southsider2k5

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 08:50 AM) "Before you were born." That's cute. I'll remember that next time you say something about the Constitution in the Filibuster! I'm well-aware of Ventura's history, but that's a rather irrelevant comment. My point is: his early success has definitely been tempered of late and it has everything to do with pitchers figuring him out. People who can't hit the fastball don't survive in the major leagues, and that's what he has to do, then. What that's got to do with Robin Ventura is rather irrelevant. Besides, Ventura had a far better resume when he came up than Fields, though that's just nit-picking. The point that you was so easily missed is that slumps during rookie years happen. They happen to some of the best hitters around. Using a rookie year slump as a disqualifier of future preformance is short sighted at best. Also if you really want to nitpick, Robin had way less of a resume when he came up to the majors. He had one season at AA, and that was it. He numbers were less than impressive. http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/v/robin-ventura.shtml Fields numbers pretty much blew away Ventura's minor league numbers at every stop Josh had in the minors, and he also got about 1000 ABs down there. http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/F/Josh-Fields-1.shtml

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 08:07 AM) That's not saying he sucks -- that's saying that his raw power, which has been at driving opposite field shots far, has been great, but other than that, he hasn't done much. He fields like a butcher and his avg./obp are abysmal. I'm just saying that next year, he's not going to get pitched middle-out, and he won't be able to go out, flick his bat and slam it into right. He's going to have to learn to hit the inside pitch and particularly the fastball, which is definitely a HUGE weakness in his offensive game. I don't know if you've noticed, but if you can't hit a fastball, you're going to suck at baseball when the game figures it out. I, and I'm sure others, have noticed that Fields' been a little rough lately (I think he was 2-40) and I think you can see that they're already starting to pitch him in and the results aren't there. If Fields can't hit a fastball, and doesn't speed up his bat, he's going to bust. I'm not saying he sucks or HAS TO, because HE'S BAD, I'm saying he will suck if he doesn't learn how to hit a fastball. That's hardly what you're presenting it to be. It's all well and good to be enthusiastic about our young players. Like I've said, I really like Fields because he has good power and speed, though it isn't really utilized. But the truth is unequivocal: if you can't hit a fastball, you're doomed. And so he'd better learn how to hit a fastball, particularly middle in, or he's not going to last long. I know it was probably before you were born and all, but Robin Ventura also had an 0-47 streak his rookie year in the majors... EDIT, make that 0-41 with 25 errors... you get the point.

The sad thing is that Fields has actually exceeded my expectations for him this year. With as many holes as he has in his swing, I didn't think he would be hitting .200 this year. I will be interested to see the progress that he makes into next year.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 08:05 PM) Then the league's "biggest stars" will have to stop cheating. I don't think you realize how much pressure MLB is under from the federal government right now. As has been discussed by NSS and SS2k, all Congress has to do is threaten the owners with yanking MLB's anti-trust exemption. They'll implement stricter testing and risk another strike before giving up that kind of power to the MLBPA. Pretty much. But Congress hasn't had the stones to do anything more than hold hearings. Boy I bet Bud Selig is scared now... I know they want "labor peace" but something are more important. The integrety of the game is on trial, and what are we doing about it, well nothing really. MLB needs to come clean, and now. Bite the bullet and fix the game.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 05:35 PM) Ew. NOt that there is anything wrong with that...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 03:53 PM) Hillary Clinton today unveiled a new version of a universal health care system...it would basically open up, with subsidies, the government level health care plans to all non-government employees and allow that system to compete with private insurers for signups, thus making it so that no one is forced to change health care providers if they don't want to. It would also include a mandate, again with government assistance, requiring that everyone in the country purchase some form of health care. At her cost estimate of $110 billion a year. In government speak that probably means about $200 billion a year. I also wonder if that estimate included the 12 million illegals that she wants to make citizens.

Talk about a guy who scammed the system big time. He got a 5 year $55 million contract because of a the bounce up in his preformance.

The only time I make the bed is when the sheets get changed, otherwise, it is a waste of time.

QUOTE(TLAK @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 07:38 PM) If nothing else, the thought of Ozzie sticking it to Mariotti for 5 more years may have justified the extension all by itself. Reinsdorf himself called Mariotti a Pissant, and Ozzie called him a f***** so I doubt his 'scathing' column upset anyone at 35th and Shields. Pfft. Kotex-boy is probably over-joyed. It means he has writing material for a long, long time.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 02:03 PM) ^^^^^^^^ Exactly. Selig is most definitely complicit. And as you point out the union has very little recourse available to them, which is why I said earlier that the only way they could really fight back would be to strike. Unless Congress were to cancel MLB's anti-trust exemption, the union really has zero recourse. They could strike and hope to freeze Selig into submission, but legally they couldn't do a damned thing. That is the most frustrating part of Bud Selig acting like he has done everything he can to fix the game. He hasn't. He say on the sidelines hoping it would go away, and acting like it was a players problem. Its not just their problem when he alone as the ability to fix the problem.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 04:16 PM) The Union probably won't allow tests. The Union might not have a choice. Being a legalized monopoly, baseball doesn't have to submit to the will of labor. As a matter of a fact one of the clauses that Kenesaw Mountain Landis had put in as a condition of his accept the position, was that he could have the power to make unilateral actions. The comissioner of baseball has the authority to act "in the best interest of baseball" if he deems the situation necesary. Tomorrow Bud Selig could say you will all be subject to olympic style testing, and the union would have no choice but to agree to it, or to strike. If the union chose to strike because they didn't want to be drug tested, they would be fried by the media and fans alike. Its the reason that I have believe that Bud Selig has been just as complicit in the baseball drug problem as any player who took steroids or speed. He could have stopped this years ago, but he chose not to do so. Now he has to live with the results.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 12:15 PM) but what uni does he go in with? Indians, no doubt.

Great. More things to waste TV news time on...

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 08:53 AM) Article about the fan who caught the ball, gave it back, and donated the prize season ticket seats to a charity of Thome's choice. Classy moves all around. How classy. Instead of seeing dollar signs, he did the right thing

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 10:40 AM) Yeah, its interesting, he should also have some experience dealing with lots of other candidates, which I'd love to hear. Any of he Senators he has probably at least talked with (Edwards, McCain, maybe Obama, Thompson), as well as Richardson from his days as energy secretary. There are very few people on this planet that I would be willing to pay to listen to speak. Alan Greenspan is one of those few. He is such an incredible wealth of knowledge. His interview last night actually gave me more respect for him.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 10:29 AM) Yes it has. And the bad news is, they are much stronger and larger than say, something like the FLDS or some other extremist sect of Christianity or Judaism. But the good news is, they are still the small minority, and that means that if we can get a new, sane policy towards the Middle East in 2008 (one not bent on illegal and poorly planed colonialism), then we may still be able to avert a lot of future violence. Our policy is not the problem, when it comes to extremism. Even under Democratic Presidents we have been under attack by extremists. Heck under the biggest pacifist President we probably ever had, Iran invaded our embassy and took our citizens hostage. Under Clinton we had the first WTC attack, the USS Cole attack, the embassy bombings etc. It might change things with lots of Muslims around the world, but the extremists will always be (for lack of a better discription) extreme. There is no way of changing the minds of people whose sole purpose in life is our destruction.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 10:30 AM) Huh? His "correction" makes it pretty clear he still stands by the heart of the statement. And its still partially true. He then also adds some comments on the Dems, because of course he isn't happy with them either. Like SS said, this guy is a Libertarian, and I think he's pretty disappointed in both parties right now. Seems to me there is plenty of ammo here for both parties, if they choose to use it. Actually I took something completely different from this. I read it as this is how HE saw it. Greenspan thought that for the good of the oil markets, that we should take out Saddam. In his view, the war about about oil. Maybe I am reading it wrong. Speaking of ammunition, I almost forgot about the interviewer asking him about Hillary for President. Greenspan was asked if she was capable, and he basically said yes. Then he asked about what he thought, and he gave a patented non-answer about waiting and seeing.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 16, 2007 -> 05:33 PM) Another line in Mr. Bubble's book. Alan has a bit of a clarification on that statement. Also for those who believe Greenspan is a blue-blood republician, they should know he is actually a self-declared Libertarian. http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1627504220070917

I watched the 60 minutes interview, and it was interesting to say the least. First of all, I am going to buy this book. I don't say that very often, but Alan Greenspan is one of the most incredible people in my lifetime. Not many people realize the all encompassing effect on our lives this guy had. Granted in retrospect he made some mistakes, but viewed against some of the past Fed chairmen, I don't think you could find many better people. One of the interesting points of the interview was where he critisized the orginal Bush for saying interest rates should be lower, as a conflict of the indepedancy of the Federal Reserve, but then attending Clinton cabinet meetings, and spoke out in them. I am not quite sure how one was a conflict and the other wasn't but I do want to read and find out. It was also interesting to hear how much he like Gerald Ford as a person, and not as a President, while totally fearing Richard Nixon.

Ah the oldest trick in the book... How about we go with this really awful option? No? Well how about this option that isn't quite as bad? Anyway, I wonder what the reason to not listen to this guy will be?

Wow. How awesome for one of the greatest guys in all of professional sports to get his own "Natural" moment. That was one of the most incredible moments I have seen in pro-sports, and most of it had to do with who hit it. It was so cool to see every single one of his teammates wait around and give the guy a big bear hug and everything, instead of just the usual high-five and pat on the back. You couldn't have scripted a better Hollywood ending for Jim Thome.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 03:03 PM) Yes, that is true. But here is the thing - those illegal immigrants are still using all kinds of services unofficially. They may not be getting a check, but they are a drain on resources, without paying it. That is far worse than someone at a low wage earning position that at least contributes SOME tax money, and keeps more of their spending and cash in the country. So even if low wage earners end up getting 90% of their taxes back in terms of federal income tax, they are still paying all sorts of other taxes into the system. Economically, the more illegal laborers are hired, the worse things will be later. Its an artificial, short-term cost reduction for businesses that is offset by greater costs to the entire country. That is the point. Even if you don't believe the numbers fully, the point remains that low earning illegals who become citizens will be a much larger drain in the long run on resources versus having a rising wage and paying more for a product in the short term. It falls under the ounce of prevention/pound of cure category.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 02:54 PM) I think that slowly having illegals taken off he payrolls makes it better in the long run. Because then ultimately, businesses either have to hire legal laborers (who then all pay their taxes), and any businesses that can't survive don't, which relieves artificial price pressures. And if they are here illegally, they shouldn't be allowed on any social programs. If those things occurred, they'd go home, or find a way to work here legally. That's the goal, isn't it? If they leave the US. If they don't leave, it is worse.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 02:40 PM) That is only sort of true. For one, not all the 12 million have regular jobs at all. For another thing, if a farmer is currently working 10 illegals in the field at like $3 an hour, and he is then forced to hire legal folks at $5.50 an hour... he might not hire as many people. Just something to keep in perspective. Also, frankly, some businesses are being artificially propped up by illegal labor. Companies that are just scraping by using under-minimum wage labor, in some cases, won't survive without that labor. And that is actually better for the economy anyway, in the long run. Companies that would not otherwise survive their competition don't help the economy, they hurt it. That actually makes things worse, not better. Now those people would be on the rolls of all of the applicable social programs, and not paying any taxes at all, instead of paying a small amount of taxes in someway, shape, or form.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1189725889...=googlenews_wsj