expect them to be of high moral character. That's not to say I think they are, in fact, often they are not. But I refuse to lower my expectations in this area. Not that I necessarily want an angel - a few smaller skeletons in the closet, from their past, are not the end of the world. But to cheat on your spouse, who has cancer, while espousing the things that Edwards was espousing, is dispicable to me. It shows poor judgement and weak moral character. Therefore, I do in fact judge him on this, and I don't feel bad doing it. Now, if John and Elizabeth have come to terms with this and moved on, that is 100% their business. I would not seek to dictate their marriage. I simply seek to dictate who gets into office, and I will continue to want that bar set high.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 8, 2008 -> 02:20 PM) You're right, I wasn't exactly clear. Road conditions (another major difference between US highways and the Autobahn!) definitely should be a major consideration. So also should the natural flow of traffic. If road conditions support 75 and traffic naturally wants to flow that high, there's no reason for limits to not be that high. I just wish that they'd actually complete and follow the traffic surveys they're supposed to do before setting arbitrary limits. I really took this thread on a tangent, so maybe it'd be better to move these posts into a separate thread? Edit: thanks. You can also re-title the thread "SS's crazy rants" if you want Its not a crazy rant, its a good topic.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 8, 2008 -> 02:01 PM) ] Based on the evidence for everywhere that has had unrestricted or high speed limits, that simply is not true. People drive 70-75 in a 55 around Chicago because they want to go 75, not 20 MPH faster than the limit. Raise the limit to 65 and they wont' start going 80-85 or 90. Please explain how arbitrary limits set at 55 MPH save any lives or prevent any accidents. There are plenty of studies to the contrary. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating 70+ around Chicago, or no speed limits in rural areas. Just limits that make sense. 55MPH on the south part of the enw 355 extension makes zero sense. There's just no traffic and few exits/ entrances down there. Here's Purdue's: http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2008a/080623ManneringSpeed.html I'd agree that German driving laws and training are about thousand times better than over here. Still, it shows that higher speed limits don't cause more accidents. I think you are missing part of my point here. What people "want" to drive should be irrelevant. A speed limit isn't arbitrary, its based on road factors. Just because people want to drive 70, doesn't mean they should. This is what I mean when I say the argument is hollow. You are basically saying that, because some people want to speed, the laws should change. I disagree. I think speed limits should be based on conditions, and if people speed, they should be penalized. That would change behavior, and eventually, most people would be "comfortable" at the lower speed. That all said, I do think that Illinois staying at 55 or 65 on open, rural highways is arbitrary, so I agree in that case the speed limits should change. On the open road, 75 seems very reasonable.