XZero771679666304

Maybe, but not in spades. Chicago will still be a Cubs town, the media will be talking about the Cubs more than the Sox in a few months, the Cell will return to it's nominal half-full status next season, and the Sox will still be the bastard stepchild of Chicago baseball.

That may be, but you know the grapes would be twice as sour if the roles were reversed. Many of us just can't congratulate the Sox, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I'm holding back, and quite frankly I feel like I've opened a can of worms. It may be best to let this die. Anyway, what do you plan to do with a degree in Religious Studies and Philosophy?

There's reason to think we know absolutely everything about the spiritual way the universe works (that is, it doesn't) It is definitely possible for an intelligent person to come up with a reasonable argument against this. Reasonable by what standards? The funny thing about ethereal things that can't be empirically proven is that they can't be disproven, either.

I have no feelings either way on karma, but it's a faith thing for the people that do. personally, I don't necessarily need concrete evidence to believe in something; there are many things I can accept on faith. And I don't believe doing so demonstrates a lack of intelligence. Nor do I think requiring concrete evidence in order to believe is indicative of a higher level of thinking. They're just two different philosphies on living. I agree. I think that notion that if there is no tangible or empirical eveidence for something it doesn't exist to be a ridiculous notion, or incredibly naieve at best. Now I think a great deal of faith based beliefs are a crock, but that's just my opinion. I also believe in a great many more. Any intelligent person can come to only two conclusions: 1. We really know very, very little about the ways the universe works, both in a scientific and spiritual sense. 2. At the very least, most of what we do know now will be totally contradicted by later discovery. It's just the way it has always been. I believe in some things and disbelieve others, but I totally dismiss very little.

Well, I agree with you as far as the common interpretation of karma goes, but many Eastern religions have an entirely different interpretation, and it is an integral part of some of them. I am not saying I do or do not believe in it either way, and I take no offense at all, but some people could be genuinely offended by a generalization like "karma is ridiculous".

It's horribly annoying on TV.

why do you care what other people believe? I don't care, it's just that karma is a ridiculous thing to believe in and I can't imagine how any intelligent person could fall for it. Can anyone tell me why they believe in karma? Offer me up one piece of evidence why you think karma exists. A lot of people believe a lot of things, many of them ridiculous. I'm willing to bet that somewhere in your mind is a ridiculous belief or two. And obviously you do care or you wouldn't have said anything about it. The fact that you took the time to post your thoughts indicated at least a passive interest.

It is Pair-ez. At least everyone here pronounces it that way, and it's 80% latino/hispanic here.

Everything about this WS and the teams in it is lame. This whole thing sucks like a black hole.

I don't like Journey anymore.

http://northsidebaseball.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=26045&start=0

Williamson should be a lot more effective in 2006, and he is filthy when healthy.

I hope Hill gets dealt. This pen would work for me: Dempster Eyre Seanez Williamson Ohman Novoa

I rememebr this summer when Cuban said he'd like to own the Cubs....I about fell out of my chair.

Bradley is a middle of the order hitter. He has 80 AB's above the 3 spot in the past 4 years combined.

Couldn't agree more..He would put a winner on the field... Yeah, the Mavs sure have racked up the NBA championships since he bought them... Mark Cuban is entertaining but until Dallas wins an NBA title they're just another team. And they'll still be just another team next spring. He gives a damn. He put money into the team and turned it from a joke into a perennial contender. That works for me.

Better defense, and provides more value offensively over the average SS/3B than Pujols does over the average 1B. From the Hardball Times: I think A-Rod's defensive abilities are all about perception and what the media has tried to sell us. A-Rod was a great SS, no matter what anyone says. But from what I have seen, he has looked like a fish out of water at 3B more often than not.

an outfield of suspect arms. super. dunn has an average OF arm (no way does he have the gun for RF). murton and pierre both throw rainbows. i love what dunn brings to the table offensively though and his range isn't horrible for his size. we just can't have an OF full of crappy arms. we've done it before, re: 2003. please. you aren't honestly comparing the offensive production from sosa, alou, and lofton/cpat to lofton (years later), murton and dunn. lmao. great comparison. '05 dunn is roughly equal to '03 Sammy offensively, and '03 lofton was appreciably better than '06 lofton will be...so you're saying murton is far and away better than '03 alou offensively? :lol: He was obviously referring to their defense and throwing arms, IMO.

He's not worth what he'll get. If we could get him cheap then of course, but he's just not worth the long term investment he'll want. If we can get him for 10 per or under I think we should sign him. I think we've got to take a chance with a pitcher like him. If some of our young arms emerge as legit starters over the next two years then we can always trade him. With the shortage of starting pitching on the market this winter, He'll get more than 10 million per, even if he doesn't deserve it.

If you like what Pierre/Castillo did for the Fish in 03, why not pull a deal for Castillo instead of Pierre? That would give speed and defense up the middle. Personally, I'd rather keep Walker's bat there though. I've always thought Castillo was better than Pierre. I think Walker is as good as gone, unfortunately. I would be very interested in acquiring Castillo. Heck, sign Furcal too. Having Castillo and Furcal up the middle and 1-2 in the order would immensely improve both the offense and the defense.

It motivated Ozzie Guillen to leadoff Posednik too. I want to get away from the smart remarks here. No need for so much hostility. Thus, in all seriousness, would you say the White Sox had a good offense this year? Or that the cause of their good season was their ability to score runs (which, Scotty Po would, no doubt, impact)...? Hey, the media portrayed the Sox offense as smallball and Podsednik as a great leadoff hitter, so why let the facts get in the way? Yes, because stats tell the whole story? ](*,) When they are overwhelming, yes. Go look at Podsednik and the Sox's stats in smallball categories (OBP, SB, SB%, etc.), not good at all. It was a poor run scoring offense that got by because of stellar pitching, bottom line. In fact the only category the Sox offense was in the top half of the league in was HR. Smallball, you say? .351 OBP is not good at all? or 59 SBs? Since you want to rely so heavily on his stats and CS's please list in detail under what game time situations they occurred. You must watch him alot to know that he is not a good small ball player. Did his CS come when there was nobody on and the WS were up by 5? or did they come when the game was on the line? Did he take chances at the right times? First off, any time you take yourself off the bases, it's a bad thing. 351 is average for a leadoff man. And when you get caught 23 times in 82 attempts, situation become less of an issue. In the postseason his SB% is an abysmal 62%, that's as important as it gets isn't it? And considering the high percentage of 1 and 2-run games the Sox played in during the regular season, I would imagine most of those CS came in situations where his run was important. Either way, trying to mitigate a poor stat by rationalizing the situations his poor performance did or did not come in is a poor debate tactic. Either he is very good at stealing bases or he is not. And as it turns out, he isn't. As a leadoff man, if you aren't an efficient basestealer, you better have a really high OBP. He didn't. Nor did he score a lot of runs. Nor did he hit many double or triples. Scott Podsednik had a decent OBP. He stole a lot of bases, but he also got caught stealing a lot. He is nothing special.

The bolded ones also happen to have pretty dismal offenses. And Anaheim didn't have the pitching to maintain, and the Sox and Astros got stellar pitching performances in the postseason that allowed them to overcome their offenses. You can get by with marginal OBP, but why would you want to if you have a choice? What other better choices are there though? There isn't a long list of stellar leadoff men around. Just like there aren't a bunch of great right fielders around. I don't see how .355 is marginal either. I'd rather have Furcal. Similar career OBP, more power, Furcal is faster, has a much better SB%, and plays better defense at his position. If I am Jim Hendry, I am all over Furcal like white on rice this offseason. Or try and trade for Luis Castillo. Or Sign Lofton for one year. I'd even rather sign Randy Winn.

It motivated Ozzie Guillen to leadoff Posednik too. I want to get away from the smart remarks here. No need for so much hostility. Thus, in all seriousness, would you say the White Sox had a good offense this year? Or that the cause of their good season was their ability to score runs (which, Scotty Po would, no doubt, impact)...? Hey, the media portrayed the Sox offense as smallball and Podsednik as a great leadoff hitter, so why let the facts get in the way? Yes, because stats tell the whole story? ](*,) When they are overwhelming, yes. Go look at Podsednik and the Sox's stats in smallball categories (OBP, SB, SB%, etc.), not good at all. It was a poor run scoring offense that got by because of stellar pitching, bottom line. In fact the only category the Sox offense was in the top half of the league in was HR. Smallball, you say?

The bolded ones also happen to have pretty dismal offenses. And Anaheim didn't have the pitching to maintain, and the Sox and Astros got stellar pitching performances in the postseason that allowed them to overcome their offenses. You can get by with marginal OBP, but why would you want to if you have a choice?