Balta1701

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 02:42 PM) only extended 1 month Assuming the same version can get through the Senate.

QUOTE(Adam G @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 02:36 PM) 1) Figure out current total salaries of all the players for the current year ("X" billion) 2) Figure out total league revenue for the current year ("Y" billion) 3) Turn that into a percentage (X/Y) of league revenue that the players will be guaranteed on a year to year basis. (Z%) Of course, the problem with this scheme is that over recent years, the %age of MLB revenues going to pay salaries has fluctuated wildly. Someone posted the exact numbers here a few weeks ago...since the late 90's, it has gone from being just above 50%, to jumping over 70% when guys like ARod were getting massive deals, and now with increased revenue in the last few years it's all the way back down in the 50's. Where do you put the number so that both sides will stay happy? That's a hell of a range.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:33 PM) Boggled my mind why they signed him in the first place. So if they trade him and get some decent prospects in return (i.e. what Florida did with Delgado) then they've spent a few million dollars for 1 year's worth of production and a couple of prospects who could give them several good years at a bargain price. If they pull that off, it sounds like a fairly intelligent strategy to me. Guys like Delgado, Glaus, big money guys wind up with big money teams anyway, but the smaller teams strip the big money teams of prospects in the process.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:44 PM) Yea, because he was told that they would kill it. What would you do? Let's ask a different question...what was the variety of shoes commonly thrown at Mr. Bush's opponent during the 2004 election?

Is Deng going to be playing tonight?

QUOTE(WinninUgly @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:35 PM) Now if you were Jon, would you rather play on a Championship team for $8 million a year, or a losing team willing to pay you $10-11 million a year? You're assuming he can't have both. Most teams willing to pay him the $10m + per year are probably going to be able to build winning teams at some point. The Royals and Pirates aren't exactly shelling that out for pitching.

QUOTE(WinninUgly @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:33 PM) Yep, you beat me to the punch. Why has this not been discussed before? It has been discussed many many times, and if it ever happens, it is decades away. Why? Because MLB's union is vastly more powerful than the unions of the other 2 major sports. The union believes (correctly) that a salary cap will put more money in the hands of ownership by limiting overall salaries. That is something they do not want. They would make sure no world series ever happened again before they allowed a salary cap, as it stands now.

Wow....just....wow.

QUOTE(Steff @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:41 AM) I heard a snippit on Fox news that they are something called (or like) "rare earth" magnets. Those are the kind the manufacture supposedly uses (common for other toy makers as well). And they are apparently supposed to be that strong to hold the toy together. They did say they were not at all like the alpha magnets. I know what a 2 day olds intestines look like.. they are tiny. Chemistry lesson time... Rare earth magnets are incredibly strong magnets which are based on elements which sit in those bottom 2 rows of the periodic table. Most common magnets which you're familiar with are based off of iron, which in 1 oxidation state gives magnetite, a common terrestrial mineral. These magnets, most commonly made with Neodymium-Iron-Boron alloys, are vastly stronger than the ones you're used to feeling on your fridge. They produce a magnetic field roughly 10-25 times stronger than the ones you're accustomed to. You do, however, have some right in front of you - your computer's hard drive uses them.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:05 PM) 10 billion barrels of oil won't do anything to help decrease foreign dependence. There's over 180 billion barrels of oil in Canadian shale alone and no one ever thinks of drilling that. Well, people do, but those people usually start yelling "PEAK OIL" and then start crying in their underground bunker while watching Mad Max. Actually, people do think about accessing those canadian oil shales/tar sands, but there are some severe problems with them. In fact, tehre are at least 2 major companies who have operational plants mining those oil shales. What are the problems? Well, first of all, it costs a ton of money to bring that stuff out of the ground and process it into a usable form. We're talking something on the order of $100-$125 a barrel before it even becomes close to cost effective. So the price of gasoline basically needs to double before they become cost effective. $5 a gallon or more in the U.S. That sort of thing. (The 2 companies that are working up there now are gambling that the process will become cost effective in the near future, and if they have the technique mastered beforehand it will give them a competitive advantage then.) Secondly, those 180 billion barrels of oil? Well, they're not all recoverable. Why? Because it takes an enormous amount of energy to refine and process that stuff. So what they actually end up doing is consuming a significant portion of the recoverable energy just to keep the plant and the process running. Third, those plants are ungodly polluting monsters. The oil shale coming out is dirtier and more polluting than Coal. And you have to burn a ton of the stuff just to generate the energy it needs to process it. Think about this...if we were to supply the entire world's supply of oil based on oil shale...you'd have to increase emmissions by something like 25-50% just because of the fact that it takes so much energy to process the stuff. You'd be dramatically increasing the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, you'd be dramatically increasing the amount of soot/other pollutants pumped into the air, and you'd be dramatically worsening the health of a lot of people. It is a last resort. But it's not a pleasant one.

I think This at least adds something to the discussion here. Much more @ link. It's also worth noting that the study concludes that the most liberal paper in America is the Wall Street Journal. If nothing else, that should call a few of their conclusions into question.

QUOTE(Balance @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:51 AM) Indigent? I sure hope not! Given that credit card bill I just paid....

The NYT Transit strike Is over, for now.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:55 AM) OF COURSE this is different. Bulls***. The intent is the exact same damn thing. And if one is illegal, the other one is as well. Clinton used this WITHOUT A WARRANT to get this man. Period. He did it by his "inherent powers granted by the Constitution". How can this ignore FISA? Because it wasn't relevant in this case. But the intent is the same. Gain evidence without a warrant on a subject (a US Citizen!) that is aiding an enemy of the United States. Yes, but you're totally ignoring the single most relevant point...the law of the United States has changed since this happened. At the time, there was no statute covering teh exact behavior Clinton did. There is now. There is also a statute that covers GWB's exact behavior. Bill Clinton did that search when there was no statute, and he later signed into law a bill which made that exact act illegal. George W. Bush's act was in direct defiance of an extant statute. Bill Clinton's act was not covered by any statute at the time. It is now. Right now, it would be just as illegal for Clinton to order that search as Bush's executive orders were.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:31 AM) There were foreign operatives on the other end of the intercepts. Not one of these, at least my understanding, was 100% domestic. And what about the lack of warrants against a US citizen? Oh, those don't matter, because there was "justification" for Clinton's AG to do it. It's the same damn thing. Not in the least. Gorelick's testimony covered only those searches which were not dealt with under the original FISA. Go read the Testimony...there's links at the page there. The searches she was discussing were done before the law was changed.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:09 AM) http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...22610-7772r.htm Where's all the impeachment talk about Carter and Clinton for doing the EXACT same thing? I know, I know... it's BUSH... it HAS to be different and evil. Goodness, the amount of confusion of that issue in that piece is absolutely freaking remarkable. Everything stated there is correct, the President has the right to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. FISA specifies this. However, the key detail that they so conveniently leave out is that FISA gives the President the right only to do this against Foreign targets. It specifically denies the President the right to do this against U.S. Citizens. ANd of course, if the Washington Times bothered to actually educate itself about the law, it would know fully well that The law of the united states has changed since those events happened, and once again, you can't just say that because something was legal 5 years ago you don't have to follow the new law.

Well, at least this means they won't be signing Frank just yet. On the other hand...I hated having that guy hit against us in Detroit.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:11 AM) Thats unless were talking about a big time closer that we'd have the rights to for more years. Like if the nats were crazy enough to deal us Cordero. Dude, is there some reason why we think Bobby can't handle that role for the next 6 years before his arbitration eligibility runs out? I read at least 1 piece a few weeks ago talking about how teams were dumping huge amounts of cash on "Established closers", when at the same time teams like the White Sox and the Nats and the Marlins were discovering that it really wasn't hugely difficult to find people who have the ability to come in and close games for much less money than say, a BJ Ryan is going to earn. (Mariano Rivera, btw, remains in a class by his own).

QUOTE(WSFAN35 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:01 AM) mcdonalds is a billion dollar industry and their people make 6.75 an hour How many people in this country have the skills which would allow them to work as a cashier at McD's? How many people in this country have the skills to throw a complete game shutout against any major league baseball team? Right there you can explain the difference.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 09:53 AM) Well then you are just as greedy. Same goes for Rowand44. I understand what you guys are saying but can't players just be humble for a minute? And I do agree, it is a 2-way street but it doesn't eliminate the fact that athletes are way overpaid. Overpaid? They possess a unique set of skills in incredibly high demand, and there are people willing to pay enormous sums of money to watch them perform. This is what market-economics do...when there are only a few dozen people in the entire world well-trained enough and capable of performing an important job in a multi-billion dollar a year industry...they wind up being paid a ton of money.

So has anyone other than me noticed that this thread is actually called "The lastest on Garland." Can we expect this to therefore be the last Garland-related thread here?

Ok, now I think we're approaching the point where we really need to be concerned about these people. Not necessarily because they're right, but moreso because they may have enough power to really disrupt the process over there if they're not listened to.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 04:55 PM) Some other random information on the TWU/MTA strike. MTA Executives gave themselves a 22% raise last year. TWU accepted a 3 year contract with no raise in 2002 to help alleviate MTA budget shortfalls. This year the MTA has been found to have kept two separate sets of books and hiding a surplus of approximately one billion dollars. The MTA also offered to sell rights to property it owns to build a new stadium for the Jets at one-third the market value. The people of New York itself also support the strikers and blame management by a strong margin.