ptatc

I confess, I did it AND I'D DO IT AGAIN!!!!!!!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 01:36 PM) They do have to take lobbyist money if they want to fund a reelection campaign. The ketchup thing was just another example. The USDA under Reagan proposed counting ketchup as a vegetable Apparently that "pizza is a vegetable" story is from the federal level, and it was mostly over whether or not tomato paste should be called a vegetable and thus subsidized: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkbl...BXgmhN_blog.htm . I agree that politicians do this do be re-elected thus it makes them corrupt. The whole system is designed this way and needs to change. That article is one view on subsidies (a biased one at that). The federal level started it but not all local governments need to buy into it. Unfortunately Will county does.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 12:12 PM) the gov't has no idea what it's talking about when it comes to food, fitness and health. end of story. Hence the reason government should stay out of most everything. The current BMI calculation need to be updated and is an easy but poor way to determine health. IMHO health really comes down to carviovascular health as if it's in good shape the person will be doing pretty good. The best way to do this is using the katvonen formula of resting heart rate and exercise heart rate.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2013 -> 11:11 AM) IIRC this is because of lobbying, e.g. ketchup producers lobby to get ketchup considered a vegetable so that schools will buy more of it. I think it's more because Illinois politicians are corrupt and idiots. They don't have to take the lobbyists money but they are more than willing. what pizza has ketchup anyway?

QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 12:03 PM) http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02...t-coast-offense Jay ran the west coast offense in Denver and has the best seasons of his professional career. The Denver offense sure didn't seem like the west coast offense to me. I thought I remember him rolling out alot and being on the move, all of which isn't in the original west coast offense with the strict move your feet to each read. shannahan sure didn't seem to run that offense. I guess my impressions of what Denver and Shannahan did with him was off.

QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 11:55 AM) Here's an article about how Steve Young sees the Cutler/Trestman duo working out: http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/bears/post...a-qb-specialist The only problem I have is that Trestman was a "west coast" offense guy. I don't know if he has changed but that type of offense would not suit Cutler.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 11:21 AM) People who rag on the fans for their support are really advocating franchise relocation. Fans who don't show up at the ballpark and support the team are advocating for franchise relocation.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 08:41 PM) Last month I attended a workshop on the flipped classroom concept and have been busy converting my classes. The hardest part so far is learning to produce quality screencasts with decent video. Basically the idea is delivering new content via video as homework and then the students work on what was homework, in class. Using Bloom's Taxonomy it would be having the student working on the lowest levels, comprehension and knowledge at home and the higher levels, synthesis and evaluating in school. I was using the free trial of Camtasia to record video and audio together with a PowerPoint presentation. The software is nice but not $300 nice. Then it seems to drop to freeware that is a struggle to get working correctly. I know we have a couple educators here and perhaps a video person or two. And as a student what do you think? Any thoughts? This is kind of the updated technology version of the socratic method of teaching. They get the knowledge on their own time and spend the time with the instructor discussing it to understand it. Like you said with Bloom's the lower knowledge on their own then analyze, synthesize and evaluate with instructor guidance. however, as stated it only works if the majority of the class comes prepared.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 11:10 PM) Interview yes, make them finalists would suggest that the GM isnt sure what he wants to do, right? For example. If I know what type of car I want to buy (sports car), Im not likely to have my 2 finalists be a Porsche and a F-150. Because what is the point of that. My 2 finalists would likely be 2 sports cars. Now if I have no clue what type of car I want, then I might pick 2 cars that are extremely different. But that would mean I dont know what I want. And if Emery doesnt know what type of coach he wants at this point in his career, Im really really scared. In one of his press conferences he says he wasn't looking for a specific x and o strategy but more of a leader who can take the team to a championship. This could explain the various "types" of coaches. He is looking for the guy who impresses him with overall coaching ability not a strategy. I'm not defending him just trying to figure out his process.

QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 09:55 PM) That may be the case but at the same time doesn't make it smart for the ownership to say "you can't pick a new coach". Perhaps Emery would have chosen that anyway, but it shouldn't have been a mandate. I agree. I just didn't know that Phillips gave him that mandate.

QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 09:51 PM) Which is why it's f***ing dumb that Emery didn't even have the ability to fire Lovie when he was brought in. The way Emery is going about this coaching search, he probably wanted to evaluate Lovie for a year before deciding on keeping him or not. He seems to be a detailed person not impulsive, kind of like Hahn is appearing to be.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 09:40 PM) It doesnt matter. The entire premise of my argument is the Bears shouldnt be firing Lovie this year. Its a terrible year for hiring coaches when there are a bunch of vacancies and you arent going to bid competitively. And it also doesnt matter because the Bears were never going to hire a coach like that. The Bears have a brand new GM who wants to prove himself. He isnt going to hire a coach who wants a lot of control. That means you are not going to be able to hire most of the top candidates who already have experrience. Its not really shocking at all. I think this is a good thing. Very few people can do both jobs and have success. But I still agree with your overall premise. When they fired Lovie, you has to hope emery knew what he is doing because it was going to be a "prospect" coach hire.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 09:43 PM) Coach Q had about ten years of head coaching experience before this stint with the Hawks. That's right. It's been so long since they played I forgot about the current coach.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 09:22 PM) The Bears have never hired a coach with previous HC experience Exactly. For the Sox the only one I can come up with in recent memory is Fregosi. I can't think of one for the Bulls. For the Hawks, I think it's Keenan.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 08:19 PM) This is why I was extremely terrified about losing Lovie. At least Lovie is respected and trusted by the players. If you are going to change the entire system and disrupt a veteran team, it better be for a proven coach. You should have known they would not hire a proven head coach. Other than the Cubs, what team in Chicago ever hires a proven coach, especially the Bears?

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 07:16 PM) Darrell Bevell too. Seems that these are the 2 finalists for the job. That's what was said on 670 a few minutes ago.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 06:59 PM) UGH. It's not rocket science. It has nothing to do with spending $25 million more. It has everything to do with developing younger players that will all hit years 2-5 at roughly the same time, combined with, at the very least, above average starting pitching and bullpen. And the right mix of veteran leadership at 2-3-4 positions on the field. This whole idea of spending our way into contention was tried in 2011, was it not? That doesn't mean it can NEVER EVER in the history of the franchise, happen again...just that the front office considers it more financially prudent to stand pat than to go out on a limb again and take the risk they'll have to sell off assets like Edwin Jackson in order to clear guys like Teahen off the books, like in 2011. Or dumping promising young pitchers because the pressure's too great for them to stand up to a pennant race, like Daniel Hudson. At least right now, they're in a much better position with Dunn and Rios than they were coming into 2012, but nobody's exactly clamoring for either of these guys in trade. If anything, 2005 proves the intelligence of NOT adopting the Marty Method. Dump Valentin, Ordonez and C-Lee, three players with big contracts. Add Garcia, Contreras, Vizcaino, Everett, Pods, Iguchi, Jermaine Dye, AJ, Hermanson, El Duque, McCarthy and Bobby Jenks. WIN. You spread out the risk financially not having so many of those $10+ million contracts, like we've been dealing with in the Jake Peavy, Rios and Dunn situations. Or even Konerko, if he continues to struggle in 2013 (let's hope not). Marty wants to spend that money on a Greinke or Josh Hamilton, and history has shown time after time those huge FA contracts work out about 15-20% of the time in the team's favor. I think I would like to spread it out more. If they all it FA at the same time it would be to expensive. Then it's either a really large payroll jump or a total rebuild.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 05:06 PM) Alex Boone was a complete bust until that coaching staff got ahold of him. He was a total assclown at OSU as well. Sows how nicely they coach those guys up. Who isn't? (just kidding. I couldn't pass it up)

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 04:53 PM) Forbes magazine is a reliable source. Thanks for pointing that out. The player expenses were 138 mil last year according to the site. Also 125 mil. of the 600 mil valuation of the team is the stadium which they don't own. I think 138 mil for players is plenty of money for the team.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 04:51 PM) You're mixing up revenue and profit or rather operating income. No I'm not. You are. You've shown nothing that shows what their profit is. Thus, you cannot say they can 'easily" put more money into the team payroll.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 04:42 PM) The point is the White Sox can easily afford a higher payroll than they claim. You've shown nothing that says they don't put every "profit" back into the team. The only number you've stated that shows what they have for a profit is the 175 million. If that is the case a 100 mil team payroll is very reasonable, considering that means only 75 mil for running the rest of the organization.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 03:44 PM) It's profit regardless of what ownership does with it. Maybe they put it back in to the business, maybe they take it as a dividend. I disagree.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 03:13 PM) Operating income is defined as: "The amount of profit realized from a business's operations after taking out operating expenses - such as cost of goods sold (COGS) or wages - and depreciation." It's only profit for the investors if it is not put back into the team.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2013 -> 05:25 PM) That was also right during the steroid era, in a home run hittinig ballpark. Their team ERA+ was 125. For comparison, Mark Buehrle's career ERA+ is 119. Think about that. As a whole, the 2005 starting rotation pitched "Better than Mark Buehrle in a normal year". The best ERA+ in the league last year was Tampa, at 120. That's the best ERA+ in baseball since 2003. It's been 9 season since any team put together that good of a pitching campaign. The last team that was better? The 2003 Dodgers...with their part human, part testosterone injection closer. I'm finding it amazing looking at how good that pitching staff really was compared to the rest of the league for the last decade. I think alot of the surprising success from the pitching staff came from Cotts and Politte. Who had two shut down middle relievers who had unbelievable career years and they happen to do it together on the same team. The starters knew that these guys would shut anything down if they came into the game. This has always been the part of the team that has amazed me.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 02:25 PM) Using Forbes numbers since 2003 Sox revenue is uo 101.8%, their payroll is up 102.9%, and their franchise value is up 157%. Moreover during this time the Sox have made $175M. When the value of the asset goes from $20M to $600M, more of that profit should be spent on payroll. The 175 is operating income not profit. The franchise value and asset value has absolutely nothing to do with the liquid budget. You cannot spend an asset unless you sell it. If they sell the team they would realize this increased in asset value but then they couldn't spend it on what they don't own.