NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 08:51 AM) As if they are not applying those techniques on our soldiers as it is already... oh wait they just behead them...that makes the difference eh? So would rather we sit them down with tea and donuts maybe and ask them nicely for the info? I am sure that would gain us all the info we need. Hussein was murdering people by the thousands...but the true reason we went after him was not for that reason. GWB wanted to get him because his daddy missed his chance to get him. Mr. Jester- 1. Per the rules of the forum, please read and reply to the MUST READ thread pinned at the top before posting in here. Thanks! 2. I can't tell if that last statements is supposed to be in green. Do you actually think that was the primary motivation for war? Or are you saying others do?

Well, since Ehren ended up back in Charlotte, I figured it was worth updating his AAP page. Looks like we have to start from last July... Wassermann was called up to the big club in July of 2007, when the Sox bullpen was a horrible mess. Not a lot was expected of Ehren, given his background, but he managed to emerge as being possibly the strongest reliever in the 2007 pen, outside of Bobby Jenks of course. He was used in a few different scenarios at first, before eventually slotting in as a ROOGY type. Here are some highlights... IP: 23.0 ERA: 2.74 WHIP: 1.17 K/BB: 14/7 GO/AO: 3.46 (5th best in MLB among pitchers with 20+ IP) The numbers were pretty darn good, but that GO/AO value is particularly interesting. Playing in a park like The Cell, where balls fly out in a hurry in the summer, his ability to get a lot of ground balls seems an ideal fit. And Wassermann rarely gives up home runs - he did not give one up in all of 2007, in 65.2 IP combined with Charlotte and Chicago. One weakness did show itself for Ehren in 2007 though - he struggled against lefties while with the Sox. In 11 total batters from the left side (a somewhat small sample size), they hit a whopping .533 against him. This suggested that Ehren's future may be as a ROOGY specialist. During the offseason, Wassermann was guided to do a few things to improve in this area. He started working on a change-up, and he made a few small adjustments to his positioning and stride. He also went on a strength program during the winter. In ST, Ehren performed well. He put up a 3.09 ERA and a very nice 0.77 WHIP in 11.2 IP, striking out 6. But those numbers had more meaning when put in context - Ehren was not pitching in a ROOGY role. They were pitching him 1 or 2 full innings at a shot, facing righties and lefties alike. And yet his stats were about as good as they were facing mostly righties in 2007. This was a very encouraging sign that perhaps his offseason changes had worked, and that Wassermann may be ready for more than just a ROOGY slot. Despite his performance in ST, Wassermann was not able to make a Sox bullpen that appeared much improved (with the additions of Linebrink and Dotel). Many of us felt he was a much better choice than Mike MacDougal, who struggled in 2007 as well as in Spring Training. Whatever the reasoning, Wassermann was sent back to Charlotte. So far in Charlotte this young season, here are some of his numbers... 5 games 4.2 IP 0 runs 0 hits 2 BB 4 K 5 saves in 5 chances There is a significant chance that someone with the big club in the 7 man bullpen will either be demoted or DL'd during the season. If that happens, unless that person is Masset (who is on a long relief role that Wassermann isn't well suited for), Ehren is likely to come back up for another chance. So for the Sox, its good to know there is some solid backup if needed.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 13, 2008 -> 07:55 PM) Nice way to change the subject. First, it is 'It's a business, they make movies to make money'. Then when it is ponted out that the last 6 or 7 have lost vast sums, not it's different. The studios may have thought those would make money, but after the first 4 or 5 bombed, you think they would stop for a bit. Not so much, it seems. The only one that did any good was the one NOT billed as some anti-was movie (I forgot the name, with Foxx and Gardner). It did ok, but nowhere near what they had hoped. You are right, people know how horrible war is. They also don't need Hollywood shoving the 'America is Evil' mantra down our throats. Were movies like 'The Dirty Dozen' or 'The Guns af Navarone' just thinly veiled recruitment movies? How about 'Bridge over the River Kwai'? Even a movie like MASH can show the horrors of war while still showing something positive about the US soldiers. Perhaps I should have also mentioned that American audiences are a little more aware of the realities of war and the world generally then they were. A movie like The Dirty Dozen is just a lot less believable to them. But you also keep harping on this supposed America is Evil thing, and saying that they don't show anything positive about US soldiers. To me, looking at war movies made in the last few years, I think they show an absolute ton of respect for US soldiers. In fact, more so than the movies you'd mention, I suggest. The subject of the ire of these movies isn't American soldiers - its war itself. And I think you'll find most of American society is damn tired of war, so this should not be a big surprise.

I have always found it a bit of a stretch to say that a small-number event like hurricanes were predicted to increase in some measurable way due to small increases in global temperature. Not that it was impossible - more that it seemed to be too erratic a phenomenon in the first place to be that confident with any sort of shift to be predicted.

QUOTE (CWSGuy406 @ Apr 13, 2008 -> 03:04 PM) Wasserman needs to be up with the big club... not so much because MacDougal and Masset are terrible, but because how good of a pitcher Wasserman may actually be. I know he's seen as a gimmick pitcher who probably isn't that good, but damn -- and I'm aware there's severe sample size issues at play -- he held righties to a .430 OPS last year. There's a non-terrible chance that Wasserman is our best non-Jenks reliever against right-handed batters. Take a look at his GO/AO last year (one of the best among relivers with 20+ IP in all of baseball), not to mention WHIP. The guy is more than gimmick - he gets it done. And the way it looks in ST and now AAA, I think he may have improved a lot against lefties as well, which was his biggest weakness.

QUOTE (JohnCangelosi @ Apr 13, 2008 -> 11:53 AM) You too are missing the point. It has NOTHING to do with performance on the field. It has everything to do with him, however, proving he has talent and does have major league stuff. 50% of this board didn't see that this year. I think, even if he does get shelled for the rest of the year, at this point you have to admit he does have ML stuff and talent. I couldn't get over the number of people who didn't see this last year when he was struggling. What an arm the kid has. Then start a thread saying that. Start a thread saying "Gavin Floyd - maybe he has the stuff!!!" and tell us about his great curveball and all that. The discussion is fine. You starting a thread whose main purpose is to agitate others is really not helping anyone.

I just noticed that Wes Whisler is having a surprisingly good start for Charlotte. He just hadn't looked good the last couple years, and some of us were saying maybe they should put him back in the field again. But this is nice to see. Keep it up, Wes!

Columbus @ Charlotte, 2:15pm EDT, Rob Bell gets another start B-Ham is off Salem @ Winston-Salem, 2:00pm EDT, no starter announced yet Hickory @ Kanny, 5:05pm EDT, Shirek starting for Kannapolis

QUOTE (hitlesswonder @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 05:02 PM) So, it's not important if a candidate who espouses unity as his central campaign issue reveals himself to be a bigot? I think that's a actually important thing to cover. A bigot? Seriously? He makes statements alluding to the bitterness of rural folks and the good reasons for it (as well as what they do with it), who by the way will mostly be white, and he's a bigot? If there is any bigotry in his statements, to me, its pro-rural and pro-white.

QUOTE (hitlesswonder @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 04:39 PM) We'll just have to disagree -- just saying stuff doesn't prove anything to me. I'd agree someone shouldn't call for a war that they would be unwilling to fight in, but I have not met anyone that has done that. And I have no reason to believe that conservatives would be more prone to do that than liberals. Will's assertion that liberals are hypocrites who love to give away other people's money is backed up by actual data. LOL. Are you seriously trying to say that the sweeping generalizations about Liberals are accurate ("backed up by data"), but that sweeping generalizations about conservatives and the war are not? Exhibit A: Dick Cheney. Huge war proponent and engineer. Draft dodger. But here is an even better idea - how about NEITHER generalization is accurate?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 13, 2008 -> 08:31 AM) For singlehandedly destroying the National Bank, I agree 100%. And his policies against the American Indians turned into something quite awful. Lots of pretty words that masked the real law behind it, which allowed tribes and individuals to be sent packing whenever various people or states felt like it, regardless of existing treaties. They were forced into treaties with threat of violence. His policies caused the Trail of Tears. I did agree with him on removing the Electoral College, though.

Take this game, take the series. Take the series, be in first place (tied at least). First place in the AL Central after two weeks of play = happy NSS. GO YOU WHITE SOX!!!

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 03:51 PM) Is there any group of fans that feels positively about other groups? Every Tiger fan on their board today talks about how awful us Sox fans are, how terrible we treat them and how terrible chicago is. I feel the exact same about them. I have yet to meet a nice gracious intelligent Tigers fan at one of our games, and I dont know how anyone from Detroit could ever say anything negative about another city unless its Newark. I've read the motown tigers board before. A lot of the B.S. about Chicago and its fans comes from a couple specific posters, one who is a Twins fan (and who used to post, and still may, on WSI) who is just a loser extraordinaire. Most of the posters over there seemed pretty reasonable. In our division, I can say I've never seen problematic Twins or Royals fans in the stands of The Cell. Heck even on Bat-Girl's old site, they made fun of the Sox, but it was rarely anything beyond joking around.

QUOTE (scenario @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 08:40 PM) In 4 years in the minors, Lucy averages a .257 BA with a .680 OPS. In 7 years in the minors, Toby Hall averaged .310 BA with an .817 OPS. Hall's major league numbers (.262 BA and .674 OPS) are similar to Lucy's minor league numbers. I don't know Hall's background too well, but, Lucy came in as a known project hitting-wise. He played behind Garko in college and only had one full year starting at C. He's been progressing pretty well each year, though not spectacularly. Last year in B-Ham he his .269, .343 OBP, .732 OPS, and was 13-for-14 in SB attempts. If he can put up similar or slightly better numbers in AAA this year, I think that's a good sign he could transition to being AJ's backup for 2009. His OPS has actually gone up at each stop - .662 at Low A, .724 at High A, .733 at AA. That's a sign, to me, that he's still learning and pretty quickly. if the trend continues, and he puts up a .750 to .800 OPS in AAA, I'll be pretty happy. I don't think Lucy will ever be a starter at the major league level. But he plays plus defense, has a little speed, and isn't entirely incompetent with the bat. Sounds like a good, young, cheap backup for 2009 and beyond.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 09:57 PM) MacDougal's stuff is as good if not better then Jenks' stuff. However, the difference so far has been Jenks ability to consistently throw strikes. You can't be serious. Bobby Jenks can throw, with an identical motion, a 97 mph fastball (faster if he lets his motion go a bit), a 92 mph and a wicked 80-something 12-6 curve. Not to mention he's been known to sometimes cut his fastball, and seems to be flirting with a change-up lately. MacDougal's stuff is just not even in the same league as his. Now, if you want to say that MacDougal's "stuff", when he has it, is better than Wassermann's... you can make a good argument there. But once you reach the major league level, I tend to be results-oriented. And MacD just doesn't get it done.

QUOTE (scenario @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 06:55 PM) I'm not really meaning to bash Bourgeois, Getz, and Lucy. I just don't see them turning out to be MLB starters, much less stars. I hope I'm wrong. W-S is definitely the team I'm most interested in watching... probably because of Poreda and Miranda. I'm also really interested in watching the progress of CJ Retherford. The kid is a classic bat-rat... was a two-way player (pitched and played a position when not pitching) on a team that won a JUCO world series. Pitched, played catcher, 3B, and shortstop at Arizona State. Actually pitched and caught in the same inning of a game once. LOL. Hurt his senior year or definitely would have been drafted. I've got a feeling we may have picked up a diamond in the rough with him. Offensively, he was 'the star' at Great Falls last year on a great hitting team. He not only lead the team in OPS (over 1.000). He broke the all-time Pioneer League record for doubles in one year. I listened to alot of the GF games on radio last year, and he was incredibly clutch. Seemed like he always came up with the big hit. I figured he would be at Kanny this year, but the Sox bumped him directly to W-S, so I figured the they must see something in him. Maybe he won't turn out to be anything special... but... I think it's definitely worth watching his progress. Sort of a classic 'underdog does good' type story. Here's a few notes I put together after doing some research on him last year (link). You know, there is an Adpot-a-Prospect sub-forum here, and I don't think Retherford is taken yet (check though, I could be wrong). Given your obvious interest in these guys, you should adopt a few players and maintain them in there. It would really help the board!

QUOTE (scenario @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 03:51 PM) I didn't count Fields, because's not really a prospect at this point. He's simply in baseball purgatory due to the Crede situation. I don't view Bourgeois as a serious prospect. Ditto for Getz, who is a nice player, but likely to be a utility guy at the major league level. I don't think Lucy will ever hit well enough to be more than a major league backup. Other than Fields, I think the most serious prospect in Charlotte is Richar. So where is the real 'talent' at Charlotte? Egbert, Broadway, and Wasserman. If you throw in Fields and Richar, then yeah, I would put Charlotte in front of them, but not by much. I think the pitching staff at Kanny is very good. Probably deeper and as good in terms of talent (although further behind in development of course) as any in our system. I believe that Christian Marerro and Jose Martinez will turn into serious position prospects. Matt Inouye had a .900 OPS season in GF last year and looks to be a solid catching prospect. (The Sox thought enough of him to send him to winter ball.) And a couple of the others have potential to be utility types and not just org-guys. I guess the way I looked at it is: (a) pitching is favorably comparable to any of the others; and ('b) there are a couple of reasonably serious position candidates, which most of the others, except for W-S, seem to be lacking. That's why I consider them near the top rather than near the bottom. Good call on Jose Martinez, I didn't know he was at Kanny. I don't see Inouye being much, but, who knows. And I guess I didn't see a lot of pitching talent, but, if its there, great. I wasn't really seeing it. As for Charlotte, I guess it all comes down to your definition of "prospect". I think that squad has 8 or 10 guys who are likely to see significant major league time in their careers. But if you dismiss Fields, Bourgeois, Getz and Lucy, then yeah - its a much thinner roster. Well, I'll happily stand corrected - I'll have to keep my eye on Kanny and see who blossoms. Hopefully some of those guys can prove me wrong. W-S is the team I am most interested in watching.

QUOTE (joeynach @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 03:37 PM) Some of us having been talking about how they no longer display the pitch speed in the park. The board that used to display pitch speed out in RF now displays the Pitch Count. Which seems strange since pitch count is already displayed on two boards, on both UD corner boards, so a third seems out of place. I asked a friend of mine who works for the sox in their ticket and group sales dept and he told me he heard from someone else that Don Cooper requested they no longer display pitch speed in the ballpark. Assumable b/c he doesn't want his guys worried about their velocity and checking it constantly. Now keep in mind this is just a rumor, but if its true I find this extremely lame. The pitch speed is there for the fans, not the players, nobody really knows how accurate it is anyway. If the sox pitchers are so concerned with checking their velocity then grow up. Either way this is very strange, these are professional ballplayers, I find it hard to imagine the sox pitchers constantly check the pitch speed board and thus allow their play to be affected by it. I find it very hard to believe that of all the 29 or so stadiums with a pitch speed its only a problem for the sox pitchers, all the other pitching staffs seem to have no problem with something that has been part of parks for years now. Any thoughts on this rumor? Two thoughts. 1. As of last night, the speed is back up, so, that ends that. 2. I spoke to my ticket rep when I noted on Opening Day it was missing, and he said that and the narrow band scoreboard below the party deck being non-functional were both technical issues they just hadn't prepped fully for the season.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 04:23 PM) I believe both of Obama's parents were well educated. I think his mom has a PhD. I'm not so sure the deck was really stacked against Mr.Obama. Yeah, I don't think his statements about growing up black are meant the same way as Edwards' son-of-a-millwoker shtick. Same target audience, slightly different tack. I don't think Obama grew up impoverished - I think he grew up on a struggling family like many Americans.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 04:18 PM) It was obvious Obama was saying the Caucasian blue collar worker is often a bitter, small minded, racist whom clutches to religion and guns as a means to cope. I've heard this line of logic often (in college it was a mainstay of many a sociology class). I'm sure when Obama said this to a group in San Francisco he was playing to the crowd. Not a smart move on his part, seeing there is no way a Dem wins by ditching blue collar workers. I think its very interesting that the people who have read this into his statements lately are people who frankly were never going to vote for him anyway, while those who might, apparently aren't seeing it (or so the polls indicate). If anything, Obama's support among Dems and nationally has been level or gone up a bit in recent weeks. Why is that? Is it that all the conservatives are just looking for cannon fodder, or that the liberals are willing to defend anything he says? Or is it reflective of the difference in the way people see our country and its situation?

QUOTE (BearSox @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 03:31 PM) why do so many people want MacDougal off the team? He's our best reliever, no doubt, when he throws strikes. And he has been throwing strikes. Because he's the worst reliever on the team. He's had one good year. He consistently, even in his good year, has stats that get worse in pressure scenarios (runners on, runners in scoring position, close and late). He's a head case. He looked terrible in spring training and his numbers showed it. And he's most definitely not been throwing strikes - he's walked 4 guys in 6 innings. And that's doing mostly clean up work, when he is at his best, historically. Put him in when the game is on the line, and he'll likely crumble. On the other hand, Wassermann has succeeded at literally every stop in his career, all levels in the minors, and in the majors last year, and in Spring Training this year. He does well under pressure, which is what you want in a reliever. And his one big weakness in 2007 - pitching against lefties - he addressed in the offseason. He was pitching full innings in ST, and is doing that now in Charlotte, facing righties and lefties alike - and he's been getting them out consistently. Basically, if you want a pitcher who will actually perform and give you results, you want Wassermann. If you want to wait on this phantom potential thing, or be guided by a contract situation, then you want MacDougal.

QUOTE (scenario @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 02:25 PM) I don't agree with Kanny being the weakest. Not at all. In fact, I think it's the second strongest group... right behind W-S. I wouldn't dispute much if you said they were deeper in talent than B-Ham, maybe - that's close. But I think Charlotte has far more relative talent, especially with guys like Fields, Wassermann, Egbert (DL), Broadway, Lucy, Getz and Bourgeois down there.

Columbus @ Charlotte, 7:15pm EDT, Whisler goes for CHA B-Ham @ Chattanooga, 7:15pm EDT, Omogrosso goes for the Barons Salem @ Winston-Salem, 6:00pm EDT, no starter announced yet Hickory @ Kanny, 7:05pm EDT, J. Lowe (who?) goes for the Intimidators

FINALLY, a decent looking swing by Juan. First one I've seen since Spring Training.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 01:08 PM) But what is the message when you take all of these instances as a whole? Again, each fragment that I posted, on its own, doesn't mean much. NSS, I agree that growing up when Obama did, there wasn't an equality. But, I think that he doesn't embrace all Americans like he says he does. I see what you are saying. I just disagree. I think he's aware of the economic and educational inequalities that exist, and of course those are and should be priorities. All kinds of progress has been made toward racial equality in this country - but its still far from being a non-issue. If you look at his policy statements and what not, which you can get from his website, you will indeed see an emphasis on certain Americans - specifically, those who are poor and/or undereducated. He does indeed embrace them more than the rest, I would agree. But there is fine, yet important difference between those things - embracing one race over another versus embracing people who have fewer opportunities than others. And I think some of that is needed. Now, I disagree with some of his chosen methods of doing that, such as affirmative action. But I agree with his general push on education and economics. And I think he's a lot more likely to get something done that is actually helpful than McCain or Clinton.