mmmmmbeeer

Considering Ozzie's threat to share something about Maggs during their little spat, I'm pretty sure this is spot on and this is precisely what Ozzie was referring to.

AL East -- Sawks AL Central -- Injuns AL West -- Halos AL WC -- Yankees Sawks take the pennant NL East -- Mets NL Central -- sCrUBS NL West -- Dodgers NL WC -- Dbacks Mets take the pennant Mets over Boston for the trophy

Didn't he and Javy pitch together up in Montreal?

He's giving a speech to a bunch of impressionable kids who look up to his success. He was going for the dramatic, telling the kids that it's going to get rough sometimes but keep at it. I doubt he seriously contemplated retirement and/or quitting the game. It's like a coach's pep talk, it's full of a bunch of hyperbole to get the kids pumped up.

Our offense will be great, better than we expect....I think both Quentin and Richar will be big contributors this year. Our BP problems are essentially solved. Our rotation will cost us the playoffs. And worse yet, we have nothing to trade to acquire a mid-season starter.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 10:14 PM) That might be the dumbest thing to come out of a Presidential campaign if this is true. #1 would cause a deflationary cycle that would destroy already shaky housing and credit markets, not to mention explode unemployment nationwide. #2 Would completely stall growth in this country, and in fact it would contract our economy to fit into how much gold we have. It would cause a massive inflationary cycle in the dollar. It will KILL the lower classes in this country. You can't just assign an arbitrary value to a currency. Free market systems dictate that, and tying it to a fixed commodity limits growth. The dollar might be worth more, but no one will be using it, because the world wouldn't be dealing with the US under the protectionism that is being pedaled here anyway. #3 More inflation. Who is going to produce all of the goods we take for granted that China now supplies us with? Are you willing to pay thousands of dollars for a basic TV? That's what it would cost to make it in the good old US of A. #4 All you have to do is look at the enormous boom and bust cycles in US economic history, ending with the Great Depression before the Fed Bank was established to understand why we need it. #5 Under the first four things you have proposed, umemployment would probably be double what it is now, if not more. You are literally talking about pulling the bottom cards out that our economy is built on. Plus the idea that we could still function as a country without an income tax is just laughable. #6 Wall Street won't exsist if the first 5 things came to pass. Large corporations would pretty much have to fold up and leave the US because of the spiraling inflation and unemployment. Their wouldn't be any capital to do business with, because the money supply would disappear. Economically Ron Paul is a dreamer with no grips on reality. This stuff might work on a chalkboard, but it would literally destroy the USA as we know it to do this stuff. #1 Please explain how moving the military out of other nations results in deflation. You lost me. Unemployment of locals employed at bases, sure, but hardly a significant enough number to equate to a global economic impact. #2 How we were doing before 1971 when we had a gold standard? Arbitrary value to a currency?!?!? What in the hell are we doing now? #3 We're also China's biggest client, if you will. Their economy would be instantly destroyed if we got in a trade war with them. I, as well as Dr. Paul, think we should call their bluff. We're supposed to be an economic superpower, right? The "richest" country in the world, right? Why in the hell are we bowing down to the demands of a nation whose entire economy is dependent upon us. Oh yeah....our mainstream candidates in the house, senate, and white house have racked up SO much debt with the Chinese that maybe we aren't in control. I'd take my chances and place a ridiculous tariff on all Chinese imports until they let the market dictate the value of their currency. I can say with 99% confidence that they will bow to OUR demands. Oh, and we have great trade relations with Japan for our TVs. #4 What does the fed do, exactly? I see them falsely manipulating the value of our currency, an absolute no-no in a capitalist, free market system. Their work is counterproductive and their devaluation of the dollar, along with other policies outside of the fed, have got us in the unfortunate position we're in now. #5 What'd we do before 1913? We weren't building an empire then. #6 The money supply would disappear? With every American having every dollar they earn to spend, the Chinese no longer able to undercut domestic manufacturing, and the dollar actually based on a material object again.....I beg to differ with your take. Please, listen to some of Dr. Paul's speeches on economic policy on youtube or what have you. He can speak to the matter much better than I.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 11:13 PM) When Paul gets rid of the FBI and the CIA and some of the other federal agencies to pave way for his savings he can have Deputy Dawg and company deal with this. CiA and SANS admit that Cyberattacks have already caused on major power outage. When has Paul ever mentioned eliminating the CIA and FBI? Please provide a link. Here's a hint, watch his appearance on Meet the Press.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 09:50 AM) So out of curiousity, What would Ron Paul's solution be to fixing the potential recession if he was President right now? I think this is a multi-pronged attack from Paul: 1. Cut spending drastically. This will involve the immediate withdrawal of troops from around the world and bring them home. Troops in Korea? Bring em home. Troops in Europe? Bring em home. Asia and Africa? Bring em home. This will save hundreds of billions of dollars. Our service in these nations is no longer needed. We are no longer in a cold war nor are we, supposed to be, in the business of building an empire. 2. Immediately dismiss the fiat money policy and return to a gold standard. The world is quickly losing faith in the dollar. I know you're a financially minded dude, SS, so I'm next to positive you've a very clear vision of the ramifications of the fed manipulating interest rates and printing more money to pay our debts...I won't get into that being I think you know the issue exists. Placing a firm value on the dollar again will restore faith in the dollar and keep it the top currency in the world, a position it is quickly losing to the euro. 3. Stop trade with China until they allow the value of their currency to be determined by the market. Our trade deficit is absolutely killing us and, with China being our largest source of foreign goods, the inaccurately low value of their currency is not fair trade. 4. Dismiss the federal reserve. This is a private entity with private interests in mind. There is no reason a privately owned entity should be in charge of public economic policy. 5. Elimination of the income tax (funded by savings from bringing troops home). This will introduce an ENORMOUS amount of capital back into our system...profits will skyrocket, personal incomes will skyrocket, business startups will boom, housing will rebound as Americans have money to spend on real estate and, for those victims of ARMs and other wreckless lending, lienholders will be able to more easily afford their debts. 6. And perhaps most importantly, the psychological impact of having a true economist, a free market capitalist, in charge of the world's economic superpower. Wall Street should love this guy and, if he somehow gets elected, investor confidence will absolutely soar. I don't know if you've watched any of Paul's showdowns with Bernanke when Bernanke sits down to speak with reps. If not, please check it out. Ron Paul has a VERY distinguished medical career, both in education and service. He says himself that as successful as he has been in medicine his true love is economics. He's studied economic policy all of his life and, if you've ever heard him speak about economics, his understanding is deep.

Apparently I'm alone in thinking that DJ is a solid color man. It's great having Stoney in the booth, but I really would be kind of disappointed if DJ were ever let go. He really does know a lot about the game, especially the strategy side.

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 11:02 AM) The question is interesting, not sure what would've happened had Erstad not signed here. But you know this, when the White Sox mgmt. zeroes in on a player, they tend to get him. They were competing with the Marlins and the White Sox org. has had a good reputation so Erstad picking here was not surprising. As for Brian, it really is a shame. It's a bad fit for him here. Not due to personalities but him breaking in on a team that intended to compete was a bad fit. We can all play the blame game between Brian, Guillen, Williams, Erstad, etc. but it really doesn't matter, it didn't work out for him or the White Sox. The biggest losers in this lousy situation are the fans. The most frustrating thing for me personally is the White Sox still do not have a legit CF and by that I mean a legit 4 or dare I say 5 tool guy. I actually was lucky enough to spend a few minutes with Hahn and expressed my frustration about the White Sox not being able to develop (or draft) legit guys for SS, CF, and catcher. The key positions, especially for a Guillen-managed team. While I half expected a pat answer from Rick ("we draft so low, we can't draft the prime talent"), he was very forthright, saying he and Williams know this has been a huge shortcoming and the whole scouting and development situation was under scrutiny and evaluation (this was in late Feb.). Well we see what happened with that, Shaffer got launched. I expect to see more changes in player development this winter and I expect them to give Denny Gonzalez more help with the Dominican operation (DG runs the Sox academy there). They have brought a bunch of guys to the U.S. (see Bristol's roster for proof) and I also expect some outside scouting talent to be brought in. Both Williams and Hahn are frustrated as can be with the Twins and Indians in particular coming up with all this talent. Talent that comes up and contributes, not the Gustavo Molina's of the world. Not that I know anything but I did tell Hahn that I understand the love affair with drafting tons of pitching but I would like to see them go out of the box (philosophically) and get SS and CF in the pipeline and focus more on speed vs. power. These are smart guys (Williams and Hahn) and they know full well things have gone very badly and I expect them to be highly aggressive this winter on lots of things. 'precciate your insight.

QUOTE(michelangelosmonkey @ Jul 30, 2007 -> 03:24 PM) Why in the world would we trade Jenks for prospects? I'm kinda feeling like Jenks=Lee Smith. That reliable closer for the next ten years. He's on his third year of doing this job so successfully. Seems like a true relief ace is one of the hardest pieces to find...we have him, he's young and cheap. Sure he can look shaky at times...but I think his save percentage is great considering his young. Unless we can trade him for an Albert Pujols prospect...you don't trade (and by the way...who would trade an AP type prospect...accept, you know, us...go look at Chris Young play CF in 2008...sniff, sniff). 1. he's injury prone (screw in elbow, weight issues) 2. he's going to be cheap while we suck and expensive when we start winning 3. if you're trying to equate bobby jenks' value to that of pujols, you're off your rocker

QUOTE(Sox It To Em @ Jul 30, 2007 -> 02:57 PM) there's no point in us keeping a dominating close when we probably won't be competing for a couple of years. Therein lies the problem; you and I know that this team won't be competitive for a few years, but KW, perhaps because of his competitive nature, refuses to commit to a true rebuild. Trading Jenks, Vazquez, and Garland tomorrow would set this franchise up for some real success come 2009-2010. As it stands now, with the way KW is driving this ship, we'll still be wallowing in mediocrity in 2009-2010. But hey, atleast KW can claim his team never finished in last place during his tenure.

Why is Lidge's price still so high? His #'s are good this season but that's only after being removed from the closer's role, again.

The Family Dog, which I believe was a off-shoot of a Tracey Ullman Show cartoon skit.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jul 23, 2007 -> 06:41 PM) Really quick question, with my new position my company will match 6%. So I take it it is better to put money in my 401K instead of a savings account? I was thinking of putting $250-300 a week in my 401k. That's roughly $1k/ month. If I were you I'd simply deposit the 6% the company will match and then divert your additional savings to a Roth IRA. Once you cap out the Roth then go back to investing more than 6% into the 401k. It shouldn't take you more than 6 months to max out the Roth while saving at that rate. If you think it's a safe assumption that you're in a lower tax bracket now than you'll be when you retire, you want to take advantage of the Roth while you're young. Being the Roth is funded by after-tax dollars, your withdrawals at retirement are tax free. Whereas with the 401k, funded by pre-tax dollars, you will be taxed at the rate determined by the bracket you fall into at retirement. But by all means, you've got to get at least the company match in your 401k whether you want to fund a Roth or not.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 24, 2007 -> 02:07 PM) Yes, I do think Kenny is the problem and have thought that since '03. I will be the first to admit I am totally biased in wanting him canned, but I can also evaluate specific accomplishments of his and praise him appropriately. Do I credit him for 2005? No. I credit the players who played their asses off, and the managerial decisions that paid off. Yes, Kenny assembled the team (with LOTS of help from Ozzie), but if not for the chemistry between the players, no way we would have won it all. I don't really understand what you mean about Kenny's "tactics". He does what he does the way he does it and that's that. Sadly that "that" is a lot of times an arrogant jerk, IMO of course. :rolleyes Will he be fired... I have no idea. Should he... I say yes, but I am speaking with my heart as I smell the stentch that has become White Sox baseball this year. So he gets no credit for 2005 but gets to take all the credit for 2007? I really don't doubt that KW is an asshole. He's a Stanford graduate, played pro ball, now a GM of an MLB franchise which won a WS... he's accomplished a lot and a certain element of arrogance can almost be expected. I don't see where that attitude would exempt him from being effective in his job. Is demanding excellence out of your employees, even in a harsh manner, a bad trait to have in a leadership position? Personally, I don't blame the state of our recent drafts/ml system on KW. It's enough of a job just to manage the personnel of a ML club. He, much like other GMs, is forced to lean heavily on his scouting and development heads. KW is now in a position with the big league club that he REALLY needs to be able to pull a couple of kids to contribute but there just isn't anyone there. He HAS to hold someone accountable for that and Shaffer was the scapegoat. I have no problem whatsoever with that decision.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jul 23, 2007 -> 12:37 PM) Several people on this site had very good feelings about the White Sox going into the 2005 season; if you were to buy into what the media had said, then yes, the team going into the season was mediocre at best. No one did, and that team had virtually no holes to fill at all going into Spring Training. Garland for Renteria is a joke of a trade; you don't trade salary for salary, and if you are in a retooling mode, you are most certainly not looking to take on big contracts. When I hear the word retool, I tend to think about a team shaking the team up and spreading money around the diamond instead of bringing in a ton of huge contracts. At this point, acquiring Renteria does absolutely nothing for the White Sox because they are getting older, not younger, and are adding a bit of payroll. Does that sound like something a retooling team does? So the Marlins strategy would be labeled as re-tooling in your eyes? I guess we just disagree on what it means to re-tool vice rebuild. To me re-tooling means fielding as much of a veteran presence as possible so that you're ready to win. For instance, Uribe is a weakness that is costing us games so we need to replace, or re-tool, at that position. To do so, we take money away from the starting pitching corp and push it towards the SS position. As is evident by ATL, OAK, and MIN, a strong minor league system is imperative to have any success with this strategy...unless you're NY or BOS when money is no object. To rebuild would be to trade all your veteran pieces for cheap, ML-ready prospects...ie. Salty, Milledge, Kemp, etc. You expect to lose for the next couple of seasons as those players develop at the ML level and then become a true competitor as that maturation process begins to yield to success. If you truly believe that we can compete next season, then replacing Uribe with Renteria is not a bad move.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2007 -> 11:53 AM) This team has, what was it, $80 million tied up for next year in just a handful of players, right? We're not going to get better by grabbing other fairly expensive guys in exchange for our fairly expensive guys. That doens't give us any wiggle room. The only way we're going to get better is by grabbing guys who can fill our holes cheaply. We'll get better if we get good players who are making small amounts. That's how we got so good in 05; we filled our holes with guys who were bargains. Dye, AJ, Iguchi, Crede, etc all made less than what their performance would have earned them. Dye, AJ, Iguchi. Would you have traded JG for any of these guys? Hell no. '05 was truly an oddity. On paper, we went into that season with a team that was mediocre at best. I'm not saying that Renteria would have been a good deal, but with KW's apparent intentions of retooling it's not that bad of a deal, or at least not nearly as lopsided and disappointing as many here feel. Personally, we shouldn't be re-tooling. We should dump anyone and everyone of value and start from scratch with a true youth movement. This re-tooling crap will consist of a bunch of gambles that may or may not pay off, paving the way for another 4-5 years of pure mediocrity.

These threads kill me. Everyone insists that retooling is the route KW needs to take and then when a true "retooling" trade offer comes about, it's "oh hell no, we need young unproven kids, multiple prospects!!!". How exactly do you retool with unproven talent? Trading from a strength (SP) to fill a weakness (SS) with a proven commodity is the epitome of retooling. If you're going to trade Garland for 3 unproven kids, that's rebuilding. This franchise is such a clusterf>>> right now. Blow it up, trade 'em all. Let's freakin' decide whether we're going to rebuild or retool, not teeter-totter inbetween.

QUOTE(NYSox35 @ Jul 10, 2007 -> 09:54 PM) Why can't the "re-tooling crap" work? With our strength in starting pitching it's not as bleak as you make it out to be. Should Kenny be criticized for signing Mark to a well below market deal? Should he have traded him for less than he's worth - b/c the top prospects you want him to rebuild with weren't being offered. This season was KW's inaugural "re-tooling" season. How'd it treat ya? Get ready for more of the same.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 9, 2007 -> 01:54 PM) Buehrle, Garland and Vazquez = $37.5M for 2008 Buehrle, Glarland, Vazquez, Konerko, Thome = $58M for 2008 Buehrle, Garland and Vazquez = $40M for 2009 and beyond. Buehrle, Garland, Vazquez and Konerko = $52M for 2009 and beyond I guess if the Sox are willing to go to a $115-$120M payroll in the near future, things could work out because I don't know where any cheap alternatives at other positions are going to come from considering the Sox' lack of position prospects and trading chips. Which we both know their payroll won't go that high. I know it's an unpopular opinion around here, but I'm really disappointed with Kenny's decision to retain Mark. Because of the fact that you can't have a $14M pitcher on a team in midst of a complete rebuild, KW will now move forward with this re-tooling crap that he is somehow convinced will work. If a month ago KW would have just pulled the trigger and traded Mark we could then have admitted we were rebuilding (while also getting max return on him). With that, KW could have dealt the rest of the rotation (minus Danks) along with anyone else on the roster. Now he'll look like a fool if he trades JG or Javy because he will all but eliminate any last glimmer of hope for next season. I was one of KW's biggest supporters but I'll tell ya, his work since the championship has really been horrible.

If you're seriously talking about doing this this week I'd recommend getting an email out to all the members or you're going to be facing major headaches when people keep contacting you because they can't log in and/or lost PMs, avatars, etc. I think this is kind of unfortunate in a way. When I try to log on and experience major delays I usually get a bit excited because I know that there was big news of some type. Oh well, I'll find a way to adapt.

QUOTE(michelangelosmonkey @ Jul 9, 2007 -> 10:07 AM) Maybe $8 mill is high...but drunk? Carlos Lee has the same career OPS as Dye, is 1 year younger and just signed for $15 mill per. If you say we have some guy in our system that can put up an .800 OPS in left field and will be cheap. Great. Who is he? IF there is some free agent we can get INSTEAD of JD for $8 mill that will put up an .800 OPS for left field...who's that guy? I should have specified that $8M/year from the Sox is drunk thinking. The Sox have too many holes to fill to gamble that amount of money on a player like JD. Now a team who just has a couple of holes, namely DH and LF, yeah, they may take a flyer at $8M/per. Let me put it to you this way...if you're KW would you rather pay JD $8M next season or would you rather get 2 decent relievers to fill out the pen? I don't know, man. There are so many holes on this team that it's tough to even speculate what will happen. Like you said, if we spend the money elsewhere, ie. relief pitching, then we've still got a gaping hole in LF with no one in the ml system to fill it.

If he doesn't improve this season and thinks he's going to get $8M from someone, he's drunk. If he got his true market value (no defense, low average, moderate power) of somewhere between $4-5M/per for 2 years I'd keep him on in LF.

KW, just yesterday, committed to retooling instead of rebuilding. If he trades Javy or Jon then he is essentially changing his mind again and looking at rebuilding. He has to trade Contreras obviously. He's worth nowhere near $10M. The other pitchers are all worth their contracts and are arguably worth more than their contracts. There's no way you deal any of them. With KW's failure this past offseason in filling the LF, CF, SS, and BP holes, there's no way, imo, we're going to contend next season. Now he's looking at having to fill all of the above plus 2B, 3B, and RF. I mean the only positions he's really got locked up with good talent are 4/5 of the rotation, 1B, and C. Looking at it from that perspective then, yes, Javy and Jon would both be traded to fill some of those holes. But now we're trying to "re-tool" again. This is a real mess and it all goes back to this past offseason.