Pants Rowland

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:15 PM) So he wants to abolish social welfare, but it would have been OK to buy off our enemies (well the rebs anyway) who had enslaved an entire race of people? Buying off our enemies has been a part of our foreign policy failings for decades now. It usually leads to wars later, at a more expensive cost, in terms of dollars, and in lives. ( see WW II) I am not sure the appeasement of a foreign power leading up to WWII is really an apples to apples comparison. He was merely listing alternatives to the civil war and mentioned that this did work in other countries with sanctioned slavery. His point was the war inflicted deeper wounds that are still healing this very day. I also would not consider slave states our "enemies" since he was talking about prior to the civil war, when they were still very much part of the union. Besides, let's not fool ourselves to think the slave-owning landed gentry of the south was any more or less evil in their treatment of mankind than the robber barons of the north who took control of this nation during the industrial revolution. The systematic attempts to monopolize industry and control the working population was as bad as, if not worse than the system of slavery itself. What's worse is many of these companies are still in existence today and continue to exploit the workers, if not here in the U.S., then abroad where they can obtain cheap labor without government regulation or unions to check their power.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 05:51 PM) I guess I see two different kinds of back-slapping. The congenial, business-like art of compromise across party lines is not only good, but its precisely what is missing (for the most part) from the current government, particularly our stubborn-as-chic executive. Then there is the back room, you fund my oil company and I'll see you at the country club kind of B.S. And that is revolting to me as well. 100% agreement. Despite hsi time exclusively in the House, I do find Paul to be well-informed. While I disagree with him on a few issues, his overall platform is compelling and does make you think about serious flaws in the system that we accept as normal but should be outraged over.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 05:30 PM) You seem to have interpereted my statements as meaning I like the Senate. I don't. But its just reality that Senate seats are fewer, harder to get, and generally populated by more experienced people who have more direct interaction with the other branches of government. Its the senior body of the legislature. And while the Presidential candidates tend to illustrate their ability to stick to their guns, in reality, the Presidents who have been most successful have been the ones who knew how to compromise and work with the other party. That's what the Senate does well, and that makes them much better candidates for President than House Reps. Still, all else being equal, I prefer executive leadership experience - like that which governors often bring to the table. ETA: And to add, along the lines of books on the Senate, I recommend Master of the Senate - about LBJ. I did not necessarily think you were pro-Senate. I see your point, but my take is being a Senator typically is a reflection of your lot in life and not necessarily of your qualifications. Compromise is great but I find the palm pressing and back patting in the Senate revolting at times. I like the independent nature of representatives although I do agree that the best options are typically former governors with track records to compare rather than voting records on every silly bill to come across their desks over the past 25 years. Thanks for the book tip.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 01:20 PM) This is a little better. And not to nitpick, but it is secession, not succession. I'm not sure I agree with your economics argument. England and other European nations were very much straddling the fence on which side to take at the outset of the War. Had the Union simply allowed the Confederacy to secede, there is a very reasonable chance that the Confederacy's economy could have sustained itself on exports of cotton and other cash crops to Europe, at least for some period of decades. And had that occurred, no one can really speculate what the United States would be today... Something to note is that in 1888, Brazil became the last nation to abolish slavery. If the U.S. allowed the south the secede and form its own country, it would only have been a matter of time before they were forced to face the reality that their system was on the decline and they were destined to become a third world nation facing the same problems of Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and countless others that exhausted a one-dimensional economy based on agriculture and slavery. I am under no illusion to believe that slavery did not exist legally throughout the world under other titles during this time (including sharecropping and the virtually enslavement of the continent of Africa through much of the 20th century). However, the trend in the civilized world has generally been in the opposite direction of institutionally sponsored slavery. Whether via a slave revolt or a gradual breakdown of the institution, slavery would have ended one way or another and the seceding states would have been forced to come to terms with reality on their own. I have heard Dr. Paul's arguments against the civil war and they are fairly compelling. His stance is it would have been cheaper for the federal government to buy the freedom of all slaves rather than fight a long protracted war. Futher, the war and reconstruction deepened southern animosity against the north while simultaneously sowing (and fertilizing) the seeds for legislated segregation and discrimination.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:18 PM) Others have few years but higher level experience as Senators, or executive experience as Governors. Please enlighten me as to how being a Senator is better experience than being a representative. I recently learned that the Senate was modeled after the House of Lords while the House of Reps was more in line with the House of Commons. Senators were well-to-dos who did little to nothing until Jefferson split from the Federalists. Things have obviously changed dramatically since then, but one thing that is certain is it is very difficult to be elected president of the U.S. if you served in the Senate. Frequently out of touch and overly compromising, the work and experience of the Senator is in no way shape or form any more senior or qualifying for higher office than that of a Rep. That is why you frequently see former governors win the oval office. They have legitimate executive experience rather than faux leadership of a state such as that of a Senator. Further, Senators are so pressured to fall in line with party voting that they get in the habit of compromising their convictions. To me, that is forgivable and necessary to make the Senate work. With that said, while a forgivable and necessary evil, the compromising/patronizing mentality of a Senator is not the type of politician I want to be the Commander in Chief. I agree that executive experience is a positive, but I also like the independent nature of a congressional rep. They typically vote their conviction and have a better perspective on taking care of their constituents than Senators do. An interesting read to find more on how the Senate evolved is JFK's Profiles in Courage. The more you learn about the Senate, the more you realize it is very much an elitist body that is extremely difficult to enter and nearly as difficult to get ousted from.

I go back to about the '82 season. A lot of players had their ups and downs but none sucked so badly and was a bigger jackass than Jaime Navarro. His tenure on the south side still sticks in my craw. Honorable mention goes to Tony Phillips (good call by a couple posters). As a manager Terry Boom Boom Bevington is in the same camp, although I did not care much for Gene Lamont either. I still remember him saving a banged up Thomas for the 1993 World Series before the pennant was wrapped up. I am surprised I did not catch any Todd Ritchie votes. Maybe I missed it but he was really craptastic.

I think one thing not being considered is with most young players, once around the league, veterans and scouts learn a little something about you. This is magnified if you hit 20+ home runs during your first partial season. The league is going to have better reports on Josh this year and will make adjustments accordingly. They also may pitch around him in some situations knowing what he can do with the bat. If he is as good as some people project, he will take his lumps when the league adjusts and make his own adjustments. Some say the sophomore slump is a thing of the past. The thought is the home team learns the weaknesses first and the great players fix any problems before the league has a chance to adjust in their second season. I do not think it works in real time just yet and expect to see Josh struggle at times this year. One other item to note is Josh is yet to play a full seaon in the major leagues. That wears players down considerably over 162 games and is as big a contributor to slumps, illness, injuries, etc. as anything. I am not saying Fields is not capable of 40 HR. I hope he does it, but annualizing his statistics from his first 350 ABs is probably a flawed approach, albeit the only one we can go off of for now.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 04:49 PM) One way to improve the club is to trade Pauly for Kendrick, Figgins and Santana. Then we ship out Kendrick, Danks and Santana to Baltamore for Bedard, how can the O's say no to that? I know Bedard is a great catch, but is that too much talent to give up? How would such a package compare to the names being thrown around for a potential deal with Seattle?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 01:52 PM) 1992...And suddenly...every unsolved murder in Chicago was declared solved. You just don't know when to quit, do you Saxie?!

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 04:09 PM) Even if the Sox continue to suck this season, the Tigers are no lock for the Central title. Same goes for the Tribe. It's a lot more wide open than some people seem to think. No kidding. Everyone keeps dismissing the Twins and Royals. KC has no track record right now so it makes sense not to consider them a contender. However, if no deals for Santana or Nathan take place and Liriano is even 75% as effective as he was when he first came up, they have as good a chance as anyone. You know they will still play the game right and always do well at home. Their offense will take a hit, but Delmon Young will be a nice addition. I hate when people dismiss them. That is usually when they play .750 ball in the second half and leave everyone with their mouths hanging open wondering what happened.

QUOTE(buckweaver @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 03:19 PM) Full agreement from me! Now...how can we get this done? Great couple of posts. Thank you. With the self-serving approach of the MLBPA and the Fat Cat owners, I think it would have to be coaxed by a governing body outside of MLB. The right person in Washington would have to take all parties behind closed doors and say something to the effect of "You guys take care of this or we will come after everyone for facilitating such illegal activities". Unfortunately, I think there are friends of the owners in D.C. (such as Dubyah himself) who would make sure this won't happen. It is too bad since it makes it impossible to put these things in the past and start clean.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 03:19 PM) Jim Rice was a career .277/.330/.459/.789 away from Fenway and .320/.374/.546/.920 at Fenway. Burks for his career in general was .279/.352/.480/.832 away from home and .304/.375/.542/.917 at home. They both benefitted playing in some good parks to hit, but keep in mind Rice spent his ENTIRE career at Fenway, perhaps the best park ever built for right handed power hitters, although Burks was in Colorado and Boston most of his until having some nice years later on in Cleveland. The similarities never end with those two. You've convinced me...I am votingfor Burks for the HOF!

QUOTE(flavum @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 01:52 PM) I'd like to see MLB acknowledge the past, and how they were just as guilty as the players taking the drugs, and move on. The way they can move on with integrity is to have a ZERO tolerance policy. If you're caught with HGH or steroids in your system, or purchasing them, you're gone--forever. I want to see this rule be equal to gambling on the game. You think we'd see a huge dropoff in use? You're damn right. I know the player's association would never go for this, but I don't care if the government makes the decision for them. Hold the antitrust exemption over the heads, for all I care. Time to clean up the game for good. Amen to that! I would love to see a sort of Truth and Reconciliation Hearing where all players, owners, etc. are asked to come clean about anything they have done or seen. Find out the reasons it was allowed to continue for so long, listen to suggestions on how to tighten things up and grant complete amnesty to all parties who come forward and speak frankly (at least about their own wrongdoing). Going forward, institute strict testing and clear rules where a positive test results in swift dismissal from the major and minor leagues. Also find ways to penalize teams for allowing drug cultures to exist a la the Oakland A's, among many others.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 10:53 AM) Himes also had some high draft picks to work with. Agreed, but he did well with them. Those were some abyssmal teams in the mid 80's.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 05:13 PM) a lot has to do with the fact that he fired 90% of all his scouting system and simply hired on legitimate guys - not his friends to do the work. Would what the White Sox did in the past year with regard to scouting and player development mirror what you mention above about Beane or do you think it is not as comprehensive? Also, I always felt the absolute best GM the Sox ever had STRICTLY with respect to drafting and player development was Larry Himes. Maybe I am just biased because of some of the great young talent that came up for the Sox in the late 80's and early 90's but I would be interested to hear your perspective on the Himes approach to the minors vs KW' recent cleaning of the house. As always, thanks for the insight.

QUOTE(False Alarm @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 09:23 AM) c'mon now man if they was in such good shape and had been drafting that well, he wouldn't've had to just trade in his two affordable young stars to replenish the farm. incidentally what do peeps think of an "Ask BureauEmployee171" sticky thread? dude's got great info but it's scattered all over the board too. might be nice to have a single place you could go to see him riffin on stuff. just a thought. Huzzah to that plan, Dweez.

QUOTE(WHITESOXRANDY @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 08:49 AM) Now, we'll have to sit through all of the interviews from current and former White Sox personnel about their Gossage stories and read so many articles in all of the Chicago area papers about Gossage development in the Sox minor league system and his 5 years with the team replete with all kinds of highlights and so many pictures of him in a Sox uniform. This could go on for weeks with this town celebrating former White Sox Gossage's election to the HOF. Oh wait, I forgot we're not the flubs so we won't see any of that. Barry Rozner will write his Daily Herald article about former Montreal Expo Andre Dawson. The most mention I have seen on his time with the Sox (did not read today's stories, though) is how he pitched for both sides of town. Anyone who had a cup of coffee on the north side automatically becomes an ex-Cub. Pathetic.

QUOTE(Hatchetman @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 03:07 PM) It's scary that Phil Rogers does the BA top ten. That guy is clueless. I believe it was Phil who criticized the "shortsightedness" of any fans that liked the Swisher trade and lamented how much further KW set the Sox back this year. He sucks monkey butt.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 02:28 PM) As I've said before... We have been waiting for you. Thanks for finally debunking the MiLB stats. Anything you can say about Gio's supposed dominance at AA or DLS being the second coming of Johan? Also, are you at liberty to comment overall on the trade itself? I like Swisher but some in the local media are saying the casual fan is shortsighted and doesn't realize how it is setting the White Sox organization back. Would like to hear anything you can share.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 05:17 PM) I saw that earlier. As long as she shows up at the Cell, this deal is already worth it. "Feel Lucky" on Google with her name and you won't be disappointed.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 05:09 PM) James Baldwin was #8 overall on the Baseball America prospects list in 1994. Right behind this Manny Ramirez dude. Thnaks. Very respectable performance out of the top 20 on that 1994 list.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 04:57 PM) James Baldwin. Started the 2000 All-Star Game I believe. Per Wikipedia, he did not start that game (David Wells of TOR did). Was he a top 10 prospect for the Sox at one point in time?

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 04:45 PM) Who is the last White Sox pitcher the Sox drafted and was home grown like DLS or Gio.... I think the last WSox homegrown pitcher to make/start the ASG was Buehrle. As far as top ten prospects drafted by the Sox...Fernandez? Bere? McDowell? StatManDu, where are you?

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 04:05 PM) Now, if we could somehow swing a Crede/Konerko for Figgins/Santana/spect(s) deal, we'd be incredibly improved. SP - Buehrle SP - Vazquez SP - Contreras SP - Danks SP - Santana I agree that the biggest need on the remaining wish list is a pitcher. However, I think the Sox need a 3rd starter far more than they need another 5th starter. I do agree one of Danks/Floyd should be the odd man out. With that said, if you have to live with Contreras, he needs to get shuffled down at least one slot. I believe the best answer (if it is really possible), is to parlay PK and Crede for as much young talent possible, with the thought that some or all of said players and either Danks or Floyd could net a return of a Bedard or some other name not on the radar right now. Not sure what team could provide the best match for PK, but I do not think it is the LAA. Maybe AZ? Maybe team X?

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 03:55 PM) For some reason the lights are on at USCF right now. ...but nobody's home? :-) Just kidding. I like the trade and it gives me hope that KW continues to improve on the present and future of the team.