Balta1701

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 09:18 PM) Gotcha. Still, 12 mill seems like an awful lot for Hunter considering the Twins are still going to have payroll restrictions even if they raise payroll a bit. Don't forget the new stadium they finally managed to talk the state out of. Now's not the time they want to appear too cheap, especially if there are a few fans who still like Hunter (Jim would know that better than me).

So why exactly are we putting ARod at 3rd base now?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) So it's hang the bastard (read: he MUST resign) now, but 20 years ago, it wasn't. Hypocrites. Well, I was under 5 20 years ago, but here's the question; did that guy you're talking about have any specific leadership positions within the party that he maintained?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 01:05 PM) Another random thought here.... if it isn't OK to group the radical Islamists as represently all Islam, why is it OK to paint all repubs are being a part of this scandal? Guys like Hastert I understand, but unless Dems are calling the entire party coverup artists and child molesters, this should be affecting anyone except the few people who have been named, right? For the same reason you asked about the other guy...because Hastert (and Boehner and Reynolds) actually has a leadership position within the party, he only retains that position as long as he has the support of a majority of those within the Congress. If he were to be removed from his leadership position, a-la Trent Lott, it would be a sign of disapproval on the part of his constituents in his party who vote for him for that position. His retaining that position is either tacit approval of his actions or a belief that his actions are not serious enough for his removal from that position. A better metaphor would be to discuss a state where the radical islamist party has won an election and therefore has shown that it has the support of a majority of the people, i.e. Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

Daisuke Matsuzaka has permission to start looking for employment with MLB.

The Twins have picked up Torii Hunter's $12 million option for 2007.

I wasn't talking about Social Security. Compared to Medicare, Social Security is perfectly fine. We only have a Social Security problem in the sense that we have a general fund problem - because we're running a deficit right now, we're not saving up money like we are supposed to in order to deal with that program. Medicare on the other hand is an absolute disaster and shows no signs of getting better without serious and massive health care reform.

Ok, I see your point on the things that would help better and agree with you (although, would this president actually use a line-item veto?) that those would work better. I am still going to argue though that the deficit right now is a major concern, not as much because of the size of it now, but because of the size of it in the future. In my view, we're sitting there staring at a bill which is guaranteed to come up in a few years to pay for the baby-boom retirement. There's simply no way around it...we aren't going to be able to suddenly deny them health care after taxing them for Medicare for all those years. That bill is going to come whether we like it or not. So here's the metaphor...you've just bought something, say a car, that you don't have to pay for until the start of 2008. Do you a.) save up money in 2007 to make those payments easier, or b.) pretend you don't have that bill coming up, and keep spending and spending and spending in 2007?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 11:22 AM) Actually it isn't two different things in the grand scheme of things. Money supply is directly related to both interest rates and government spending, especially where government deficit spends. Yes, that part I understant. 3 points to make on this issue that I think are important: 1. Because the Federal Government moves fairly slowly, the Federal Reserve is far more effective in terms of rapidly adding to the money supply when a stimulus is needed on the economy, 2. the Federal Reserve is also much smarter in removing that stimulus from the economy when it is no longer needed (i.e. right now), and 3., as I understand it, running a long-term structural deficit increases my taxes quite a bit more than having the Federal Reserve cut rates in order to expand the money supply. This rule being added right now would help encourage Congress to remove its deficit stimulus which it has been running for 5 years. That I think is the key argument in favor of it right now.

Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm happy to know what I'm missing, but it seems that 2k5 and I are on different topics. I'm specifically focused on the ability of the government to run these monstrous deficits between its income and the amount it spends (which didn't really start until 2002-2003, after the recession ended). On the other hand, 2k5 seems to be referring to the Federal Reserve and its ability to encourage growth of the money supply. I don't know of anyone who wants to limit the Federal reserve and its ability to expand the money supply through its controls on interest rates if the economy turns south. The thing this matter would be aimed at is specifically controlling the spending of Congress, which by any means I can imagine has gone completely out of control. Yes, tax cuts can probably have some finite impact on the money supply, but not nearly as much as for example the expansion in the housing market fueled by the low interest rates did at the bottom of the last downturn. And now that we're in what appears to be an upturn, we're still running these deficits, and they're projected to never go away in the future. Both of those are unacceptable IMO...you can not simply run on a structural deficit for all time, and you can not spend more when the economy turns downwards without making some sacrifices when the economy turns up. That's why this rule is important, especially now as a temporary measure, because now that the economy has turned back up, it's about the best chance we're going to get before the baby-boomers start drawing on Medicare to get the budget back into some state where it can handle that retirement.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 10:30 AM) Good post Jim. Of all the things you should be worried about keeping out of kids hands, the Harry Potter series might be the stupidest.

So, bullpen related question for folks: Who do people want as our 2nd lefty next year? Cotts, Logan, a bullet to the head, or someone else (and explain how you think we can get them)?

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 09:26 AM) ^^^^^ Additionally, LCR TEACHES children and ISN'T even a democrat. And, yeah, just yeah. I think that's the least of the problems I have with that block of text.

That is so freaking mind-blowing that I literally don't have anything left to say.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 08:56 AM) If Cora goes to Florida, I would like to see Raines go to 3rd base. He definitley knows how to control the basepaths. He did well as a 1B coach last year. Supposedly Raines wants to work his way to a head coaching job IIRC? If that's true, then 3rd base is the next logical stop for him.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 06:02 AM) And I hope ESPN gets fined. ESPN is a cable network, and thankfully the FCC hasn't come in to regulate cable networks yet (considering you don't have to let pay networks into your house if you don't want.)

QUOTE(AirScott @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 07:36 AM) why is it any more believable this year? so Torre only has one year left on his contract? last year it was two, and everyone was saying Steinbrenner can afford to pay two managers for a couple of years. the only difference with Steinbrenner now and Steinbrenner then is that in the 70's and 80's, he really did fire his managers. now he merely threatens it. Aside from saving a little money, the one thing that may be different now is that Pinella is 100% available. Last year he had just been fired, there was a bit of a contract mess with Tampa IIRC, and it seemed like he didn't want to manage this year. Next year, Pinella is going to be managing somewhere, so if that's the guy George wants, this is probably his only year to get him.

QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ Oct 9, 2006 -> 07:30 PM) Well then why don't we just sign LeTroy Hawkins... The guy is a stud setup man... He's gotten a head case rep and he can't close so he might come at a discount... He's not the worst option out there, but he ought not to just be handed the job. The only way we sign him if I'm the GM is if we can't find that last right handed bullpen arm, so we decide to try 4 or 5 different righties in ST and see who comes out on top (I.e. throw Hawkins, Hermanson, Tracey, and a couple other journeymen in there). And most likely, whoever you find, you have to expect to replace before the trading deadline because it's going to be a big, big weakness.

QUOTE(AirScott @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 07:30 AM) there was a lot of good from Cora last year. I can remember multiple instances last year where Cora sent a runner home on a hit to the outfield, and the only reason the runner was safe was because the fielder bobbled or misplayed the ball. now was the pressure of the runner being sent home why the fielder botched the play? or were the runner and Cora just lucky? If a third base coach sends every runner home on every play, then yes, he is going to take advantage of some bad throws, misplays in the outfield, or stupid moves by the other team. The problem of course is that sending every runner possible home, which seems to be Cora's M.O., also runs you into a huge number of outs on all of the plays that aren't close. There are many, many situations where you are better off with a runner sitting on 3rd and 1 less out than with a runner heading home who needs a miracle to score. The 1 time out of 5 or 10 that you get the miracle, yes you score the run, but the other 4 or 9 times, you hand the opposition another out and remove any chance you have to keep the inning going. No one is ever going to like a third base coach, it's true. The goal though is for you to not notice the third base coach. If a runner gets thrown out at home, it should be on a very close play, so close that you're saying "This was an excellent job by the defense". Likewise, you shouldn't be able to look at the video and say "that guy would have scored easily". All we want is a little decision making, a little sanity from the guy. Just think. If you've got Crede coming up next, and Konerko is rounding 3rd, and the defender already has the ball in the OF, you just can't send him. Cora never adapts to the situation (i.e. we have a big RBI guy coming up next) and almost never adapts to the baserunner (Konerko, Thome, AJ being sent home). He always, always sends people. Yes, it adds some runs when the defense makes mistakes. But it also subtracts runs and gives the other team too many free outs.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Oct 9, 2006 -> 03:41 PM) If Thome isn't going to be on the Sox, it's going to be because they didn't pick up his option. I also like how you think moving Thome would be a cost savings move (saving us a whopping $8 million a year to remove a 1.000 OPS from the Left handed side,) yet people here are willing to give Crede 5 years, $50 million. You're making an assumption: the White Sox will send along all the money they got with Thome in any deal involving him. I see no reason why that is required to be true...the Phillies sent along that money to reduce our risk when Thome was coming off a bad injury. Now he's coming off another 40 home run, 100 RBI season.

But all of the evidence, and I mean ALL of it, shows that this was not a political hit, it was in fact known by a growing group of people before ABC finally published on it. 1. The Republicans leadership began to know about the problem as early as 2000. At the very least they knew about them early in 2005. Nothing was done. 2. The Saint Petersberg Times and the Miami Herald received copies of emails from Mr. Foley to pages in late November 2005. At least the St. Pete times tried to follow up, but couldn't get the page in question to go on record or allow his name to be released. 3. CREW and lefty Blogger John Avarosis received the emails by July of 06. They forwarded the emails to the FBI and took no further action - they did not publish, because they didn't know what they had, and they only had the tip of the iceberg. 4. ABC learns about the emails in August of 06, but did not publish until late September, mainly because they were spending their resources covering the 9/11 anniversary. They decided to publish the tip of the iceberg on Friday, and when confronted with the emails, Foley resigned before ABC could even publish them. When ABC published them, the really nasty ones were sent to them quite rapidly. This was not a hit. This was being handed to the press, to the Republican leadership, and to the FBI at the end of 2005 at the very latest. Nothing was done. Had something been done earlier, then the Republicans could have avoided this pre-election mess.

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Oct 9, 2006 -> 03:35 PM) I agree it might be wise to trade Thome or Konerko for that matter considering the amount of money they are making and the years left on their respective deals, but like dorf, I just think its extremely unlikely that Thome or Konerko are in another uniform in 2009 or 2010 no less 2007. Jim Thome is under contract through 2008, with the White Sox holding a $14 million option in 2009. QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Oct 9, 2006 -> 03:39 PM) Crede is one of the best 3rd basemen in all of baseball. I used to think he was worthless, but he changed my mind. As long as his back isn't a hinderence, trading him is counterproductive. If anyone is overrated on this board, it is one Josh Fields. He had a breakout year in which he hit 19 homers in Charlotte. Now everyone thinks he'll hit over 20 in the big leagues. He's a strikeout machine. I will admit, he will take a walk which I like, but I just don't think of this guy as all that great of a prospect. Trade him while someone still does KW> I fully agree with this with one exception...what happens if we can't sign Crede?

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 9, 2006 -> 03:33 PM) Yet, if I'm trading for Arod, I'm doing so with the intent of moving him back to SS and sending Juan Uribe elsewhere. If we get Arod, than we are going to need to cut payroll somewhere and moving someone like Thome makes more sense than someone like Crede. Plus I think now is the perfect time to move Thome because I see him getting progressively worse during the remaining years of the contract. His trade value is far higher this year than it was last year (when we acquired him) and I think this off-season would be the perfect time to take complete advantage of that. Oh and Gload could play 130 games a season on a winning team, especially one like the Sox (with good bats most of the way around the lineup). The one way I would think your suggestion would make sense is if we could also get a quality left handed hitting leadoff hitter for left field from somewhere. Because with Gload instead of Thome, we lose the ability to have a lefty bat that the other team has to plan around. You don't bring in a Loogy to face Ross Gload unless the situation demands it...you bring one in to face Thome any time the game is close. That would be somewhat of a weakness in our lineup if we followed that suggestion. Then again...toss Thome to anaheim for Santana, toss Santana to Tampa for Crawford, and bang.