Balta1701

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 07:20 AM) As for players being bigger and stronger than they were back then? NO DUH! If those players had the same type of training, nutrition and technology we have now back in 1965, they would be just as big and just as strong. It doesn't mean we have to diminish what they accomplished. You know what? I'm going to disagree with this. The reality I think is much more that different bodies respond differently to different amounts of training. When you take a person who was good at one time, and give them modern weight lifting routines, you will not necessarily improve that person as much as you will other players. This is my Barry Bonds theory - a lot of people took steroids in baseball, but only 1 of them turned into Barry Bonds. A lot of them got better, but a lot also fell apart. It's hard to predict how each and every body is going to react to the stresses of workouts, weight training, etc. Some bodies react differently to the training than others do.

Given how often Peja's name has been mentionned with the Bulls, anyone care to guess whether or not the Pacers will be interested in holding onto him, or is this just an attempt to get an expiring contract to try to look for the future for IND?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 01:03 PM) This s*** ... playing politics with this particular aspect of our government ... is going to bite the Dems in the ass. I'm sorry, but do you really expect that a couple of days of delay is really going to come back as the worst thing in history?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 01:05 PM) You're giving me a blog post as a response? ummmm okay Read the citations if you don't beleive what they're saying. Come on man. Just because something's on a blog doesn't mean it's not right. If you think it's not right...then go check out the documents he's presenting, exactly as I hoped people would do when I said " it's well enough sourced that I have trouble disbelieving it"

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 12:58 PM) Doesn't it stand to follow that if the administration thought it was unnecessary due to the Patriot Act, that they belived the Patriot Act gave them the legal right? I understand what you're saying, but I think that the 2 parts of the DOJ response cited in that blog post argue against that idea. First...they actually argue that it's unnecessary because they didn't have any problems getting the FISA warrants that they needed as far as the guy writing that response knew. The only reason why you would logically need to get warrants without going to FISA courts is if they weren't willing to give the warrants. And secondly...the DOJ itself seems to have had problems with the constitutionality of the idea, yet it still was already happening. That just seems to contradict the idea that they thought it was either necessary or ok.

Ok...now this seems very odd, but it's well enough sourced that I have trouble disbelieving it...in 2002, a Republican Senator from Ohio introduced legislation which would have reduced the FISA standard for the acquisition of a warrant from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. The Bush Administration's justice department opposed the bill as unnecessary with the Patriot act (and at least 1 person writing the DOJ response had some questions about its constitutionality). Congress rejected the bill, probably in part due to DOJ opposition. This was many months after the administration had already started doing exactly that.

QUOTE(Frank the Tank 35 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 05:12 PM) Damn do you guys like throwing down. Now for some actual numbers... 2005 final payroll ~ $75 million 2004 attendance- 1,930,537 2005 attendance (excluding playoffs)- 2,342,834 2004 avg ticket price- $22.71 FCI (cost for a family of 4 to go to the game done by Team Marketing)- $171.35 2005 avg ticket price- $25.89 (up 14%) FCI- $188.07 (up 9.8%) 2004 att/ 4 (family)= 482,634.25 x 2004 FCI= 82,699,378.7375 2005 att/ 4= 585,708.5 x 2005 FCI= 110,154,197.595 therefore $75 mill/ 82,699... should approximately equal x/ 110,154... where x= 2006 salary solve for x, x= $99,898,753.12 Again, this does not include the postseason and the ridiculous hike in merchandise sales. Gentlemen, some of you may hate to admit this but Andy the Clown could have been damn right on when he said the actual budget cap was $106 mil. Now that I've gotten that out, I'd like to reiterate the fact that I think trading a package including JC for Abreu(+?) at this time is unwise. We DO need some people in the bullpen after all. So unless we can add an impact arm without giving up the pieces for Abreu, then it just wouldn't work out. Could we trade BA for a BP arm? I don't think KW would do it. I'm just making the point that I don't think the budget is the most contraining issue here. The 2005 figures equate to an average attendance of 28,923 per game, or about 5,000 less per game than this board's "expected" average next season. There's one more key item you're missing in your analysis. When you take the "Average cost of a family of 4 going to the game" there's 1 problem...because it's an average, there's a bias in that number. If people are spending hundreds of dollars on scout seats, VIP parking, and new jerseys at the store...they're going to more than bias the average cost per family. Now, my question would be this...if we were to increase from 35,000 fans a game to 100% sellouts...are the increased seat purchases going to come from people paying $500 a game, or are they going to come from those paying $50 a game and taking the open slots in the upper deck? I would say it's vastly more likely to be those sitting in the Upper Deck...the people who buy the expensive seats and have money to burn are going to buy the best seats up early. Those seats just don't float around. They get sold in Season Ticket Packages, Ozzie plans, etc. This is another case of diminishing returns...yes, every fan in the seats helps...but at some level...adding more fans in decreases the average amount of money spent per fan, because the extra fans we're putting in are those who are paying less money per game.

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 07:19 PM) i liked the red sox taking a flyer on him last year, and he actually lived down the street from my dad. i've always liked wade miller, i wish him all the best. I liked the BoSox taking a chance on him last year too...But like at least 1 other person said...it's insane that the Cubs only signed him for 1 year and didn't get club options for the next 2 years or so, just in case somehow he does come back. Especially if it looks like he won't be ready to open the season...they may spend $1 million on him so that he can rehab in AAA until September.

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 09:45 PM) I would say that if Borchard makes the team, he could fill the whipping boy role quite nicely. At least if he hits .220 in 200 at bats or so...there's going to be a few more than 1 ball landing very very far from homeplate.

General Hayden, Deputy Director of Intelligence and former director of the NSA. Good to know that the guys at the top of the NSA actually have no idea what the Constitution actually says. General Hayden actually did make some interesting points...specifically he basically said that this NSA program isn't some sort of large-scale data mining program, where they're searching everything...it's actually targeted at specific people, but they felt like they had to use a lower standard of evidence than the "Probable cause" cited by FISA as the requirement for a wiretap involving a U.S. citizen. Of course, when Mr. Bush goes around and says that these people are being called by Al Qaeda then, he is clearly and unambiguously misleading in his statements, because by no standard imaginable would a call from even a suspected ally of Al Qaeda not be probable cause for a warrant when the U.S. has declared war on that organization. Therefore, this has to be something else, and they still don't want to give us anything honest. Therefore, if this General isn't lying...we still should be very confused, but at least we know why we're confused. We know that it's not some sort of massive program intercepting the entire internet that wouldn't be practical under FISA...but we still have no idea why they think they couldn't go to Congress and have the law updated, nor do we know who they're targeting or why, but we can rule out people who are actually in direct contact with Al Qaeda in any way, because those would be easily tappable under FISA. A couple of people say these same things Here and Here.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 07:58 PM) That is way too much for 'admin'. But the whole thing is a useless argument until a better way to fund schools can be made. As long as property taxes are the basis, there will always be disparity among schools. Also, can Media Matters be considered an unbiased source themselves? Their own homepage has links for things such as 'Why is CNN hiring conservative misinformer Bill Bennett?' and 'Support our fight against conservative misinformation'. Nah, they wouldn't make up stuff, or cherry pick either, would they? I'll more than admit MMFA is biased and you won't find things disproving stuff that say Mr. Kerry says on some random day at their page. But I really don't think Stossel is that unbiased of a source either, and given how heavily they cite everything they write, they at least provide a very useful counterpoint to a guy like Stossel who doesn't provide many of his sources. If you disagree with something they say...follow the link and check their sources. They give you basically everything there. That's why I like them for certain purposes. $8000 also is not all necessarily for "Admin"...there may well be maintenance, construction, supplies, transportation, sports equipment all included in those numbers as well.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 07:58 PM) Government? No Employer? No No one is suppose to fund it. And that may be the root of the problem. That I'll agree with. Then, I think, that leads to 1 more question...and it's one the President is going to launch a debate on here in about a week or so...who is the best person to pay for it? Someone is going to have to, so before everything breaks down, we better figure out an answer to that question.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 05:17 PM) Sorry, I can't blame Bush for not knowing everything about everything. I think he has been busy. I agree with you at about the 50% level...but he didn't just say he didn't know...he actively said she was wrong, and it turned out he was wrong. He probably didn't have a clue and didn't want to be called on cutting the budget for something that was actually good and useful so he just obfuscated a little bit. He can't know everything about everything...but he could at least say "I'm sorry I don't know" instead of getting caught making up facts when he obviously didn't know. Anywho...not a big deal to me either way. Not like the Pres has a line item veto or budget-adder where he could go and personally restore the thing. We can blame him and the Republicans all we want for them deleting the thing in order to try to pay for 10% of the tax cuts that the student will have to pay for the rest of her life, but who cares if he didn't remember that one detail.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 11:36 PM) After Philly fans went apes*** about him wearing that Bears jersey, going to the White House with the Sox may not be a good idea for Rowand. Last year after Derek Lowe and a few others were already gone from Boston, they put their BoSox uniforms back on in the Boston ring ceremony. A few people around did complain, but for the most part they were scoffed at.

Well...somehow, I bet a lot of people saw this coming.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 02:23 PM) 1. Abreu improves the team. 2. An improved team has a better chance to repeat as champions. 3. A championship teams draw more fans. 1+2+3= MORE MONEY! Several points in reply. 1. There are 2 ways we could make more money by winning games; selling tickets at higher prices or by filling more empty seats. We already have set ticket prices for this year, so let's throw that out the window. 2. Therefore, the only place we have to increase revenue this year is to sell more tickets. 3. We have already sold a significant number of season tickets...to a base of over 20,000. We will have many games which are almost certain to sell out...Cubs, Red Sox, Yankees, etc. 4. The games which are during the summer will also sell well...simply because it's summer, we've already won a title, and we should at the very worst have a decent team next year.. 5. In other threads, for a variety of reasons...we have estimated that the stadium will probably average somewhere between 35,000-38,000 fans per game this year. 6. This leaves only a limited amount of slack in the form of available tickets. There will be no tickets for games people actually really want to see, and very few for summer games, even those which people don't really care about, like games against K.C. or Tampa or someone like that. 7. Therefore...the only way we can grow the revenue any farther is to find a way to sell more tickets to games with teams that we already should be beating during times when the weather is poor and kids are back in school, since those are the games which will be the most readily available. The question I put to you is this...please prove to me not only that winning increases revenue...but that Bobby Abreu will sell more tickets to games that we should win anyway...and that he will be able to sell roughly 250,000+ more tickets overall, given how many games are already sold out (assuming each fan in the seats spends an average of over $40 on a game, including parking, food, and the cheap, available seating for those games which hasn't been grabbed by season ticket purchasers)

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 02:17 PM) I cannot believe the ignorance of some of you. Who here wouldn't spend $50 to make $100? You have not yet explained how exactly spending money on Bobby Abreu this year will make the White Sox a richer team.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 02:11 PM) The first (unwritten) Rule of Business..."It takes money to make money.". And I take it the $95 million we're spending in salary this year is not money because...the players have agreed to be paid in the form of items from Wendy's dollar menu? "Today, Jon Garland signed a contract extension with the white sox worth a reported 9 million Frosties a year."

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 01:24 PM) Because, for the most part, it's not party line that people vote for in Congressional elections, it's the incumbent. Once you seat someone in a post, it's very difficult to unseat someone in the following election. And given how important seniority can be towards getting plum assignments on committees in the House and Senate, and how important those committee assignments and chairmanships can be for bringing home federal dollars to your state...there's actually a real major disincentive to replace someone who's served more than 1 term.

QUOTE(robinventura23 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 01:27 PM) So who makes more starts next year? This guy or Wood? Miller.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 01:05 PM) One word...LEVERAGE! The Sox can always borrow against future value to make up for any deficits!!! This only makes sense if, as I pointed out above...several things happen. First of all...they can grow the revenue in the future to make up for the losses this season. This is simply unlikely, as if the break-even point this year is somewhere around $95 million, that means we'd basically have to start selling out the stadium every single game, and have revenue from several playoff games, just to turn a profit in the future. You just can't magically make seats appear, and increasing the ticket price will drive attendence back down. The other option then, would be cost-cutting in the future. This would almost certainly have to be achieved by reducing the costs of the players in the future, as again, there's almost no other revenue that can be added. Now, if our minor leagues cannot provide say another BMac or Buehrle for the next 5 years, or we trade away youth to get a guy like Abreu, then we're in the situation of having basically no choice but to save money by putting people on the field who simply will not win ballgames. This will then probably drive people out of the ballpark, meaning that the quality of play on the field will decline even further. Without some new revenue stream...going into a deficit to pay for a guy like Abreu will almost certainly mean that we will have a worse team on the field a few years from now, and it may very well destroy the gains in attendence and salary created by spending the money on the big name right now.

QUOTE(Frank the Tank 35 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 01:12 PM) So next year will probably be one of our most profitable years ever in terms of revenue meaning that the FOLLOWING year (2007) is when the "re-investment" is due according to Forbes. If 2007 is when we'd take the bulk of the hit for an Abreu contract, it looks like it lines up directly with the year that we should be able to afford the most salary. (Be back later to continue this engaging discussion ) But the problem is...we've already massively increased our investment for next year, from something like $75 million last year to something like $95 million next year (and I think that's even more if you count the buyouts for Thomas and Everett). This reduces the profitability next year if the team is profitable, and in fact makes it far more likely that we'll lose money (what happens if, God forbid, Buehrle or Konerko were to get hurt and we miss the playoffs?)

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) The Seahawks would've destroyed us. With the way the Bears played against the Panthers...yeah of course. They couldn't stop Goings in that game...why would they be able to stop Alexander? They couldn't get pressure through Carolina's line...are they going to get through the better Seahawks line? The Bears defense from earlier in the year...whatever happened to it...may very well have beaten the crap out of the Seahawks. But the Bears defense that showed up 2 weeks ago would have been destroyed by Seattle.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 12:56 PM) The current Sox ownership paid something like $25-30 million for the team; it is currently valued at more than $300 million. Is $300 million more than $30 million? I'm not sure...evidently I'm bad with numbers. So, your advice then would be for the ownership group to sell the team, and use the money gained from selling the team to pay Mr. Abreu's added contract. I can't see any problem with that idea, can anyone else?

Without a citation or link to the exact article...how in the world do you expect us to be able to evaluate that claim?