Texsox

And I'm not suggesting he sucks or is the worse GM in baseball. I think he's about average. Plus, we don't know what trades he's been offered and passed on. Perhaps that could add to or subtract from his job performance.

Nothing I can do about that. If I posted Williams was doing a good job people would think I was mocking, if I post he's doing a terrible job, people will think I am mocking. I believe the first blame goes to the players, but Williams deserves to be taking a lot more heat than it seems he is. I had not added it up until now, but I know we've had people here that have called trades mistakes right away, and applauded some as well. I was wondering how many have consistently beat him at this, and this proved it to me.

If I say that someone should be responsible for the team's underperformance for most of the past ten years it is mocking? I believe this thread conforms what I've been thinking, Williams, not Ozzie or Walker should be the one to go.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ May 15, 2011 -> 03:22 PM) Again I am not saying I could do better, but I am saying there are lots of other highly qualified baseball minds that could with the inherent advantages the White Sox have over others in our division. Is that concept really so hard to see? It's like telling me that I cannot criticize Keith Bogans for his play as the Bulls starting 2-guard because I, myself, could not go out there and outperform him. Yet anyone can ostensibly see that he is not a good 2-guard. With the Sox payroll advantage in the division, it shouldn't even take a highly qualified baseball mind. I'm with you, I can't believe anyone here can't see that.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 15, 2011 -> 03:05 PM) I hate these types of statements, jabs, or whatever you want to call this crap. It's called stating the obvious, year in and year out posters here have outperformed Williams. There was some great stats earlier in the thread, with all that salary, there should be a string of playoff appearances, yet there isn't. His roster moves have been so obviously bad, more posters than not, could have done better.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 15, 2011 -> 02:27 PM) He has to know something, because if you gave any of us the power to act on Pierre, we'd at least be treating him like how Ozzie is treating Morel right now; playing him sparingly, yet KW has chosen not to force that issue. I know it is unscientific, but at more than half of the people that responded have done the same or better than Williams at trades. What does that tell you? I'll bet that way more than half would agree they can manage better than Ozzie. No wonder the team is doing so poorly. Hell, they wouldn't even be good posters here.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 15, 2011 -> 01:42 PM) So tell me what KW knows about Juan Pierre that we don't. Since he's the GM and can never be wrong, there must be something Pierre is doing that statistics don't justify. I guess I shouldn't question him allowing his manager to lead off the player with the lowest WAR in the majors. Like you said, he does make the big bucks. I don't think he knows anything we don't, how could he? He watches the same games we do.

Canada may also be in the travel plans, it's a short ferry ride from Bar Harbor

Canada may also be in the travel plans, it's a short ferry ride from Bar Harbor

Acadia National park is my summer destination for some whale watching and kayaking.

I am amazed at how much better at being a GM soxtalk posters are compared to the guys who are paid big bucks to do this job. Over the years, so many people here knew right away certain trades were bad.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 15, 2011 -> 07:51 AM) 6 man rotation already coming under fire from former big league pitcher Mike Marshall... http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...,6546565.column He is correct, it would not have worked for him. But every athlete is different. There were similar arguments when 5 man rotations started becoming popular. We probably should expect that a 6 man will help a few, hurt someone, and make no difference to one or two.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 15, 2011 -> 07:51 AM) 6 man rotation already coming under fire from former big league pitcher Mike Marshall... http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...,6546565.column He is correct, it would not have worked for him. But every athlete is different. There were similar arguments when 5 man rotations started becoming popular. We probably should expect that a 6 man will help a few, hurt someone, and make no difference to one or two.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 14, 2011 -> 02:25 PM) My point is, paying in cash doesn't ensure a savings. And just because you pay in cash, doesn't mean you can't go into debt (due to alternative methods). And no, I'd never say a CC is a form of savings. I'd also say if you have CC debt, you should be paying that off as opposed to putting anything into savings and than re-evaluate your spending habits (if possible). And people need to look at there finances and ensure they can put a respectable amount into long term savings (401K, etc) plus funds into your actual savings account (which can be divided up into additional LT purchases you might plan on making, plus your emergency fund). You did a great job of explaining the best possible scenario involving credit cards. I was offering balance. The CC industry spends millions and millions in a marketing campaign convincing Americans that you can't be successful unless you their best customer. I find it funny that people think there is no other way to live than to have credit cards. They trap a large number of the middle class. Even you said "what if there is an emergency, it is better than a payday loan". Think how many times you have heard someone say, I need a credit card for emergencies, now think about how many people have said, I need to save some money for emergencies. Which is better financial planning? If you start advocating for savings and paying cash for those emergencies, people will jump in immediately to defend the card as a tool to handle emergencies. For most people what is an emergency starts out high, but becomes "it's Thursday and I am getting home late and don't want to cook, swipe the card". It becomes a way to get stuff or to do things that their current income does not allow. If you are going to have a card, the best way to assure it is a tool that serves you and you don't become the tool for the credit card industry is to have savings equal to the card limit. The first time you can't pay off the balance at the end of the month, freeze the card in water to make it harder to use. Rex posted about the credit cycle that catches people. That is reality for the majority of people with credit cards. Obtaining financial independence is not built on lines of credit, but savings and investments. Don't be trying to make your money work for you on one side of the ledger and paying credit card interest on the other.

OMG!! My 8th graders had so much fun at prom Gala

I am glad to see we haven't lost our minds, yet.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 13, 2011 -> 02:16 PM) And if you spend in cash and just blow all of your cash, you still are going to be stuck. And if you have no card, what is to prevent you from instead going to those paycheck advance places, etc. I believe this is called having savings, having an emergency fund. Are you suggesting people replace savings with a credit card? If you can't save to build up the fund, how is the person going to pay off the card when the bill comes in?

I agree with all of your best case scenarios. But that isn't reality for the majority of the population. The credit card industry has advertised the hell out of what you need to do to be a good customer of theirs. They assign a rating system and people start jumping through hoops to make certain the credit card companies think they are good customers. The goal seems to be to have a pocket full of credit cards with higher and higher lines of credit that you will only use from one payday to another because you will never carry a balance or pay interest. Then you can qualify for larger and larger car and home loans. That is a nice goal. Forget about paying cash for stuff. Having an emergency fund to where you don't even have to use a credit card from payday to payday. Forget about putting large down payments on purchases. That's just crazy talk and would never work.

You are correct. As noted a credit card is a tool, and if used properly, isn't a problem. But credit is just that, credit to be paid back later. The credit card companies and reporting companies have spent millions convincing you to buy into their customer rating program. Get yourself a high customer rating so they can sell you more products. Pay them interest regularly and you will be considered a better customer and they will sell you more stuff that you can pay them for. So yes, a credit card can be a great tool for some people, most people wind up becomming a tool for the credit card companies. I am certain there is a terrible problem with saving for something and paying cash. I am certain therwe is some problem with putting large down payments on major purchases, with having an emergency fund to pay for stuff. But I can't see how paying cash and not using credit is going to be so terrible. We want stuff now, not in three month when we can save for it. We have been sold on instant gratification and spend now and pay later.

Clear means you are properly hydrated.

You may be slightly dehydrated. Clear and copious is better.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/money101/lesson9/ Other sources have credit card debt at over $10,000 for the average American.

I'm not saying that people can't manage credit and have all the good things that have been mentioned. But the average American has nine credit cards and $5,000 in debt. The majority will die with that $5,000 and have paid interest for decades. Over 1,000,0000 will file bankruptcy this year because of credit cards. Many millions more will go to credit counseling services, take out second mortgages, pull from 401Ks, shift balances around, apply for more cards to keep up with the payments on their first cards. On the home mortgage, steady employment, healthy savings, not being committed to making those credit card payments is going to help you way more than nine cards and $5,000 or more in debt. A positive net worth looks very nice, at least according to what I've experienced and heard about today's market. If you really want to play with credit, go with something that can't be used for general expenses. A department store, finance a computer through Dell, something like that. See how fast you pay it off. But if you goal is to keep opening up charge accounts to build your credit so you can get higher and higher credit limits and to get more and more cards, well that leads to having balances and making a lot of interest payments. Why else do you want the cards? I know all that sounds like work, and is not as much fun as having lines of credit equal to your annual salary. You will feel more successful opening your wallet and thinking "which card should I put this on". Soon some of you will be opening you mail thinking it is your lucky day because another bank will open up an account for you, and since you just maxed your first or second card, you will have it "just for emergencies". And as Rex mentioned, with each step the cycle gets worse.

I believe I said 15%, do you consider that a s*** load? A very simple investment strategy is to have a positive net worth. Debt for the types of things that unsecured credit is used for is not productive. As an investment strategy, why have money on a credit card being charged 20% interest? People can claim all day long that they won't carry a balance, and a few will be right. But most people will start carrying a balance. The credit card and credit reporting agencies have spent millions convincing the public they need to borrow money to buy a new outfit, go on vacation, dinner, plants for the house, etc. They have to have a credit card to get more credit cards. They have to pay interest to one card to earn the right to pay interest on another card. Again, an investment strategy of zero debt, especially in debt for an item that is already worthless or on it's way to being worthless, isn't very good either. Just a small counter to the spend today and pay tomorrow and next week, and next month, and next year . . .

Walk into a car dealership with 20% down and you will drive off their lot. Walk into a mortgage company with a decent down payment and no credit cards and you will get a mortgage. Stable work history and a history of saving, including a positive net worth, actually has value. But yes, showing you can manage a negative net worth with lots of debt also works, and there are a lot more companies advocating for that. But actually saving money, putting away an emergency fund instead of relying on credit cards, saving for down payments instead of no money down instant gratification is very difficult for most people. Even if you don't go as far or as extreme as some financial advisors will tell you, being your own credit card increases your net worth and saves you money. And look at who is telling you that credit is essential. Credit monitoring companies, credit card companies, credit repair companies. And we want that stuff immediatly, it's something we like, so we believe them. The only time I can honestly say you absolutely need a credit card is to rent a car. If you manage to put aside an emergency fund, you can pay for those unexpected expenses like car repairs. If you can't afford to set aside the savings, how will you pay off the credit card without racking up interest payments? Americans want to spend 110% of their income.