Balta1701

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 03:19 PM) The audio from the conference call on MLB.com is very interesting. KW says the payroll is expected to settle in at 95 million, and he would prefer to keep all 5 starters he has now and give BMac time to develop and put on some weight and get situated with himself. some quotes And all negotiations with Garland's people were cut off over a week ago after they rejected our initial offer and decided that they wanted to test the FA Market too. Seriously, the only way KW can be trusted to speak the truth is if he says he wants to trade a guy and immediately says he doesn't want to trade a guy...thus guaranteeing that he'll be right at least 50% of the time.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 03:18 PM) Yes. The liberals had the same chance years ago to gain market share, and they couldn't. Now they have to gain it the hard way. Ok, could you please enlighten me on this one? What chance did we have? The Conservatives were the ones who bult "Political talk radio" as an industry, and the Liberals have been playing catchup ever since. Are you saying that we should have thought of it first?

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 03:13 PM) So who wants to start the Jose Rumormill thread... I was debating doing it as soon as I saw this thread....

I haven't seen this posted yet in this thread and I think I've read most of it, so here's a KW quote appearing in theESPN.com piece on JG:

QUOTE(WCSox @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 12:57 PM) Liberal news commentary doesn't draw ratings. Air America's rating vs. those of Rush, Hannity, etc. clearly show that. First of all, Air America is actually closing in on Limbaugh's ratings in several markets already, and is holding steady at about/above the level of O'Reilly in NY. But here's the real question...is it fair to judge the entire spectrum of liberal opinion based on a comparison between a year and a half old network only available in about 90 cities nationwide and shows that have been on the air for years, have massive TV exposure, and are on 500-1000 or more channels nationwide?

My guess is that the "Owens thing" is Owens's departure from Winterball that we mentionned here a week or so ago.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 02:57 PM) you=right but jenks=closer Well, the specific point would be this...our closer destroys lefties, we have a righty setup guy who can get out lefties in Cliffy, and 1 other Lefty. That's a pretty good way to go into the 8th inning...if Jenks continues devastating lefties like he did last year, it may well reduce some of the need for another lefty reliever. That said, we still need another relief pitcher from somewhere.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 02:53 PM) Polite is pretty damn effective vs lefties. Jenks = Moreso.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 11:24 AM) Sorta my point, fewer people are working, yet the economy is doing "great." I don't know that I would see it that way. Actually, I would disagree slightly...thanks to a year of job growth, albiet sluggish growth, there are actually more people working now than there were before the recession. Whether or not there's a higher percentage of the workforce employed...well, that's a matter to discuss with those heavily distorted unemployment percentages I've ripped on before. The reason why there are surprisingly few people who would say that the economy is doing "Great" is that over each of the past several years, the median income in this country has decreased (started in like 99-00 I believe). What that means is that if you take the person who has 50% of the U.S. population earning less than him, and 50% earning greater than him, each of the last few years, that exactly average person has made less money than the year before, even without adjusting for inflation. This basically means that percentage wise, there are more people making lower amounts of money every year of the last 6 than there were the year before. So on average, the lower income people are winding up slightly worse off every year...and when you throw in inflation into that mix, it looks even worse.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 12:42 PM) 221 IP 18 Wins 86 ER 47 BB 3.50 ERA - 26 years old 223.2 IP 21 wins 86 ER 43 BB 3.48 ERA- 32 years old One of these players just won the Cy Young award, the other just got locked up for below market price. And the below market price one was about 1 home run by Garret Anderson, or 1 or 2 more good games away from making a real challenge for that Cy Young award too. Oh, and he gets a pretty ring.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 11:16 AM) What would be interesting to find out is if the Sox and Contreras are still negotiating an extension. Well, like a week ago supposedly all negotiations between Garland's people and the Sox were completely shut down, so about the only way you're gonna learn that fact is to mind-meld with Kenny.

The Baltimore sun is reporting this is done...

QUOTE(quickman @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 10:43 AM) Your right dick, and I humbly say I am was wrong. Money talks and now the sox are over budget. anyone think Mcarthy will now be traded? If that happens, we better be getting one of the top 5 players in baseball back. I'll be absolutely furious if he is traded, unless he's having some sort of arm problems we don't know about. I'd rather have lost Konerko, Garland, or Buehrle than trade BMac.

Does anyone else think that this suggests KW may seriously be considering running a 6 man rotation for at least a month or so?

Best part of this news: No more Garland trade threads! Worst part: Bring on the Contreras Trade threads! Oh, and in the eyes of my fiancee, our team just got a lot "cuter" for next year. I'm not sure if that's good or bad yet.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 10:32 AM) OK,not that I agree with this or actually think it is going to happen, but with KW you never know, does he completely blindside everyone and decide as a lefty he has zero chance to resign MB and he trades him? If it brings us back Pujols, I'm game. Otherwise...well, I never thought KW could give me a reason to burn him in effigy... Otherwise, I think this may massively help us in resigning MB just because it keeps the staff together longer.

QUOTE(Felix @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 10:27 AM) I really didn't see this coming. This means that McCarthy is likely pitching out of the pen.. something I don't really want to see, especially because I don't think Garland will pitch as well as he did last year. Oh well, time will tell I guess. It is a bargin considering the current pitching market. Brandon McCarthy WILL be in the starting rotation next year. You may hear wierd reports about a hostage situation in spring training involving Ozzie or Cooper, but it will be done.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 10:22 AM) I'm pretty sure you can trade a new FA signee before either May 1 or June 1 of the next season. Don't you mean "You can't"?

YES! Thank you KW. Our pitching staff is in tact for at least 2 years. I'm overjoyed. Even though we now have 6 starters. And that's I think a pretty fair number for JG considering what other pitchers have been getting...in a few years it'll look like a bargain. Now KW just needs to figure out what to do with that 6th starter (Vazquez for someone else's middle infield prospect?) and make sure Mark Buehrle is signed through 2020.

It is worth a lot if the Sunnis and Allawi's Shi'ites listen to the U.N. I doubt they will, but if it gives even 1 of them a reason not to fight us...

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 05:59 PM) Oh, I agree 100%. But boy, the bashers are sure quick to say (our current president) is the "WORST EVER". And there was of course no one who ever said that same thing about Clinton Clearly it looks like the usage of that phrase has become more common in the last few years, but compared to Bush 1, the Clinton Administration saw its usage go through the Roof, and Bush 2 has seen increases beyond that. Some of that, of course, may be the result of the proliferation of Media over the last few years as the internet grows, and there are probably a dozen other things to control for, but people were certainly saying it about Clinton too.

There are a few other possible considerations too...the U.N. fund in question was composed of $590 million in donations, altogether there was something liek $15 billion guaranteed and $12 billion delivered in tsunami aid, it's very likely that the U.N. would have had a hand in organizing how other aid was delivered...whether or not those funds came from other donations I don't know, but that's one logical thing to consider. There are, as noted above, other questions about what could be considered "Administrative" costs...i don't know about identifying bodies, but keeping casualty lists, organizing shipments of supplies to remote regions, organizing donor conferences, all those things could be considered potential administrative costs as well. And 18% would not be good, but it would not be horrific either. For example, the Christian Children's fund, the one you hear about whenever you watch commercials on the History Channel, spends something like 15-20% of their donations on administrative costs. The Salvation Army is somewhere in teh same range. 33% would be pretty damn inefficient if they were only doing the exact same sorts of things as the other charities, but then again, I still don't have a good answer as to what they're administering.

First of all, if you want to appear credible on this, at least learn how to spell "Tsunami". It's not that hard of a word to look up. Secondly, Here is a source for the article, from UPI. Also wasn't hard to find. Third, the UPI article says it's somewhere between 18 and 32%, not firmly 1/3, I don't know what the FT article says because you didn't excerpt it, and I don't have a subscription.

QUOTE(TLAK @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 04:28 PM) Did they say if it was his picture or his fingerprints?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 04:16 PM) ........and 1979. Just ask my dad who still b****es and complains about it. Nuke is correct here, there was another set of shortages in 79...I believe they were caused in large part by the revolution in Iran essentially shutting off that nation's production (correct me if I'm wrong).