Balta1701

I believe the only Hallmark Star Trek ship ornament I'm missing is the Original Enterprise, which usually is only available for well over $100 these days.

QUOTE(WinninUgly @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 09:26 AM) So AJ siging a 3yr $15 million contract to stay with the Sox is not loyalty, when Ramon Hernandez signs a $27.5 million, four-year contract? Chipper Jones restructured his contract to lower his salary. It happens all the time. AJ was arbitration eligible in the first year of that deal, so signing a 3 year, $15 million deal gets him money sooner and probably earns him as much as he would over those 3 years if he stayed healthy all next year and went out into the FA market. Chipper Jones restructured his contract to lower his salary during his contract's highest salary years, but in exchange he got an option year on his contract turned into a guaranteed year. He will make more money total after the restructuring than he would before because of the additional guaranteed year.

Well, the question is...do the Royals have any prospects who are ready who could play those positions? Based on what we saw last year, I kinda doubt it. I would wager that management has decided that if they spend a little bit more money, maybe shoot to win 70 games, they'll at least break even from drawing a few more fans to the park. And they always have these veterans with expiring contracts that they can use as trade bait when July and August roll around, if they're smart.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 04:07 AM) You think Paul DePodesta wishes he had this type of money to splash around? Probably not good news on the Jon Garland front either; Depodesta did have that kind of money, you're forgetting. The Dodgers payroll sits at about $90 million this year...last year they spent $83 million on paying salaries, and I don't think that includes the $10 million or so they dumped on Arizona to get them to take Sean Green. And the Dodgers currently have only 4 starting pitchers, so they still have a spot open. They're at least talking to Weaver still, who is a Boras guy, along with Millwood. They want to start Billingsly @ AAA this year.

QUOTE(knightni @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:51 PM) Well...go ahead! Start rueing! I didn't want to add that...entirely because I didn't want to imply that they'd already made the decision and were going to need to do any Rueing.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 09:10 AM) Not to hijack the thread but Reagans SDI efforts are widely credited as the final straw that broke the Soviet Union's back and were the basis for the current and nearly operational missile defense systems we have going into place right now. On the point about Reagan I will agree with you, as his offer to share the technology with the Soviets totally removed the possibility of strength in the Soviet system. However, to pretend that the system we have now is anything other than a joke is simply wrong. You give me a bunch of styrofoam and I'll design a dozen ways to defeat that system.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 08:29 AM) Some rebuttals for traditional arguements... http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/...91756-3971r.htm Actually, I think I'd say that those rebuttals are pretty darn traditional too. This of course is a complete distortion of the truth, but it's one that the Republicans love because it sounds nice. The bill does limit the surface disturbance to 2000 acres, but that only means that there cannot be permanent development on more than 2000 acres. The real key is what they mean by permanent development or whatever the term they use is...roads are not counted. Parking space is not counted. The large areas inbetween drilling rigs where animals won't go because men are there are not counted. That 2000 acre thing is one of the most annoying bits of spin around, because it's such a pointless limit. The piece spends a fair amount of time talking about other developments. Of course the problem with this argument is that you can never apply lessons from 1 ecosystem to another. Just because you can build a dam in 1 river without making a fish population go extinct doesn't mean that you can do so in every river in the country. Just because you can drill or build a pipeline in 1 area doesn't meant hat if you drill in the breeding grounds for many of those animals, you won't see a negative reaction. There's no guarantee you will, but to pretend that other drilling sites are evidence that drilling doesn't harm the environment is simply wrong. Of course, the Washington Times conveniently leaves out the reason why Alaskans so strongly support drilling...that state is incredibly wealthy thanks to oil dollars, and almost all of the citizens pay no taxes and in fact receive refund checks from the state government each year based on the petro dollars. If you paid each American $1000 or so a year to support drilling, I bet you'd get 75% support in every state in the union. (By the way, why can't the Alaskans use some of that money to build their bridge to nowhere? Damn you Ted Stevens!)

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 05:24 PM) Seriously, what is the problem with drilling in ANWAR? Might disrupt some caribu? SO WHAT? I agree that we should be trying to find some kind of alternative fuel. I would love to tell OPEC to shove their oil where the sun don't shine. But in the mean time, we need oil, it is there, and I don't give a f*** about caribu. I had this post 95% complete last night...and my damn computer crashed! Arrghhhhh! Here we go again. I fully agree with you that I really don't care about the environmental conditions up in the Arctic wildlife refuge. The only reason I'll ever see that place is if the tundra melts, and suddenly the geology becomes mappable an interesting. It's frozen. Very little actually lives up there compared with most "Wildlife" refuges. Yes, it's nice to keep it pristine, but at some point, you do have to pick and choose which refuges you keep "Pristine". If I had to choose between allowing drilling in ANWR and drilling in the Rocky Mountain Front of Montana, I'd choose ANWR in a second. That said...I believe you're partly wrong when you say the "we need oil, it is there" part. And this is the thing which really frustrates me about this issue...very very few people are actually informed on what is actually up there. In fact, there are several huge concerns with the oil which is actually up there. First of all, let's talk about the estimates. The estimate for the amount of oil up there is somewhere between 5 and 15 billion barrels of oil. As far as I know, this number is based on a very limited number of seismic surveys done in the late 90's, but also based on assumptions as to the maximum amount of oil which could have been produced by the known source rock in the area. The key point here is this...there has not been a real detailed survey of what is actually there. Based on the data we have, we can estimate the maximum yield from the field, but that is assuming that everything goes right. (i.e. we know the size of the reservoir, we basically are assuming the reservoir is totally full and easily recoverable.) Both of these have the potential to be bad assumptions, and here's why. When oil comes out of the ground in Saudi Arabia, it takes roughly $1.50 or so to process that barrel into useable fuel. That's what's called Saudi "Light Sweet Crude". Easily refined stuff. Low phosphorus, not degraded at all, etc. It's a snap to refine that stuff. The stuff we know about from Alaska, however, is not. If we were to pump from ANWR, we'd almost certainly be looking at costs between 5 and 20 times the cost of refining a barrel of Saudi oil just to turn that oil into gasoline. Why? Because there are things which do damage to oil fields, and we know they've been active in Alaska. The oil up there is not of high quality. It's heavy oil. Lots of stuff dissolved in it which needs to be removed during refining. This reduces the total yield of the field (as it takes more energy to refine the stuff) but more importantly, it also makes the field far less cost effective. Secondly, there is a major issue with transportation. We're not just talking about driving down the road and finding an Amoco refinery here like you do in the Chicago area...we're talking about having to ship and transport this stuff hundreds of miles through fragile ecosystems. You have to be careful when you do that, it takes a lot of equipment, and the costs are through the roof. Furthermore, there are also major issues with developing and setting up that large of an operation. You have to transport an enormous amount of equipment up where no man has gone before basically. You have to provide workers up there. These are harsh conditions, they are harsh on equipment, and they cost a ton more money. Finally, there are major issues with the amount of oil there itself. I mentionned a moment ago that the cost of refining the stuff is very high...that's a symptom of a major problem...the oil fields up there have been highly degraded by bacteria and other processes which can eat away at these high energy fluids. What does this produce? Well, basically it produces oil which is non-recoverable or non-useable. What you end up with when this happens is an oil reservoir which doesn't yield nearly as much oil as it could, and that is almost certainly what is happening up there. It is quite possible that the recoverable amounts of oil from that reservoir will be far less than the amounts that officials quote, which is important because there has to be enough oil up there to pump out of the ground in order to justify the expenditure of moving up there and setting up all that equipment. It's quite possible that there won't be enough. Based on these reasons, a huge number of the oil companies which were once interested in drilling up there have already pulled out. Right now there is basically only 1 or 2 companies that are left with any real interest in drilling up there, and most of them only seem to want to do so for political reasons (i.e. they're closely tied with high ups in the Republican Party.) The odds are very, very long against those fields being profitable, even at current oil prices. One of the reasons I hate this issue, however, is that people keep making such a big deal about it. The Democrats and the Republicans both fight over it, and when people hear that they're fighting about it, they assume that it must be a valuable issue, and they assume that it must be a big reservoir in a wonderfully sensitive area. Neither is the case. Drilling in ANWR has become almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Republicans at this point seem like they want to drill there almost solely because they don't want to let the environmentalists win, and the environmentalists don't want drilling up there because they don't want to let the Republicans win. The people hear this, aren't told anything about the actual conditions, and you wind up with 1/2 of the population thinking that those oil fields will mean that we can put Saudi Arabia totally out of business, and you wind up with the other half of the population thinking that ANWR is the most beautiful place on Earth. Neither is true.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 04:27 PM) If I had to wager, which I often do, I would place a large amount of money on any elected Iraqi government having the trial in Iraq and executing him. I would fully agree with you, but I think that is a simplistic view of the situation. Why? Because the "elected Iraqi government" is composed almost entirely of religious Shi'ite muslims. Given their relationship with the Sunni population of Iraq, of course the elected government wants to get their hands on him, for the same reason this nation wants to get its hands on Osama. (Or at least why we wanted to for those few months in 2001-2002 when he was still our priority). If you polled the Sunni population however, I bet you'd find overwhelming support for his trial happening in front of an international court. Ditto the sunnis in Saudi Arabia, etc. On the other hand, I'll bet the Shi'a in Iran would like the Shi'a in Iraq to take care of him. Etc.

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:26 PM) He's no better than our 3rd best pitcher at this point. Right now, I definitely take Buehrle and Garcia over him. And Contreras too if he can keep up his pace from last year. And in a few years, I'll take McCarthy over him. What team pays a 3rd/4th starter over 10 mil a season? I mean besides a good first half of last year, what has the guy really done that makes people think he is worth that type of money, inflated market or no inflated market. Just face it, he's really not as great as you people giving him mouth to mouth make him out to be. Right now, I would take Buehrle, McCarthy, and the Contreras of 2nd half last season (if he still exists) over Jon. That's including all things, such as Salary. I would take Garland over Garcia in a heartbeat.

If Brandon McCarthy is not in the starting rotation in April...I still cannot be held responsible for my actions. Kenny, you hear me?! Ozzie! You shall rue that day!

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:19 PM) Maybe I'm missing something, but is this the same Jon Garland who was barely a .500 pitcher prior to this past year? The same one who had a nice first half, a so-so second half and then got rocked in the 3rd game of the World Series only to have us bail him out? Same guy? Just wondering? If he wants more than 8 million a season, later California kid. Didn't part of that "Rocking" happen on a bad call on a home run which wasn't actually a home run based on the moronic ground rules at Enron field? He's also 26. And a damn good sinkerball pitcher with a damn good 4 seam fastball.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 07:21 PM) By the way, didn't the Giants also re-sign Randy Winn? Is Steve Finley going to be a fourth outfielder for them? What a dumb trade. When 2 of your outfielders are named Moises Alou and Barry Bonds...and your third is Steve Finley...you probably should expect a significant number of your outfielders to spend time on the DL. What I have trouble figuring out is why the Angels want Alfonso. Backup for McPherson?

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 04:20 PM) I don't know if the US brought it up or not, I would think that there are legal scholars in Iraq that know this option exists. I am pretty sure that Iraq insisted on having the trial in Iraq (probably because they want to execute him). After a bit more reading...I think the Iraqi "leadership" did insist on having the trial in Iraq, but that was entirely the U.S. Appointed Iraqi Governing council, the first (and badly failed) attempt to make it look like the Iraqis were actually running the show there. By the time even "Sovereignty" was transferred, he was already in our hands and the tribunal which would try him had already been set up. So no "Sovereign" government ever was given the chance to make that choice, much less an elected one.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 04:13 PM) I think we (United States) did. Actually, upon doing a bit of reading/recalling...the ICC is only empowered with charging people for war crimes committed after it was created, so it really couldn't deal with Saddam since virtually everything he did happened before the ICC formed. The only other option would be a UN special Tribunal, a-la Milosevic. Did the U.S. present that option? I havent' a clue, although I doubt it.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 04:06 PM) I think Iraq has the right to try him in Iraq. If they want they can send it off to some 'international' court in Europe. Or maybe just give him a seat on the UN human rights council. lol Just out of curiosity, did we actually give the Iraqis the right to choose whether or not he should go to that court? Oh, and the UN human rights commission reform effort was seriously undermined a few weeks ago by Ambassador Bolton. Guess he wanted you to continue to be able to say bad things about it.

QUOTE(Frank the Tank 35 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:58 PM) kool, u must be a 1337 mid-skool member... In all seriousness, if Vazquez' ship can be righted, he has the potential to be our ace. C'mon Coop... So does McCarthy. So does Contreras. So does Buehrle. Man, everyone pitches up to their potential in that lineup next year, and the only thing that beats us is a Royal Flush.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 04:00 PM) the Libertarian party doesn't want your property, possessions or offspring. But they also don't like to bankrupt the government in order to give you more property or possessions.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:55 PM) huh? Yea, put him on trial in Europe not Iraq. Good idea Yeah, because there's clearly no difference between being tried by a European court than by an "International" court.

I guess This is similar to the stuff 2k5 posted about:

QUOTE(ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:38 PM) wut about L Dukay? Isn't he going to jail for accepting bribes while in Congress?

TPM's important note:

QUOTE(Mercy! @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:18 PM) Honest to God. He's practically radioactive now. His days in the leadership are over. You can't find even a friendly Republican who wants to be photographed within ten feet of him. I'm sure the mug shot smile will fix all of that! Actually...just remember...the Feds may very well be on the verge of having Abramoff plea bargain out and testify for the state. That happens, and what they'll probably have on him will make the previous charges look like jaywalking charges.

QUOTE(Mercy! @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:18 PM) Honest to God. He's practically radioactive now. His days in the leadership are over. You can't find even a friendly Republican who wants to be photographed within ten feet of him. I'm sure the mug shot smile will fix all of that! Actually...just remember...the Feds may very well be on the verge of having Abramoff plea bargain out and testify for the state. That happens, and what they'll probably have on him will make the previous charges look like jaywalking charges.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 02:22 PM) I agree with R&W on the fact that in three years Damn will be an albatross for the Yankees. I also agree with chisoxfn that this was a good move for the Yankees ... but only in the short term. As for that comment R&W made about liking the direction the Red Sox are heading, well I didn't know you were all that infatuated with DOWN ... because that's where they are headed right now. They may salvage some things this offseason, but right at the moment, it ain't looking to damn good. You know, I'm not sure I agree with you on any part of that other than the "This contract will be an albatross" part. I'm first of all not sure how good of a move this is for the Yankees...because it still puts money where they don't need it. Did the Yankees lose games last year because they didn't score enough runs or because they gave up too many? I would say the latter. This hardly helps that...his defense will be a slight upgrade over Williams, but his speed is obviously dropping, he has no throwing arm, and who knows if he can stay healthy (supposedly his shoulder was one of the reasons for his performance in the playoffs last year). Furthermore, this sucks away dollars which could be spent next year to bring in a guy like Zito or Garland, or Derek Lee, each of whom would actually fill holes on that team. He's an upgrade over williams and Tony Womack, but that's really not saying anything. Next, I'm not so sure the Red Sox are actually headed "Down" as much as they are hovering right now. They have 3 or 4 guys on their pitching staff who can be great if Healthy (Schilling, Beckett, Foulke), and they're bound to get lucky enough to get a full season from one of them. Mark Loretta has a career OBP better than Damon's. They still "Have" Manny and Ortiz. If they can convince Manny to somehow stay, then they still have one of the best, if not the best, lineups in baseball. Their problem is that they're stacked at some positions and vacant at others (they have like 3 guys at 3rd and 2nd base, no one at SS, 1b, or CF right now). They need to shuffle people around to plug holes, but that's not as hard as trying to improve. Especially if they move some money in the process.