caulfield12

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 05:04 PM) I was just about to make this argument. For Jenks to be targeting the poor is horribly misplaced, when the impact on America's taxpayers is much, much higher from the rich and powerful taking advantage of tax loopholes, etc. The government wouldn't need to raise taxes or create these incentive programs if they were getting the money they should be in the first place from corporations and billionaires. And we don't even have to talk about billionaires. There are also a ton of "middle class" families or family-based businesses that have net worth/s between $700,000-$3.5 million. I'll just put it this way. In 2000, if that money were transferred to me above that $700,000 or 750 K figure (I can't remember exactly, it has been too long), the tax rate was incredibly high, something like 37-55%. Since then, the bar has been moved upwards and upwards to the point where it's not really a concern that $10,000 should be transferred on a yearly basis (to avoid potential taxes) because the trust could never catch up, even with a 10% annual rate or return (which has been unrealistic now under the new economic paradigm since the dot com crash and 9/11) so even $2 or $2.5 million would be inherited tax free. (Of course, a new administration might change this, yet I have zero belief that the Clintons would revisit the estate tax issue since they are precisely the type of family to benefit from this policy/protection directly.) I'm going to posit a guess there are a LOT more Americans in this situation than law school graduates taking advantage of student loan deferrals or high school and university teachers "ripping off the government" with their exorbitantly-high salaries.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 03:52 PM) Funny you mention that. I know two people in that exact situation, with oh, 200+K in law school debt. Now they don't want to practice law cause they don't like it, etc, and want to do very blah work which won't pay much anything. They'll pay pretty much the minimum while getting the rest forgiven. And by forgiven, I mean, let other people who were responsible pay for it. It is a complete case of people taking advantage of things. The real purpose was to relieve people who really did get in way too over their heads. All this said, the answer shouldn't be, well, we'll just punish everyone who did it right and make them pay more. That's not the only example. I know someone who graduated from Harvard Law, and she realized that corporate law simply wasn't for her, there were a couple of suicides at her downtown law firm (at least one jumped through the window) and she chose at that time to work teaching law (writing) at a major university. There's a built-in incentive for those who attend law school to work in the public sector/non-profit, places like the Southern Poverty Law Center, for example...resulting in a "greater good," presumably, for society. Also, and this isn't directly about your comments but preceding ones....if we have our family money in a trust (father passed away previously) and the whole trust is transferred to my family and I instead of my mother having to pay an extreme amount of her personal funds for long-term care to the point where all the trust is drained away and then she can finally qualify for Medicare/Medicaid to pay for a higher share, isn't that also wrong? Yet how many rich parents transfer $10,000 per year to their children (tax free)...or go out of their way to avoid paying any estate taxes? Isn't that even worse than paying a lower percentage of your student loans, because transferring wealth to the next generation through a trust costs the government a lot more money in lost revenue, does it not? Not to mention the government under Bush moved the benchmark number from the high hundred thousands to around $5 million before taxes would kick in on estates/trusts for wealthy individuals.

Just trying to think of some more reasons... 1) The way the Blue Jays treated Frank Thomas at the end of his career (not that the White Sox have a lot to be proud of there, either). 2) Signing Melky, although it seemed to be a near-certainty after some of Toronto's earlier moves in the offseason. Dave (Appleton, WI) What do you know about Jose Abreu? How much should he thank Puig and Cespedes for the contract he is going to sign? Klaw (1:04 PM) Puig, Cespedes, and Soler were all younger when they signed and they're all better athletes. Abreu can hit, but I don't think he has the high impact of Puig or Cespedes and won't have the defensive value. www.espninsider.com At least he didn't throw the whole "slider speed" bat comment out there into that analysis.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 03:49 PM) i will not discuss #1 with you.... my problem with shield is his performance in the playoff. he is requesting how much and then look at his performance....... Nobody seems to hold that against Mr. Kershaw, haha. The Royals were smart all along to realize it would be better to go with someone with more upside and less wear and tear in Edinson Volquez. Of course, it could end up in disaster, but they do possess a lot more internal rotation options than they did 2 seasons ago, not to mention Hochevar will coming back as well as a swing man. When a team coming out of the World Series doesn't make ANY effort to keep such an integral player to their playoff run, it does make you wonder a bit.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 01:59 PM) I think the Sox are pretty deep in the pen myself. Though if you have deeper questions about Putnam and Petricka, that could change your opinion. I wonder if the Sox feel both of those guys are not pieces going forward. You've got all those guys like Ynoa, Webb and Sanburn on the outside looking in right now, not to mention the looming possibility of Montas or Danish in the 2nd half of the season. Petricka's back to improving his slider so he will have three pitches to attack hitters with. I think there has to be some internal concern that Putnam's a one-year wonder, but they have a lot of depth compared to a year ago. Don't forget Nathan Jones as well.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 03:41 PM) i been wanting and waiting for the right time. i am also not here to talk about the monetary ability of the owners of the sox team to add majorly to the team's payroll and budget. i am not for signing any of the remaining FA's b/c that will really put this team and screw up the ability to maneuver with in the realm of adding necessary pieces in the future b/c the team may be burden with contracts that can not be easily dispose of. the only recourse, if any further additions are needed is to get a short term contract for a pitcher, no more than 2 yrs in duration. this farm system is ready to start producing important pieces, hopefully to help the team, if all projections develop as hoped. this team can lead the fans of chicago back to the winner circle of the world series, i believe the sox now have the right person at the helm. the system has some really good prospect at the top and may have promising prospect in the 3 rd tier developing. so the precious salary budget, cannot be stretch to anything more than 2 yrs. now lets look at Philly, Dodgers, Bos and etc... they had salary problems b/c they invested and invested for yrs, not allowing players to be replace thru attrition. if they had a nucleus, it needed to be able to correct itself to continue to maintain. look at the dodgers last yr, with 4 outfielders. they had to buy and pay other teams to take those cumbersome contracts that i am talking about..... one more, lets look at Wash, 4-5 fa next yr and not having the ability to sign them all. that is a huge turn around of establish players. that is why i am and have been lecturing on short term players. money not with standing for this post. peace. That's exactly why Boston was able to rebound so quickly to win a World Series. They ditched most of their long-term players over a 2-3 year period and invested in relatively shorter-term contracts for guys like Victorino, Napoli, Tanaka, Gomes. The three hitters, in particularly, were notorious lefty killers. It worked, for at least one year, when their pitching came around to match the hitting.

http://www.csnchicago.com/white-sox/report...&ocid=yahoo To join the ongoing list with Sirotka/David Wells, Marco Paddy, Sergio Santos, Keith Law, etc.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 08:46 PM) lol I just read the first 5 pages of this thread and was like IMMA JUMP IN WITH THE NEW MEDIA DEAL STUFF HOW HAS NOBODY MENTIONED IT. old thread is old. Yea, as said, with the new TV money everyone is MLB is making bank. This isn't even factoring in the MLBAM profits, which every team gets a cut. I'd guesstimate the Sox are gonna clear 50 million this year, as will most teams. The real shame is teams like Oakland refusing to up their payroll for a year or so, now that is stingy ownership. Well, on one hand, with that stadium situation out there and being held hostage by MLB and the Giants, it's hard to blame them. I'm guessing that this roster shakeup has a lot more to do with Beane's desire to reshape the roster than it is purely for financial reasons, but it's probably a combination of both. If you look at the NL West, you have the Astros (who some are projecting for the World Series in 2017 and 2018), the Rangers with all their tv money, the Angels with their market and nearly unlimited payroll and the Mariners acting as if they have an unlimited payroll, there's no way for that franchise to outspend their competition anyway, so they just have to work smarter and harder, like Friedman with the Rays for all those years.

Well, Kottaras is a walk machine...with shoddy defense. Soto has the most upside, but can he stay healthy? How much is left in the tank? He's only one year removed from a very solid season with the Rangers in 2013.

QUOTE (South Sider @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 11:45 PM) It's been interesting to see how many are opposed to an idea such as this! Very enlightening for me. What I am grasping is that the rulebook says that position players can play anywhere on the field, regardless of "designated position". So, designated position is almost an arbitrary thing to have. To me, it would be just as meaningful to say to an umpire "hey, this is the order my guys are batting and this guy is my DH or pitcher, and the rest of them are out there playing whatever position. Primarily they will stick to what they are good at, but sometimes you might see them move around out of their designated area." These are the rules as we know it... but don't they seem a little... odd? Lets be real, perfection is not always achieved on your first go around, or your second, third, etc... Take a look at double switches. A legal substitution tactic because of one rule. That a player can play anywhere on the field. So you can actually replace the pitcher with a position player, replace a position player with a pitcher, and then just have them "trade" defensive roles without consequence, all the while allowing the team double switching to gain an advantage in their lineup. To me, if this commissioner wants to abolish extreme shifts, you also have to abolish the double switch. And I assume that would meet even more criticism then this suggestion because eliminating the double switch would probably hinder offense as much as abolishing extreme shifts would help offense. Honestly, I'm really surprised that 99.9% of people not only hate this idea, but call it stupid, dumb and idiotic. I appreciate those that appreciate that a subject like this can be discussed, because frankly, in my mind, it's a topic that merits discussion in the very least. I don't find it to be stupid. I find it to be an intelligent thing to discuss and throw out into the community. I think that those who so vehemently oppose and resort to insulting the commissioner for even suggesting should take a look in the mirror. You can never be afraid to change the rulebook. Our sports as we know them are constantly evolving and rules that were made decades or centuries ago deserve to be revisited, whether they need to be changed or not. Think of it this way. Would you like to see the baseball field with X's painted at seven positions on the field...with the fielders having to start each play in those positions? Well, then you'd also have to outlaw the bunt, right? Because the suicide squeeze would work every time. Just like in Little Leagues, you'd have faster teams who could take advantage of this setup to steal second base at will because the fielders wouldn't have quite enough time to cover. The 1B woudln't be able to cover the bag to hold the runner, either. Middle infielders couldn't deke to the 2B bag because they'd have to remain in their positions. Satchel Paige couldn't send his entire defense to the dugout with the exception of the catcher. A new generation of hitters would be dunkers/dinkers like Boggs, Gwynn and Ichiro who time after time elude the infielders with their pinpoint placement of singles to the opposite field. Outfielders wouldn't be able to cheat 5-10 steps in during the 9th inning to cut a potential runner down at the plate. Pull hitters like Dunn and Ortiz could go back to playing their game, I suppose, and pick up 25-50 points on their batting averages. Heck, you could go so far as to say the catcher couldn't set up on the inside or outside corner as he would have to start in the middle, directly behind the plate, yes? And he couldn't cheat up on a steal...etc.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 08:46 PM) all that is shear profit..... sweet. http://news.moviefone.com/2013/10/04/hobbit-trilogy-cost/ Not exactly, Hobbit An Unexpected Journey ended up costing over $500 million, which is supposedly more than the first three LOTR movies combined.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 07:57 PM) Ugh... that did NOT have to be so big. Fail. Dream big, achieve big!

QUOTE (WilliamTell @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 07:53 PM) Uhhh Noooo Mr. Bill?

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 07:07 PM) and as i have always said..... what the in hades to i know. Here's a more specific article on the Cubs' situation. Epstein predictably calling the expected new deal "a paradigm shifter." http://chicago.suntimes.com/uncategorized/...venue-stream-2/

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 07:15 PM) ref taken3, it was really bad editing in which they had a stunt man to the running for liam in the sewers. but at least i hope they had a conclusion to the series. easy entertainment. Equalizer really surprise me on how good it was. the hobbit made all its money if the first installment. part 2 and 3 were nothing but gravy... easy entertainment. i really can't come around to see hunger games at the movie.... i hate the last book. i am finally seeing intersteller. i am just past the first hour. man it is good. a few holes.... Hobbit (total international)...a little over $1 billion Desolation of Smaug....$960 million Battle of the Five Armies...currently sitting at $867 million (just made almost $50 million this past weekend in China and definitely will make it to at least $900 counting China alone)

Taken 3 wasn't as terrible as some of the reviews, but it's clearly a case or diminishing returns with that franchise. A notch down from The Equalizer, which isn't one of Denzel's best movies by a long shot. Finally saw The Hobbit finale here in China (Hunger Games finally arriving next month)...it made around $50 million this past weekend despite the long delay in order to protect local Chinese films in December. It was okay/decent, but that's about as far as I'll go. Definitely time to close the book on that trilogy and for Peter Jackson to move on to new challenges.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 05:59 PM) now you know why that sCrub team from the morthside is pissed and was saying they can't wait until their contract is up, what, 2017. talk about a team that is doing arse backward. now is the time to take over chi media for the summer boys. 2019

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 10:18 PM) i would like to see who else can someone mention in MLB that make a big impression on loosing. dang it, i can't say what i want. Jeffrey Maier, Yankees/Orioles

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 05:48 PM) so let me rehash a statement that was made some weeks back. 'unless the fans can show interest, we the sox org can not afford a payroll over 105 million. maybe a little more." i am using red to emphasis this. You've just thrown a center-cut Dylan Axelrod fastball with no movement into Dick Allen's wheelhouse.

http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=...&Itemid=203 This breaks down the numbers for the new national baseball contracts. They essentially doubled from 2013, with all teams previously receiving $24 million bumping up to $50 million last season just from those three networks alone. I would imagine the other $28 million has to be coming from MLB as a 1/30th share of all their various media properties like MLBTV, Gameday Audio, At-Bat, etc. Angels. Rangers. Mariners. Cardinals. Somewhere in that zone is where the White Sox should be for their tv rights deal. At any rate, we shouldn't be looking up to the Tigers for too much longer.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 05:01 PM) I thought last night's episode was Shameless was great. Easily the best of the season so far. The house exploding was far too predictable, but I guess it gives reason for Jody/Karen/Jamie to come back on the show at some point when Sheila picks them up from California. You're too addicted to this show if you remember their baby's name. God, Jody was/is annoying. And that would bring out even more annoying aspects of Joan Cusack. BTW, which girl is Lip going to go after (albeit it's supposed to be a summer romance)? I highly doubt that he'll go to Miami, but stranger things have happened. How long will this new music/band guy last with Fiona? Guys with Zack G.ish style beards don't tend to last long on shows.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 04:42 PM) I don't think anything here would need to be drastic. It could be accomplished by saying that you have to have two IF on each side of second base. Within that, there is still a lot of room to align defenders. What about depth? That still doesn't preclude you from playing 2B in short RCF as is common against guys like Dunn. Maybe not pulled so far towards right, if the SS has to stay on the left side of 2B.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 02:27 PM) From what I can tell, the lowest home attendance we had last year was 10,625 in the second game of the year. Can we say that that is a decent approximation of the season ticket base in 2014? If so, what's a realistic expectation for this year? 12,500-13,000?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 04:39 PM) The Dodgers lost the most money of any team in MLB, something like $80 or $90 million last year. And that's with the highest attendance (3.8 million) and nearly 47,000 per game, almost 3K per game higher than #2 (StL Cardinals). And with the biggest new local/regional media rights deal in baseball history (would have to check the Yankees and Red Sox numbers there, Boston has an extremely complicated, diverse and innovative/entrepreneurial revenue-driving strategy fwiw). http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/dodg...0124-story.html Article about a Korean group wanting to invest $370 million for a partial/non-voting share in the Dodgers. Claims that number is at least $200 million too low, maybe low-balling in light of this recent season of financial losses as well as the local tv snafu?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 12:51 PM) Dave Cameron weighs in: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-problem...em-with-shifts/ I like his take in basically saying that the biggest issue right now is not guys hitting the ball to other defenders but that they are striking out at an absurd rate. Guys striking out is not a big deal on a micro level, but at a macro level, it's getting out of hand, and that's the biggest reason why we're seeing the numbers fall. That's not to say that there may not be background factors working towards an increasing strikeout percentage - namely steroids - but that the surface reasoning is that shifts have much less to deal with repressed run scoring and a lack of contact has more to do with it. So give 1st-3rd multimillion bonus checks to reestablish the historical significance of batting avg in the AL/NL and highest contact ratio/hardest to strike out performances, haha. Maybe the "speed up the game committee" can reward AJ. Also, least number of pitches seen per plate appearance.