caulfield12

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 3, 2009 -> 12:50 AM) What is Monsters versus Aliens? And disastrous Phil, what are you referring to there? Phillip Pullman's Golden Compass trilogy, it was supposed to be followed up by His Dark Materials, I guess the atheistic crowd/dark appeal isn't quite what it used to be for young children, lol. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0892782/ Monsters vs. Aliens (not to be confused w. S. Weaver) 3D, the first new wave hit of the future of film-making this year

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...ml?eref=writers Top 20 remaining FA's, I can't see how Cabrera, Crede and Garland are ranked ahead of Manny (maybe best values?)...but I really wish that we had Tim Redding back, lol. He's be our 4th starter at this point in the proceedings. At the time we had him, he was totally superfluous. A mention of Freddy Garcia, but nothing about the likes of Mulder, Pedro Martinez, Bartolo Colon, Glavine, Smoltz as some of the other bargain basement pitchers that might be available. Pettitte might be the best fit for us, but I don't see him coming to Chicago at all. Not to mention the four lefties issue...soon to be five if they trade Floyd and Marquez is a bust.

Well, maybe every American with credit card debt will join together and refuse to pay off their cards until the government bails them out too....we wouldn't want all the card companies to go bankrupt and be replaced by PayDay loan operations, would we? It is interesting, at the end of World War II, we were a lender to the world...and now we're the biggest debtor nation on earth. About $2.4 trillion of the outstanding US debt goes to the following... Of the total foreign holdings, Japan owns 24% and China owns 20%. The U.K., Brazil and the oil exporting countries own about 6% each. The Bureau of International Settlements suspects that much of the holdings by Belgium, Caribbean Banking Centers and Luxembourg (8%) are fronts for various oil-exporting countries or hedge funds that do not wish to be identified. from useconomy.about.com http://useconomy.about.com/gi/dynamic/offs..._9YleiDDVkkQqUg

Well, the problem with that is what contending major league team would be willing to give Andruw Jones their CF job heading into 2009? The White Sox, in this regard, seem as good a bet as any team to be interested. I'm not saying it's altogether logical or that KW hasn't gone off the deep end with this move...but at least we now have something to talk about and discuss for the first time in a couple of weeks!

from salon.com Are conservatives right? Did the New Deal's "massive government intervention prolong the Great Depression?" Ummm ... no. On deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt's term -- four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending and the economy went back down again." To be sure, you can credibly argue that the New Deal had its share of problems. But overall, the numbers prove it helped -- rather than hurt -- the macroeconomy. "Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms [while] the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent," writes University of California historian Eric Rauchway. What about the New Deal's most "massive government intervention" -- its financial regulations? Did they prolong the Great Depression in ways the official data didn't detect? Nope. According to Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression." In fact, even famed conservative economist Milton Friedman admitted that the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War." OK -- if the verifiable evidence proves the New Deal did not prolong the Depression, what about historians -- do they "pretty much agree" on the opposite? Again, no. As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."

$12.2M signing bonus ($5.1M in 2008, $2.1M in 2009, $5M in 2010) 08:$9M, 09:$15M no-trade clause perks: suite on road Jones to donate $0.15M annually to club charity Very, very generous of him, only $150,000, of which he'll get 1/3rd back in a tax deduction. from cot's baseballcontracts So he's still owed $22.1 million. The Dodgers would need to eat somewhere between $14-16 million of that before KW would think about biting on this deal for one year. from mlbtraderumors.com FRIDAY, 7:51pm: Ken Gurnick of MLB.com reports that the Major League Player's Association has approved the contract agreement, which will defer Jones' remaining salary. According to an industry source, Jones will either be traded or released before the start of spring training and perhaps sometime this month. FRIDAY, 2:38pm: SI.com's Jon Heyman says the Dodgers and Jones have agreed to rework his contract to save the team $12MM in '09. Jones is likely to play for another team in the coming season. THURSDAY, 9:55pm: As pointed out in the comments section below, Andruw's '09 salary could be deferred across several years and would thus gain interest, resulting in a higher total payout. That could work for both sides. A blog called Fantasy Sports Experience recalls a similar situation with the Mets and Bobby Bonilla in 2000.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AuPp...p&type=lgns from Moores, who is divorcing.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 11:06 PM) When talking about inducing groundballs, Jon Garland has no business being mentioned in the same breath as Webb and Lowe. Career GB/FB: Lowe: 3.32 Webb: 3.57 Garland: 1.29 It's not even close. People really need to stop exaggerating his groundball tendencies and with one of the worst K/9 rates in the MLB, he's putting a lot of flyballs in play anyways. That will end as soon as we stop saying all white basketball players are "heady" (like Steve Nash or Troy Skinner, lol) and all black basketball players are athletic/raw/uncoachable/emotional/selfish...the Jon Garland myth will live on forever in time.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 08:18 PM) Freida Pinto is really cute, but I don't know that she brought anything that amazing to the movie. She didn't stand out to me other than her looks, and her character was not what made me enjoy the film. I'm sure the buzz from Slumdog will bring her some bigger roles, we'll see what she has then, I suppose. I hope that the big-name movies struggling will lead to more films relying on good scripts and premises rather than banking on "star power", but I'm not optimistic about that. It's such a celebrity-driven culture, and I doubt a few underperforming movies will change that. Yeah, Speed Racer, the sequel to Chronicles of Narnia, even Quantum of Solace (domestically so-so, it has done really well overseas, but it just wasn't as good as Casino Royale not even close), the disastrous Phil. Pullman movie that won't lead to a series, the imfamous Delgo! Australia would be another example, something like a $150 million movie that will struggle to make back half that. Movies like Hancock are even considered disappointments when they make in the hundreds of millions now...so definitely, there's that niche for movies that are either brainless (like all the Jason Statham ones that make tidy profits) or ones that don't require huge budgets like High School Musical or Hannah Montana type productions. It will be interesting to see the fate of Avatar and The Watchmen, along with Monsters versus Aliens, the new 3D/2D theatre experience.

Not to mention that we have no young pitching (after Richard and Poreda) to give up or 2) that anybody would want, at least not close to major league ready.

Well, there was also a rumor they were trying to dump Jones on the Mets and were willing to give up a huge chunk of his salary for 2009. Of course, the Mets already have this dude named Beltran for that position. The problem, once again, is who is the leadoff man if we get Jones? Getz/Lillibridge? Ramirez with his low OBP?

Fly balls fall for hits about 21.2% of the time whereas ground balls go for hits about 28.6% of the time. Groundballs go for hits a fairly higher percentage of the time than fly balls. But ground balls don't leave the park and they rarely go for extra base hits. When fly balls fall for hits you're looking at quite a few extra base hits and you'll also see about 11% of those leave the yard. Now the question with Floyd (or groundball pitchers like Webb, Garland or Lowe) is how good will the infield be? Do we want lots of ground balls with Fields at 3B and a possibly shaky DP combination up the middle?

If we took on Mora and Roberts, we'd be adding $17 million to payroll. In a different time and place, maybe that would make sense...if there was a trade in place with Dye/Konerko going somewhere for a starting pitcher to replace Floyd. If was Santana for Konerko, maybe I could live with that one...but not the Bailey/Dye move, at least if we want to compete in 2009. If we're already surrendering in 09, that's fine, but that's generally not the modus operandi of the KW we all know and sometimes love. You'd still be adding payroll, and putting someone like Fields or Viciedo into the outfield in that type of scenario, either in LF or in Viciedo's case, possibly RF. Still, you don't do this trade if it means substituting someone totally unproven at the major league level like Bailey for a more known commodity in Floyd. At least Cooper knows he can get results/progress out of Gavin, the same thing's not guaranteed with other pitchers we'd bring in. Would there be anything more threatening to our future than being forced to go and acquire pitching during the season to stay in contention, instead of relying on our minor league system? It just seems anti-Kenny, and also like a recipe for disaster to rely on 3 unproven pitchers, let alone 2. Maybe KW has a plan to spend another $5-10 million on a veteran 4/5 type guy, but he keeps saying we're against budget or already at budget, how can we do that without subtracting further? That would mean you'd have to trade Dye/Konerko and THEN you can go out and make that veteran signing theoretically. Not to mention the position Beckham has the most value to the Sox (or any other team) is being a power-hitting middle infielder. You move him to 3B and he's just MLB average probably. Not to mention moving him to 3B moves Fields/Viciedo out of position. I guess if it's for just one year, okay...then you take the draft pick for Roberts. But, then again, one year of Roberts for a young/affordable starting pitcher doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I mean, we could have a combination of Vince Coleman, Ichiro and Grady Sizemore leading off and it wouldn't do us any good with our starting rotation.

If we took on Mora and Roberts, we'd be adding $17 million to payroll. In a different time and place, maybe that would make sense...if there was a trade in place with Dye/Konerko going somewhere for a starting pitcher to replace Floyd. You'd still be adding payroll, and putting someone like Fields or Viciedo into the outfield in that type of scenario, either in LF or in Viciedo's case, possibly RF. Still, you don't do this trade if it means substituting someone totally unproven at the major league level like Bailey for a more known commodity in Floyd. At least Cooper knows he can get results/progress out of Gavin, the same thing's not guaranteed with another other pitchers we'd bring in. Would there be anything more threatening to our future than being forced to go and acquire pitching during the season to stay in contention, instead of relying on our minor league system? It just seems anti-Kenny, and also like a recipe for disaster to rely on 3 unproven pitchers, let alone 2.

If you go into the future, the only things that Bush did that could be considered Republican are cutting taxes on the rich, cutting back regulations further and going to war. Everything else, you'd think he was a liberal Democrat, lol, or WORSE! (I say that as a Democrat). Go back to the 90's when Greenspan, Wall Street and the bond traders pleaded for a balanced budget. Now of all that's gone out the window. If it's not stagflation, it's deflation. We've pumped so much money into the world economy with our low interest rates that it didn't have a final destination, ending up seeking higher return in high-risk areas like derivatives and credit default swaps. Just like the early 80's with the Japanese, the Chinese, Singaporeans, Dubai, etc., have become big holders of US bonds as well as stock market investments and "rescuers" with their sovereign wealth funds. It's a complete mess, to say the least. We can never seem to find that moment when the worst is over, whether it's the stock market, banks collapsing or now the auto manufacturers. One thing is obvious, it will take more than the IMF, World Bank, G7/8, G20....all the countries we need to work together, as problems can't be isolated in just one country or region. There's the destabilizing Middle East situation now....the falling price of oil taking a toll on Russia and the OPEC states. Boom and bust. Look at countries like Iceland, Hungary or Latvia. At least European countries tied into the EURO system have been somewhat isolatd from the problem. So you can point at the lax regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Greenspan's forcing everyone in the housing market...we either have to spend our way out of this (when everyone's grown concerned with debt) or just put our head in the sand and hope the problem goes away. Highly unlikely. Consumer purchases can't drive this recovery now, it has to be driven by government monetary and fiscal policy. Let's just hope they get it right.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 06:46 PM) Man. Roberts is such a monster though. Gavin $-wise makes us all want him around awhile, but really how irreplaceable are those skills? We can get middle rotation starters. True leadoff guys though arent around How many mid 20's pitchers making under $1,000,000 per season with his stuff are out there on the market today? I mean, we can't even get Bailey for Dye, apparently. And Bailey hasn't proven anything yet. Gavin was big down the stretch when we needed him, with the exception of his playoff start being so-so.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 06:08 PM) It would depend on an extension for Roberts, IMO. Gavin had a very good year, but who is to say he stays consistent. Yes, but couldn't the same argument be made for trading Danks, too? Yes, there are differences....but the Indians would have looked really smart (then really dumb again) for trading Cliff Lee at different points of his early career.

I just wanted to add that would be the dumbest trade in White Sox history....one year of Brian Roberts (and probably Type A compensation) for another hole in the pitching rotation. The ONLY way this makes sense is if we have a Dye/Konerko trade already in play for pitching, but that pitcher would probably be a youngish prospect/suspect like Bailey, and then you go into the season with 3 young or rookie pitchers, a 3rd year pitcher perhaps going backwards because of the expanded workload in 2009 and Buehrle. Not exactly a recipe for success. Either that, or the Taveras signing and the cost of Floyd is how high the price of a Top 5-7 leadoff hitter has become in the game today. And signing Roberts to a long-term extension at his age (middle 30's) just doesn't make much sense either. KW would be buying too high on Roberts, with the likelihood that his best days are probably already behind him. It would make more sense to spend some money on Hudson and not blow up our pitching rotation any further. KW has to remember 2005, and the fact that it was/is/always will be starting pitching that wins championships moreso than any other individual factor.

Everyone is hyping the actress from the Slumdog movie as the next "It" girl already....is she really that amazing? The last time there was such a buzz, it was over the South American javelin thrower in the Olympics. Well, it looks like Marley & Me is continuing to blow away the competition, already at $80 million. I wonder if we'll get the inevitable sequel...but how do you make a sequel when the dog has already died in the first movie? I guess it will be Marley: The Puppy Years or something like that, and it will make even more money because younger kids and families can safely see it without the tearjerking scene at the end. As far as Tom Cruise goes, I wonder if he'll ever get greenlighted for another $150+ million action movie again, and how long that will take? Tropic Thunder was an interesting choice for him, and could have backfired, but it didn't, just like Magnolia. Well, Hollywood really loves a great comeback story. Think of all the actors like Sandler, Ferrell and Jim Carrey whose recent movies have more or less struggled or been critically panned. Even Will Smith hasn't been enough to defeat average or worthless scripts like Hancock and 7 Pounds. Speaking of killing box office, how many Angelina Jolie movies will do disappointing numbers before people realize she simply doesn't guarantee big openings for a movie just with her name...unless you want to try to count Wanted, although I'm not sure you can because of the genre of that movie. Specifically, A Mighty Heart and Changeling have done poor or so-so box office....which finally brings up Nicole Kidman's mess of a movie, Australia. Another good (sometimes great) actress who just doesn't draw people into theatres with her name alone, if she ever did.

Well, there's Betemit, too. I guess. Although he might be equally bad or so-so at every infield position, at least he's fairly versatile. However, if we have Betemit starting over 100 games at any position this year, I think we're in major trouble. Who knows, maybe he'll have a Carlos Quentin-ish breakout year offensively too playing at USCF. But not counting on that happening one bit.

Actually, fwiw, one of my Master's students (Gift) is in the transformational process right now from man to woman but hasn't had the surgery (quite expensive) yet. In some cities in northern Thailand, they actually have three bathrooms, one for men, one for women and one for kathoeys/ladyboys. I know there are a ton of them in Pattaya (about 45 minutes south of me), but the closest I've ever been is a drag show. If you really want to find them, just hang out in Bangkok or Pattaya or Phuket and you'll be inundated. That's why I live in a nice, quiet, non touristy college/university town right by the beach. Not so many tourists (just Thais from Bangkok on weekends or holidays) and the occasional "coyote" dancer, but pretty normal lifestyle. I can even buy Dairy Queen Blizzards here to pump up my Berkshire Hathaway stock. Unfortunately, only KFC, no McDonald's!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 01:44 PM) I was actually trying to find how much CF the kid has played, but there isn't much detail I can find on his minor league time. Anyone got any solid info on exactly how much CF Lillbridge has played? Apparently he played quite the position quite a bit in college (Univ. of Wash) but has been a shortstop pretty much ever since he was drafted. I don't think he played CF at all in the minors with the Braves, baseballcube might have the answer. Born September 18, 1983, in Everett, Wash. ... parents are Leslie and Curt Lillibridge ... has three younger brothers, Kiel, Cameron and Riley ... Kiel is a freshman on the UW baseball team this season ... majoring in anthropology. Washington 2004 (Sophomore) - Named to the All-Pac-10 first team for the second straight season ... named to the all-tournament team at the NCAA Regional ... ranked third in the Pac-10 with 65 runs scored, seventh with 79 hits, fifth with 16 doubles, ninth with 11 home runs, seventh with 130 total bases, fifth with 41 walks and fourth with 18 stolen bases ... nine doubles in Pac-10 play tied for conference lead ... several season totals ranked in the top-10 in Husky history: 249 at bats (fifth), 79 hits (ninth), 54 runs (fifth), 41 walks (sixth) and 65 strikeouts (first) ... enters his junior year No. 6 on the UW career batting average list with a .347 mark ... 24 career home runs ties him for 10th in UW history ... finished the regular season on a 14-game hitting streak (21-for-59 (.356) with 18 runs during the streak) ... one of two Huskies to start every game ... began the year at shortstop, but moved back to center field (where he spent most of his freshman year) in midseason to give Batkoski a place to play

Based on ability alone, Lillibridge would seem to have the higher ceiling, and yet Getz looks more likely to be a solid/steady player at this point. All that can change, as early as Spring Training. The jury remains out on whether Lillibridge could actually be a leadoff hitter...and whether Owens can stay healthy playing CF everyday. I would say both are bigger question marks than Getz being a decent #2 hitter, although KW has rolled the dice before and won a number of times with players coming off injuries or down seasons like Lillibridge.

Yes, you're right, there are a large number of kathoeys or ladyboys in both Thailand and the Philippines. Actually, my g/f is Filipina, she lives in Cebu City, I was there for Christmas. There's a saying, that "the most beautiful women in Thailand are men," although I can usually tell right away, even with surgery on the Adam's apple. It's either the voice, the height, or the musculature in the arms/shoulders/legs, or the fake boobs. One of those always gives it away.

That Tubby Smith...of the Tulsa/UGA years, is not the same Smith of today. I don't think he's as motivated to win as he once was, especially after he was spit out of the Kentucky grinder. And 20 wins doesn't mean as much as it used to as far as "magic numbers" because the number of games played has changed and many teams are scheduling weak non-conference schedules in fear of getting upset by mid major teams, even at home. If Minnesota can go to the NCAA's just two consecutive years in basketball, I'll be very impressed. Three would be amazing.