NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(BlackBetsy @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 05:24 PM) Not true when it comes to labor issues. MLB has an "antitrust exemption" that allows it some amount of protection against antitrust lawsuit by competing leagues (e.g., the Federal League in 1915) and against claims by individual owners that the league is restraining trade by not allowing them to move their team into a new city. Not terribly long ago, the owners and players went to Congress after they had agreed that the antitrust exemption should be removed for labor issues. Thus, collusion among teams when it comes to player salaries is no longer OK. In the collusion proceeding relating to the 1986 and 1987 free agent markets (Fred Lynn and Carlton Fisk got a bunch of money out of this), I believe that the owners had agreed NOT to collude in the labor agreement that came out of the 1985 collective bargaining agreement (if you recall, baseball had a 2-day strike in 1985). Thus, when they did collude, it was thus subject of an arbitration over the terms of the contract. I believe the owners paid something like $270 million (maybe it was $170 million) as a result of losing that arbitration. Thanks for the clarification - I wasn't aware of the exemption in the current agreement. So really, the owners are allowed LIMITED collusion, but the collective bargaining agreement in place at any given time (like now) can dictate that it cannot occur related to specific labor issues during that contract. Got it.

Just to clarify... Collusion IS legal in baseball, but not other sports. MLB is unique among professional sports in that the courts have held in more than one case that MLB is ONE business, with 30 operating units. Therefore, they can collude if they want to. But, as people point out, that doesn't mean its practical or logical to just lay down the law with a salary cap. The union would have a fit, and the union is awfully powerful in baseball (which is good in a sense, because it offsets the unusual amount of leverage MLB owners have).

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 03:07 PM) The tradeoff is pretty simple assuming Garland pitches somewhere in the vicinity of where he did last year: small economic loss for one year and that's it, or a very good possibility of going back into the ALCS or WS (on paper, of course). The deeper the Sox get into the playoffs the more money they would recoup. If you make an economic loss for one year it's not going to ruin the franchise. It could be easily offset down the road. JR and the gang are HIGHLY RISK AVERSE. They've shown this over the years. I therefore doubt they'll take a flyer on a POSSIBLE appearance in the WS, and the OUTSIDE possibility that this enormous jump in attendence will stick for years to come. Not gonna happen.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 03:03 PM) No the Yankees have an 80 mil. dollar per year head start on everyone due to the YES network programming. The Yankees don't go into the red, they just have more revenue than everyone due to the population size, media contracts and attendance. Actually, even with YES, the Yankees did indeed finish FY 04 in the red. Forbes published it in their annual list. About a third of all MLB teams did, in fact. But again, this team is run by a group of very budget-conscious investors. This has not changed.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 02:58 PM) Don't the Yankees do it every year? You and Cerbaho are missing the point here. Of course teams do it. Of course businesses take a loss at times. But those teams are not run by JR. His team is profitable, and he plans to keep it that way. He has said it before. He wants operating profits every year. He is much less willing to lose money than other owners, and recent history reflects that. He has been a budget hawk ever since he bought the team (lest we forget, he wanted to move the team, TWICE, to make more money). Reinsdorff will not let KW push the payroll to the point of us losing money. He hasn't suddenly become a different businessman overnight.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 02:13 PM) What do you do about the budget situation, that has to factor in. I think some people refuse to acknowledge that MLB teams, including the Sox, do have budgets. :banghead Some teams are more willing than others to take losses. JR is actually one who is pretty serious about trying to make an operating profit. Yes, he'll increase the payroll as he can, but there will still be a limit. And it sounds like that limit is somewhere in the 90's. We can't just say "I want to keep Jon" and push the payroll so high that the team loses money. JR won't do that.

I see some people here arguing that Echelon was substantially different and more OK than Bush's current spying. I see others arguing it's all OK, it was done before and is being done now, so no big deal. And then there is the dangerously narrow-minded "I have nothing to hide so I don't care" argument. I'd like to plant the flag for this camp: it was wrong when Clinton did it, and it's wrong now. I would love to see some federal judge smack them both upside the head with an oversized copy of the 4th amendment text. Anyone else on this hill?

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 09:48 AM) Dems: We're losing the war and our economy stinks Good news, Democrats. We've established that A) the Iraqis appear optimistic, B) our economy remains strong (even if you refuse to give a little credit to Bush's tax cuts), and C) our president is not a racist. Happy New Year. A) I would be too, since anything has to be better than Saddam's regime B) This is true as well (though I believe it has almost nothing to do with tax cuts) C) While I think he is stubborn and closed-minded on many fronts, I'd agree with this too. I don't think he is particularly racist at all. And I don't believe for a second that the Katrina response was effected by racial or economic status of the victims. The embarrassingly awful response was caused by many other things, some of which Bush deserves blame for.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 09:38 AM) Does Walmart pay below minimum wage? | | | | | | | | | | V ok then...so what's the problem again? Nothing, from a business or legal perspective. I can't speak for the others in this thread, but I'm not saying Walmart is evil. As previously stated, I think they are damn impressive, and they definitely provide some positives. But I ALSO think that they provide some big negatives to a community, and I see no issue with people pushing back against that. It is likely to make Walmart more valuable to those communities, and that's a good thing.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 08:24 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 am overwhelmed by the staggering profundity of your artfully crafted retort. :headshake For anyone who thinks this is solely about some Caribou, then I think you've got your head in the sand. Unfortunately, the way the environmental lobby comes off in the media (in great part because of their own poor marketing tactics), you'd think the only reason we protect open space was to avoid killing off some specific wild animals. It's about a heck of a lot more than that. And by the way, if you read a previous post of mine, it refers to the Goldman Sachs report (which I am now going to see if I can dig up) that basically says the positive economic impact of that oil on the average US consumer would be so small on a per-gallon of gas basis, that they wouldn't even notice it over an entire year. Use the money to do something useful - reduce our dependence on non-renewable resources.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 08:02 AM) You think there are 250 companies that politicians have spent $25 million and repeatedly called "evil" along with other not so flattering terms on the campaign trail? 250 other companies that have had union officials lobbying Congress about? 250 other companies that have their building sites picketed and protested? 250 other companies that have hate websites setup by union officials? If so, I would be impressed. 250 that fall into at least one of those categories? Possibly. If you add in, as I earlier stated, any other sorts of investigations of misconduct or connections to political campaigns? Absolutely.

I think I actually felt brain cells dying while I read that poll. And I don't have that many to give up anymore. I refuse to vote for any of those bizarrely named people I have never heard of.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 07:33 PM) Hey, if Iraq doesn't elect a theocracy I will gladly admit that I was wrong. And of course everyone in the middle east isn't a fundamentalist, maybe the majority of them are but not all. Once again... prove me wrong middle east, prove me wrong. Actually, the Islamic religion reminds me a lot of the Catholic faith, only more amplified and a few centuries behind. A minority of highly influential individuals pull the group towards the most fundamental extent of the belief system, while the body of the believers pull towards something more moderate. Except, at this point, the Catholic Church doesn't run any countries. And they've calmed down a bit in recent centuries. Before people chastise my analogy, I am in fact a confirmed (and recovering) Catholic.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 06:55 PM) As far as a shining example of democracy, the people in that region don't want that. They want radical religious theocracies. Sooner or later mr.president may realize this. Wow. Nice sweeping judgement. And totally inaccurate. Many of those countries HAVE those governments, but even in places like Iran, the majority of people in the country scratch and claw for western freedoms of all kinds. Its really pretty sad that some people (like you, apparently) think that everyone from the Middle East is a radical fundamentalist maniac.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 06:12 PM) WalMart is the shining example of American Capitalism. They beat the world at the US retail game. Using every advantage they could muster, they became the #1 retailer. Now we see what the victor looks like, and some people are unhappy with they picture. Survival of the fittest. Mom and Pop died because they couldn't compeat. Local manufactures died, because the couldn't compeat. Walmart remains standing. All true, and that's the upshot. As a business, I have huge respect for them. In fact, they are THE model at this point in retail transportation and logistics management. That's the single biggest driver of their success. But that doesn't mean Walmart's net effect is necessarily positive.

You know it's a slow day when this thread has 387 views.

QUOTE(Steff @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 05:15 PM) Class 11 Learning to Live --- Basic Differences Between Mother and Wife. Online Classes and role-playing. Tuesdays at 7:00 PM, location to be determined

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 05:29 PM) Technically speaking, on the open market I think Buehrle would get a little more than Buehrle.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 05:27 PM) Iowans can go play in the fields. Yeah, 'cause they don't have enough of those already. EDIT: Or is that what you meant? Sorry, missed the object there I think.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 04:08 PM) After campaigning against Wal-Mart and other corporations, you would think that a consumate politician would think it might be a good idea to tell your trust to avoid conflicts of interest, especially with disclosures the way they are now a days. Nice idea, but good luck with that. You could probably choose all the companies in the S&P, choose a major politician at random, and find similar questionable connections for half of the companies with that individual and some issue they are big on. I think they would suffice to just avoid the biggest potholes. And yeah, Walmart was maybe one of those. But again, doubtful the Kerrys thought about it, or the broker.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:08 PM) You mentioned Bush post-9-11. Who can forget the image of him standing on a pile of rubble with a bullhorn telling the firefighters that we're gonna get the bastards who did this. That was a timeless moment right there. I can't believe I am about to do this, but here goes... As much as I despise this President, that particular moment was NOT scripted. Have any of you read Woodward's books? Or the stories published here and there by Bush's former aides? Getting up on that pile was actually more his idea than anyone else's. His PR people had other plans originally. Lots of things about that trip were scripted, but that was not one of them. Now, for me, there were a lot of other moments more inspiring at Ground Zero. And I certainly realize that Bush was doing a little grandstanding there. But I do believe he meant well, in his own inept way. And that article posted from the NYT wasn't about that moment at all, it was about all of Bush's mistakes since then. So I refuse to flame out on Bush here. He's screwed the pouch on dozens of other things, but he did what he thought was right on this one, even he has since wandered WAY off the path.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 02:16 PM) There is more in there, but that is a good place to start... I guess shopping at the local places they are trying to keep open is out of the question, huh? I don't know about you, but if I was throwing $25 million to try to get rid of something, I sure wouldn't be shopping there. As for the stock thing, after working 7 years in the financial markets I am pretty sure I understand the disclosure rules more than most. The fact that it was Kerry's wife who owned the stock tells me it probably wasn't a blind trust as she has no real conflicts of interest in her private vs work life. She doesn't vote in congress, so there is no conflict. That means even if her money is in trust, she knows, or at least has the ability to know, what it owns. What does make it interesting is it was Kerry's wife who loaned the Kerry campaign a big amount of money which flooded the early primaries with money in the 04 election cycle and revived his campaign. Evidently it doesn't matter where the money comes from, just that it comes, even if it is from the same groups that are being publically campaigned against. And knowing the markets, do you really think that Kerry or his wife ever actually stock pick? I mean, unless they are avid amatuer market makers from past jobs or something (which is possible I suppose), that just isn't likely. They give the money to their fund guy, and say "go moderate with this amount, aggresive with this amount, avoid these industries..." etc. I am sure you realize this. If you are saying Kerry's campaign should be more careful about investments, then sure, that's probably true. But there are so many connections that could be made to so many companies that could make a person look bad, it becomes absurd to even try. So you do what most of the monied politicians do - let someone else do your investing for you. And yes, he should avoid shopping at Walmart in the future. Of course I am sure you also realize that this recent Walmart thing with Kerry is POST-election I believe, and those purchases were DURING the election. You can find a few picky little things about his investments and where his lackies shopped, but I just want you to see that this article has a clear hole in its logic. Walmart is not necessarily healthy for communities, and in fact probably harms them. I put the caveats in my original posts to avoid having this particular discussion. I was trying to focus on Walmart's impact and the general conflict with the Unions and the politicos, not Kerry's campaign in 2004.

I wish there was a smilie for being relieved. Glad to see there are people in the Senate who are offended by Stevens' nonsense, and who realize that this sacrifice isn't worth it for the relatively small amount of oil up there. Goldman Sachs' analysis put the financial impact of that oil, even 10 years down the road, as such a small number that consumers would never even notice the difference. Maybe we could actually spend the development money in getting some alternative energy methods further along in their maturation processes.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 01:32 PM) That's your reason for the hypocrisy argument? That the campaigns spent money at Walmart? Of course they did. In some of those small towns, where the heck else are you going to get certain things? That's pretty lame. The stock thing you need to keep in perspective as well. To protect themselves from such connections, most of these politicians leave others to make their stock picks and other investments for them. They can't even sell the stock without going through a huge process first. That said, it would be smart for Kerry to have someone analyze his significant holdings and make sure his broker steers clear of certain things. I figured you were pointing to the fact that Dems (the crusaders for the under-priviledged) were the ones fighting Walmart.

I don't see the hypocrisy. I've read more than one research piece that has shown how Walmart actually has a negative effect on communities, financially and otherwise. The author of this particular article obviously chooses not to see that, instead looking on the surface - jobs, low priced necessities. These are important of course, but there are negative offsets that Walmart brings to the table as well, such as depressed relative wages (especially in or near urban centers), jobs lost at other retailers, detraction from local production of goods (Walmart doesn't buy locally except by happenstance), etc. Just a perspective to keep in mind. This author passes off as fact that Walmart has a positive impact, but that is by no means generally accepted as truth. The arguments otherwise are, on the whole, more convincing to me. Caveats: I am not defending the Unions or their tactics here, nor am I defending the politicians involved. Just speaking about the business and it's impact on local communities.