caulfield12

Not sure playing 81 games per season in USCF is the right home park for Bourjos to take most advantage of his skill set...still, it would be a huge plus to have the best CF in baseball to cover all that ground between Viciedo and Garcia. The only issue is the cost in terms of trade, and also figuring out what to do with DeAza.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 01:14 PM) Sounds like what I've been trumpeting in the Quitana trade value thread. Only I'm thinking Boujos would be buy low and I also included Hendrick and Conger who would be a huge get. 1 pitcher ,whoever that might be, and any position players among Viciedo, DeAza, Beckham, Kepppinger, Leury Garcia, Jordan Danks , qnd maybe Gillaspie if we are all comfortable with Semien at 3rd. No Trumbo but Hendrick, Conger and Boujos. How does it make sense for a young/rebuilding team (assuming we did put Bourjos in CF) to keep DeAza and get rid of Viciedo? For 2014 or 2017, it just doesn't compute. They definitely do need a veteran catching option, though, whether it's Buck or Conger or whoever, Hahn can't be dumb enough to go into spring training without an improvement at that position. One has to look no further than Molina and Salty/Ross to see how important the catching position is...and compare that to what we got out of that position in 2013.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 08:11 AM) There was a case down here of a former state cop accused of murdering his wife and two children. He got convicted, the conviction got overturned on appeal, got convicted again, the second conviction got overturned on appeal, and finally on the third trial was found not guilty. If we had immediate executions, he'd have been dead before even getting to the second trial. Instead of the "greatest good for the greatest number" (libertarianism), it's protecting the minority (in this case, one person in danger of being railroaded) from the majority. Unfortunately, it's working in the opposite way in Congress, where the entire system is being held hostage by a minority...

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 24, 2013 -> 10:42 PM) Governments exist to inject fairness into chaos. The reaction to unfairness under government rule shouldn't be, "forget about fairness. We tried fairness and it didn't work." We don't need to undermine the rule of law to give people free education, healthcare, roads, and other stuff. Most industrialized countries offer all of these things. You simply tax people. To sell off the rule of law is to violate the basics of the social contract. One of the basic truths that makes us accept our role in society is the knowledge that there are certain things that apply to everybody. The more special privileges you allow the upper class to have, the more class division will exist. While there are issues of tax unfairness and many lifestyle benefits that go along with wealth, our social order is invested in the attempt to hold all people under the same set of expectations. Right now, if a rich person gets off unfairly because of their celebrity or wealth, that pisses us off. We try to fix the system to prevent further abuses. We shame that person. If the system suddenly tried to allow the wealthy to buy their way out of legal trouble, it brings into question the reasons for existence in the first place. Why have laws? If you can buy your way out of law, then the law doesn't seem proper in the first place. Even when we disagree on laws, the spirit of a law's intent makes us respect it. A law whose apparent reason for existence is government profit offends us; think about our reaction to supposed "quotas" for traffic stops. We could make a law, for instance, that you can only have one child...unless you buy the right to more (China). Unfortunately, this redistributes one of the most important human experience into the upper class. Getting "free education, healthcare, roads, and other stuff" in exchange for undermining the entire purpose of governance doesn't make sense. You see this as everyone benefiting from the rich getting what they want. The question is, why would people accept this? They wouldn't, unless they thought it was the only way to get these services from the government: this is patently untrue, as we see all over the world and in our own history. This proposal amounts to coercion, the illusion of freedom. You give the public a choice of "no public goods, everyone follows the same rules" or "public goods, you can buy your way out of select violations of law," but these are not the choices. The choices are, "the wealthy pay a fair share of their earnings to the public goods that make their wealth possible and follow the same rules as everyone else" or "the wealthy buy their way out of laws, violate the basics of the social contracts, and there is little evidence that they get more or better benefits from the government." There are many other choices in between and outside these as well, and most of them don't involve a fundamental loss of liberty allowed by bribery. In all fairness, if you live outside of the major cities, in a farming/agricultural/provincial area of China, you're allowed to have at least 2 or sometimes three children...especially if the firstborn is a girl. Where you have to pay the fines is in the major cities, like Beijing or Shanghai. Recently, there have been whispers of a change in this policy again with an overabundance of people 50+ and a 6/5 male to female ratio.

Well, The Counselor has turned out to be quite the disaster. It's another example of the theory that you should never allow the writer/author of a novel to get too involved in the cinematic process. Sometimes it works. Other times, like this, it can go terribly awry.

How or why do we presume the family even wants her to be executed? Would that really make things better? Greg, let's put this another way. If someone in your family was executed and it was later proven (let's say you were quite poor and you needed the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Northwestern University students to help even though it was after the fact) they were innocent, isn't this much worse than if this particular woman gets life in a psychiatric ward or in a regular prison instead of immediately being sentenced the day afterward to the death penalty? Doesn't the fact that we no longer have posse/mob justice in our country to the extent we had 100-150 years ago (see the novel, the Ox-Bow Incident) make our country better than before? Think of all the lynchings in the last 200 years, not only, in the US, but around the world...how many of those people actually deserved to die? Because that's the kind of world we would be living in....more Emmit Till's, not fewer. I think, if anything, the Northwestern Center for Wrongful Convictions would make the argument that making ANY assumption in a death penalty case has proven to be a recipe for disaster in the last century. Research The CWC has produced several groundbreaking articles on the causes of wrongful convictions and is the co-creator of the National Registry of Exonerations, a database which provides detailed information about the more than 2,000 exonerations in the United States since 1989. Our research focuses on individual cases and identifying systemic problems with the criminal justice system including: erroneous eyewitness identification false and coerced confession official misconduct inadequate legal defense false forensic evidence perjury and incentivized testimony (snitches) Reform The CWC raises public awareness about the prevalence, causes, and social costs of wrongful convictions and uses casework and research to seek policy reforms aimed at preventing future wrongful convictions. The Center on Wrongful Convictions has blazed a trail of revolutionary reforms, including: Moratorium on Illinois executions declared by former Governor Ryan in January 2000 and his decision to commute all Illinois death sentences in January 2003 A comprehensive package of criminal justice reforms approved by the Illinois General Assembly in November 2003, perhaps most significant of which was that police must record all custodial interrogations of suspects in murder cases. Illinois was the first state to address the problem by statute, which makes statements inadmissible unless the entire interrogation has been recorded. Twelve other states have since followed the Illinois lead. Expanded DNA testing in criminal cases Provision of adequate funding for the defense of indigent clients Governor Quinn's abolition of Illinois' death penalty (2011) Online National Registry of Exonerations Database which documents and publicizes the nation's roster of wrongful convictions, providing data with which to determine factors and trends in convictions and exonerations U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The Center has been amicus curiae (friend of the court) in seven cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and the supreme courts of various states in support of issues of importance to the wrongfully convicted. International reform. In 2008, the Japanese Supreme Court accepted a Center brief in a notorious mass murder case in which a confession may have been coerced. It was the first such brief ever filed in Japan by a U.S. legal organization. Compensation for wrongfully convicted exonerees. Following a CWC public forum (2008), the Illinois General Assembly approved a bill so courts may speed the compensation process. Challenges Reforming the criminal justice system to reduce the numbers of men and women sentenced to prison for crimes they did not commit will remain a Center priority for the foreseeable future. Needed reforms include: Expand recorded interrogations. Require police to electronically record interrogations - not just in murder cases but in ALL cases, particularly child sexual assault cases. Improve interrogation procedures. Place limits on the length of interrogations and on tactics which are known to contribute to false confessions, including the use of lies about evidence and the use of polygraphs during interrogations. Develop best practices for interrogating juveniles and other vulnerable suspects. Reform police lineups. Change procedures to reduce erroneous identifications by victims and eyewitnesses. (Psychological research has shown that replacing traditional lineups with a sequential double blind process reduces misidentifications by half.) Improve accountability. Hold police and prosecutors accountable for misconduct in criminal investigations and prosecutions. Increase and expedite compensation for those wrongfully convicted.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 09:57 PM) Megan Fox is 5'4", she is far too small for the role. The goal isn't to look like Lynda Carter, the goal is to look like Wonder Woman, a 6 foot tall amazon woman. Malin Ackerman might fit, but she's probably too thin as well. The problem with the Amazon idea is then you're picking wrestling or boxing girls....and they're not feminine enough and/or can't act. So who's the equivalent? George Clooney's ex? Stacy Keibler?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 09:39 AM) I hate those mana for health spells. I mean seriously, just save a f***ing potion or something Are we talking about manias, mass or manna from heaven, lol?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 03:23 PM) Everyone still has the ability to vote to change the law right? So if all of these people want to do these things, why not just vote to change the law? Youre entire paragraph can be summed up into a simply into: Life isnt fair. But the question we have to ask is, so what? We have to acknowledge life isnt fair and then we have to try and create a baseline of "fairness". To me its more important that people get access to free public education, free public healthcare, roads and other stuff. What isnt so important is whether or not everyone can pay to break the law. Because if that means regular people get all the other stuff (education, healthcare) so what. Sometimes the ends justifies the means. Because it would be considered unconstitutional. It's another side of the Obamacare debate. Forcing people, in the minds of many, to pay fees or subscribe to a service, even if those services might save or prolong their lives, is UNFAIR. Even if they end up saving money, etc.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 07:38 PM) You don't get it wite. If we don't overpay free agents who will underperform, who will Greg b**** about? Ventura? No funny anecdotes or quips, getting too much rope from the fanbase as a former Sox favorite, etc. Pretty much every starter with the exception of Konerko (in that, he and Marty have something in common).

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 03:03 PM) Wonder Woman doesnt have a Marilyn Monroe figure at all. She is tall and athletic, an amazon woman. Sure, she is heavy up top, but Marilyn Monroe was pretty curvy. I think Gina Carano would be a good choice, but I dont know if she can act at all. I havent seen Haywire or F&F 6, but I dont think her parts required as talking as much as kicking and punching. I'm not impressed with her acting chops. The first name that comes to mind, and she will never get the role though, is Megan Fox. She's close to a dead ringer for Lynda Carter. Which doesn't mean it's a bad idea to go in another direction.

http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2013...eam-values.html

QUOTE (glangon @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 05:58 AM) I think I'd rather use a combination of Semien and Gillaspie and use the money on an overpaid veteran to be spent on someone like Crain or Cotts to shore up the Bullpen. Signing Headley doesn't fit with the long term plans of Hahn and I don't see it happening. Then you have an overpaid veteran in Jeff Keppinger getting paid $4-5 million to play 10-15-20 games at 2B, because he definitely isn't a SS. And why would you want to take that kind of risk on Crain coming off a pretty major injury?

http://www.boxoffice.com/latest-news/2013-...an-movie-happen Is bringing Wonder Woman to the big screen the best chance for DC Comics to get back in the game? Is this article overreacting to the success of movies like Gravity, Bridesmaids, The Blind Side and The Heat...? How much of Gravity's success is really about Sandra Bullock and how much it is simply the great special effects/CGI/3D/cinematography of Alfonso Cuaron? Who would you get to direct? Is there another version of Megan Fox with stellar acting ability? It can't Anne Hathaway or Jennifer Lawrence, probably, because they're already tied into Batman/X-Men roles. Also a probable no for Scarlett Johannsen. The role would seem to call for someone we associate more with being a brunette. Eva Green? I don't think Emma Stone is quite sexy enough for a role like that...or has the requisite "Marilyn Monroe" figure. Angelina Jolie's perhaps nearing the point where she might be considered too old for that particular role. Is there an actress who looks like Adriana Lima but with the actual ability to act? What about Hispanic or Asian actresses? Is it possible to go for a non-white Wonder Woman? Would that be accepted? If that was the case, I would go with either Eva Mendes, Li Bing Bing or Fan Bing Bing, after giving a moment's consideration to Michelle Rodriguez, but would actually prefer the Israel Mossad officer, Gal Gadot, who was in the last two F&Furious movies (then again, she might be a little too tall/model-like/lithe and not quite strong enough).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 12:18 PM) This seems incongruous with other trends. The lack of doctors problem, and the drive to cut medical costs by having non-Doctoral medical professionals do a larger bulk of the load, as examples. Those trends, I think, will win out in the long run over lower reimbursement levels for physical therapy. I could be wrong of course, but that is my view. I read a great pilot program and study, as an example, some 15 years ago. Not PT, but on the topic of balancing which types of professionals do what work. In a rural area in the mountainous west, they decided to try an alternative to expensive clinics to serve spares and spread out communities for basic medical needs. The basic idea was, the only medical professionals in these areas are often the fire/rescue volunteers - EMT's and Paramedics. So they trained some of them on things like immunizations, some limited medication scripting, therapeutic techniques, etc. And they delivered much of the care in person, in their homes. The results were dramatically increased general health, for relatively low costs, because ovehead was so low. This sort of out-of-the-box thinking could benefit medical costs as a whole. Except gas/transportation costs have gone up a lot compared to 15 years ago. And the costs for allocation of those vehicles, in general, for different tasks. But it's better than most of the alternatives.

GREG, nobody WANTS them, per se, they're just the best possible options or "lesser of two evils." There's just not any top tier 3B available on the free agent market, and the trade market.....there might be guys like Seager and Lawrie but they're going to cost Santiago. Nobody clearly better than Ramirez at SS on the free agent market. And while everyone would prefer to have Brandon Phillips to Gordon Beckham, if you factor in the talent we would have to give up, his age and contract due into his mid 30's, it makes ZERO sense. Waiving Adam Dunn makes no sense....even if you kept Konerko, what LH hitters would we have then to balance out the line-up? Same thing with DeAza....it's Alejandro at $4.4 million or Granderson at $12-15 million, 90% would think the differential's not worth it...and when you add in the length of the contract and it going into his mid 30's again, like Phillips maybe only 3-5% would favor it. The Tigers had two Cy Young pitchers in Scherzer and Verlander, two MVP candidates in Cabrera/Fielder (well, until this year), Torii Hunter, Austin Jackson, Peralta, etc. Then you have Sanchez, Fister, Porcello and Smyly, perhaps the best collection of pitching outside of StL and Atlanta....although some would argue with PLAYOFF Verlander and Scherzer they're the best top 4 in baseball.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 09:24 PM) Oh god, I want no part of 5 yrs/$90M for Granderson. I'm glad it's B.S. Last realistic one I heard was 3/$45 or maybe 4/$48, but I wouldn't go more than 2 years with a club option. Which he won't be willing to take it other teams will guarantee 3 or 4 or even 5 years.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 08:08 PM) Maybe I am selling regular fans short, but it's still not going to put butts in the seats either way. Sox fans have always shown that winning is the only way to get them to show up and sometimes even that doesn't work. They were also excited about Takatsu...remember the whole gong thing? But that didn't last very long, as soon as the league adjusted to the frisbee. Beckham for 3-4 months was the last time there was genuine excitement. And it's a shame that Chris Sale never had a rookie season as a starting pitcher or there would have been a lot more coverage for him.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 04:04 PM) I'm not so sure of regular fans ignorance. I remember being surprised how pumped fans were for Iguchi. Regular fans pick up on what hardcore fans are talking about. And hardcore fans are going to be talking about Abreu a lot. Nobody was pumped up about Hermanson and Politte. There was curiosity about El Duque, what he had left in the tank. Then a LOT of uncertainty about what we were going to get out of Pods, Dye and AJ.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 01:37 PM) Hawk is gonna sell Abreu so hard. "I tell ya, Stony, this kid has a chance to be a MONSTER. The sound it makes off this kid's bat... I say the best three right-handed hitters we've seen over the last twenty years are TheBigHurtFrankThomas, Manny Ramirez, and Miguel Cabrera -- this guy has a chance to be as good as ALL OF EM." "I don't know about the other league, but the three liveliest bats in this league are Cespedes, Viciedo, and Abreu -- and we got TWO OF EM" Don't forget Puig and Avisail Garcia, lol.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFan05 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 07:14 PM) Having Cano and Abreu would increase our attendance by so much- a potential ROY/MVP/CY trio. Not if the White Sox were still a .500ish team. Then it wouldn't matter. Well, maybe 5-10%. But not enough to make it profitable from a cost-benefit analysis...as 2012 showed, fans didn't 100% support that team because MANY believed the Tigers were too talented. In the end, the confirmation of that belief has pushed them to try to buy a superstar. But there's no way they will shell out that kind of money for Cano at his age. They would be more likely to take a run at Tanaka (although that's doubtful, too). Pitching is the one thing we can do and have done pretty well. It's defense, baserunning, power/offense and 6th-7th inning bullpen we need the most help with. The White Sox have always been the kind of team that would rather find 8 guys and give them $25 million or ten guys and give them $20 million. Mostly, they're pretty risk-averse...with a few notable exceptions (Belle, Navarro, David Wells, Ritchie trade, the goal of which was to actually mitigate or control risk). Dunn was/is considered at the time a safe investment at the time as was Nick Swisher. So this Abreu one, along with Borchard and Viciedo, it's one of the very rare occasions when they've gone out on a limb. You can probably add Rios and Peavy as well...in different ways.

Adding in the endorsement deals does make it a BIT more intriguing...but I still would never consider it a wise investment.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 07:30 PM) Cubs supposedly wanted to interview martinez I thought they already did on Thursday?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 07:17 PM) But the thing you guys are missing is that none of these things are going to happen until the economy gets back somewhere close to full employment, at which time the deficit mostly does close itself. That's why the CBO now says that the deficit as a fraction of GDP is now stabilized for the next decade plus; the interest rate spike prediction (which by the way we've been hearing from the same people incorrectly since 2009 for exactly the same reason, the fact that the economy has a giant un filled hole in it) only matters when people are getting back to work, paying taxes, and leaving unemployment. And also to note...the 30 year treasury rate is under 4% and has stayed there for years now. The actual market thinks that this interest rate spike will not happen in the next decades. (And no, this isn't because of the fed, when they would stop buying things prices barely changed). There's also been this fear that China and Japan would dump their reserve notes...but, in the case of China, that's stupid because their monetary policies are pegged to the US dollar, so they would just be shooting themselves in the foot as well by making their own products more expensive in terms of future exports. I feel like I've read Balta's comments from Paul Krugman at the NY Times about 100 times, but there's a lot of truth to it. None of the economies in Europe undergoing forced austerity policies have recovered well....most are actually worsening, even the "best case scenario" of Ireland with unemployment around 12-13%. The problem is agreement on "full employment." Is it 5%? 4%? 6%? Corporations are refusing to hire new workers and are just sitting on profits. FWIW, this whole ObamaCare solution's going to have a huge impact on shrinking those deficits (or blowing them up even further). The GOP was stupid to shut the government down or they could credibly argue the roll out's been a disaster already. As smart as he (Obama) is, you'd think they would have learned from Mitt Romney's "data disaster" to hire the best and brightest (McCain's idea was a Silicon Valley recruiting trip on Air Force One) to implement the computer systems and data management. I'm not big on outsourcing, and I think Larry Ellison's one of the biggest pricks in the world, but there's no way Oracle or any credible private company could have messed this up as badly as government contractors. It's fine to use the best in the world to implement a system, and that's most assuredly NOT the government. But it's also the role of government to protect its weakest citizens, and that can never happen if every service in the country is privatized.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 02:12 PM) According to Fangraphs, his UZR through 5,000 innings so far is -40.6, that is in the range of horrific defender. And his pedestrian offense could actually be beneficiary of the Coors effect. The only reasonable OF candidate I would want from the NL West is Parra and Chris Denorfia. Denorfia, as a starter in CF? Really?