iamshack

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 15, 2013 -> 11:42 AM) I can tell you guys don't watch a lot of Twins games No s***

I'm envisioning Y2H dancing to Daft Punk's new single right now...

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 15, 2013 -> 11:33 AM) Yes, but he doesn't explain why the team with guys he can't understand why the team signed and with pitchers who have nothing to get you out, happen to be winning the game. Or that Axelrod resembles just about every pitcher the Twins have had for the last 4 years outside of Liriano.

QUOTE (chw42 @ May 15, 2013 -> 11:34 AM) I work for IBM. Oh...good...

QUOTE (chw42 @ May 15, 2013 -> 11:21 AM) 4.3 will be out before that I think. They haven't mentioned it yet, so maybe that was a false rumor. If 5.0 does get released, it will be with the next Nexus later this year. Google's streaming service is already live, along with a new Google Play Music app. I'm already using it. It's slightly cheaper than Spotify on mobile, so that's good. I don't know if I'd pay $7 a month to play all my music on mobile though. Hey CHW...you got a job with Dell, right? Anything changed w/ them possibly getting bought out?

Adam!

QUOTE (flavum @ May 15, 2013 -> 10:41 AM) So who they play and when they play them doesn't matter? Ok, great. Keep living in a fantasy world where the Sox are better than the Tigers and they'll go 13-6 against them after July 8. That's not what anyone is saying.

At least Alex is hitting again

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 15, 2013 -> 10:27 AM) LOL. "This guy has nothing to get you out with. You have confidence when you walk into the batter's box. Average fastball is 88. All other pitches are below average." Nice, Twins' announcers. He can get you out with that!

So tired of that guy.

Yikes, where was that one?

K, knock him in

QUOTE (flavum @ May 15, 2013 -> 10:06 AM) They also had a tougher schedule last year, and had played the Tigers 8 games. They were 4-4 against them, and then would go 2-8 the rest of the way. By my calculations for competing, the Sox were 2 games behind where they should have been last year after 37 games. This year, we're 4 games behind where we should be. I'm kind of already booking 8-11 against the Tigers this year as a best case scenario. If you look at it that way, the Sox are 24-32, and they have the rest of the schedule to go 65-39 to finish 89-73. Bleak enough for you? It really bugs me that you try and plan all this out as if it is somehow reliable information. By your calculations for competing? What does that even mean?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 15, 2013 -> 09:43 AM) Not buying that there's no "carryover effect" at all from last season. He's the GM, he can't admit to that...but whatever. And the argument about the defense "getting to more balls put into play" is so hard to quantify or defend. If you've followed the team closely and compared it to last year, there's just 5X more mental mistakes (throwing to the wrong bases, missing cutoff men, lackadaisical routes, throws bouncing, wild pitches and passed balls, etc.) than just physical ones "caused by pressing," which seems to be the company line (Beckham and Konerko basically said the same thing). He also said the pitchers weren't pitching over mistakes as well as they did last year (well, before the final six weeks). "Execution equalling ability." Hmmmm... Plus, there's no denying the dropoff comparing Kepp vs. Beckham. But, that said, if we win today, 17-21 would match out record at the same point last year. Except I'm 98% sure that we weren't in last place with four teams stacked ahead of us and still a good distance out of 4th place (which would obviously also change with another win today). There are still 125 games left...I'm not concerned about being 5 games back or whatever. Obviously, they need to drastically cut back on their mental and physical errors in the field and start actually hitting the ball. If we can start playing like we are capable, we can start worrying about standings later. Otherwise, it's a moot point.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 15, 2013 -> 09:20 AM) Does keeping Ramirez win you a championship? Marty, I respect your willingness to be the Devil's Advocate, but the problem with your logic is there are just too many unknown variables which can occur to answer a question like this. Keeping Ramirez could certainly win a championship, if other things came together. Does trading Ramirez win you a championship?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 15, 2013 -> 09:01 AM) Two choices. Pull in additional revenue (higher attendance) or spend that money much more wisely. The Giants have a lot more margin for error (Zito) than we've had with Dunn/Danks. They're the "first team" in that market, and they have one of the most picturesque stadiums in all of baseball... They do, but I don't think their expenditures have been significantly higher.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 15, 2013 -> 08:57 AM) You can't compare our situation to anyone else's situation. The teams that have sucked did so because they made bad draft choices/acquisitions and failed to develop their players. The ones that have been successful have done just the opposite. Those results don't have anything to do with what the Sox should or shouldn't do in 2013. The answer, as nearly always, lies between the two extremes. It may require punting next year, but it doesn't have to come down to SPEND MOAR or SUCK FOR DECADES. It's just making sound long-term decisions, one-by-one. Agreed...but there are some here that are acting as if moving from a bad situation to a good or great situation is near impossible in a relative short period of time. They've asked us to provide examples that it can be done.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 15, 2013 -> 08:22 AM) In 1992, the Pirates and Royals were 10th and 11th respectively in league payroll, which is the top half of the league, but roughly middle of the pack. Then they lost, and lost, and continually lost, and eventually they lost their fans and market share, which in turn caused them to lose further revenue, and suddenly they were in a neverending spiral. As recently as 2007, the Astros spent $87 million on their payroll. They have new ownership now too, who I'm sure have money, but they still didn't spend and still have absolutely no talent with no end of their rebuild in site. Meanwhile, the Cardinals have gone through phases of losing players either to injury or free agency. That's a team that should have had to rebuild but, because of shrewd trades and free agent signings, they've been able to patch together very good teams over the last 3-5 years. There is absolutely nothing wrong with comparing. I would like you to show me one good example of a very short-term rebuild where the team found steady success after tearing it down. The only example that even begins to work is probably the Braves, and they've been one of the best run organizations in all of sports for the last 25 years. I still think the SF Giants are a pretty good model...where they were in 2007-2009 seems pretty similar to where we are now...I remember thinking they were a mess, with the Bonds thing coming to a disastrous ending, having Zito on the books for several more years, trading Tim Alderson to Pittsburgh for Freddy Sanchez, etc...they looked very lost...and turned it around very quickly. I don't see why we couldn't pull of the same thing.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 14, 2013 -> 06:59 PM) There is at least one regular female poster on Soxtalk. Ahh, so the views of one woman would save all of our souls from burning?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 14, 2013 -> 03:51 PM) No, it was a definitional page from the World Health Organization. It wasn't a "blog" and it wasn't an "opinion piece" any more than anything else on their site is. WHO is not exactly an ideological advocacy group, either. How it's used in law and how it's used in everyday language or defined by dictionaries doesn't actually define the concept. It's commonly used interchangeably, but they represent two distinct things. Nor is it WHO who is trying to "change" the word. It's a concept that's been discussed and studied for decades in the literature. You're rejecting a pretty core part of social science out-of-hand, something you apparently weren't even aware of before this afternoon. And then citing dictionary definitions which include the definition WHO uses. I'm also not sure how you square your beliefs that men and women truly are equal (and I believe you're earnest) while rejecting the concept of gender-as-social-construct. For example, gender in this society means stereotypically girls play with dolls and play "house" and are interested in barbie and other "girly" things while boys play with army men and get muddy. Unless there's some biological reason that girls would prefer dresses and dolls (there's not), then it must be an outcome of the cultural expectations they were raised with. That is what is meant by gender, and I don't see any reason other than that I'm arguing against you for you to just reject the whole idea. Maybe not dolls or dresses, but certainly things which focus on roles involving childcaring and nurturing of a child would be biological.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ May 14, 2013 -> 11:55 AM) IT'S MORE HEALTHY THAN STAYING THIN. And it isn't just thin vs. not thin. It's unhealthy thin. Going back to the Wikipedia entry on bulimia, the majority of women with bulimia are a HEALTHY WEIGHT TO BEGIN WITH. More from Jessica Clark from True Blood in Runner's World, http://www.runnersworld.com/celebrity-runn...ark?page=single "The fashion model aesthetic is evolving a little bit, but they still, overall, don't want you to be too defined. I always thought they wanted me to be "skinny fat" and not necessarily have a lot of lean muscle. I don't have the type of physique where I bulk up at all, but I do get extremely lean and you can definitely see the definition of my muscles, which I like and a lot of people like, and I think that's beautiful and powerful and sexy. But I did feel a sort of pressure to stay away from that. For example, generally speaking, they don't want you to have a six-pack; they don't want to see any lower-ab definition." Working out 2-3 hours per day to attain a certain body is very different from a look that is literally unattainable with exercise because exercise yields too much definition. You're talking about waifish fashion models now though...that is not the only media ideal...there are all kinds of women on tv now that are healthy but thin looking...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 14, 2013 -> 11:42 AM) Depends on the person. I could stay size-0 thin by sitting on my ass all day. If I wanted to weigh 200 lbs, I'd need to eat a ridiculous amount of calories and work out several hours a day. Pretty much picture Brandon McCarthy but a little bit lighter because I'm not a pro-athlete. On the other hand, Adam Dunn could never look like me without developing a series eating disorder. Bo Jackson was pretty much naturally a freak of nature and not a gym rat. That applies to women too, you know.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 14, 2013 -> 11:31 AM) Well, to me, the main difference is "normal" people don't have 2-3 hours per day (or, mostly importantly, the energy to do so), OR personal trainers to push them like a typical Hollywood actor. And even that isn't sustainable over the long-term...I remember the main model for Men's Health said he had to work out 3-4 hours a day to be in that kind of shape. Tell me that is more attainable than staying thin.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ May 14, 2013 -> 11:13 AM) No, the princesses don't have eating disorders. But they do have a body type that isn't an attainable body type. From the Wikipedia article on Bulimia, "The media projects a thin-ideal rather than a healthy-ideal, and this causes women and young girls to work toward having a thin body even if it means purging.[13]" From an article in Runner's World with Jessica Clark from True Blood, "The physical requirements of modeling are very specific: They need you to be extremely thin. I got into a lot of unhealthy habits, which I think is very common for a lot of us, especially at that young age and dealing with that kind of pressure. I wasn't feeling very good, either mentally or physically, for a long time. It got to a point where I consciously needed to and wanted to get healthy. I was tired of feeling so weak and frail and exhausted all the time, and I thought there had to be a different way to do this and so I started running." The "ideal" female body image portrayed by the media is an unhealthy one that leads women to have specific eating disorders at a rate 9x that of men. The "ideal" male body image is a much healthier image, even if it (arguably) leads males to take shortcuts (steroids) to get there. I'd argue that the image portrayed by many male leads is not particularly attainable either. Just like women starve themselves and take a regimen of diet pills and fat burners, the men are taking syringes in their asses. Neither are healthy and neither are easily attainable. Should I taking testosterone supplements because my body has naturally slowed down its production? Something tells me that long term that would not be healthy. My guess is the reason you're saying the female ideal is unhealthy while the male ideal is healthy is because the habits to achieve the former have been covered by the media a LOT more than those to achieve the latter.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 14, 2013 -> 11:02 AM) leave my over-played analogy alone, bro. (I don't think a lame Olympic medal joke is the mark of intellectual elitism!) See, I think you and I pretty much agree here. Women are sexualized and judged more and it impedes them more because men have power. It's a self-reinforcing cycle. This plays out in so much of femininity being sexualized and held to an unrealistic standard of beauty. I agree with you on a lot of things, I just don't agree with your response to them much of the time. I think sometimes we've got to pick our battles. If we try to save the entire world at once, we're most likely not going to win any of them.