Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 03:25 PM) Where did I suggest that? We should all pay an equal proportion. Kinda simple. You specifically mentioned that the Corporations and Billionaire's should pay their fair share. I would argue that they would all say they are in compliance with current tax laws, so the question is, what do you think that fair share is. I obviously took an extreme stance but I'm curious. I'd argue that in this country it is the higher end of the middle class and the upper middle class that probably are impacted the most severely by taxes. The poor today are probably better off than any other decade (from the perspective of benefits received) and the wealthy, well, they are wealthier than ever. However, I never find the solution to be, well tax everyone else more, because at different points, you create pockets where you are better off being dependent on the government or where the law of diminishing returns due to taxes / tax incentives, etc lost, that you might not benefit from taking another step forward (or said another way, the benefit might not be worth the cost (e.g., more hours of work, additional stress, etc), etc.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 03:04 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. So what amount should they get from corp's and billionaires? Just curious? Should we just let Billionaires and Corporations pay for everything and the rest of us all pay no taxes?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 03:02 PM) 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. To be frank, the estate tax might be one of the most unfair taxes in the world. You made it, lets just retax it and make it a burden on your families.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 02:32 PM) Wait, where the hell do you live? lol I am in college and pretty much everyone I went to high school with uses high school and people in college still do as well. Not as much as 5 years ago but it is still used a lot to keep in touch and share photos. Someon'es not very cool

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 01:49 PM) If someone goes to law school and then decides that they don't want to practice law after graduation, they should not be able to just say f*** it to their (presumably) massive loans because they ended up with a much lower than expected paying job and can not afford to keep as much as they initially thought they would. That's obviously an extreme example, but that's why the program, which has great intentions, is a poorly operated one. 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.

Rabbit is on vanderpump.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 10:06 AM) You're welcome. I want my prize. A wite dollar, only accepted at Wite's dollar branch, headquartered in exciting North Dakota. PM him for more details!

QUOTE (SnB @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 07:29 AM) Yes absolutely. If we're being honest, forums are almost a relic of the internet past at this point. With reddit, facebook, twitter, etc - they're not quite as needed as they once were. If forums even have a chance of staying relevant, you'll need a mobile app. You sir are a relic. What is this facebook you talk about. None of the cool kids today use facebook, that is for old parents like you and me. Soxtalk is actually stronger today than it was 5 years ago in terms of traffic, etc. I think part of it is, you can't replicate this sort of discussion on facebook / twitter / instagram / etc, so for those die-hard sports fans, forums are still the absolute best way to vent, share, analyze, and discuss their favorite teams! Kind of awesome, definitely surprising and a true credit to all of the amazing members!!!

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 07:37 AM) Interested in who you guys think should be lower or higher. The best part of the FS list is seeing how this site falls in love with certain guys (Cleluis Rondon comes to mind) and becomes really bearish on others (i.e.Chris Beck) and then comparing the outliers to the big time publications. I'd be the one who rates Rondon the highest. I'm also probably one of the least down on Beck out of the group (although Beck there is definitely a disparity).

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 09:03 AM) I have admittedly shoddy memory on this subject, but my recollection was that he didn't like or didn't know about the sweeping slider. He thought he was fastball/change with a show me slider. I am also not a Keith Law fanboy by any stretch of the imagination and I prefer the opinions of many others over him, but there are most definitely worse minor league guys out there than Keith Law. Law is actually probably one of the better one's. He isn't afraid to stick his neck out their. That does mean he'll be wrong from time to time but the whole thing is a crapshoot.

Good...cause its coming!!!

How come ESPN keeps talking about the balls being deflated by 2 PSI. According to PFT, 10 of the 12 balls were under-inflated by 1PSI (not two), which makes weather and natural deflation and even better argument? What's next is the report is going to come out that the ball boy stopped at the restroom to take a leak prior to delivering the balls.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 03:42 PM) Is that a player safety issue that has anything to do with lowering the mound, independent of more offense? I mean, I see how you could have some legal grievance there, but I have to think the likelihood of pitcher injury goes from miniscule to miniscule. Pitchers have often times argued that the mound is too low and they are in an extremely dangerous position. However, some argue a lower mound would reduce the risk of tommy john (interesting article below that I hadn't previously read). http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/...ower-the-mound/

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 04:25 PM) I don'the think he even remembers that. He argued with me over it once. Maybe their are 2 Daver's that hunt and catch all of their food? Haha.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 03:56 PM) Sounds like your buddy is a science computer. Haha, he kind of is.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 02:57 PM) Haha...my buddy that is a physicist & engineer (or as I call him, professional student). Shows how simple it should be able to prove whether it was elements vs. an actual act. He also said if you want the balls to deflate, knowing the conditions, you could just inflate the balls with pretty hot air. You'll meet standards but get natural deflation out of them (along with the elements during a cold game). Said you could essentially manufacture the balls to get that PSI reading and move it down.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 02:52 PM) Caufield are you saying the regional # alone is $120M / yr plus the 78M national deal? Nevermind..I looked it up. Yep, they are at 120M + 78M so $198M before factoring in stadium and merchandising revenues. From a cost perspective you obviously have player, stadium maintenance, etc. But man, with that type of initial return, it certainly means you can easily put up a $120M payroll no problem (without even sneezing about losing money). Phils TV deal calls for $200M annually (5 B over 25 yrs). The Angels are probably a better comparison than the other teams and their deal calls for a rights average of $95M and an annual average of $147M. The reason I use the Angels as a good example is they kind of share an extremely large market (albeit they aren't directly in the LA market) with another team and are the "second" fiddle team. Clearly Angels have been the more successful franchise over the past decade from a consistency perspective and I am not sure on the ratings draw they bring. Part of this also happens to deal with when teams have signed these lucrative contracts as all the top deals have been entered into the past couple of years and its been a while since Sox negotiated and none of us know what the value is of their equity stake.

Haha...my buddy that is a physicist & engineer (or as I call him, professional student). Shows how simple it should be able to prove whether it was elements vs. an actual act.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 02:28 PM) FOR LDF This doesn't factor in the new national broadcast rights deal for MLB, which someone in this thread pointed out provides $78 million guaranteed per team (as opposed to the previous $14-15 million)...and then the new regional rights deal, where a realistic number for the White Sox would be somewhere between the Mariners (around $120 million) and Rangers. (Of course, in the last year or so the Dodgers and Astros situations have caused some media skeptics to predict a "bust" in these RSN riches before the Sox can make their own deal. The Cubs are already positioning/posturing/predicting.) That will be a BIT more complicated with JR and Co. controlling 40% of Comcast at the moment. At any rate, we're easily capable of supporting $125 million...but, knowing the fans are going to be skeptical, they're not QUITE willing to go all in again because that approach in 2011 led to four pretty disappointing seasons (other than Abreu/Sale and the 2012 season until mid-September). Caufield are you saying the regional # alone is $120M / yr plus the 78M national deal?

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 12:31 PM) I've seen several articles mention that this would be a less disruptive change than something like lowering the mound. I totally disagree with that. Especially from a fan's standpoint, you wouldn't have to know anything had changed if the mound was lowered. There would just be a little bit more offense. I would say, though, that for a lot of guys the run to the mound is a meaningful part of the warmup process. Lowering the mound might impact player safety (specifically the pitcher). I don't think the league would want to do that in this legal environment. All of a sudden, more pitchers get hit, sustain serious injuries, and lawsuits follow.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 12:57 PM) you got a valid point, the ticket sale are really to be a second thought, esp with tv deals and all. the revenue of vendor and etc... is basically where the money comes from in the 2 source. writz and business shows you have to own the product, and / or get it lease to a really inexpensive way. a soda drink is only cost the companies 4 cents.... the company that owns the hot dog and other food product which the sox also forces the vendor to buy from them as well comes from the sports serv corp. how bout the corp advertising how much money from that???? now a smart account will find a way to diversify that with the lease of the park at such a great deal. JR was trying to buy the ownership of the PHX hockey team.... 75 mil. and he wanted the city to foot the lease and to lease it to JR as even a cheaper rate. JR is not stupid.... he is a great business man.... maybe not as good as writz. Even in comparison, how much of net profits are driven by ticket sales vs. concessions, etc. Clearly Sox have a sweet-heart stadium lease which probably means their gate attendance ultimately drives a higher proportion of revenues vs. media / tv deals than certain teams but would be very curious to see the breakout.

How much do ticket sales ultimately drive the payroll these days (after you back out the lease costs, vendor costs, etc)? I don't know the answer, but actual ticket sales are becoming a much smaller component of the revenue equation, right? I'd be curious on the percentage.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 10:04 AM) Who you work with is HUGE in terms of having a good time at work, wherever that may be. I don't care if you are one of those "ohhhhh, I just looooveeee my job" type of people, if those you work with are a bunch of asshats, that love won't last. I don't hate my job...but I wouldn't call it a love fest, either. There are a LOT of things I love more than being at work, such as my family, friends, road trips, good restaurants, a vodka martini, fishing, etc...I'd rather be doing those things than working. But work isn't bad...I don't hate being here, either...but I do it because I'm pretty good at it and I get paid...not because I love it. Other than fishing and vodka martini's, which I'd replace with some other leisure activities, you've pretty much nailed it.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 09:09 AM) That is the exact advice a fellow educator gave his son who is considering being an archaeologist. Be Phil Collins instead and buy every Alamo artifact worth owning and fill the dream that way. I can't say I disagree. I would third that advice. I'd also say that the more important part of job satisfaction isn't the actual duties of the job but the people you work with (in many instances) anyway.

STUPID.