caulfield12

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 04:19 PM) I mean no one - not anyone on this board, not anyone in the media, not anyone in government, etc. When it's conservative policy that is failing (tea party government cutbacks) everyone jumps up and down and says "see how dumb this is? It doesn't work!" When it's liberal policy, no one says a damn thing but "well we actually need to do MORE." Education, jobs, poverty, etc. etc. It's never the liberal belief of "don't worry, we'll just spend our way out of this and give people s***" that's the problem. It's that the government just doesn't have the funds to be able to provide enough! A third of people in this state are poor. A third! How is that acceptable? Why do the same crooked and corrupt democrats get elected to office on the same platforms? Guess whose income tax is going to go up another 2-4% in the coming years? Guess how they're going to pay for the massive pension problem. And yes, SS, I would gladly move to a different state. The wife and I have already talked about moving even if the commute does suck. Where was the Tea Party from 2001-2008 when the "fiscal cliff/debt ceiling" was really beginning to become a problem? Where were those people speaking out on behalf of not increasing the military/defense budget every year? If you want to talk about a truly HORRIBLE return on investment, look no further than Afghanistan and the Middle East. What do we have to show for all those trillions of dollars spent? Money that wasn't spent on Americans...is the world really a safer place? Lots of policies by governments have failed, but just as many have been foreign as domestic/social programs.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 01:55 PM) I thought ZERO DARK THIRTY was really good but somewhat over hyped. The compound assault was extremely well done but the other stuff felt like it was just killing time. It's hard to judge since its actual events but things happened to conveniently. And I didn't know who the lesser people they were chasing were. Expected torture scenes to be tougher as well. The people criticizing those scenes obviously didnt see it. I'd put it behind Argo, Playbook, beasts, and PI in Best pic category. And the whole dramatic conflict regarding her new female CIA GFF...that wasn't close to the reality of what actually happened and why it happened and the time order/sequence/chronology. Interesting one loss in the Golden Globes has taken a lot of the luster off Lincoln. Maybe that was their way of poking the Academy for not even nominating Affleck. Beasts of the Southern Wild, don't feel enough people saw that one...although you could say the same for The Artist or The Hurt Locker in years past.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 10:58 AM) This stuff is very interesting to me, and I thought this might lend some context for the piecemeal discussions we've been having about how we feel about the 2013 roster to date. Keep in mind that ZiPS is one of the most conservative projection systems, but also one of the most accurate in terms of league-wide variance. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/2...cago-white-sox/ After seeing this, do you feel any better/worse about 2013? Where are they getting the idea Tyler Saladino could be a key figure in 2013? Viciedo with almost exactly the same projection? They need to study the White Sox roster better, so at least they would know about Sanchez and spending more time talking about him, Trayce Thompson, etc. And then there's sure to be a ton of disagreement about whether Quintana can put up another similar season, especially after all the innings he pitched (vis a vis career norms) in 2012.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 06:06 PM) I think we agree then the Sox get the attendance they deserve. That's usually true of almost ANY business. Kind of like you get what you pay for...on the other hand, you seem to be taking issue with the fact that the team has skyrocketed in value (as have most teams in the last 3-5 years), and the ownership is not investing even more than $100-105 million. So the real question is how many teams (not moving into new stadiums) consistently increase their payroll every year to keep up with those escalating franchise values...and some are assessing the White Sox as much closer to the $1-1.2 billion range than the more conservative estimates of $600 million...are there ANY that have done so? You'll see one year blips (occasionally) from every team, like the Sox going into 2006 or 2011, but you hardly ever see 15-25% payroll increases year after year after year except for teams rebuilding from near the bottom of the payroll scale and over time escalating into a more competitive salary range. The White Sox have been in the top half for nearly the entire KW regime. We're not talking the Oakland A's here. If you want the closest example of a team being in a similar situation to the White Sox from an economics standpoint, the deterioration of the Mariners fanbase when the organization tried to rebuild after a nearly decade of success matching or even bettering the Sox (no, they didn't win the WS, but they were more consistent) shows what can happen. Or Cleveland. Or Baltimore. Or Toronto. Or SD.

QUOTE (southside_hitman @ Jan 16, 2013 -> 12:49 AM) This is a very thoughtful post that I entirely agree. Among the unknowns is, does Hahn have the trust of Jerry Reinsdorf with big money deals and to what extent? Let's say Hahn has a proposed deal to trade two players plus two prospects to Miami for Giancarlo Stanton, but to make that deal make sense Stanton would need to be signed to a mega multi-year deal. Could Hahn convince Jerry to invest that much money and would Jerry trust his judgment? JR is a proven winner in this town with the Bulls and our Sox. My thinking is that he will continue to pay for big contracts if that can be translated into more wins and attendance numbers. Something was wrong last year with the level of enthusiasm that fans had. What the he11 was wrong with us for not supporting the team and getting out to games as much as we had in the past? The Sox were in it until the latter part of the season. I think the Sox have to be worried that if the 2013 team is in third or fourth place after a few moths, interest and attendance could really tank. Lastly, is Ventura helping motivate players and has he really shown anything special to us in terms of being a winning Manager? He sure did not capture the imagination of Sox fans with his apathetic look and passive emotional demeanor. There's no doubt this team played better for Ventura (almost all the same players on the roster as 2011, with a few exceptions). In my mind, there's no doubt he also lost us 2-3-4-5 games that a more experienced manager PROBABLY would not have...although there's absolutely no way to prove that. Part of the problem was lack of depth (injuries to the likes of DeAza, Dunn, Konerko and Youkilis hurt a lot down the stretch) on the bench, and it was clear that Ventura didn't trust them. He also had a lot of issues with confidence in terms of trusting his inexperienced (but promising) bullpen. In the end, I still believe a better, more experienced manager could have gotten that team over the hump coming down the stretch. Could Ventura evolve into that manager over time, before he gets bored? We'll just have to wait and see. It will take some convincing. And maybe that was also a reason for the skepticism on the part of the fans. The fact that DET was running out four MVP/Cy Young candidates in Verlander, Scherzer, Cabrera and Fielder, and another one on the cusp in Austin Jackson. We were countering with a completely inexperienced manager, Chris Sale and Jake Peavy pitching on fumes the final two months, along with other rookie pitchers like Quintana, Jones and Reed who were pushed to the breaking point.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 07:54 PM) I think from a certain point of view that this is actually backwards, that KW was the conservative one and Hahn is the gamblers. KW traded away unproven prospects for proven veterans. I don't care how good the prospect is they are still suspect until they prove it at the MLB level. So KW was trading the gamble for the proven player. Hahn on the other hand seems willing to hold on to everyone and gamble that either the players will improve or that his prospects will come through. Again it's still too early to say it for sure but it appears he is patient and willing to wait for the right deal and not afraid to go into the season with his own players. Thus KW is the more conservative (going more with the proven player) while Hahn is gambling on unproven players. You can substitute Ozzie Guillen for KW in that paragraph as well....Ozzie loved his veteran players, and always deferred to the veteran (remember Pierre vs. Viciedo), with a few notable exceptions. Jenks in 2005 Gordon Beckham, although Ozzie always maintained Gordon was "forced on him" and annointed a superstar in the making before he was ready Or going with Mackowiak/Griffey Jr., over Anderson in 2006, for another example.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 08:35 PM) I wonder which game worn jersey would command the highest price? Konerko or Thomas, probably...Buehrle, AJ, Rowand and Crede would get some solid bidding behind them, as well. Dye and Jenks would follow after those two top tiers. An Ozzie Guillen jersey, as well.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 08:13 PM) Seriously, re-read your post. You say there are many more important things than baseball... and in the same post say you can't blame fans for not making the postseason. Do you really not get the conflict in your own two sentences there? You are saying you can't blame the fans for not going, but then blame the team for not having the money to spend? You can't in the same breath make an argument for baseball being unimportant, but also expect baseball teams to spend money they don't have. Its ridiculous. I can't believe I'm going to defend Marty, but I think what he meant is... Not that baseball is unimportant...but, that in the overall scheme of things, Chicagoland families have lots of options in terms of what they spend their discretionary entertainment/leisure dollars on, and baseball isn't a priority for most. Not really the philosophical debate of whether baseball SHOULD be important, because most of the hardcore Sox fans here take winning and losing on a day to day basis as something of a "life or death" eventuality (myself included), but that in the past 2-3 seasons apathy has started to spread to the more casual Sox fans. From this perspective, it's the responsibility of the ownership group and front office to give the fans a more exciting product, more post-seasons, more thrills and superstars and reasons to make baseball important again in their lives, like 2005 and mostly 2006, when the White Sox were the hottest ticket in town and many games were sold out. I don't think the argument is about making people who don't care about baseball care about a sport that's boring and unimportant to them, but to find those "lost" Sox fans and get them interested in coming out to the ballpark again. OTOH, some of these fans are paying attention, the t.v. ratings were up dramatically, they're just not coming to the ballpark with the same frequency as the recent past...but those revenues all add up, from WGN, Comcast, Fox, TBS/TNT, ESPN, MLB Extra Innings, Dish and DirecTV, etc. So I guess the argument is that the revenues are increasing in OTHER places (not tickets, parking or concessions/souvenirs), therefore, the team should still be spending more than they are, something like that.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 06:41 PM) Marty, I used to support you and thought some of your opinions were good in a different way. Recently, you've become a complete ass. You've made some very opinionated statements and haven't backed them up well, and when people question you about them you just blame it on something else or ignore their point while continually stating your opinion without evidence. It's become a tiresome act on this board (not just you, but a lot of posters lately). People are bored, so some want to have SOMETHING to argue about, if they're not prone to arguing about gun control, the debt ceiling or who's actually responsible for one's physical well-being. I guess with KW "gone," it leaves very few targets, other than Hahn, Boyer or ownership. Hard to pick on Ventura, after all. If you think back to the past couple of offseasons, that was one huge area of contention that's thankfully gone, but Greg has his enduring point that Ozzie made things more interesting. Now whether that actually translated into butts in the seats or more revenues, you'd have a harder time convincing most of that fact.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 06:28 PM) That's not actually true. You really should do some research before making statements like this. Linebrink would be one, although Marty will disagree about the money being significant, surely. Ray Durham, too, I think. We ate MacDougal's contract. We essentially gave away Jackson to get rid of Teahen. When we traded Thome in 2009, I'm pretty sure we paid his contract off....Dodgers, I think. I'm fairly sure the Sox have never eaten more than $5 million or so, though, unless you want to consider Joe Borchard in that manner, haha. Cue thread arguing we should "eat" the contracts of Danks, Thornton, Crain, Ramirez, Floyd, Dunn and Rios. Somehow, that will help improve our fan support, as it will clearly lead to assembling a dynasty of Braves-like proportions. I have noticed that Marty has never once argued we should dump Konerko. Even he knows that would be suicide for Reinsdorf....although you could see him being traded this year if the Sox are out of contention and we can save some money at the end of the year.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 06:25 PM) The White Sox never include significant amounts of money in trades. The organization either develops or trades for their best players. They never look at the top tier of free agents which makes it difficult to put together a team that has the ability to make the postseason when the farm system is garbage. It's telling that the $65M contract signed by Danks was the richest in club history and $52M only buys you Edwin Jackson on the open market. The next time the Sox spend $65M or more on a player Chris Sale in three years. It's going to be a tough couple years. Because they're not idiots. How many of the World Series winners from the past 15 or so years been almost entirely comprised of "big ticket" free agent purchases besides the Yankees and Red Sox? Where are the Phillies now, once their payroll got bloated out of the stratosphere? Albert Belle David Wells Adam Dunn None of them were "big name" free agents, apparently. And it's not even a foregone conclusion we'll invest millions in Chris Sale at that point because of health concerns. It's possible, but i would guess it's more like a 50/50 thing, at best. If he stays 100% healthy in 2013, though, they'd be stupid not to consider offering him a deal extending into his FA years. Then you also refuse to look at adding the likes of Alex Rios or Jake Peavy as being similar to free agent acquisitions. Finally, you don't count signing players like Ramirez and Viciedo, no matter what they eventually do or don't do at the major league level, because you're now transfixed with the idea of spending someone else's money foolishly on Josh Hamilton or Z. Greinke.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 09:36 AM) I get more frustrated with people who expected Rick Hahn to be ultra aggressive and completely transform this team overnight while only adding, at the most, $25 million in payroll. The fact of the matter is Rick Hahn is doing exactly what people have wanted Ken Williams to do for years - slow down, hang on to prospects, build from within, and trade when you are at the point of going over the top. There is no one single move that pushes the White Sox "past" the Tigers at this point in time - no matter what, they're going to have a better team, on paper, going into the year than the White Sox, and that's the simple truth to it. If he brings in Hamilton, it's essentially at +6 WAR at the very best (because I figure he's a 6 WAR player in LF, though he could certainly be better, and moving De Aza from CF to LF kills his value), so even that wouldn't have pushed the Sox over the top. And rather than forcing a trade of Gavin Floyd for what essentially amounts to pennies on the dollar, he can hang on to him and either keep him to add depth and durability to the rotation, or he can deal him midseason (especially if the team struggles like so, so many of you believe it will). For the first time that I can remember, the White Sox have enough talent in the minor leagues that I can look at it and safely believe that they will have atleast 5 steady contributors from that system at the MLB level at some point in time within the next 3-4 years. I look at it and see a guy who has superstar potential in Courtney Hawkins and a couple of different pitchers who have top of the rotation talent. I'm not sure if people wanted Hahn to deal from that and get marginal upgrades at best or shred it Veeck style to sell off for maybe one or two playoff runs, or to sign free agents which cripple the team's long-term financial goals, or to blow up and absolutely forego any sort of chance at competition in the next 3-5 years while cutting attendance by about 20% starting next year. Do any of those make sense? Think from a rational point of view as to what you would have done differently if you were Rick Hahn, and then think about it again and see if it actually would have been the viable and most effecient move both short and long term. This team won 85 games last year. They're adding a guy who has been a 3-4 WAR starting pitcher, adding a full-time 3Bman who should get on base and will put the ball in play, and they brought back their most important free agent (there is no argument here). If everything falls apart, this could certainly be a 72-75 win team. If everything comes together, it could be a 92-95 win team. More than likely, it's in between there at around 82-85 wins again, which probably won't be good enough for the playoffs. Konerko and Floyd are free agents at that point, Dunn will only have 1 year left on his deal (making him move movable), and, unless someone has stepped up elsewhere, the Sox probably will sell quite a few more pieces off. They are in "purgatory" right now, but unlike the NFL and NBA, variance and randomness play a much larger role in the MLB. If they get hot and Detroit suffers an injury, they could very well be penciling themselves into a playoff spot. Baseball is weird like that sometimes. Teams like the 2012 Orioles and the 2005 White Sox happen. This team isn't so far upcreek right now that they have no chance going into the season, unlike the Houston Astros or the Miami Marlins, and in fact, this team has a better chance at reaching the postseason than most. With the way this coaching staff has prepared these players last season, I'm willing to take that chance. Not to mention Rios and Peavy after 2014 as well. So almost all of the bigger contracts will be cleared, with the exception of John Danks. They're still set up to be competitive or decent the next two years (with the possible variances from the 70's to 90's in wins) and we all know from past history the team has been aggressive in trying to make improvements at the ASB. By 2015, you can definitely see Hawkins and Thompson playing an integral role as starters. If both of them flop (and assuming Mitchell and Walker are more on the 4th outfielder track than projected starters), we'll be back to where we were 2-3 years ago, unless another Sale comes along internally. I suppose if DeAza gets more expensive and older in his arb years, he could be flipped out for one of those guys as well.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 01:56 PM) Average team last year got a .699 OPS and 13 HR from 2nd basemen, and .753 OPS and 20 HR from 3rd basemen. I guess it was psychology that got me. Our 3B last year until YOUK were so anemic, and then every time I looked at Beckham's OPS, it was in the bottom 3-5 in the majors. Beckham really was close to horrible offensively for 2/3rd's of last season. There used to be a very clear differentiation there between the two. Now they're almost interchangeable, except from a defensive standpoint.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 04:38 PM) Cool. I'd place a few other items ahead of the ring that might be in the same price range. A WS Game winning worn jersey from a starter would probably be tops on my list. Perhaps AJ, Konerko, or Jenks (framed with the final out picture). Would $25k buy that? Lots of good choices. Would probably go for Uribe, Contreras, Crede, Buehrle or Jermaine. Aren't there any Aaron Rowand "fan boys" left?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 10:48 PM) If he was on the Tigers, it would be due to the dilligence and skill of their scouting department, not luck, Nope, they've spent a lot more unwisely over the last decade than the White Sox. However, having Verlander, Scherzer, Cabrera, Austin Jackson and now Fielder cancels out a majority of the stupid financial decisions they've made....

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 09:15 PM) How did we luck into Ramirez? I meant in the sense nobody bid against us (or maybe it was only the Indians), and that 10-12 major league teams perceived him as more of a utility/bench player than a legit starter and the rest didn't even bother to scout him at all. We didn't "develop" him per se, and we certainly didn't get as big a bargain a year later with Viciedo because of the complete lack of hype that the unnoticed Ramirez signing failed to get the first time...the microscope was definitely on the rest of MLB not to make the same mistake twice. Still, it's the main reason we've survived the past 10-12 years, our scouting internationally and of other MLB teams and scouring their minor league rosters. Maybe not luck...we were able to temporarily exploit an advantage, and partially due to the presence of Contreras and El Duque in 2005. And the common bonds among the agent and the Sox front office/Cuban players.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/14/health/c...sity/index.html Perfect, Coca-Cola's going to "spin" that now they want to be part of a proactive solution and deflect the blame from their beverages and say they're just a symptom of the epidemic, not the endemic cause or one of the primary ones.

We're fine with outfield prospects, the biggest issue for this organization in the last decade has been developing catchers (of course, with AJ, they didn't absolute have to produce one, so they traded for Flowers) and infielders (3B, SS, 2B). We "lucked" into Ramirez and unfortunately failed in our project of making Viciedo a 3B, where his offense would have been a huge plus. Uribe/Crede turned into Teahen/Viciedo/Vizquel, into Morel, into Hudson/Youk, into Keppinger. Not a lot of stability over there. Sanchez definitely looks very promising, but he still has to prove last year wasn't a fluke. When you project the 2013 season, the biggest risk right now is the failure of Tyler Flowers to stick as the everyday catcher. If that happens, then they're in a world of hurt. A lof of the offensive pressure will be on both Flowers and Beckham (and Dayan) to pick up the offensive slack. And there has to be at least MILD concern about DeAza making the readjustment back to everyday play in CF, both psychologically and in terms of the wear and tear on his body playing 150+ games at that position.

UGH. It's not rocket science. It has nothing to do with spending $25 million more. It has everything to do with developing younger players that will all hit years 2-5 at roughly the same time, combined with, at the very least, above average starting pitching and bullpen. And the right mix of veteran leadership at 2-3-4 positions on the field. This whole idea of spending our way into contention was tried in 2011, was it not? That doesn't mean it can NEVER EVER in the history of the franchise, happen again...just that the front office considers it more financially prudent to stand pat than to go out on a limb again and take the risk they'll have to sell off assets like Edwin Jackson in order to clear guys like Teahen off the books, like in 2011. Or dumping promising young pitchers because the pressure's too great for them to stand up to a pennant race, like Daniel Hudson. At least right now, they're in a much better position with Dunn and Rios than they were coming into 2012, but nobody's exactly clamoring for either of these guys in trade. If anything, 2005 proves the intelligence of NOT adopting the Marty Method. Dump Valentin, Ordonez and C-Lee, three players with big contracts. Add Garcia, Contreras, Vizcaino, Everett, Pods, Iguchi, Jermaine Dye, AJ, Hermanson, El Duque, McCarthy and Bobby Jenks. WIN. You spread out the risk financially not having so many of those $10+ million contracts, like we've been dealing with in the Jake Peavy, Rios and Dunn situations. Or even Konerko, if he continues to struggle in 2013 (let's hope not). Marty wants to spend that money on a Greinke or Josh Hamilton, and history has shown time after time those huge FA contracts work out about 15-20% of the time in the team's favor.

Can he be any worse than Morel/Hudson for the first half last year? I know, I know....he was injured, but my God, last year made Chris Snopek and Greg Norton look like quite credible third sackers.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 10:55 AM) I think the Sox get the attendance they deserve. SS2K5 believes otherwise Like the Rays and A's?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 10:51 AM) Really? They drew 2 million fans, which was 9th in the AL. That's not a good number, but consider that the 5 teams below them - Tampa Bay (worst stadium in an impossible location), Cleveland (terrible), Oakland (terrible stadium), Seattle (terrible team), and Kansas City (terrible team, mediocre stadium, AND they hosted the All-Star game). The Blue Jays were 8th with 2.1 million. The rest are teams that generally draw well, have new stadiums, are good, or some combination of those 3. KC's stadium is better than mediocre. It's the best park that was built in the late 60's/early 70's, by far.

QUOTE (Tannerfan @ Jan 13, 2013 -> 05:28 PM) Here's my hope: Sale=Buehrle Peavy=Contreras Danks=Garland Floyd=Garcia Quintana/Santiago=Hernandez/McCarthy Sale will be better then Mark was. Floyd equals Garcia is my one close your eyes and hope. I never liked Journey, but "Don't Stop Believing" Also people forget that for the first half of 05 Shingo was our closer. That would actually require Peavy beating the Tigers, well, how about just once, no, actually, three or four times and winning 16 consecutive decisions. Trayce Thompson is more likely to win AL Rookie of the Year in 2013.

"I was in eight World Series, and we won five," said the Chicago native who turns 75 on Dec. 18. Skowron took part in every Fall Classic from 1955 to 1963 except for 1959, when the White Sox were in it. "I have seven rings and a World Series watch." In a story that apparently has made its way around the White Sox organization a few times, Skowron mentioned he no longer owns the wristwatch. He sold it to a man in Connecticut for $9,000, when his wife wanted to purchase new windows for their home. "Not a bad deal," said Skowron. As for the World Series rings, the only one worn by Skowron is from the 1961 Yankees. That squad won the Series in five games, with players such as Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, Yogi Berra and Whitey Ford comprising this single-season greatness. Maris hit his record-breaking 61 home runs that year, and Mantle added 54. Skowron produced a career-high 28 long balls, giving the trio an impressive total of 143. The secret to their success, according to Skowron, was a special liquid refreshment. "We drank a lot of beer," Skowron said with a laugh. "I've never played on a greater team." Scott Merkin/chisox.com PD could also stand for "promotions department," but I would still bet on "player development" over that... The only other possibility I can think of is Tim Raines, who played for the Yankees in 1996 and 1998, but he would be listed as a coach, not PD, one would guess.

Having just watched Les Miz, there's no way that movie's winning the best picture. I thought Moulin Rouge was 10X better (even Romeo & Juliet)...although part of that's personal preference. Chicago was definitely much better, as well. The only actor/actress who deserves any awards (from Les Miz) would be Hugh Jackman, who basically carried that picture and kept it from flying off the wheels. Anne Hathaway was also excellent in her limited supporting role, FWIW. Actually, come to think of it, the only actor/actress who kept my attention (besides Hathaway and Jackman) is a new star on the horizon, Samantha Banks, who I had never seen b4 this film. The more I think it about it, Lincoln absolutely has to win, for a number of reasons. 1) Timing...zero political leadership in the US the last decade from either side 2) The way in which Spielberg/Lincoln deals with the slavery issue...as it morphs from pragmatic politics to fervent ideological belief, the abiding idea of what is right and just, it's essentially the anti politically correct politically correct movie, if that makes ANY sense, lol 3) The Bigelow movie takes so many liberties with the facts, there's just no way to get away from the fictionalized elements, particularly the presentation of torture as one of the principal reasons Bin Laden was discovered. 4) Django is just going to be too controversial/non PC and QT has too many enemies in the Academy for his movie to win In the same vein, I've watched the first 60% of Silver Linings Playbook and while Cooper and Lawrence are both eminently watchable, there's just no way that movie is one of the five best of the year, overall. If I could see THE IMPOSSIBLE, though, I have a feeling that movie could slide onto my Top 5 list.