Balta1701

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 01:32 PM) NO I wouldn't care what uniform he was wearing...if he were to come to the plate in the Cell, he gets a standing O from me. And if for some reason I see him play at Dodger's stadium or the big A out here...I'll still be holding up a big ass sign saying "Thanks Aaron".

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 01:31 PM) No, people have a certain connection to Row that they didn't have to CLee. Besides I think most people like this trade as opposed to the Pods trade. The immediate upside of this trade is much more obvious than that trade. The upside of that trade was not really witnessed until we signed Iguchi and Pierzynski and saw them start to contribute.

Has anyone gotten any details in terms of the "physical" that Thome has to pass? Is it going to be one of those excrutiating, 3-day ordeal physicals like the one that the Tigers put Ordonez through last year? Honestly I really hope it is...I like the deal a lot but that's contingent on Thome being able to play out his contract.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 01:29 PM) I'm not liking all the talk I'm hearing of Rowand to the Yankees. It's reported in a few places now. Probably would make sense...I could have swore that Philly has too many outfielders anyway. Just think about this...at least we'd get the opportunity to give ARow a standing ovation every single time he came to the plate at the Cell for the rest of his career much more often if he was in the AL.

QUOTE(JDsDirtySox @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 01:29 PM) For those of you worried about the clubhouse chemistry... we didn't just trade for Barry Bonds (or even Frank Thomas for that matter). We traded for Jim Thome... a player considered one of the best clubhouse people ever. Trust In KW. We are World Champs because of his offseason moves last year. Man, were people worried about clubhouse chemistry earlier in this thread? Yeah Crede might be a bit sad, but Jim Thome is an excellent clubhouse guy, especially if he contributes another 50 home runs.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 01:25 PM) I have to say i am not too pleased w/ this deal. Not only that but doesn't this hurt the chemistry? THe 3 stooges are going to be heart broken. And will Pauly want to re-sign now? He was good friends with A-Row Will Paulie want to resign if his protection in the lineup is Jim Thome? Thome stays healthy and right away Paulie gets 50 more pitches to hit a month.

QUOTE(HoosierSox @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 01:24 PM) Can Thome still play first base? Is it possible if Konerko goes elsewhere Frank will be back as the DH with Thome playing first. I really want to see Frank end his career in a White Sox uni but if Konerko signs it will be the end of Frank. Like the Podsednik deal we will have to wait and see how it works out but I have faith in KW after all we did just win the World Series. BA has better upside than Rowand imo. I think he should be the starting CF next year. Yes, Thome can play first base, but as with many guys who are that age, it should not be considered a wonderful option. I doubt KW would have wanted the Phils to eat half his salary in exchange for better prospects if KW didn't have another goal in mind for that cash.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 01:23 PM) I usually dont care, I really dont, but this just makes are pitching depth look like s***. In other words...we'll have to pick up 1 free agent pitcher next year or we'll have to hold onto Contreras (and of course, #56). While we don't have huge depth in the upper minors if Gio goes, remember that Gio was at least 1-2 years away, and there's still concerns over whether or not he can stay healthy for a full year.

QUOTE(toasty @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 01:16 PM) i do not like this trade if it means that pierre is next to the south side.... speed or not, we must NOT have a deffensive liability in cf! With Jim Thome's bat in the lineup...I would not be concerned at all if Brian Anderson wound up as our regular CF next year.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 01:21 PM) Gio is not official, but according to Bruce he will be the PTBNL. I'm hoping it turns out to be someone else. Could it be one of those conditional PTBNL's, where it could be Gio but Thome has to hit like 45 home runs and play a full season for it to be him?

QUOTE(knightni @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 01:16 PM) I wonder what our Marlin fan friends are thinking this week. I bet they're thinking..."Man, we traded away a lot of stuff in 97, and all it got us was another set of rings."

Just got back in from a class...just have to say...SONOFAb****!!! (and I'm not sure if that's a good or bad exclamation yet)

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 10:50 AM) Either way one of the screwed up. I didn't read the article just saw 'Newsweek: T.O. to be released' Presumably, the original Newsweek piece that this post linked to has been replaced now that there is a firm report on the ruling of the arbitrator and their original article has been proven wrong.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 10:49 AM) Right now, I would think that McCarthy has more trade value than Petit. He has actually pitched in the majors and has been successful. He even looked dominant in a few starts against great offenses (Boston and Texas). That has to impress teams more than minor league stats. After seeing what Brandon did at the end of the year last year...you'd have to be offering me a guy named Pujols before I'd consider moving him.

I don't know what the answer is myself, but I'll just say re: that last post with graphs that it's very interesting that they choose 2000-2002, the time of the peak bear stock market, as the time to look at how the incomes of people have changed. Do you think that stock market losses were included in those incomes? I bet you they are -that's the only possible way that the numbers could have gotten so low. The stock market turned around in 2003. Those numbers may well have completely flip-flopped since then. Furthermore, it is also certainly worth considering whether or not the average taxpayer is seeing his or her income rise not just with respect to the year before it, but also with respect to inflation - for example, if your salary rises by $500, but the cost of your health insurance rises by $1000, you haven't exactly come out a winner.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 10:37 AM) Condi sucks!!! That was a well thought out, well-reasoned, highly intellectual argument.

Good call for the Arbitrator too.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 10:33 AM) Except the Red Sox and Mets are trying to compete next season. The Marlins are dumping salary and hoping they can compete in 5 years. That's the big difference. Both the Red Sox and Mets think it's worth giving up prospects for proven talent so they can try to win a World Series next year. But the thing you're ignoring is the fact that very few teams have the money to compete every year. I would argue that the White Sox don't have that kind of money, I would argue that the Cubs don't have that kind of money...the Angels are borderline. The Mets, Yankees, and Red Sox are about the only teams that have the kind of money which allows them to compete every year, and even then, those 3 teams keep discovering that when they plug in a young guy (i.e. David Wright, Robinson Cano, Chien Ming Wang) the fact that the young guy has such a low salary gives them an enormous amount of flexibility. Almost every single team that really wants to build a winner will have to go through a few down years where they're running with a youth movement. The only way to avoid it is to become a master at gradually plugging in younger pieces while subtracting a few of the older pieces through trades and FA - exactly what the Braves have done.

QUOTE(JimH @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 10:31 AM) I read some stories on the Phillies site where it said he only experienced pain while throwing, not hitting. Although that .207 average he was sporting might suggest otherwise. Stretching my memory a bit...I thought the concern with his hitting was somehow due to his back? At least that's what the media was telling me early in the year.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 10:23 AM) Once again, I don't think you understand that prospects are unproven talent. Beckett, Lowell, and Delgado have all had good seasons in the majors. I agree that it would be hard for the White Sox to pay all of Delgado's contract but this is the Mets and Red Sox we're talking about. They have money up the wazoo. I doubt those two teams care about picking up Lowell's or Delgado's contracts. And how did you make me look dumb? I think everyone already got a good chuckle about how you would rather have Scott Podsednik than Grady Sizemore. That's just borderline insanity. But I think you're missing 1 key point about prospects...especially for a team not named the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, or Angels: You can play moneyball with prospects. The meaning is very simple here...yes, prospects are unproven talent. Yes, they are a gamble compared to a guy like Delgado. But you cannot underestimate the difference between a prospect, who would make $400,000 or so his first few years in the big leagues, and a proven vet, who would probably make 20-30 times that amount. Yes, it's a gamble to trade away a big, proven guy like Delgado. But when you take that gamble and it pays off, you end up with a very good team. Cleveland is a prime example of this - they traded away guys like Colon, and wound up with a very good team right now with a payroll somewhere under $50 million I believe. The Marlins basically did the same thing - several key portions of their 2003 title team came in trades from their 1997 team's fire sale. There's no sure thing in baseball. You can't buy a sure thing. There's no guarantee that Delgado won't spend another season on the DL, just like there's no guarantee that a prospect will turn into an ace pitcher.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 10:15 AM) The Bush tax cuts actually have the rich paying a higher share of income, and a higher percentage of taxes than their corresponding % of incomes in the US. I guess that means you are in favor of a tax cut for the ultrarich then because you want to bring their tax burdens in line with their relative income %? Wait one second on that point...are you saying that the Bush Tax cuts have the upper tax brackets paying a higher percentage of their income to the government in the form of taxes, or are you saying that the Bush Tax cuts have the upper tax brackets paying a higher percentage of the government's total tax revenues? Given the massive budget deficits those are 2 very different things, and I'm just trying to understand your statistic.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 09:39 AM) Congressional spending is by far and away more at fault then anything tax cuts have "chipped away at" for our deficit right now. Actually...you're fairly wrong...they're both roughly the same order of magnitude, with the tax cuts actually being the slighltly larger piece, According to the data. I'm just citing a blog here with a few graphs, but the blog itself is fairly well sourced in where the data came from. Here's your key block: And one other key point...

Yeah, I didn't catch that either. $11 mil or so. Mugh. Still...Think of it this way...the marlins signed a guy for 1 year, paid him basically the salary worth 1 year, and they get 2 potentially very good and cheap players out of it. That is still a heck of a way to build a ballclub. We've done some of the same things - think about signing Loaiza and turning him into Contreras. Overall, the Delgado signing is probably a masterstroke for the Marlins.

Is there any chance they might move the ring ceremony to that day to get it on ESPN?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 08:20 AM) I find it amazing that tax revenues received is HIGHER with the Bush tax cuts enacted. Hmmm. How exactly can you find that amazing when the population of the nation has grown, the GDP of the nation has grown, and the government has dumped trillions of dollars into the economy in the form of a massive Keynesian stimulus?