Balta1701

QUOTE(Wedge @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 10:37 AM) Is there a stud Japanese relief pitcher we can sign... not named Takatsu? We'd really be set then! Daisuke Matsuzaka? Not exactly a reliever...and may be a Boras guy already..

Think they were smart enough to insure that deal?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 09:58 AM) I can't break this into what I want to right now but... 3,493.9 * $55 (2005 price) = $192,164.50 3,767.1 * $55 = $207,190.50 $15,026. - pure REVENUE (which is your 8% I keep bringing up), which doesn't equal PROFIT. You all keep missing that. What about cost cutting to draw out existing oil? What about 'infastructure' that was already in place? Many of the companies have consolidated cost structures through mergers and acquisitions. Be careful, because you are having a tendency to mix apples and oranges here (revenue and profit). You have to apply the right delta - which is what I've been trying to say in a not so eloquent way. Ok...found a conversion between Mtoe and oil barrels...and using your oil price conversion 1999: 25.6 billion barrels x 55 = $1.40 trillion 2004: 27.6 billion barrels x 55 = $1.52 trillion (those are BP's numbers.) So, in other words, revenues should have increased by about 8% over that timespan due to the increase in oil consumption. However, as I said, profits have gone up several hundred percent. However, earlier you claimed: Thus, I think I've been basically proven right on this issue here...they are benefiting from vastly more than the amount produced. For another example, in total, in 1999, the major world oil companies earned a total profit of $28.06 billion. Last year, Exxon Mobil earned a profit greater than that number. Also last year, the total profitability of the biggest 5 companies, not including as many as I counted in that last number, was over $108 billion. Now, to look at that increase another way, for that to happen, each barrel of oil sold would have to earn your average oil company $3 more in 2005 than in 1999. They would have earned a profit of roughly $1 per barrel in 1999, and $4 per barrel in 2005. However, we are also told that oil companies produce a fixed profit per gallon of gas. You said so earlier. Therefore, the increased profitability of those companies, to the tune of an additional $3 per barrel sold, has to come from some other source other than just additional sales. Therefore, you're left with the "getting rid of inefficiencies" argument. However, what you're failing to realize is that you just made the argument that the oil companies are operating as a monopoly and basically must be price fixing. If capitalism is actually working, and 1 company develops efficiencies, it should be able to increase its own profit by selling its good at a price below the less efficient companies. In fact, it almost has to do so, because otherwise the other companies will develop their own efficiencies and undersell them. However, in a monopoly, a company is able to fix the price at whatever level it wants, and increase it's profit through generating efficiencies, because whatever efficiencies are generated are not passed back to the consumer. If oil company profits are being generated through efficiencies of some sort, then the oil companies are actively price-fixing, because there is no competition occuring which would force some of those efficiencies to be passed on to the consumer in exchange for larger market shares of the more efficient companies.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 09:49 AM) Right. But why? And the answer is not as obvious (price) as you might think. So, if the answer is not that they're making more $ per gallon of gasoline sold, what is the answer?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 09:46 AM) Nobody is expecting Anderson to hit 20 dingers this year. Hell, Rowand only hit 13 last year. B.A. is touted as having more power than Rowand did when he came up, so some of us were hoping B.A. could make a run at 20 HR's this year.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 09:32 AM) Partially true. But what was the consumption in 1999? I'd like to see that. Volume is driving this more then the price. I'd have to chart it to probably make it a better argument and I don't know that I have that much time. This may be a bit unsatisfying, because it's coming from BP, and because for some reason they give the total oil consumption not in barrels but in "Million Tons oil equivalent" (and I for one haven't a clue what that unit means), but Here you go. World oil consumption 1999 3,493.9 2000 3,538.7 2001 3,552.2 2002 3,580.5 2003 3,641.8 2004 3,767.1 According to BP, world oil consumption has grown by roughly 8% since 1999. That is vastly less than the growth in oil profits over the same time, which have literally grown by several hundred percent.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 08:04 AM) Yea, they profit, of course they do. But they profit from the AMOUNT PRODUCED (ie the supply), not the price, by in large. Now that oil is $70 bbl, all of a sudden, it's profitable to pull that crap up out of the ground. Did you see the same supply when oil was $12 bbl? No. The same goes for natural gas. Now that it's profitable to pull it up from the ground, there's wells all over the place. There's 5 or 6 within eyesite of my house as we sit on one of the largest natural gas fields in the United States. This wouldn't have happened if the demand didn't dictate the price being higher, and therefore the supply is shorter, and therefore it's more profitable to pull this stuff out. Ok, so based on your theory, there should therefore be a direct correlation between the percentage increase in oil company profits and the percentage increase in oil production. In other words, if I make a fixed amount of profit on 1 gallon of gas regardless of the price of that gasoline, the increase in any company's profitability should be directly correlated with the world's oil consumption. In 2004, the world consumed roughly 30 billion barrels of oil. The number for 2005 is roughly 31 billion barrels of oil. Therefore, there should have been an increase in profits of all oil companies between 2004 and 2005 of 3.2%, because that was the increase in how many barrels of oil were sold between the 2 years. Exxon Mobil, for example, saw it's profits go up 17% from 2003 to 2004, and by my numbers, about 40% from 2004 to 2005. The oil industry as a whole saw its profits surge by 19% in the first quarter of 2006, despite the fact that oil consumption is growing at a vastly slower rate. In other words, oil companies are making vastly more money not because they're selling more oil, they're making more money because they're making more money per gallon.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 10:03 PM) If Javon Walker gets healthy again (and actually stays on the team), that offense suddenly looks a lot more respectable again. And their defense did make a jump last season as well. I don't think they'll be as bad as what as many people are predicting. And the Pack also had to deal with an absolutely ridiculous number of injuries on the team last year too. Hell, they went through what, 6 starting running backs? And some of them were surprisingly good (Gado?). Next year, they've got what, Gado, Davenport, and Green all in their backfield, when they had none of them for most of last year? That's at least a big improvement over last season.

Kobe's jersey will now re-emerge as the top selling Jersey in the league next year.

QUOTE(Benchwarmerjim @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 08:49 PM) Twins pull out the win 2-1 that'll lower the team ERA I was watching that game in the 8th inning (Sox were on a station break). Sweeney came up with 2 outs and 2 men on against Rincon, and I'm sitting there saying "if this was a White Sox pitcher, this ball leaves the park. He hit it almost to the warning track. How do you guys get so lucky as to not have that guy murder you?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 03:07 AM) Interesting little tidbit here. The Sox have 80 runs allowed after 20 games, but the Tigers have allowed only 78 in 21 games. That's 1/8th of the season. Have the young Tiger pitchers finally hit a comfort level with Rogers in place as the grizzled veteran ace? Could be something to watch. I would bet that like 50% of the runs the Sox have given up were given up in like 20% of our games.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 07:27 AM) Yeah it was a nice play, and it was noticable for me for the same reason you mentioned. It was the only area that Rowand never really excelled at, and that was the ball in front of him. He made the catches into the gaps, and over his shoulder as good or better than anyone in the game today... in front of him, he usually took the ball on a hop. Well, that and the throwing arm, which B.A. also improves on.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 07:41 AM) He looked servicable but still unable to consistently throw strikes when needed. He also was hit pretty hard and benefitted from the ballpark. I think Thorton brings more to the table but hasn't been used much. Cotts, Politte, McCarthy and Jenks will make it really hard to get these two into any games with the starting pitching going as they are, assuming the other four are doing as they have. I really did like what I saw from Logan last night on a raw level...his fastball looked surprisingly explosive given that it was only in the low 90's (especially on the lefties), he had a lot of movement on his pitches, he has a real quick delivery to the plate (i.e. you won't be stealing easily on him), and I really think the kid has some talent. But if you watched him pitch last night...his problem was obvious, and it's not one that should be totally unexpected; he was scared of the hitters. He was scared that if he didn't throw the perfect pitch every time, the batter would pull a Travis Hafner on him. We've all seen this before. It happens to most rookie pitchers not named Mark Buehrle; they come up and wind up being a bit wild because they're trying to paint the corner with every single pitch because they think if the ball is over the middle of the plate, it's going to fly 450 feet. What they wind up doing then is falling behind a couple of hitters, walking a couple guys, and then the ball flies 425 feet, but it's a 3 run homer instead of a solo shot. Logan last night looked like Garland in 2000. He had the stuff to get people out, he just was being too careful. When Ozzie came out & b****ed him out, he suddenly started just throwing it, and got outs. He adapted a little better in the 9th too. It'll take Logan some time, but I really liked how the kid's pitches looked last night. He's not there yet, and he's not going to get there if we drop him to AAA, but we've got a couple coaches who are pretty darn good at convincing pitchers to just go out and throw strikes and see what happens (think about the work they've done with Garland). Keep him in some mop up duty for now, and hopefully within a couple months, or maybe by next year, this kid's going to be looking real good in that bullpen alongside Neal.

So, I doubt this comes as a surprise to anyone, but Ricky Williams lost his appeal. He will be suspended for 1 year for violating the NFL's substance abuse policy.

So, I think by Mr. Bush's own definition, the Bush Administration no longer supports our troops, flip flops, and supported funding our troops Before they were against it.

This is how Walmart makes their money. They know very well that people only really pay attention to and know by heart the prices of a few core items. Walmart makes sure those core items are at the lowest prices in their stores, then they jack up the price of everything else, and the consumers buy things there anyway just because they've been conditioned to assume that Walmart will have the lowest price.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 03:03 PM) i'm so sick of this case already (it's getting as bad as the girl that is missing in Aruba or whatever) You need about 6-8 weeks at this intensity of media coverage before it hits that level.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 02:43 PM) I think this shows one of the things I admire about this president. He tries and finds the best cadidates for any position. He'll even take a little criticism in the process. Sadly, his most ardent backers can't find that same attribute and willingness. Are you serious about that? Appointees like Harriet Miers, Michael Brown, hell even Cheney & Rumsfeld are the best candidates for their positions?

QUOTE(shoota @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 01:44 PM) A stat printed in the Trib a few years ago said that if our nation's vehicles averaged 10% better gas mileage, we'd eliminate all dependency on all middle east oil. Thus, just raise CAFE standards 12% on new vehicles and problem solved. Of course, you've missed 1 small step there...you would need to immediately replace every single car in this country with a car built to the new standards in order to say "problem solved". While this would be good for Detroit and Toyota, it might not be that great for most taxpayers.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 01:44 PM) we were outside and this guy asked my friend for lighter and started talking to him saying he was Freddy Garcias uncle and thety were in to see Garcia pitch, he was also pitching agianst one of his friends. His uncle said he wasnt sure how to get in becuase he got seperated from the group or something. Than just said goodbye and left with my friends lighter. Note to self...start referring to self as Jose Contreras's uncle instead of Garcia's uncle...they're on to me and my lighter stealing plans.

QUOTE(Felix @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 01:35 PM) I'm hoping tonights game is worth watching tonight.. stupid 10 PM games I love em. I'm actually able to be home to watch these. No Farmer & Singleton at 5:00.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 11:43 AM) Article 3 contains no evidence of Bonds being a racist, it does not have any quote by Bonds to even suggest he prefers any race. In fact the picture shows Bonds with a young white fan, which is proof once again Bonds is NOT a racist.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 12:58 PM) Ethanol will never work, it's just too inefficient and there's not enough of it to go around. The alternative, MTBE, is known to be an animal carcinogen, so yeah. In older forms, or more specifically when ethanol is made from corn, you'd have been 100% right. But there are new methods of producing ethanol coming on line which have the potential to turn that around. Brazil, for example, uses ethanol as the majority of it's fuel right now, and they produce it from sugar cane, which is roughly 7 times as efficient as producing it from corn. Furthermore, refinements in the processing of corn have actually made that form more efficient as well, such that the energy gap in using corn-based ethanol is either shrinking or completely gone. The real key for the U.S. though is going to be to get the process correct using a crop other than corn, like that switchgrass the Pres. mentionned in his SOTU address, which can grow on very dry land and hopefully be refined into ethanol.

QUOTE(fathom @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 12:42 PM) Like I said last night, there's no excuse not to throw at least one pitch-out in that situation. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when I watched that inning. I thought after he didn't run on the first pitch and saw BMac's move to first, he was almost certainly running on the 2nd pitch, and that would have been a good pitchout time. Don't know if we'd have gotten him, but it was at least worth a try, especially up a strike.

AP. Now this article is just damn fun. So wait...the way to control gas prices is through the use of alternative fuels like ethanol. So in order to accomplish this goal, we're going to stop requiring refiners to use ethanol. Seriously, I wonder if the person who wrote that article realized what they had just written.