iamshack

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 01:30 PM) Not too early on a guy who is out of options and was supposed to be dominating in 2007. Masset has not really been all that good at the minor league level stat-wise. With all the talk last year how Sox pitchers were burned out because of the playoffs, I questioned on this board whether Masset pitching in winter ball would effect his performance during the season. Of course I was laughed at. KW mentioned the other day they think Masset's workload last winter took 4-5 MPH off his fastball. We shall see. I would think he's a longshot right now. He has a lot of problems finding the strike zone. You sure love to remind everyone when you were/are "right" about something, don't you?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 01:18 PM) He also thought the addition of Erstad was a great one, that he'd bounce back and have a huge year in '07. Oops. Steve Stone has been way off on a lot of players lately. I think he feels a bit of an obligation to speak "positively" about certain situations as well. If he does indeed have some "consulting" role with the White Sox, whether formal or informal, combined with the fact that he is also employed by them formally in a part-time broadcasting situation, it might be hard to criticize the organization's moves in his role with the Score. Generally, I like what he has to say. But I normally take his comments about specific players or specific acquisitions with a grain of salt...

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 12:57 PM) No, I mean he had a conversation with Reinsdorf and suggested the Sox make a move for Crisp. He told Reinsdorf that Crisp would be invaluable as a true CF who can defend well and is a likely bounce-back candidate. Not that I am disappointed in this, but since when has Stone become a "consultant" to Jerry Reinsdorf as opposed to a part-time broadcaster?

I honestly believe there is a fundamental conundrum with the issue of "sexism," especially as it impacts the workplace.... Let me premise this by stating that I was raised by a single mother for most of my childhood, who worked full-time from about the time I was four years of age. Women are, biologically, the more nurturing gender. They are also, quite obviously, biologically tied to the birthing and upbringing of our children. Whether a woman births and raises children prior to entering the workplace (which was often the case in the "Baby-boomer's" generation), or chooses to temporarily or permanently exit the workplace while doing so (much more popular among the current generation of women entering their child-birthing years), there are often very important issues which create complexity in the manner in which employers treat these women. While progress has been made by employers as they adapt to the more "career-oriented" brand of mother, these issues simply cannot be overlooked. Whether it is paternity leave and the obstacles created by it, or mothers more permanently exiting the workplace, or mothers or grandmothers scaling back their contributions in the work environment to help care for children, these issues create or add a complexity to the workplace that makes these particular employees unique. How do employers (and their employees) address these scenarios, being sympathetic to the issues of motherhood and child-bearing, yet considering what's best for the company or organization as well? To me, this creates obvious issues which cannot simply be dismissed by saying "working mothers/grandmothers should be treated absolutely equal to their male counterparts. I simply don't know that this is possible. Now, before everyone jumps down my throat for being antiquated, I'd just like to explain a few of my concerns: While men and certainly working fathers have absolutely evolved as a group in their functions as caregivers for their children or grandchildren over the past few decades, we must ask ourselves the question "Is this truly beneficial or better for our children"? It's my general belief that our society as a whole benefits from having children who are raised by at least one steady parent who is present the majority of the time and whose primary function is the caregiving or upbringing of their child/children/grandchildren. Because women are the more nurturing gender, and as I said earlier, obviously biologically tied to the birthing and raising of her children, it certainly seems that they are the more "qualified" or optimal of the genders to do so. While having both parents around the majority of the time would obviously be the most advantageous of circumstances, reality, for the most part, prohibits this. And I do understand that sometimes, at least, it prevents both parents from not participating at least in some form in the "breadwinning" capacity. But I struggle with the idea of the career-oriented woman who is also playing the role of mother and/or grandmother. And while I certainly don't mean to suggest that women shouldn't have as much right as anyone to participate and advance in the workplace and in their careers, the issue really confounds me. Are we better as a society with children who spend most of their days in daycare, or with a babysitter, or with little parental supervision and guidance until the workday is over? How can we allow our mother and grandmothers the same opportunities in the workplace and in their careers without jeopardizing the quality of our children and our future? Obviously, there is an entirely other side to sexism that I did not address here, but these are some of the issues I struggle with when I begin thinking about sexism and women in the workplace... Thoughts?

QUOTE(AngelasDaddy0427 @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 10:52 PM) Any trade for Crisp would of taken a minimum of FLS + Gio + Someone else... That would of been a joke of a trade... Indeed it would have been...

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 10:15 PM) Golden Girls Yes! Finally! Glad to see someone is awake!

QUOTE(max power @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 08:17 PM) That's a good point. In some areas last year, like seattle, the market was actually up. I am a real estate broker and investor among other things. Right now I am buying up as much as I can because my strategy is to profit off monthly rental income and prices are low. So regardless of if they rebound, I will own all of my properties outright in 30 years and be able to retire. If prices do rebound and the market starts going nuts in 5 years or whatever your guess might be, I also have the option to refinance, use the cash, or sell. There is a lot I can do. My main point is though, in a market like this where everyone is thinking, oh crap the market sucks, you should consider(very carefully) buying investment property. Also if I were thinking of living in house for a good amount of time, more than a few years, I would definitely buy Vs. rent. Even if I could foreseeably own and rent the property and I was going to move in less than that, ss long as that was profitable I'd do that too. Absolutely. The question is at what point do you buy...like Balta has pointed out several times, it looks as though this market will continue to worsen, so timing is everything when you're talking about maxing-out your investment potential.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 06:08 PM) Name a Sox hitter last year who was in his "peak years" last year... They've got a bunch of over 30 talent, which is declining exactly as you'd expect over 30 players to decline. Well, to me, an average player's "peak" is between the age of 27-34, but obviously it varies by position and skill set. Well, Konerko was 31 last season, with not exactly the type of skill set you'd expect would deteriorate quickly after the age of 30 (leave aside this "arthritic hip condition" that there is absolutely no evidence is affecting him any way as of yet). Jermaine was 33, and while I'll concede that he is beginning his decline as a defensive player, he came off an mvp-type season offensively in 06', and his age certainly shouldn't be hindering him offensively as much as you suggest- just look at Jim Thome for an example of how a power-producing player can perform well past the age of 30. Iguchi was 32 and his OPS pre-ASB dropped 58 points from the previous season. Crede obviously missed most of his age-29 season. I'm sure you'll argue most players begin declining at age 30, but given the advances in modern sports medicine, along with better conditioning and strengthening techniques, there are plenty of ballplayers producing well into their-mid-to-late thirties, some even having career seasons at the age of 32, 33, 34. See Dye in 06', Hunter in 07', etc, etc.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 04:53 PM) That's the problem, they underperformed your expectations, not their career norms. Thome and Konerko were right on their career averages. JD had 20 points shaved off AVG/OBP. Pierzynski was below his career average, as he has been in every season since he left Minnesota. He's just not the same player anymore, and a terrible guy to extend a year before his contract was up. I'd argue that last season is about all we should expect out of AJ for the next 3 years... Crede was terrible, you've got one there, but he's not gonna be around. Iguchi's power was down, but he was only around for half a year... And Peter Pan and Tinkerbell performed exactly how any rational fan expected. Buehrle, Garland, and Vazquez pitched well (and Garland's not around anymore)... Contreras is the only one in the rotation who had a poor season. The bullpen was terrible, but they're volitile and had a bunch of young guys without much in way of track records. Well, in my opinion Konerko and Dye underperformed. Crede was out for most of the year. Iguchi did not perform well, and our not being in contention was part of why he was traded and we had Richar's production. You can claim that our players played to their "career" averages all you want, but with many in their "peak years" in a hitter friendly ballpark (where there "career" averages were not compiled), I'll argue to the end of the earth with you that what we got out of most of our offense was on par with what is expected of them at this stage of their careers in this ballpark.

This is actually one of Dayne's better columns, IMHO. At least he acknowledges that SOME improvement has been made. I guess I just wish, however, that one national columnist would point out that so many of our guys underperformed last season, making the 72-90 record somewhat of a mirage. I know Sherman has stated we are "underrated." But I want to hear some more people acknowledge our improvement.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 01:47 PM) I would agree with you. None of my male colleagues get called "dear" or complimented on how they look when they give a talk. It's frustrating--but we also don't have any minority men in my program to compare my treatment to. Anyway, here is an amazing op-ed from a while ago from the NYT. The other women in my program (and some who've finished) all found it really resonated--as did some non-academic chums. St. Olaf! "That reminds me of my friend Meredith Herbenjeeberberger back at Saint Olaf....See, Meredith had a pet Chihuahua that just followed her everywhere she went. I mean everywhere! And believe me, Meredith could get herself into some really tight spaces, so it was really good that her Chihuahua only weighed 3 pounds because...." "Rose! Are you going to bring this plane onto the airstrip or what?" Ok, what classic tv show? (Sorry, not trying to derail the thread

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 10:32 PM) I saw a brief article on CNN that got my blood going a bit. The NY state chapter of NOW, issued a blistering statement accusing Ted Kennedy of abandoning women by endorsing Obama. If you read the article, the statement isn't just hinting at it either - it just comes right out and says that they think Kennedy has left women behind by making that decision. Now, point number one, I find this statement to be incredibly offensive to everyone involved. Why the hell is it offensive to women that a Senator happened to endorse a male candidate? Is this really what this is about for some people? Vote for Hillary because she is a woman, or else you are leaving women at the curb? Which leads to the same question on Obama... if a scathing article like this was published by the NAACP because a prominent black political figure endorsed Clinton, I would find it equally offensive and embarrassing for that person. What an awful way to look at things. Still, that all being the case, I want to reiterate something I have said before... I think that the way women are treated in our current society is much worse than the way its racial minorities are treated, on balance. I'd say sexism is indeed a bigger problem than racism, at this moment in time, in this country. That isn't to say there isn't still racism, as I'd say there definitely is. I just think that sexism is more pervasive, and is having a greater negative effect. I am curious what the rest of you think. Is racism or sexism the bigger problem right now? And how do you feel about that NOW statement? How would you feel if the other scenario I suggested occurred? Great post, Sir. Personally, I think racism is more pervasive, but that's just my humble, personal opinion. I think there certainly is room to argue that sexism is more prevalent, but I think it's a far more complex problem than racism.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 06:39 PM) As long as you aren't going there for opinions or inside information it's a pretty good source of information. If you're looking for a site that posts links to newspapers and sports sites and doesn't fabricate the information you could do a lot worse than mlbtraderumors.com. Peter Gammons recently named it as one of the sites he constantly visits....if that doesn't add some credibility, I don't know what does...

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 12:01 PM) Some things that he spoke of that I did not see anywhere; Uribe was mentioned as a 3B option on more than one occassion. Players can not be judged on spring training as the high sky (can't judge outfielders) and rock hard ground (can't judge infielders) affect all aspects of defense and pitching (can't judge pitchers). I was hoping somebody would ask, "Then why in the hell did you move there?" If he wanted to build a top notch minor league system he could trade for one in three days. Again I wish I could have asked him more about this. A few organizational folks believe Crede is gone. Roland Hemond is cool. The new marketing campaign seems blah. The Palmer House sucks and the event has really gone downhill. It is hard to get around and we missed the whole fundamentals section that was not even marked. Glad he said that. My thoughts exactly.

Starting a new business and looking for office space currently. Would like something that could serve as sort of a showroom- not really true retail, but perhaps something like commercial loft space in the City possibly. Does anyone have any info/experience with what the pros/cons of doing so as opposed to the suburbs are? Not looking for any sort of demographics-type info, but more so what the tax pros/cons of being in Cook County as opposed to surrounding suburbs would be. Any help?

I don't think the problem with extending Jenks is just that closers can be replaced (not so sure whether I believe that or not, another one of Beane's BS theories), but whether this is even the most important guy in the bullpen in the first place. Clearly, in some cases, and this is probably true in Bobby's case, the closer is the best pitcher in the bullpen, and so perhaps, he should be paid the most based on that. However, in a lot of cases, the closer doesn't even have the best numbers in the bullpen if you take the "save" category out of the equation. And yet some of these guys are making $10 million a year while a setup man with similar or better numbers is making 10-20% of that (this appears to be changing as a lot of focus has been put onto quality relievers, finally) simply because a closer records "saves," an entirely made-up stat that doesn't mean a whole lot other than whatever artificial value one wants to ascribe to it. I'm a firm believer in the notion that you should put your best pen guy in at the most critical moment, whether that be the "closer," or whomever. While I think there is probably something to the idea that some guys cannot "close," and maybe some guys can only "close," I think for the most part, the closer role is something that is just foolish. The best pen guy, wherever he pitches, is usually the most valuable, and that is the guy that should be kept at all costs. In sum, Bobby is very valuable, but mostly because he is our best pen arm, not because of the saves he records. That being said, he's just too far away from a big payday to be using the "Indians model" now to buy out his arbitration years for the purpose of saving on his first few free agency years. With a position player, maybe, but not with a pitcher, and certainly not with the strain Bobby puts on his arm.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 03:15 PM) Serves them right for needing air conditioning when it is so cold in the rest of the country. . . I actually heard it was something that occurred do to some welding that was going on...

Actually, that brewpub is gone. Now it's just a regular grill...booooo...but I do like the Monte Carlo...stayed there my first trip back in 98'...

Good debate, guys. Interesting stuff in here. I'm going to go work on those solar-powered ships now...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 06:44 PM) If that doesn't whet your appetite for offensive actions and remarks regarding this man's death, here's Fox News host John Gibson spending the show mocking Mr. Ledger. Ok, so I just listened to the clip you referred to, and while it was offensive, it was a lot more tame than I would have guessed just by reading it in print. Come on' let's not get too dramatic here. As far as radio shows go, this wasn't anywhere near as bad as some of the stuff out there. I feel bad that another young Hollywood talent has come and gone, but I'm not going to mourn this guy like he was my favorite uncle or something. Of all the people that die tragically, let's not put Heath Ledger above anyone else. And I am not a fan of Fox news (radio or tv), but Howard Stern says more offensive things in 5 seconds on his show than John Gibson did in this little show of disrespect, calling Ledger a "weirdo" and deriding him for his role in Brokeback Mountain. I'm never one to make fun of death, and I'm not trying to make light of any tragedies. But it really bothers me that suddenly when someone passes everyone suddenly changes their opinions of the deceased and paints him as some epic hero that has just left us. It's unfortunate that Heath Ledger died. I did not know him. Brokeback Mountain has been a source of good-natured humor for a few years now (no, not talking about these lunatics picketing the guy's funeral= not good-natured), but let's not get on our high horses and crucify everyone who references it now that Ledger has died.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 05:31 AM) I was thinking about the "why was it traded" question. If it was traded that soon, and there were problems, it would have been under warranty, and it would be reported. Dealers are one of the better CarFax reporters. A good friend of mine owned a corvette dealership for years and years and years. And what he often seemed to believe that many of those who trade their cars in after only a year or so had either made incorrect decisions (financially, or in terms of the "lifestyle" of the car), or they were buyers wealthy enough that they could buy the next "hot" car whenever they liked, regardless of the money they were losing by constantly buying and trading back in new cars. I'm sure some percentage of cars are traded back in quickly because there were some disproportionate number of mechanical issues, but I think the majority of them are probably just bad decisions being corrected.

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 03:43 PM) Awww.... I thought this was a thread about the BRILLIANT TV series from the BBC. Am I the only one who watches it??? Are you talking about the one narrated by William Shatner? I love that show, but I just can't help but think of DENNY CRANE! every time I watch it...

QUOTE(bigruss22 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 09:36 PM) One of the greatest places ever, man I hate that I had to move from there. Great place to raise a kid if anybody is interested, I know that I had a blast growing up there compared to Ann Arbor. I went to high school in Oak Park, at Fenwick. I learned a lot going to school as culturally diverse as that.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 02:11 PM) I think I finally figured out how to write what I was thinking. Logically the statement that Audi developed an engine that can go 10,000 ("A") but the oil manufactures do not have a 10,000 mile oil ("B" can not be true and has to be crap. For Audi's statement to be true, the oil has to last. So if A is true (that Audi developed a 10,000 mile engine), then B (the oil can't last) has to be false. There has to be an oil that lasts 10,000 miles. If B is true, (there is no such oil), then A has to be false. Audi has not developed an engine unless it runs on sludged up oil. So their statement is busted, from a formal logic point of view. I see no way that both A and B can be true, this the statement is always false. Anyone with more logic study comment? Well, I'm sure you're right. How could Audi develop an engine that go 10k miles between oil changes that uses oil that does not exist? Why would they do so? I'm sure you're right, and I'm pretty sure it's the oil manufacturers/oil change people that are probably lying...

QUOTE(almagest @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 01:30 PM) Is there any specific reason why #1 is true? I mean, it makes sense, since there's no reliability data on the new cars or redesigns, but I'd think you could get a good idea of what to expect from reviews, and from past data from other models from that manufacturer. As for #2 -- street parking primarily, in the southwest suburbs. Occasionally city street parking -- specifically, Bridgeport and Portage Park. Well, any time there are major design changes or a new product is introduced entirely, there tends to be blips and bugs that occur that were unforseen by the manufacturer. It's only a general rule of thumb, but it usually takes about a year for the manufacturer to get the bugs sorted out. As for #2, you are probably on the right track then in getting something smaller in size...