Balta1701

QUOTE(BHAMBARONS @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 07:41 AM) 2. I like college players as well and they are the safe bet but really it depends on the front office, are they more risk takers? Or do they like the money ball approach with the safe the pick? I tend to agree with you about the college players but I have also seen some good prospects in high school and there are some players that are certainly worth the risk. I sort of disagree that this is the "Moneyball" approach. To me, the whole "Moneyball" approach was focused on finding value in places other teams were undervaluing. Teams were overvaluing BA against OBP, so Beane put together teams composed of high OBP players, etc. The draft story I got was that Beane felt people were overvaluing high school level performances, and not giving enough value to college performances. So, he went and focused his drafts on guys who had performed to his criteria in college. But now, people have started valuing college performances more highly, so that under-valuation has corrected itself, and voila...the A's were drafting High Schoolers and college players both last year. The Moneyball philosophy is that to compete in the big leagues, you have to find value wherever you can. It's a risk to draft a high-schooler, but if a guy starts to drop in the draft because he's a high-schooler, then at some level it does become worht the risk.

The Indians strengthened their roster this year Rob? Paul Byrd being that huge upgrade from Millwood?

Your happy birthday message is waiting under the My Controls option Hehehehe Happy Birthday!

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 09:58 PM) honestly, I'm still in shock about the whole thing: were they all just eunichs before? Tom Daschle is waving hi.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 08:55 AM) All this does, is give incentive to Wal-Mart to keep payroll lower. Thus, less hiring and lower raises. They can always blame the Maryland legislature for poor raises accross the board. You're making several assumptions there...first, that Wal-mart actually gives significant raises with time (I don't know their pay schedule, and for all I know it differs with stores), and second, that somehow the stores could operate with less staff, which is probably untrue. My father used to run a couple of grocery stores, and he taught me one thing about the retail industry - it's almost always boom/bust, for one simple reason; when stores first open, they can expand rapidly because all of their employees are new hirees, and are getting paid lower wages. Then, as the expansion period stops, several things happen simultaneously - the product can get a little stale because everyone has seen it, so sales go flat, and secondly...their payroll numbers start to rise because their stores have been open longer. Wal-Mart has really been the company that has defied this trend, for a couple reasons. One, they're still expanding, and they keep finding new ways to expand (i.e. the supercenters, etc.). Second, Wal-Mart keeps a very high turnover rate in most of its stores, so that its employees don't hang on for that long. Third, by putting other stores which could pay better out of business, Wal-Mart becomes the only game in town, so that people can't really leave if Wal-Mart doesn't give them large enough raises to support their families.

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 06:09 PM) Rushing the floor? Is ILL ranked No.1 or something? I guess that's just what happens when you are no longer an elite program. Something like that would never happen on Izzo's watch. Give em a break...it's been a while.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 05:29 PM) Just bring in Hicks to foul Killingsworth every time he touches the ball, I'm not kidding. He's not going to miss a shot from the field. Hack-a-marco just doesn't sound as good.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 05:28 PM) Dee's still in...i guess nothing to lose at this point. Makes sense to me, might as well get every minute out of him you can. If he fouls out or sits on the bench he loses time either way.

By the way, while we're all here, what was the last update on D.J.? Is there any chance he'll be back this season? Last stuff I read seemed like people had no idea how long he'd be out.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 04:28 PM) If a fire destroyed Chicago again, I wonder how quickly Daley would be fired if he said... "It's time to rebuild Chicago... a WHITER Chicago!" "Clearly, this fire is revenge for the suckiness of one of our baseball teams. God must consider it an affront. I call upon all Chicagoans to take your cubs merchandise and give it to the firemen. They will light it all on fire and use it as a firebreak to slow down the wrath of the angry Jesus!"

QUOTE(whitesoxfan99 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 04:48 PM) If the refs let us play I'll let you know. The foul count in the first half was 10-7, Il/IU. Not totally even but it is @ Indiana...and that's not anywhere close to the refs "not letting you play". I was at an OSU/IU game where there was like twice that number. That's not letting them play.

This game is tied and we're shooting 28.6% from the floor.

A second basket! We're shooting 20% from the floor! Hip-hip-Hooray! Give Davis another 5 years!

IU is 1 for its first 9 from the floor. Editing this post is getting less and less amusing.

Well, at least it's no longer a shutout.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 02:40 PM) I think that if Joe turns last September/October into an entire season, he will be asking for a whole hell of alot more than a million or two more. Mostly because Boras will be chirping in his ear pretty loudly by then. The problem with that is...for the next 2 years, he can't. Joe is still arbitration-eligible, and arbitration-eligible players simply do not get paid that much before they hit the FA Market. We in fact just got a good example yesterday. D-Train signed a $4 mil+ deal with the Marlins for 06, and that was a record amount for a newly arb-eligible starting pitcher. Teixeira is only going to be paid $6 million next season, and that's after putting up those massive numbers, and he's also not a FA until after 08.

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 02:21 PM) I still contend that the best (and very simple) measure of a team's defense is their defensive efficiency. That is, the number of hit balls they turn into outs. By this metric, the Sox were number 2 in all of baseball behind only the A's by a couple of hundreths of a percent. That metric does have the advantage of being simple, but to say it's the best overall...I disagree, because there are several things that can affect that metric other than the quality of the fielders. Most notably, the pitching comes to mind - a bunch of ground-ball pitchers will have different results from a bunch of fly ball pitchers or a bunch of strikeout pitchers. Furthermore, the field is going to play a role...size of the foul territory or the way the grass is cut...larger foul territory = more easy foul outs, different grass turns different balls into outs or infield hits, etc. Who you play would have an effect as well. Power, speed, etc. It's probably a pretty good statistic, but on its own it's still not perfect.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 01:46 PM) I think that Bush (via the NSA) is pretty clearly trampling the 4th amendment, and it's generally accepted interperetation regarding due process of law. Prior to FISA...were things like the wiretappings done by the Hoover FBI and the Nixon admin explicity illegal? The text of amendment IV says: I can see how that could be construed to apply to electronic assets, but prior to FISA, was that ever really established? Did anyone go to prison for wiretapping King, Lennon, et al. without warrants before FISA?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 01:24 PM) Apparently, Kentucky's Gov. Fletcher forgot he's a republican. No, he just realized that someone is going to have to pay those medical bills, and if the options are Wal-Mart or the Taxpayers, he's going to pick Wal-Mart every time.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 01:28 PM) That's funny, I could have sworn that the constitution was "the supreme law of the land". How can subsequent legislation make it any more illegal? The Constitution doesn't speak directly about a right to privacy. This is one of those many cases where the Constitution can only provide the framework around which a system of laws can be constructed. Therefore, the wiretaps themselves do not violate any explicit clause of the constitution, given that there is no right to privacy. However, those rights were granted to the people by the FISA Law which was passed by Congress, and that law, well, should have the force of law unless some portion of it were ruled unconstitutional, which has not happened.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 07:44 AM) This is what everyone keeps forgetting....Carolina only sent out 2 WR on most plays... so they had 7 or 8 guys blocking. Then if the Bears' defense was as good as advertised, they shouldn't have had a problem stopping 2 wide receivers and keeping them covered. It should be a trade-off on both sides - they want to keep 7-8 men on the line to block for the QB and RB...they should be able to get some yards running, but they shouldn't be able to find an open receiver all day.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 01:22 PM) If you can't get socialized medicine one way, you legislate business to do it for you. BTW, I've heard Kentucky is talking about following in Maryland's footsteps on this one. I believe I read that multiple states are considering similar bills. If memory serves, the nubmers were in the dozens.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 12:37 PM) I may be overlooking something, but can someone tell me what Amendment state a person's right to healthcare. Just asking. (yes, I know it's not an amendment...but anywho...)

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 01:15 PM) Actually, I think he's on the DC city council. I believe I saw something mentioned about that during the stadium negotiations with MLB. I'll say here though, that I could totally wrong about this. Wikipedia on him...

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 12:07 PM) Oh, yes, indeed, Clinton "tramples all over the Constitution" (which Bush is accused of here), but there was no law, so that makes it "ok"? Well, guess what? There's no law on the specific instances Bush did it, either. It's the same damn thing when all is said and done. Bush is not trampling over the constitution by any sort of invasion of privacy. There is, as far as I know, no detailed explanation of a right to privacy in the constitution as of now (I would support that amendment if it were offered). Therefore, simply infringing on people's rights to privacy is not a violation of the constitution. It wasn't right when Clinton did it, which is why FISA was amended a few years later by the Republican Congress, but it wasn't illegal. If there is any trampling of the Constitution, it is against this clause: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Given that there is a law which specifically prohibits those wiretaps without a court warrant, his actions seem to be in conflict with that statement. This is why they point to the post-9/11 resolution authorizing force as justification, because without that language (flimsy as their defense may be), then the WH would be openly in violation of the law and would clearly not be faithfully executing the law. And yes, FISA is a law, and it specifically covers electronic surveillance involving U.S. citizens. Here is the Text of the act.