Disco72

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 15, 2008 -> 11:00 AM) So here's a little addition to the discussion. News article from Denver. This billboard says "Don't Believe in God? You're Not Alone." I personally see no issue with them putting up billboards like this with their own money. I don't really understand it being offensive. I don't have a problem with it either. I do wonder what their message is, though. Assuming the message is "be good for goodness sakes," the question about God is a major distractor from that message. If their message is something else about believing/not believing, then I suppose they made their point. I think that PA's point was along the lines that the "God" part of their poster distracted from the simplicity and "goodness" of the "be good for goodness sake" message that should resonate with everyone regardless of religion.

To clarify my own point, I'm leaning towards Anderson in CF since there is pretty much nothing available in FA. Unless someone not named Tavaras becomes available via trade, KW might as well shore up the other areas on the team and let Anderson get one last shot at starting in CF and hitting 8th or 9th. Anderson is an upgrade over Swish, Wise, and Griffey on defense alone and did show some flashes of offensive potential despite exteremly limited ABs at some points in the season. Since none of those three were even very good offensively, it is not a major drop-off year-to-year.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 15, 2008 -> 10:20 AM) I think Kenny is serious about Fields, not so sure about the other guys. I certainly HOPE he is not serious about Owens. I'd rather pick up Mark Kotsay for one year or something if he's not a Type A, assuming Kenny doesn't want Anderson out there. He can't be serious about Owens. IMO, you let Anderson play, or you find a legitimate CFer for at least two years. Kotsay is not a guy I'd be very interested in. I think if Fields is healthy, he is not a bad option for 3B, so I agree with you that he is probably serious about Fields, if he doesn't identify and acquire a better player in the offseason.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 14, 2008 -> 02:14 PM) What would happen if we let the auto companies be bought out by Japanese companies and they ran their operations here? You are assuming the Japanese companies would want them. The Daimler-Chrystler merger was a disaster (I know, that was a German company), but it showed that clashes in corporate culture, business practices (e.g., the relationship with suppliers mentioned earlier in this thread), and national cultures can create an unworkable situation.

QUOTE (TheBlackSox8 @ Nov 14, 2008 -> 07:26 PM) i heard they renewed for a third season...at first i thought when it comes back in January, that would be season three. Learned yesterday that they have 6 more shows for season 2 starting in January....then season 3 starts in the summer. Awesome! Thanks for the info - Burn Notice is definitely an underrated show.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 08:43 AM) One would think the Braves offer allows the Padres the most flexibility. If they get Escobar, Schaffer/Gorkys, and Reyes then they'll have a lot to play around with. They could probably turn around and deal Escobar for more 'spects if they wanted to. Greene should get them a halfway decent prospect although I think they'd be selling pretty low. Giles might be cheap too considering his NTC takes teams out of the mix. If the Sox could unload a couple of outfielders I'd love to make a run at Giles if he'd agree to come here. He would give us a sweet lefty bat and really be the perfect type of fit for our lineup and ballpark. He's got good power, he walks a lot, he hits at home and on the road against both righties and lefties, he has enough speed to score in situations our current sluggers can't although he's not going to be stealing bases, plus he should be Type A after '09, and on top of all that, he could really be the perfect replacement for Jimmy after '09 both as a DH and as a lefty bat. I think his bat is still good for another 2-3 years given his health and power + plate discipline combination. Plus he could hit anywhere from 2-3 or 5-7 in a lineup. Please, please, make a run at Brian Giles. I think we'd be able to get him cheaper than a guy like him would normally go for because of the NTC. And he'll only make like $9M or something. Very affordable. Please do it Kenny. Someone help my failing memory, but didn't KW try to get Giles a couple times a few years ago? Could he be one of those "Kenny eventually gets the guys he wants" players?

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 11:33 AM) Isn't the AFL where KW decided to go after Floyd? I think he puts a-lot of faith in the AFL and is why Poreda is in the pen. I remember more talk about Masset in the AFL than Floyd, but maybe there was Floyd AFL talk too that I don't remember.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 09:42 AM) As usual you make some good points. One thing that I would about the Sox and Kenny's current situation is that IMO he can afford to deal both Javy and Jenks in a market starved for good, reasonably-priced pitching as well as two sluggers in a market starved for good, reasonably-priced hitting. The wrong move here IMO is trading just one player and expecting it all to work out just fine. Notice how after '06 Kenny dealt 2 SP for 5 pitching prospects. Danks and Floyd worked out, Gio and Masset were used in other deals, and Rasner is slowly but surely developing in the minors, although he's going to need to hurry up and develop if he wants to stay out of the Rule-5 draft. So in that deal we've gotten value out of 4 of the 5 players acquired so far with two of them mainstays. The right move, to me, is trading at least three, preferrably 4, of those tradeable commodities. All we need to think about right now is Danks and Floyd. If Jenks, Vazquez, Dye/Thome/Konerko/Swisher were on another team, would anyone seriously consider giving up one of Danks of Floyd for that kind of player? If we can make 4 deals, and come away with 8-12 prospects, then we only need three of those to join the big league club at some point. If we concentrate on pitching and can come away with a couple #2/#3 starters and either an everyday position player or a dominant reliever, we've already IMO added value to the organization. Kenny does trade his prospects, so also consider that some of what we would acquire in such a scenario would end up landing us other veterans, preferrably younger ones who better fit into the equation. Prospects are the easiest things to deal in this game because you can trade prospects with 25 teams (omitting divisional rivals) instead of only 5-6 depending on need, league, salary requirements, contract length, payroll, and ownership issues. Above all, this team needs to completely revamp its minor league organization as well as continue towards a new, younger core. We can't contend for the next 10 years without doing that. People always get worked up about trading for prospects, but I think it is important to understand 1) the conditions of the starting pitching market right now where the difference between a veteran who provides 200IP with a 4.50 ERA and a prospect who provides 170-180IP with a 4.80 ERA can be as much as $15 million per season, 2) that the age of our old core forces transition, 3) the impact our new core has had on our team, and 4) the importance of the Sox baseball version of the 2010 plan. We don't need to pay Javy to be a #4 when we can target a couple young #2/#3's who have a downside of a #4 at $22M less over the next two seasons; we absolutely have to get younger with our sluggers and doing it now for value instead of letting them walk could benefit tremendously; we can afford to lose dynamite in the lineup due to the emergence of Quentin and Ramirez; and finally, why not potentially add a few more pieces to the 2010 crop of talent that, if we hang on to it, could include Beckham, Danks, Poreda, Shelby, and Allen? Every one of those players, if they stay healthy, should end '09 in Double A or Triple A. I still don't think you can trade away that many pieces and compete in 2009. While you may find that pitcher that can give you 4.80 ERA, you might have to cycle through 2-3 guys before you identify your "keeper." At that point, you've potentially screwed up the first half the season, if not more. Your second to last sentence seems to imply that you are targeting 2010 moreso than 2009. With an emerging young core, I think KW is thinking (at least this is what I'm thinking) will make some shifts to improve that core while staying competitive for 2009. As others have said, you almost need to plan on one or more of Danks, Floyd, Alexei, and TCQ regressing in 2009, so you need to keep the lineup around them (offense or pitching) pretty strong. In an ideal scenario, I could see KW trading away one important offensive piece (one of Dye, Paulie, Swish) and one pitcher (Vaz, obviously, maybe Jenks) while signing one veteran pitcher (Garcia, Randy Johnson, Hoffman, etc.) or one veteran hitter (depending on who is traded) while filling the other open spot via trade. Basically, by trading two veteran pieces, he gets one veteran (or experienced) piece back along with prospects and signs a veteran FA. This maintains the ability to compete in 2009, continues upgrading the "young core," and hopefully more fully balances the offense.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 05:54 PM) It's funny and ironic, but there's a little reasoning beyond that, mainly due to Victorino coming off a much better season than Rowand did. Yeah, I know. I think it is highly unlikely the Sox would get Victorino, but like you said, I see the irony/humor in it.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 02:51 PM) Empty division titles no longer mean anything to this fan League Championships and World Series are all I really care about I used to hang my hat on division crowns, but honestly who the hell cares anymore if you don't go any further. QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 04:28 PM) Division titles mean more $$ for the payroll, which is good. Otherwise they mean nothing to me. I could not disagree more about division titles meaning nothing, but it is interesting the change in fan expectations after 2005.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 05:09 PM) Jenkins has no value, Happ is merely a solid pitching prospect, and Golson is uber talented but more of a throw-in than an actual piece, though I didn't see how he performed this season. I strongly doubt they would even considering moving Victorino in a deal for JD, as the Sox would probably win the trade straight up without Philly throwing anyone else in (not that you mentioned it, just that it's been brought up). A World Series Champ would never trade its popular CFer for some extra power....

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Nov 9, 2008 -> 01:49 PM) and because they are generally pretty dumb. Nice, real nice.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 12:43 PM) These guys are arguing along the same lines. GOP needs to go bigger government and stronger social conservatism. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/..._new_party.html http://www.nypost.com/seven/06152008/posto...arty_115606.htm LOL. Sure, if you want to give the Dem's a ridiculous majority in Congress. Ugh.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:53 AM) I LOL'd at most of this article... "Moderates to blame for GOP losses, conservative leader says" This guy thinks they need to move further right on social issues. Wow. If guys like this are going to lead the GOP, then they are going to be relegated to being a purely southern party. They can kiss control of either house or the executive goodbye for some time. Fortunately, I am pretty sure that these FRC-type folks are not in the majority of the GOP leadership any more. If the GOP keeps going that way, a third party will emerge, I think, that meets the needs of "moderates" (mostly fiscal conservatives, non-isolationist, and social moderates). Personally, I think that the GOP will undergo a fundamental change in leadership.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:08 AM) Maybe we're really saying the same thing. In any case what I'm trying to say is that the most accurate polling model from this election cycle (538) was as close to dead-on as polls are ever going to get, and there was no Bradley Effect, or anything else. If anything, that "social desirability" translated into actual votes. Yes, we agree that the polls were accurate and thus, there was no noticeable Bradley Effect in this election. Like Tex, I was trying to clarify what the Bradley Effect actually is since it seems to be misreported or misunderstood by many people (not necessarily you lostfan).

Actually if you look at the first post in the thread as well as the standard definition of social desireability, Tex is 100% correct. The "popular" definition of the Bradley Effect is racist voters, but the reality is that that is not true. Tex's explanation of voters saying they'd vote Obama but actually voting McCain is definitely what the Bradley Effect is supposed to be. In either case, it seems that it was not an issue in this election (and perhaps previous elections). However, social desireability in all forms of polling, surveys, etc is a well-established bias that is alive and well. In this election, it was either accounted for or small enough to fall within the standard margin of error.

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 04:15 AM) I think it will be Female Latino other ethnic minority homosexual....and this will NEVER happen. Nothing brings people together like homophobia. A guy will hate you for your race, but he might shake your hand for hating gays. I would never say never, but clearly it could not happen now (which is sad).

Just terrible. No mention of Clayton Richard either, who is at least a bullpen candidate if not 5th starter.

It was also discussed in this piece in Newsday that was also mentioned on mlbtraderumors.com. The specific text on the White Sox in Davidoff's Newsday piece was:

QUOTE (scenario @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 12:16 PM) Because he would automatically be their 2nd best starter... and help bring a veteran presence to what was the 2nd worst pitching staff in the majors last year. And they'd get two years of a veteran starter in exchange for a guy in his walk year. Actually I think it could be the foundation of an interesting trade for both sides... but it's likely there would be other players involved rather than just a one-for-one trade. I heard the O's were trying to sign Roberts to an extension. I guess if Roberts' demands are too high, they'd be more open to a trade like this since they know they'll lose him in a year. I still think the O's would want younger pitching since even the O's aren't delusional enough to think they can compete in the division in the next two years... or are they? (It is the O's after all...)

Now that the election is over, I'm so glad we're all coming together as Americans rather than continuing to focus on irrelevant information, especially on the losing side.

The availability of jobs should be a major factor. A masters and/or PhD in either field is going to be a lot harder (I know you know this) no matter how much of a natural you are at it. For me, the light at the end of the tunnel is that I know there are a number of good, high paying jobs that will be there when I finish my PhD (Strategic Management - specifially entrepreneurship and internationalization). While the money isn't "critical," it is important after so many years of not making barely any money (plus my wife would enjoy going back to her passion in the low-paying field of marine biology after supporting me during the PhD). The PhD program has definitely sapped some of my "love" for my field (though teaching it brings a lot of that back). In some fields, as Soxy said, there are very few jobs, even for extremely talented people.

Hour long wait mid-morning in Fulton County. We used electronic voting (no paper ballots) which was the first for me. The biggest issue is that there were over 50 candidates and/or issues on the ballot, so it took some serious research before voting day.

My favorite part of the article is what KW says about Poreda... "I didn't have him on the '09 roster originally," Williams said, "but I live in Arizona, so I've seen him a few times—and I'm not blind." It really seems that they think Poreda is ready. Like others said, get some people on the phone and see if we can get some solid talent here.

I am in my office for office hours probably 98% of the time. I try to make sure I never schedule anything to conflict with them. However, with email, few students take advantage of office hours. If a student comes by, it can help them if they are borderline for a grade, but the "content" of the meeting (as well as the Guinness) certainly makes a difference. For example, if you come by my office and say "I haven't read the chapters yet, but can you explain them all to me?"...it's probably going to hurt your case rather than help (that happened to me this week). If you have legit, insightful questions (even "dumb" questions are ok) that are based on a misunderstanding of the material or not totally understanding the text and/or lecture, it definitely has a positive impact on my impression of the student. Coming to office hours to kiss-ass doesn't help, but legitimately wanting to learn does, if that makes sense....and, yes, I can usually tell the difference between ass-kissing and legitimate interest. As for grading, my school recently switched to plus/minus grading which means that almost a third of my class every semester is "close" (within 1%) of the next highest grade. Generally, I don't bump anyone up unless there are pretty extreme circumstances. The grade distribution is a factor only if the assignments and exams are not fair, but my distributions tend to be rather consistent, especially if it is a class I've taught before.