Jake

So...as I said, someone like AJP, perhaps not so-named, would be perfect

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 12:14 PM) Better than Quintana? Do you mean better relative to the cost? He's pitched over 200 innings with a high strikeout rate and a high walk rate and managed to post a 3.41 ERA over that time as he was jerked in and out of the rotation. He lost his "best" pitch, his screwball, and still pitches well. He could plausibly be perceived as an ace in the making with his ability to miss bats and make it in the MLB without all of the best circumstances. Certainly, others see a high FIP and wonder what the deal is. Those may prove correct in the long run - though I think pitchers like Hector are the most likely to defy FIP. Guys who tend to cluster their bouts of free baserunners will, by the nature of clustering, be operating differently than advanced metrics like this assume. That is to say that if his walks are not randomly, unbiasedly distributed, then FIP will be inaccurate. Too soon to tell if that is the case. I'm just saying that it is plausible that there are teams that might prefer Hector, with all things being equal. They would see him as a hot prospect with MLB experience, whereas those teams would see Quintana as a more finished product or worse.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 12:10 PM) I liked Huntsman more than any GOP candidate in the last few cycles. That said, I don't think he runs again. He was never too good at the fundraising end of things, he's looked at as too liberal by the current party (which is hilarious), and he doesn't have that powerful in-the-room presence that others do. I'm reading a book that transcribed the campaign managers' meeting after the 2012 election (this is a real thing: http://www.iop.harvard.edu/2012-campaign-d...ers-conference) They all laughed about how Huntsman speaking Chinese clearly harmed his campaign and confirmed his supposed liberalism

OS X Mavericks has magical powers

http://cfl.ca/statistics/list/year/2013 Passing leader in the CFL? Henry Burris QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 09:27 AM) IIRC, even with Peppers's contract on the books fully...the Bears will have well over $30 million in cap space going into the offseason. If they want to retain Cutler they have plenty of room to do so and should be able to make a number of other decent additions as well. The effective cap space is very low because we have so few players under contract. It is going to cost a huge chunk of that just to fill out the roster with minimum salaried guys

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 09:56 AM) Maybe. If you hold option and click on the battery does it say its fine? "Condition:Normal"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 10:59 AM) Obama announced his campaign in January of 2007 iirc. Hillary was sunk by hiring that idiot Mark Penn and of course the Iraq war vote. I don't really see anything comparable for her at this point, and I don't really see any strong up-and-comers. I'd definitely back Warren but I don't know that she could hold up in a national campaign. She isn't a natural politician. Who knows on the republican side. Probably Christie, but he'll have a tough time in the primaries. I suppose I should have said that few thought of him as a serious candidate. It was widely seen that this was like a practice run to get his name out, build his profile, and maybe get a VP spot

I still wonder how other teams view Santiago. It very well may be the case that some see him as the better value.

I don't think Dayan is allowed to make less money than he did before in arbitration, so he will earn more than the average arb. player with a track record like his

I agree that the Obama administration has done little to push back against Bush era spying and extrajudicial bombing operations, instead just deploying them as it sees fit. I would like to see a completely reformed NSA/CIA/FBI, as each of these organizations has a past rife with terrible and illegal activity and have done little in the recent past to disprove such claims. At this point, Obama's biggest failure as president is allowing this to go on and perhaps encouraging the growth of it. I hope he does something about all of this while he's a lame duck (or sooner). As far as the "unforeseen national events" I mentioned earlier that could derail his presidency, it seems like a spying or bombing revelation could indeed be such a thing. The right believes it too, because they keep trying to find such a revelation. The most troublesome thing about our Democrat president not dismantling these (probably) unconstitutional programs is that it makes me fearful that no politician will be willing to do so.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 09:17 AM) Considering how insignificant he has been, I would think that $10 million in cap room saved is worth paying him not to play. I agree. There's a version of him that is worth $18M. I sincerely believe that as recently as last year he's been perhaps the best defensive player in the NFL. That guy hasn't been around this year and I don't have any info to suggest that he's coming back

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 08:15 AM) It costs the Bears something like $7 million to cut him. QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 08:47 AM) I thought the re-work prior to the season got them out of that? We owe him $8M if we cut him and $18M if he stays. Him staying will make retaining Cutler difficult and any other moves of note damn near impossible

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 09:04 AM) If you get in a wreck that isn't your fault, your insurance doesn't pick up the tab. Nor would the insurance pay for the maintenance on your vehicle. Car insurance is not similar in anyway to health insurance. I'm not saying you can't get mental health issues, but it's not like it suddenly happens either. It's not the same as a sudden ER visit as a result of a accident. But more importantly, the vast majority of people will never have those issues. 25% I believe is the statistic I read in the last couple of weeks. So why are we making that a requirement instead of an option? How many people get cancer? Should you not get covered for that? I don't understand the argument that unless you will definitely get something, it shouldn't be part of the risk pool. Again, it was bad for society when people were getting completely hammered for pre-existing conditions. Likewise, it was bad for society when women had to pay 50% more than men of equal health and age. They did nothing wrong except for be women and be more likely to see a doctor when they are sick. You're paying for pregnancy services so that babies can be healthy, mothers can be healthy, and so women all over the USA are not getting f***ed by the insurance system.

Health insurance is to protect against yourself, sure, but in many cases it isn't like you have much say about the illnesses or injuries you get. Much like driving a car, you can be a great, defensive driver...but sometimes you get slammed. You can maintain your car, but sometimes its parts fail. You need to disavow yourself that mental illnesses only can affect certain people. There are environmental factors and genetic factors, certainly. It remains hard to predict and the attitude that "I am of sound mind and shouldn't have to have mental health screenings on my plan" is the very reason that men in particular are highly underdiagnosed across the spectrum of mental health conditions. Also, my understanding is that the only thing in the mandatory coverage is screening for clinical depression, which I'm guessing entails a talk with your primary care physician.

I would also add Jon Huntsman, but I'm not sure if he'll even run. He's not in the good graces of the current R party, but I think he would win the general if he was nominated. I would even have to think long and hard about voting for him, depending on the D candidate. I think his best chance to run and win is if the R party favorability gets even worse, with something like a big buzzkill in 2014 where they lose seats. In that case, a moderate guy that isn't appealing to the furthest of the far right folks might become more popular.

In 2007, few people were thinking about Barack Obama as a presidential candidate. People with political savvy saw him as a 2012 nom if Hillary lost or, more likely, a 2016 guy. Obviously, things didn't turn out that way. What are the up-and-comers you see, on either side of the aisle, that might make a surprise run to candidacy and/or presidency? I saw an article on Politico about Elizabeth Warren considering a run for president. Apparently she isn't considered a serious contender, but this is Politico we're talking about - it was all horse race stuff. As an anti-BigBank person with major intellectual credibility and a good deal of charisma, it really wouldn't shock me if she became more popular and made a run. I think 2016 is probably too soon, but look out for Cory Booker. That dude is seriously charismatic. While he has fairly liberal positions across the board, he is able to frame things in a centrist way, especially in regard to finance. He talks about the economy in a way that might appeal to people. A bit like Bill Clinton in that regard. On the Republican side, there seems to have been a lot more speculation already and thus fewer surprises. However, I think Paul Ryan has been forgotten in all of this. I am no fan, but I think we haven't seen the best of him yet. It wouldn't shock me if he comes out ready for primetime in 2016. At his best, I think he can appeal to people. Christie remains the favorite, it seems, for the Republicans but I feel like all this hype is bound to doom him somehow.

He'll be okay.

Wisconsin v Yoder is a good one to think about the establishment clause, free speech, right to education and how all this stuff is balanced. There is also an element here where you can teach how a court case is used to justify slightly different things: in this case, this has been used to argue for supporting all homeschooling

Does it provide for all but the "few" that can make adequate provision? The idea here is that markets work when the actors within it can act rationally. Nobody acts rationally in practice, and this is especially true in regard to health. People are bad at preserving their health, because we are biologically programmed to put short term gains (hamburger) over long-term ills (type 2 diabetes) - being fat simply wasn't an evolutionary problem. On the other hand, behavioral economics (and experience) tells us that we are generally over-optimistic. About everything. 90% of drivers say they are better than the average driver. You do the math on that one. Imagine if car insurance was optional. Even better, get in a car crash and see if both of you have adequate insurance to deal with it. The same holds true with our personal health. People don't believe they will get sick and thus don't feel the need to buy insurance/adequate insurance. This is why we don't understand/like insurance in general; I don't need all that coverage! I'm healthy! People that smoke, of all things, believe they personally are less likely to get lung cancer than non-smokers. People are imperfect. If we want to make this capitalism thing work, we have to give people a chance to make rational choices. Providing social insurance to make sure people have the resources to choose means a strong welfare system as well as not having the looming prospect of bankruptcy and life-changing debt over an unexpected hospital stay.

Yep, that's a district alright

Hahn has always been our designated Boras whisperer. Dayan is represented by Boras, FWIW

Again, Juan would be a fine addition if Keppinger wasn't here and/or he could play SS

Nothing more certain than Peppers not being on the team next year. Price is too high. We won't be able to afford anyone

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 09:00 PM) And that statistic only includes offensive statistics? Because valuing him as a 1B but still using old defensive metrics which boost his value due to his defensive abilities as a catcher in his prime aren't very relevant. Yes, this counts offensive contributions only. This is how many runs he creates in a park and team neutral environment. 134 wRC+ means he is 34% more productive than the average MLB player. The White Sox finished with just two players above that average 100 wRC+ mark this year, FWIW (Dunn at 105 and Avisail at 109)

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 09:05 AM) I don't agree on Roberts being purely aligned with big business. What he is, is aligned against certain extensions of regulation. By nature that is often pro-business, however, his PPACA decision was certainly the opposite of that. Presidents want, and try for, lots of things. You can get into what plans Presidents have, but I am dealing with what was actually accomplished. I would consider the ACA a quite pro-business law. Upholding the part that makes you purchase things from private insurance companies seems pretty pro-business to me QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 11:47 AM) I get tired of everyone pegging Bush a far-right, conservative. Looking at how he expanded government and tossed money all over the place you cannot really classify him as a conservative. Bush was quite representative of the neoconservativism alive and well at the time. Interestingly, he pretty much killed it. It was all about supply-side economics, big defense spending and war mongering, tax cuts, phasing out federal aid programs, and high federal involvement in polarizing social issues (stem cell research, gay marriage, abortion). These tendencies all still exist, but they are being framed rather differently. GWB seemed less interested in proving his conservative-ness than doing and saying the stuff he thought people and his party wanted. QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 01:02 PM) And most president have terms like Bush, Bush, Carter, Ford, and Obama. Nothing extraordinary, either bad or good. This nation is like a huge freight train lumbering down the tracks. A single president usually can't detour it too much. Obama is trying with health overhaul. We'll see. I'd say the state of the country when GWB took office and the state of it when he got out are quite different. Obama is going to be heavily criticized for the worst case scenario that it is only marginally better. QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 01:46 PM) I don't follow politics like you guys do, but my thoughts are just that you can't compare Obama's Presidency to any in recent history...has anyone ever had to deal with this level of idiotic stubbornness from the opposition party before? Or since Lincoln anyways? Seems to me like the game has entirely changed. Clinton did to some extent, this is where people learned these tactics can have some effect. That group lacked anything like a Tea Party though and came to power after Clinton was wildly popular. There are also weren't any historically big issues in the Clinton presidency and Clinton often took somewhat centrist stances on issues like welfare reform and crime policy QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 02:39 PM) Saddam didn't have the means and groups like aq were not his friend. But they were all Muslims! QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 02:45 PM) That 9/11 commission was horses***. Go watch the HBO documentary on the team that was hunting Bin Laden for decades and all of them were SHOCKED that he was able to plan a domestic attack like that. They suspected he might be planning something, somewhere, but no one in any intelligence community thought he would crash 2 planes into the WTC. The 9/11 commission and all those hindsight conclusions are no different from a corporate injury report that lists a "cause" of an accident. 99.9% of the time it's not proof of any negligence, it's just trying to attribute blame so that people feel better about safety. The Katrina claim is a joke. The state and local governments are to blame. They had all sorts of money for public improvements over the last how many decades and they never fixed the levees. They lined their own pockets. Seriously, if all you have is "the government cut taxes and didn't spend more money!" is all you have, that's a really weak claim. A war based on an obvious lie that wasn't believed by the international community at the time and is believed by nobody now is a weak claim? A record surplus and thriving economy upon entry to the second worst economic crisis in the country's history is a weak claim? A trend toward the loss of privacy, habeas corpus, and personal freedoms is weak? QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 07:08 PM) First, Obamacare is neither a failure nor a success at this point. People don't understand it and the website has been a disaster. The policy itself needs to play out. With that said, comparing a social initiative meant to provide healthcare to millions of uninsured Americans to a war built on a lie is absurd. The only victims of Obamacare are Americans who will see their insurance premiums rise, yet receive a better policy. The victims of the Iraq war are the thousands of American and Iraqi citizens that needlessly died so that Bush could distract Americans while lining the pockets of his buddies as he financed the war machine. This is a strange thread. Indeed. Obamacare can go really badly and be nowhere near as bad a policy decision as the Iraq war. Along with the many lives lost and permanent damage done to relations in that region, which could eventually lead to world war, the cost at home has been significant. Recent estimates say the current costs are over $2 trillion and may add up to $6 trillion by the end of our lives due to financing costs and the extended care of soldiers who wouldn't otherwise have needed it. Obamacare will not pose those costs and is based on a good faith premise to stop people's suffering. The very worst case scenarios at this point are still better than the status quo. I'm not thrilled with how this presidency has gone but it is nothing like Bush's. Of course, much can change in three years! Who knows what can happen. Another recession, war, or other major national event and you never know what will happen.