southsider2k5

Happy Birthday guys

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 11:52 AM) You placed the words "A stunt" in quotes. That says bluntly that it is a direct quote, which it was not. Yes, this gets done everyday by the media, and everyday, people are taken to task for paying attention to those sorts of articles. As should happen here. You want to take issue with what that Congressman said? Fine. At least take the time to read his words and see if he actually said what they're saying he said. It is taken directly from the title of the article. Why wouldn't you quote it? I read the whole thing, plus read the lib rant, and of course missing in the rant, is that the guy quoted said it was a stunt, without actually saying it was a stunt. What part of doesn't infer this was a stunt? I mean I guess we could break out the dictionaries and thesauruses and pick a million different words, but the congressman was pretty damned clear in what he was saying IMO. I guess it all depends on what your definition of "stunt" is...

I get it. So now headlines can't include anything but direct quotes from the people involved? Should I start hitting the lib blogs and start proving the point that this gets done everyday in the media, or should I just not bother?

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 09:55 AM) Greenbergs story was tough to call, but the Trib included it in the Cub notes section. The story im sure didnt have to be included, but were told how he was a cub, was drafted, made his first appearance, got beaned, was injured, Cubs didnt know what to do with him, Greenburg asked Cubs to Release him making the Dodgers' interest a story in itself did qualify this as a Cub story. And by the way, the Trib adds the William Ligue tales as "SOX" related, but I dont include those either. Are you guys gonna sweat me for not including the Ligue stuff too? Those standards are self-contracdictary. The Greenberg article didn't have any interviews with any Cubs officials, and the Tigers article was in the Sox notes section, how could one apply to one, but not the other??? Also the Sox just played 3 games with Detroit, who is in front of them in the standings, and the whole article is interviews with Tigers being asked about the White Sox. As for sweating you, after seeing the "mistakes" of earlier articles and observing inconsistancies within your accounting methods, I want to make sure was is going on here is correct. If you are going to be posting this stuff as if it is the gospels truth, the people here at Soxtalk at least have the right to know if it is accurate, or if it is Enron's accounting methods going on here.

Out of curiousity, are you counting the Adam Greenberg signing as a Cubs story, and not the story about the Tigers and Sox? Otherwise the numbers don't add up. If so I would like to see your logic explaining how a guy signing with the Dodgers is a Cubs story, but a story about the Tigers not going away is not a story about the Sox???

Wondeful. Once again, since baseball and especially the players union has taken the "easy" way out for all of these years, all it takes is a rumor to bring down the rep of a player. Could Pujols be juicing, sure, heck anyone could be, and we wouldn't know it. But since baseball avoided doing the right thing for all of these years, we have to put up with this stuff.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 08:45 AM) Oh ... you mean the Coulter rules. ^^^ Exactly where I was going. Thanks.

Killing Zarqawi "a stunt" I guess it was only a matter of time before this started to come out...

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 06:23 AM) Hawk complained about the gun throughout the series. Strange that they can get a true reading in the park, but they cannot on the TV. Verlander was topping out at 92-93, that gun was WAY off all week. Also Tracey looks to be really tough to pick up with that bounce in his delievery. He looks like he has good stuff, and the error behind him didn't seem to bother him at all, which is a big plus. The guy wasn't rattled in his ML debut, even wtih bad D behind him. Good signs.

Zarqawi's "legacy"

Interesting to note... No one took a shot at Danny Almonte.

I don't know if I would ever call Ozzie classy, but he definately seems like a damned good manager FWIW.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 8, 2006 -> 02:40 PM) Whenever I see him in the outfield, he seems like he's a terrific defender. He also has a cannon for an arm. I agree with this completely. Everytime I saw him play CF, he was very good. Granted I still think Anderson is better, but I would grade Ford a B in CF, compared to the D that is Mackowiak.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Jun 8, 2006 -> 01:34 PM) Turning it into a 3-page argument and bringing up his age (which shouldn't matter) is unnecessary and just keeps pushing this topic to the top of the forum. (Although the banter is a little bit entertaining. ) My only suggestion is that it all be in one thread instead of a daily one that clutters up the board...at least until we all get tired of them... That is a capital suggest Sleepy. I am glad you said it. I am going to merge all of this stuff into one thread, that way who wants to read it will know where it is at, and at the sametime it won't take away from people who don't want to see it. And for the meantime I will ask for those who just want to say they don't care, please skip this thread. If you have a legitimate argument, question, or comment feel free to add it. Other than that, please have the courtesy to let the people who are interested in this discuss it freely. We are letting Hanger have his say, just like we let everyone else, unless it becomes a big problem. Any questions feel free to PM, post, or email as usual.

QUOTE(NYSox35 @ Jun 8, 2006 -> 12:22 PM) True, but he came clean and is back to being a great hitter. It's scary to think what this scumbag Grimsley knows or is saying. Yeah its not pretty he is narking, with that whole code of silence crap, but at the sametime, if baseball is ever going to get past this mess, it is going to take a big purge getting everyone out into the open so that we can move on from this. If the players keep getting protected and hidden away, this issue will continue to simmer as people mindlessly speculate about who is and who isn't doped up. Of course the players union has done nothing to help this matter by fighting every single step of the way against drug testing and penalites. Hopefully this means we will get bloodtesting soon, instead of the basically worthless piss tests they have now.

QUOTE(NYSox35 @ Jun 8, 2006 -> 12:16 PM) yuck...I hope not. Yankees are my #2 team and I'd hate to see them (or the White Sox for that matter) dragged through the mud. With Jason Giambi on that team, they have much bigger problems when it comes to the juice.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jun 8, 2006 -> 07:21 AM) For his efforts, Nelson will receive approx. $350,000 (pro-rated $500,000 salary), he had a nice room at the Westin for a couple of weeks, and now probably goes back to the broadcasting in Seattle. Not bad at all for him. This exit still has me shaking my head. I still think there is more to the story than elbow damage. I think you might be onto something there... Strange timing with this announcement and Grimsleys arrest and subsequent revealations.

Its too bad, but it is getting to the point where this isn't helping Brian at all. The most important thing is his getting ABs to further his development. In a way I wouldn't mind seeing him head to Charlotte, but at the sametime I don't want to see his confidence flushed down the toilet either, as we are going to need him this year.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 8, 2006 -> 09:55 AM) JIM, You are correct. Kind of. I transposed the numbers for cub/sox, but the MAIN TOTALS are still correct. I cleared them up. However, if you wouldve looked a little harder at my numbers, you wouldve NOTICED that the numbers were transposed because as I said, the TOTALS ARE STILL CORRECT. someone sounds like their nitpicking here. Lunacy? West is that you? Daver? Say man, you call it inferiority, I call it a bias. This isnt a "conspiracy" anymore, because Ive PROVEN BEYOND a doubt that their is a Media Bias against the SOX. You dont see this apparently, because my guess is you DONT want to see it. Thats fine if you dont want to look. But certainly calling me a lunatic, when I have stats to back up my theories doesnt make true smoking crack statements No. It isnt a "pretty big difference" because the TOTALS ARE STILL THE SAME. Q: IS there a bias in the Media Bias Study? Hangar18: YES, because im out to slam the Chicago Media for their obsession with everything cub. Wait then your post about there being more Tigers stories than Sox stories doesn't make any sense if it was just the numbers being transposed???

Interesting article. I was wondering the same kind of thing after hearing about certian teams looking for certian types of players in other situations, such as the Toronto Raptors looking for non-US players. Its not a big jump to see teams trying to do this in other respects.

This might be the most interesting thing of all. I don't know about Torii, but I would see a deal for Lew Ford as being an excellent move for the Sox, he's not too expensive, a clutch hitter, and a solid OFer. He shouldn't be too expensive, plus he wouldn't be able to kick our asses anymore.

QUOTE(minorsfan @ Jun 8, 2006 -> 09:01 AM) You're correct. Arnie Munoz was demoted to Birmingham from Charlotte, while Nate Cornejo was promoted from Birmingham to Charlotte all on June 5. Thanks for the pick up

Definately Cleveland. Detroit looked scared in these two games, and seems to be slipping into a tailspin.

Wow. That's a pretty big difference... So I have to ask this question, is there bias in the media bias study

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 8, 2006 -> 08:21 AM) I must have missed it, but is there a link that lists the players that have been named in this new leak? There is no link yet. At this point it is all rumor and innuendo unfortunately. I can't wait until the names start becoming public though.