Pants Rowland

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Mar 30, 2010 -> 08:09 PM) What? How was it a mistake to keep a guy who can play 2b, 3b, SS, Lf and is hitting .341 this spring with an .OPB of .386 and an OPS of .850? Those aren’t even close to being poor numbers. What’s up with this recent surge in hatred for Jayson Nix? He was a rookie last year, and made rookie mistakes. He’s going to have an adjustment period just like everyone else. He's had a fair amount of service time already and is nothing too spectacular overall. If I recall correctly, he also had a really nice spring last year and the 2009 results weren't great. I understand why he is on the roster, but I am not sure he is going to add much value over 162 games.

Anyone hear Rongey's interview of Matt Thornton this evening? Thornton is a really good interview and the Ranger did a great job covering some interesting topics. Then at the end, they are talking about how this is his 7th season. Thornton mentions it is his 5th with the White Sox and what a great experience it has been. He then says something like, "I hope I can stay with the Sox for another 5 years and finish my career here, but if not...whatever." It was such a hilarious nonchalant end to a really positive initial thought. Really funny stuff to me. Between that and the weather, I was wishing I could drive straight to the cell and catch 9 innings. Just 6 more days...

Misses the game today but reading this thread made up for it (still a bit sorry for missing the talent, though).

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Mar 29, 2010 -> 02:08 PM) yes, for about $140m payroll it's amazing what their roster looks like Sometimes I think the Cub bashing here gets too emotional but your comment is spot on and illustrates how bad a GM Hendry is. They may win the WS this year and make us all look like fools, but on paper this has to be one of the worst looking teams you can assemble at that price tag.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 28, 2010 -> 11:39 AM) you all... are trying to paint millions of people in a light that is simply not true... You mean like saying that a majority of Americans being against the healthcare bill equals the majority of Americans being against healthcare reform? On the whole Tea Party issue, I understand that this movement is full of all kinds of people with the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" attitude. Since its inception the followers have proven to be from all sides of the political spectrum. The only thing they ALL seem to have in common is disillusionment and possibly unemployment. However, in my opinion, the far right teabaggers appear to be getting the most publicity and are beginning to define the movement itself. We could blame the liberal media for this except Fox News seems to be giving them as much air time as anyone. Furthermore, when you invite Sarah Palin to be your keynote speaker, it makes it tougher to refute the notion that the Tea Party has turned into the Green Party for the right. I have also heard some say the invitation of Palin was a renegade act of and does not reflect the views of the national movement. I can concede such a point, but listening to interviews and seeing the hateful messages on banners at these rallies has me wondering whether this is a grass roots or nationalist movement. It is a fine line but I believe the Teabaggers have crossed it. Can we all at least agree that the term "teabagger" still makes us snicker when we hear it? ;-)

I really don't care one way or another, but why is it a strikeout is better than a groundout? As impressive as Wood was that day, he did allow 2 baserunners, one of which he hit. I have also heard from a Cub fan friend that was there that day that Orie's non-play was definitely a hit. I'm not saying that makes it less impressive than the perfecto, but I think we sometimes miss the bigger picture when it comes to smart soft tossing pitchers. If a pitcher is fearless enough to throw it in a spot just attractive enough to swing at it, but off just enough that the hitter fails to square it up, is it any less impressive than a guy who can't be touched? Wood's outing may be more of a physical feat, but Buehrle's intelligence as a pitcher is what made him equally as unhittable (if not untouchable) that day and has him consistently throwing 200 innings every year. Wood's long time need to throw the ball through the catcher seriously curtailed what could have been an unbelievable career. So hats off to him for the 20 strikeouts, but remember, ground balls can be just as good and are more democratic, too.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 09:53 PM) Sure, when the shoe's on the other foot, it's ok. QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 09:53 PM) GMAFB. You people are sick. Your ultra-conservative crusade is really turning into a tired act. Cantor's report of targeted violence was clearly a contrived farce. If you want people to take your arguments seriously, you will need to concede on some of the no brainers. I called out a friend for posting a b.s. story this week about Bush Jr. wiping Haitian cooties off his hand and onto Bill Clinton. I would hope you could do the same with Cantor's diversion. Please, let's all try to start using common sense again.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 12:44 PM) Texas is another country though, right? We could only hope. I wish Lincoln had let them all go when he had the chance.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 25, 2010 -> 11:57 AM) invoked. Goodwin. LOL. I had never heard of Godwin or his hypothesis before. Thanks for the laugh.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 25, 2010 -> 10:49 AM) That's the part that actually bothers me here (bolded). The rest, I think we're just not nearly at that kind of level, and won't get there either. I hope (and believe) you are correct, but it is disturbing to see what 10% unemployment reveals about some of our neighbors. It is even scarier to think what might happen if we saw unemployment at depression era levels.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 25, 2010 -> 10:30 AM) I wouldn't go as far as to compare this to 1930's Germany, but I agree that its disgusting and disturbing to see the GOP heads on Congress refuse to step up for this. There's partisan B.S., and then there's being dangerously uncivil. QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 25, 2010 -> 10:34 AM) er, if kristallnacht was merely this, nobody would remember kristallnacht. I agree on both counts. The economic panic is nowhere near what took place in Germany and these threats and actions are far less organized and widespread, but there are some parallels between the nazis and teabaggers that I find disturbing. While it was a stretch to compare this to Kristallnacht, it is not a stretch to compare it to the actions of Hitler and his gangs in the early part of the 1930s when they were randomly targeting citizens and no one thought to do much about it. I do not have numbers, but in addition to deep seated ignorance and hatred, the one thing I suspect both movements really have in common is unemployment. Adults, like children, need to be kept busy or they find ways to get in trouble. Losing your money tends to make people act crazy and it is manifesting in an ugly way right now. What's worse is the GOP is either okay with it, or too afraid to get on the wrong side of the teabaggers and remain silent.

I am sorry, but at risk of upsetting any posters on this forum, these actions are akin to Kristallnacht. I am not necessarily blaming the Republicans, but our lawmakers have a duty to the citizens of this country to promote civil peace. There should be a unanimous motion to denounce such acts of violence, random or not. Our economic situation is not as dire as the Weimar republic but the nationalist movement in Germany started small and no one did anything to stop it until it was far too late. I see many parallels between the situation in the U.S. today and Germany back in the 1930s. Remaining silent on such actions, or more importantly, refusing to join all lawmakers denouncing them, is effectively an endorsement of an angry mob and is as deplorable as the acts themselves.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 10:03 AM) Pay that man his money. QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 03:30 PM) Awesome

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 02:13 PM) I'm sure bringing up Sweden will cause some eyes to roll. But yes, in Sweden, their doctors make a lot less money. I don't think anyone could fight the doctors and win. People like doctors. But, you saw a shift in sweden to the way they practice medicine. With them not getting paid by how much treatment they can give to a patient, a lot more focus on preventative medicine occurred. What does that mean? A lot of US medicine relies on suppression of viruses/bacteria. Suppression once it becomes a problem. This does, in fact, solve peoples short term problems. In Sweden, there is a lot more medical practice than here to boost peoples immune systems and health so that they don't become sick. This is important, and I hope we can begin to move towards this. I don't think the bill addresses the problem at all with this, but if it causes an attitude shift, than that can achieve a lot. Not rolling my eyes at all. I think the focus on drugs and cures rather than wellness and prevention are the root of our health problems in this country. I believe that the difficulty in changing the mindset of the healthcare industry will be negligible compared to changing the mindset of the public overall.

Sorry for the double post, but I just saw this from a FB friend. I thought it brought up some good points: Those that say this bill costs too much fail to see that it is just an expensive item. It is also too early to determine the cost savings from people getting access before illness turns critical. We pay about 70% of total healthcare dollars in the last year of life. If we can get people under a doctor's care earlier these numbers should improve. Cost will always be an issue when considering national domestic policy. Legislation often makes implicit costs explicit. In other words, these costs already exist in the system. These costs are borne by employees not changing jobs because of insurance issues. The costs are borne by people living in pain with chronic untreated illness. The costs are borne by local municipalities who fund emergency rooms. The costs are borne by millions of families who suffer in silence. Just as and aside, the Healthcare Legislation will cost less than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Substantially less when you consider the long term cost of dealing with the veterans' medical issues.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 01:17 PM) That's what I've been saying all along. I will edit by saying it does do SOME good things in the insurance arena that I felt were necessary, but it then does some very negative things without fixing the underlying issues at all -- cost. The costs remain the same, but now taxpayers help foot the bill...only now we have 30,000,000 more people involved. Funny that all the health care and drug stocks are up. The financial sector seems to think, if anything, this HELPED them more than it hurt them. Edit again, I see some insurance companies are down now, but not much. Only time will allow this to play out, but I think you are going to see a lot of those costs are going to shift from one area to another and the additional 30 million will actually prove beneficial to keeping per capita costs down. In other words, there are a large number of low risk insured in the 30 million that their premiums will more than offset the cost of the higher risk patients. Further, by getting some people in the middle ground to be less apprehensive about seeking help for their ailments, you help eliminate more burdensome costs down the line. For example, say you are uninsured and injure your knee and decide to wait to see if it gets better because you are worried about the cost to get it checked out. In the short run, the doctor may prescribe a heavy dosage of ibuprofen with some light stretching exercises to strengthen the area. Overall, a pretty low cost solution that many of us have dealt with in the past. However, because you do not get any advice you rest it instead and overall you just weaken the area more. Rather than stabilizing, the knee ends up bothering you for a long time and continues to get worse, slowly, but surely. Your gait changes slightly and exacerbates the problem. Before long you end up with arthritis and can't walk. Then you are forced to quit your job because of health limitations. Before long you are on government support because you did not pay for some simple advice and were too ignorant to know better. Then we are all paying a lot more for that person's health coverage than we ever realized was possible. I know I am drawing a very doomsday scenario, but stuff this this does happen. That is why I wish that everyone (ie illegals) was included in the bill. It is the power of numbers that help keep the costs down individually. That is how all the poor individual taxpayers were able to pool their money and bail out the banking system when it was on the verge of collapse.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 11:42 AM) So what does this legislation do to solve this problem? QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 12:24 PM) depends if you read policy wonks or political bloggers. I think a lot of points from bmags post address your question.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 11:11 AM) No disagreeing that there's a TON of waste in defense spending, but that's an apple to oranges comparison. Unless we form up private militias and weapon stockpiles, we can't protect ourselves as individuals. People can, on the other hand, get adequate health coverage. I tend to disagree that it is apples to oranges. The stated goal of a lot of government programs is to protect the health and wealth being of the population. This includes things such as defense, health care, environmental protection, even education to an extent. Although addressing each of these items requires different expertise, the result should be the most people "covered" as possible. Further, by incorporating as many people as possible into such protections, there should be some buying power involved that helps keep per capita costs at a minimum. By adding 30+ million people to the insured population and putting certain controls in place, we should be lowering a lot of cost and waste in the healthcare industry overall, even if it is accompanied by some inefficiencies and fraud. Inefficiencies and fraud are part of both the public (government) and private (insurance companies) sector. It is just a lot easier to cite the government for such maladies. The truth is that anyone covered right now is paying a voluntary tax in high premiums and such items as $15 aspirin tablets during their hospital stays.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 11:03 AM) Makes me wonder why we think another government program is going to SAVE us money. Saving money is secondary to providing adequate coverage for the country. It is important to prevent wasteful spending, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that is the government's goal on every one of it's programs. We have a lot of waste in defense spending all in the name of protecting American lives. Aren't they protecting a lot of the same freeloaders and loafers that health care is going to prop up?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 10:44 AM) The bill was changed 500 times in that year, it's not remotely the same as it was when it started. So if you read it a year ago, its likely that most of it's not what you read. I frequently have to read through legal documents for work. They are usually no more than 100 pages, including exhibits. After the first iteration, there are always changes sent back to the other side in clean and blackline format. It goes back and forth like this so that both sides can quickly see the changes made and negotiate. Everyone has the technology to run a comparison test between the old file and the new to make sure nothing was snuck in to fool you. I assume that these capabilities are at the disposal of these congressmen. It is one thing to debate the merits of the bill, but wake up people! Some of these arguments sound like the work of old people who don't understand the technology now available or worse yet, lazy kids who make up excuses because they don't want to do their homework. If a congressman doesn't have the ability to sit down and read these documents in a timely fashion, then what are we paying him/her to do?

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 10:35 PM) This has about as much chance of working for America as Dewayne Wise in Center did for the White Sox. It's good to see that the wishes of the plurality of the American people are ignored in favor of a slavish partisan desire to inact change. This is not a pure democracy, and based on the seasonality of polls, I am not sure I want my elected officials bouncing around on issues based on what polls say. Also, although many people polled said they were against this specific bill, the number of reasons for opposition were broad. In fact, from a general standpoint, many polls regarding healthcare overall show the population favors reform. The problem for many was that this bill either did too much or did not go far enough. The fact is, not many people like to compromise. Most prefer to get their way, so it makes sense that many on both sides are unhappy with the final bill. To me that is good indication that this bill is exactly what is needed as it shows both sides had to compromise to make it happen. My father used to say that the worst compromise is still preferable to the best judgement. As much as I fear that the politicians' interests are driven by their donors and lobbyists rather than their constituents, I think many of the congressional leaders understood that there had to be compromises to make any type of progress.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 20, 2010 -> 08:39 PM) Thanks guys but I treat this day no differently than any other day. Been sitting around reading Marx, Castro, or Lenin whenever I get a break from working the fields. Groucho, Starlin and John? Many years to you, comrade.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 03:05 PM) I beat you to it, I just used the AL Central thread. Yeah, I noticed yours in the other thread after I had posted. You beat me, straight up!

Kerry Wood out at least 6 weeks to start the season. In other news, the sky is blue. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2010/n...tory?id=5013052

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Mar 18, 2010 -> 09:10 PM) I don't usually bump old threads outta the blue. But considering this has been the most boring spring training in years, we're still some 17 days away from opening day, and we've got threads highlighting players NCAA brackets, I don't see any harm. Was it ever determined why this deal never materialized? Did we want too much? Did the Reds not want to pay Dye's entire salary? Was it just BS from the start? I really don't remember. I'd hope that it had nothing to do with us either wanting too much (Bailey+) or refusing to part with any money to cover at least a portion of Dye's '09 salary. Because if so we totally dropped the ball. Bailey was filthy in his last 9 starts last year. And all the talk about how his stuff/velocity just vanished was all that, talk. Bailey's average FB velocity last year was 94.5. It was believed that the reason it was down in '08 was because of injuries. Of course, we had some (not naming names), that chose to ignore all that and come to their own "expert" conclusions. To those people, whatever your day job is, please, don't EVER quit it. I know it's worthless to sulk about it now. Especially when you consider that Jermaine Dye is currently rotting somewhere in baseball's abyss. But I can't help but imagine a Peavy/Buehrle/Danks/Floyd/Bailey starting 5. If Bailey did join the Sox, I doubt the Peavy trade happens. However, with that said, the Sox may have taken some of their trading chips from the Peavy trade (and anything else) and had some more flexibility to pick up another bat. So many variable change if that deal happened, though. If I recall correctly, however, I think the holdup in the trade had something to do with Abreu, didn't it? I am probably mistaken, but I seem to recall the Sox needed to come to terms with a FA outfielder first before dealing Dye.