NorthSideSox72

End of July Update (a bit late)... Charlie continues to have a decent season in Kanny, though not as great as the season has gone on. He had a couple rough outings in late July (2 games, 7.1 IP, 19 H, 7 ER, 1 BB, 6 K), but his most recent on on 8/1 was solid (5 IP, 2 H, 1 ER, 2 BB, 5 K). Here are his current overall numbers: W/L: 3-6 ERA: 3.70 G: 17 IP: 82.2 H: 84 ER: 34 BB: 15 K: 57 WHIP: 1.19 GO/AO: 1.89 His core numbers, particularly ERA, aren't great. But his peripherals are strong and continue to improve. He's only walked 15 guys all year, and in July/August he struck out 22 while walking just 5 in 29.1 IP. His GO/AO is pretty good too. Hard to say for sure, but I'd guess that Charlie will get a shot in W-S late this season.

End of July update (a little late)... Sergio has taken the demotion quite well, and has been hitting for a solid average and getting on base in Kanny. Still very little power, but, there are some recent indications of that changing. One of the odd things is that, in order to make room for Escobar playing SS in Kanny, they have been playing Miranda all over - 2B, SS, 3B, DH. I am not sure if that means they are checking to see if he can be a future utility guy, or if he has a stronger position than SS, or if they just wanted Escobar to focus on D while Miranda focused on hitting, or if the whole SS stack is just too crowded in the system right now. Or some combination of the above. Here are his current offensive stats: AVG: .311 OBP: .394 SLG: .366 OPS: .760 AB: 183 H: 57 2B: 7 3B: 0 HR: 1 RBI: 30 AVG w/ RO: .375 AVG w/ RISP: .446 Note the bolded numbers. Sergio is a serious RBI machine, for a light hitter. 30 RBI in 184 AB for a guy with a sub-.400 SLG and just 1 HR is pretty impressive. What does the future hold for Sergio? Well, I think he's very much ready for promotion. Problem is, with Beckham soon joining the org and an already crowded field of shortstops, what's going to give? Will Valido be sent packing (hopefully)? Will Sergio be promoted and/or moved positionally again? I guess we'll have to see.

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 4, 2008 -> 04:21 PM) I enjoy baseball because it has less cocky, showboating, big mouth a-holes than the other sports.....at least on the field. But some of these unwritten rules are a joke. Bunting, or stealing bases when you're up by 6 runs is grounds for getting beaned? Why exactly? Because it's running up the score? I guess no team in MLB history has ever come back from being down by 6 runs. KC should have put it in half ass mode I guess. I was thinking that too, about bunting. I agree with most of Ozzie's rant there, but I really don't see a 6 run lead as being a put-the-freshmen-in type scenario. In baseball, you need a double digit lead and late before you even think about reeling it in, IMO.

QUOTE (Chet Lemon @ Aug 4, 2008 -> 01:05 PM) I still never understand why pudnits assert that all presidential candidates choose their running mates based on winning their home states. Bush clearly didn't need Cheney to win Wyoming. Kerry didn't pick Edwards to win his Senate state North Carolina or his birth state, South Carolina. Ditto Dole and Kemp. Ditto Dukakis and Bentsen. They knew their running mates' home states were unwinnable. Gore didn't choose Lieberman cuz he thought he would lose Connecticut without him. Ditto Bush and Quayle. Nice example - Cheney in WY? I think its a factor, like many things. But its not factor #1, and its only helpful for states that are currently in play. WY was never in play for the Dems in 2000, NC wasn't in play for Kerry in '04. But, look at some candidates' potential choices right now. VA is very tight, so choosing a native son could be a big help for either candidate. Same with IN.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Aug 4, 2008 -> 10:23 AM) I think there is a very good chance he is. I remember when we signed him, I just liked him because he took less money from us to spurn Arizona, and hoped he would simply be able to soften the blow of losing Magglio and his production pre knee injury. Boy has he done more than that. To clarify, while he did take less money to stay with the Sox, that's not the full story. As I recall, Dye had a handshake type agreement with the Sox for that contract, then someone (I am not sure it was ARI, maybe TEX) came in with a bigger offer, and Dye elected to stay. Not quite taking less money, but, still a class move.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 4, 2008 -> 12:59 PM) Oh, and next time try ordering a black and tan. Half Guinness, half Bass Ale. Or the truly Irish version, a half-and-half - Guiness and Harp.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 4, 2008 -> 09:07 AM) That's quite the sweeping comment. If his posts deter someone from voting for Obama, that's just hilarious. I'm not speaking about myself. But people here have actually posted that they like Obama less because of the fringe, overzealous supporters.

NSS72's goofy prediction of the week... Logan gets sent down to Charlotte to get back on track, and his replacement is Wes Whisler.

I don't know where this should go, but, I felt like I had to post it. I was just checking my spam e-mail folder for a missing email, and one of the spam emails had this subject: "Release of Nancy Pelosi sex DVD causes Mass Erecticle Dysfunction In Us" Wow.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 3, 2008 -> 08:58 AM) Wouldn't a gas tax holiday help those that drive the most, the most? Why should everyone get a $1000 check? My wife works out of the house, should she get a check? I spent $400 on gas last month, I could save alot. How about the people who live in the city and take a bus or walk to work? They don't really need the gas 'releif', do they? Just asking. True. But, on the other hand, maybe you don't want to incentivize driving more. Maybe you want to promote driving less. Not that I think a $1000 check is a good way to do that (its not), but, I also don't think we should be doing anything to encourage more driving.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 2, 2008 -> 08:02 AM) I have to find the exact details of this, but the "Gang of 10" Bi-partisan energy policy sounds relatively acceptable. I'm still not a fan of off-shore drilling, but if limited access can be opened to push new energy, I am for ok with that. When I can find an article will all the details, I"ll post it. Most articles seem to have bits and pieces of it. EDIT: I took out the old article and replaced it with this. Much more detailed Senate 'gang's' new energy plan I would say this is a nice middle ground IMO. I like that they open up some areas, but leave it to the states. This is different than Bush who just wants to lift the ban all together. I love the part about 85% nonpetroleum-based vehicles by 2028. Combine that with a push for wind, solar, and nuclear by the next president and I think it's a good start. I also like the requirement that all new oil must be used domestically. I think you'll see both candidates embrace this. It gives McCain his off-shore drilling and it gives Obama his long term energy strategy. Looks overall good, but, you still never addressed the question in the thread - the financial proposals. Why is Obama's good and McCain's bad?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 03:58 PM) Care to give a reason? We take residency for granted, but if voters in a town wanted to elect someone from out of town, it seems like it should be their right. After all, they can hire an out of towner for Police Chief, Administrator, etc. Why not hire the best person on the planet, not the best person in that district? Maybe then we would have better overall representation. And I'd scale it up all the way to Congress. Actually, in many localities, you CANNOT hire police, teachers, administrators, councilpeople, etc, from out of town. For multiple reasons. I agree with Kap. A representative for a district cannot realistically do so without living there, IMO.

To start with, neither of these plans do a damn thing for the long run needs of the country. They are political B.S. bandaids at best. And what's worse is, both of them will actually demotivate people about alternative energy and conservation, which is also counterproductive! So, basically, I call B.S. on both ideas.

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 02:32 PM) Write Nick and inform him of this situation and see if you could travel with the team. Kind of like when Iguchi had an interpetur. I was only kidding by the way. Now that is funny.

AHB wants to discuss this: Discuss!!!

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 03:30 PM) so, I attack McCain... get attacked. Promote Obama... get attacked. WOW! Ok, let's talk about Obama's plan to offer a $1000 stimulus package to Middle and lower class Americans by using a windfall profits tax on Oil profits. While McCain pushes a lame $30 gas tax holiday, Obama is pushing a $1000 check. Let's just ignore the ridiculous stuff on top, and focus on the policy discussion. Excellent. I will put it in its own thread, and we can discuss the merits of both plans.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 02:23 PM) Obama received over 100,000 donations YESTERDAY alone. 200,000 donations since McCain went negative. Not 100,000 dollars, 100,000 donors. If you factor in that in June, the average donation was $68... that's $13.6 million in the last week. Has it occurred to you that when you load up this thread with SOOOOOO much Obama promotional material, you are actually repelling voters from him? People here are actually tiring of Obama all the more because of your posts. What you are doing is counterproductive. How about some discussion? How about some pieces about his policy statements, and how they might help the country?

Interesting that Kucinich was the one Dem who stuck around for a while. As I've said before, dude us bats*** crazy, but I admire him for being a little more genuine than most in Congress.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 01:09 PM) In other news, it looks like Dirty Thirty is no more. He has given 30 to Griffey and will wear #1, which not so coincidentally is his position in many posters' hearts. Are you obsessive about Nick or something? You keep inventing this straw man that I have yet to see on this board.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 12:57 PM) Make the 5... yes Correction: 6 in a row- Dude. We got the idea like a hundred posts ago - McCain's ads are all very negative. Got it. Please, for all our sakes, move on. And has the irony of your posts on this matter occurred to you yet?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 12:13 PM) He'll always be first in my book.... First Governor to throw me out of his office... I agree with AHB here, I want a story!

Heh. Funny, you put Bayh first in the thread title.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 12:46 PM) But, to that, I say, what is it that's been propping up the economy through the 2000's (let's not talk about mortgages, ) -- consumer spending. We spend as fast as we get it and more. Take that away, abruptly, and we're royally screwed. Let me add one more thing to this line of thought... the best way we can create sustainable economic growth is job growth, and more specifically, middle to high income job growth. And the best way to do that is to make a serious push - like, moon shot type push - into energy alternatives. This would also have the nice secondary financial gain of being leaders in the field globally, which could create a big shift in the balance of trade and the value of the dollar.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 12:46 PM) But, to that, I say, what is it that's been propping up the economy through the 2000's (let's not talk about mortgages, ) -- consumer spending. We spend as fast as we get it and more. Take that away, abruptly, and we're royally screwed. Those two are already gone. I said in this forum a couple years ago, the mini-boom in the economy that happened in 2004-2006 or so was proppelled by consumer spending, but more to the point, that consumer spending was in great part boosted by home equity. That was not sustainable, as we now see. So really, that's already gone, and has been for a year or so. In fact, overall, I am surprised that the economy isn't uglier at this point.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 12:44 PM) The banks and their lobbyists will do everything, and I mean EVERYTHING in their power to prevent any new restrictions from appearing on their lending of credit at usurious interest rates to people who shouldn't be taking out such big loans. Not entirely accurate, IMO. Banks are now seeing the longer term consequences of bad lending, and how it effects them, so at least SOME of the restrictions work in their favor. They will mostly stick to those.