southsider2k5

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 07:47 PM) Inflammation in his pitching shoulder kept him from making a single appearance, hard to create buzz when you're physically incapable of throwing. Well that explains it. Hopefully it keeps him from getting claimed, and we can slip him into Charlotte.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 10:48 PM) Hawks sighting on Leno. Looks like most of them are at the show. That was a cute skit with the medalists.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Mar 17, 2010 -> 05:02 AM) Give Randolph some credit, he's actually turned his career around in Memphis. Unforutately it only took him about 10 years to actually "get it". I would be shocked if he has actually gotten it yet... More likely he finally got some solid handlers.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 07:58 PM) I'd be scared as hell drafting Cousins. No way is that guy mentally ready for the NBA (think Tyrus Thomas or Michael Beasley all over again). I was thinking more like Zach Randolph. Loads of potential, loads of s*** for brains.

QUOTE (BFirebird @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 05:01 PM) 2005 Opening Day re-match!!! Buehrle vs. Westbrook. Hopefully it will be the same result in October! I'll settle for the same opening day result to start with...

QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 03:25 PM) Any significance to the 40 man roster being at 39? It opens up a spot for late cuts of other teams.

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 03:09 PM) 8 cuts today. Down to 44. http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/press...sp&c_id=cws Boy Hynick flew about as far under the radar as can be done. No buzz at all, good or bad.

QUOTE (G&T @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 03:26 PM) Kinda off topic, but if the problem is competitive balance then isn't it possible to just use the NFL model of scheduling? The best teams would play more games against the best teams regardless of league. Meanwhile, the Royals would have more games against the Nationals. That is actually a very interesting idea, but who is going to pay to see more KC/Washington games?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 02:12 PM) SI's Tom Verducci tried to crunch some numbers by looking at the Red Sox/Yankee rivalry in terms of "Which teams' top starters make the most starts". He then looked around the league for comparison, and wham, guess what hit him. Phil Rogers used that stat he made up about staffs having thirty starts and two hundred inning starters, and the White Sox were at the top of that one too.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 02:58 PM) Well, they definitely are leaving their options open to all possible applicants. With all the basketball experts on this board, I think some of Soxtalk should apply as well: https://jobs-depaul.icims.com/jobs/16142/job They have to do that by law. It means nothing. ALL job postings must be publicly posted.

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 02:15 PM) It's Baylor...as long as you don't try to frame one of your deceased players as a drug dealer, then you're considered a good guy. Those kind of things don't happen internally. Its the people who don't like you who turn you in.

If he is that dirty, the NCAA will be knocking on his door in no time.

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 02:01 PM) I can't see Drew leaving Baylor this offseason. He has a top 3 player coming in next year, and his best player on the current roster, E. Udoh, is expected to return next season. You're looking at a top 10 team for 2010-2011. He's also known as one of the shadiest recruiters in all of college basketball. If that is the case, the sooner he gets out, the better.

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 02:00 PM) Successful surgery for Jared Mitchell, but he will miss the entire 2010 season. http://twitter.com/cst_sox/status/10582662671 So if he is starting rehab that quickly, it must mean the tear ended up being the lesser of the two evils, I take it?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 01:05 PM) Yep. He took over for Tom Davis at Drake and now is at Providence. Scott Drew is probably the most realistic, higher profile candidate that Iowa could land. They can offer more money and better facilities than Baylor can. That would be a huge take for them. Drew has some great genes for coaching.

I went with Kentucky, Duke, Ohio State and Pitt, with Kentucky beating Ohio State in the finals.

Me too.

QUOTE (knightni @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 08:46 AM) Is that guy worth $10 mil? It would be nice to see how many years that was for.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 11:35 AM) Their mistake. I don't think Depaul and think major school/power conference. DePaul's relevance went out with parachute pants. They need to make a big splash in a coach.

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 10:11 AM) If I had to guess, I'd say... John Wall Evan Turner Wesley Johnson Derrick Favors DeMarcus Cousins Greg Monroe Xavier Henry Pat Patterson Cole Aldrich Damion James I'm sure I'm missing a name or two though. Here is nbadraft.net http://www.nbadraft.net/2010mock_draft

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 09:36 AM) So, basically, what you're telling me is that since the Fed sets the rules, if they want to set the rules such that it doesn't matter if they lose money, and then change the rules if things ever recover, there's really no issue with it. Even if they wind up being in a place where they're technically losing money, they can just essentially print more (a good thing in a near-deflation setting), and if that winds up driving inflationary pressures, they celebrate because they're able to raise interest rates. I'm telling you that the federal government set up a system which subsidized risky lending behavior by setting up its own pseudo banking companies to facilitate. Once the private agencies caught on to this and realized that all they had to do was sell them off to the feds in order to keep making more loans, they jumped in with both feet. Obviously if the Fed bank had a bunch of stuff on its books, this isn't a new thing. There is no one to bail out the fed, well except for us taxpayers, or we can just ignore it, like we have forever. There is no reason to believe that any of this is going to change from the Fed, or from any of the governmental regulating agencies which have not done what they were created for in decades now. The more the fed has become obligated to the executive branch, the less effective they are, and it shows. That hasn't changed, and actually it is getting worse.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 09:21 AM) So then how was it the Fed was sitting on $1 trillion before the bailouts started? For the exact reason that they are now sitting with more.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 09:09 AM) This is exactly why some of us wanted a national public plan as an option. It immediately creates a competitive market in every market in America, most of which, as you note, currently border on being monopolies. It creates exactly what is decried by all of the "fair" labor advocates which is a plan that can undercut everyone else's pricing and drive everyone else out of business.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 08:43 AM) Oh, you mean like the Federal Reserve turning a blind eye to the inflation of a giant housing bubble and telling Congress there was no need for any actions to deal with it because the Fed would do its regulatory job. Anyway, this still hasn't answered my basic question. Doesn't the Fed basically function like an independent bank? They started this off with what, nearly a trillion dollars sitting on their balance sheet, right? They've taken on $2+ trillion in assets, but if they lose it, and they're the ones who basically create money, if they lose that money and in the process do not trigger inflation (because we're up against the lower bound of interest rates anyway), what happens? The rest of the government doesn't step in with taxpayer money and bail out the Fed, does it? In a nutshell, this is exactly why governmental regulation of the financial sector doesn't work. Every penny we pay for it, it wasted. The Fed tells the Congress to stay away, and Congress has no idea that they need to do anything else. It is the same way with all of the other ABC bodies, having personally dealt with many of them. And these are the people we are trusting with trillions of dollars in assets, and that isn't a problem? Yeah. As to the last line, yes, the federal government assumes the debts of the Fed bank. Profits go onto the ledger as pluses against our deficit, losses add on to it. If the federal government actually followed the laws that it requires for accounting, all of those toxic assets would be showing on the books as losses right now. But since they exempted themselves from mark to market, we will see a Japan like situation, where those assets float in nirvana forever, taking up valuable capital and stifling growth.

Rose doubtful again for this game.