southsider2k5

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 10:25 PM) Jesus... what a beating. Anyone see that sick pass from Kane to set up Versteeg? Awesome. Kane has been just incredible since Toews got his concussion. The kid hit three posts, last night, not to mention his playmaking. So much for the crap about letting him walkaway after his adventures with cab drivers in the off season.

seven words or less? Fail.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 04:01 AM) Looks like they are very down on Mitchell, but very high on Holmberg. I'll see what others think. That is also another pundit who has Morel over Viciedo. I am starting to worry about that $10 million.

Turner with 10 TOs

Calgary=Chicago's b****. 12 goals in 4 periods of play.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 07:00 PM) I know this is a message board. But is it really necessary to start a thread about every White Sox "rumor", no matter how ridiculous, that pops up on the net or in the papers? That is pretty much what a message board does...

QUOTE (danman31 @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 04:49 PM) This Indiana Ole Miss game is like watching Indiana football. IU gets off to a nice lead early (20-11) and looks like they might pull the upset (Ole Miss was an 11.5 point favorite), but eventually the more talented team takes over and it starts going as expected. Currently 39-25 Ole Miss. Ole Miss is way more athletic. Hubert Davis said at the open that IU has the talent to beat anyone in the country, just not the experience. I don't think IU even has the talent yet. Not to bash their young guys, but you can't expect to get 4-5 good freshmen in one class and even then that's all the talent they have. They are really sloppy right now. You can see the flashes, there just has to be some stability on the floor, and there is none right now.

Don't feed the nerds!

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 04:42 PM) The White Sox have room to gamble on a kid this year, though i doubt they will. If we want to invest in a kid from the Rule 5 draft we have an available bench spot and a spot in the pen. This is assuming of course that these holes aren't filled externally. I wouldn't be shocked if our pick was a raw pitcher to stick into the pen ala Johan Santana.

It is a science in the same sense that philosophy is or isn't a science.

QUOTE (Whitewashed in '05 @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 01:24 PM) Looking at some of those names on other teams is like a blast from the past. Dewon Day, Dan Haigwood, Joe Borchard I didnt even know he was still around, Fabio Castro, Alex Cintron... Ah yes, all of the "can't miss"es.

Why would this strike anyone who has paid attention as a surprise?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 12:02 PM) Germany wasn't exactly dealing with the threat of deflation and there were some serious political issues at play (i.e. reparations) there driving that as well. We are essentially performing the same functions in our economy if you really look at it deeply. And I am not talking about deflation, I am talking about massive inflation.

Unlikely

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 11:52 AM) That's a monetary divergence that would lead to disaster. Our rate of printing money is already way, way, way too high, and even more importantly, we're not getting the bang for that buck that we should. If the economy super-tanks in the next few years, and we throw even larger sums of debt money at it, the divergence will eventually cause real economic collapse. Fortunately, this is not the path that anyone in charge of anything is suggesting. But there is definitely some risk there. Think post WWI Germany.

For those relatively new to the site, this is one of the gems that started right here on Soxtalk, and while it wasn't proven true early on, it sure came back around later on in the case of Clemens. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/art...10304/index.htm

Rowland, would I lie to you?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 10:44 AM) I think I linked in a story on foreclosure rates recently, the basics were that the rate is still very high, but that foreclosure notices have actually been going down, not up. The problem is, some of the decrease is due to a combination of mortgage rebuilds and foreclosure stalling programs. And only some of those will stick. Looking at all the indicators amalgamated, it appears to me we haven't peaked yet, but the rate of ascent has become very small, indicating a likelihood that it, like the rest of the housing sector, is moving the right direction. But again, the key to this and really everything, is employment. The big reason for foreclosures now is unemployment, not bad loans. There has been a transition in this sector. By looking at the unemployment numbers, that means we are no where near ready to recover. We might be able to build a statistical falsehood here that shows "recovery", much like the 3.5% JUMP IN GDP last quarter. But there is nothing that shows any real growth yet.

There was also reports that fully 14% of mortgage holders were somewhere between late to foreclosure on their mortgage.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 10:17 AM) What should I get for lunch? Where are you at?

Possibly... If Oprah doesn't desert Chicago for her own cable network.

Yup, now my age and complete disconnection from music today is showing as I keep asking "who"?

Good. Why play baseball one way for 162 games, only to do it completely different during the post season? Not to mention, we don't need to be play baseball during NOVEMBER!

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 12:31 AM) You know, I'm not sure if Joe or anyone else in the media lurks here. Personally, I appreciate message boards and a lot of times I find them sometimes entertaining, sometimes helpful. What, I think, some people don't like about message boards is how they can sometimes devolve into groupthink and "best insult" contests. I don't really care for that. I don't care for negativity, but I do love real, actual debate. Negativity is probably the one thing about message boards that can rub me the wrong way. Some of you know that I sometimes get the "company man" tag thrown at me on occasion (often on message boards), but it really isn't true. For those that truly listen to what I say during the shows, I'm not a pessimist, but I'm also really not an optimist. I'm just simply not a negative person. I don't think everything is always going to end up as bad as it could possibly end up, and I don't think that everything that can go wrong always will go wrong. I think sometimes negativity runs rampant on message boards. That's usually because of the passion posters have for their teams. This is true pretty much everywhere. This isn't always true, but sometimes it is. I love having level-headed discussion about the team and I've been participating over at WSI for a while (sorry, Mike!). I'll be back here as often as I can. I don't doubt that the contributors here have good intentions. Again, I think it's a matter of being careful in how rumors are presented because, as you can see, s***storms can follow. Its all good. In general the competition is pretty much dead between the two sites, at least at the administrative level. I think we both recognize that we do our thing and they do their thing. As a matter of a fact it has gotten to the point where we play softball against each other during the summer before a Sox game. This past season was our third year of doing so. There are a lot of good people over there, even if we don't agree with our visions for message boards.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 06:51 AM) I'm not sure if this is in the right forum or not but it is about the Sox. Mods please move this if it needs to go elsewhere. I was wondering if anyone else has noticed, or if it's just me that the Tribune seems be be more favorable to the Sox recently. This is most likely due to the fact that they are no longer the majority owner of the Cubs, but I wasn't really expecting anything to change when they sold them. Maybe the whole Mark Gonzales / Joe Cowley thing the last couple of days has helped too. I noticed that there were 3 or 4 Sox stories this morning for example. Does anyone think that maybe the Tribune has actually changed it's tune and is going to cover the Sox on an equal basis from now on, or am I dreaming? I don't think it is bias either way. I think it is the individual reporters in question. Gonzales has always treated his column like he is a reporter, and no matter what he is writing about it, he isn't trying to sensationalize anything. He is trying to contribute something intelligent to his readership. The other guy, at the other paper, not so much. And it doesn't matter who, or what he is talking about.