Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 12, 2012 -> 11:50 AM) The numbers in this graph are not adjusted for inflation. Using the handy BLS inflation adjustor, I was able to quickly calculate that $165,000 in 2000 dollars is equivalent in purchasing power to $220,000 in today's dollars. Thus, child care costs are not out of control, they have effectively tracked inflation over the past 12 years, to within a variance of 2%. Furthermore, property taxes have, over the last 50 years, averaged about 3.5% of national income. That number has trended down slightly over time. If you can find a 2009 version it could possibly increase because of plummeting national income due to the recession, but the data does not show that there has been a substantial increase in property tax rates or collections over time, rather the data show the reverse. Some of that decrease may be due to the state of California's insane property tax system coming on line in the 1980s and screwing with the national average. I think California is the fairest of all. Why should you have to pay taxes based upon the current market value of the property. That would force massive amount of people who bought when they could afford (whose income never really increased) who'd be forced to sell based upon current prices.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 12, 2012 -> 11:03 AM) As far as not being able to take money with you, that's a very slippery slope. It's all about budgeting like Rock said, and actually sticking to the budget. Knowing what you can spend on bulls*** per month and that's that. Having an 8 month emergency fund. Funding a RETIREMENT ACCOUNT. I feel way too many young people today think that's something you worry about later, when in reality you must worry about it now. Then they'll never be able to retire, or run out of money when they do. It's all about thinking long-term in today's minute-to-minute, "I can afford this now so will," society. Here's a question (maybe personal) but what does everyone think is the right amount to set aside for retirement. 10%, 15%, 25%? Curious to see.

To be frank, the only thing I'd consider is making a move after Floyd gets hot and that move would be a lateral one where you move Floyd for someone who could help the Sox long-term at 3rd base. Or for a lesser starter plus a guy who you think could help them at 3rd base. I really don't see the point in making any major moves this year, unless they are ones that make you younger and better long-term and work towards the Sox long-term plan, which is really building this team around the likes of Sale & Viciedo (and hopefully winning some playoffs series while Konerko/Dunn are still in form too).

Lets hope Quintana has another solid performance. Floyd usually gets going this time of year and we know he can really get nasty once he gets going. Humber is having some confidence issues and I'm starting to doubt him. That said, his issue has been consistency, he's had a decent number of quality starts for a 5th starter (which is what he currently is). The big thing about the Sox is, the rotation should get improvements out of Floyd, Danks, and Humber. I really think Peavy is what we are seeing so I expect him to remain consistent (unless he gets hurt, which is always possible) and to be frank, Sale has to see some struggles. Plus there is the whole innings limit on him. I was stunned when I watched some video of him and Johnson. Their deliveries are incredibly similar. To be frank, I still think this rotation will be fine. This is a long season and if Danks is healthy, he'll be fine and Floyd has a run in him. Those pitching even close to their capabilities make this rotation a lot better. Floyd's curve looked a lot better and usually it is at its best in the summer.

Lets hope Quintana has another solid performance. Floyd usually gets going this time of year and we know he can really get nasty once he gets going. Humber is having some confidence issues and I'm starting to doubt him. That said, his issue has been consistency, he's had a decent number of quality starts for a 5th starter (which is what he currently is). The big thing about the Sox is, the rotation should get improvements out of Floyd, Danks, and Humber. I really think Peavy is what we are seeing so I expect him to remain consistent (unless he gets hurt, which is always possible) and to be frank, Sale has to see some struggles. Plus there is the whole innings limit on him. I was stunned when I watched some video of him and Johnson. Their deliveries are incredibly similar.

The nice thing is, he will basically be along a similar timeline as the current year incoming class of recruits (which is Iowa's best recruiting class in years; Woodbury, Gessel, and now Uthoff, who will be eligible for 3 years after he sits out this year). That is three top 100 prospects, something Iowa hasn't had in a long time. Plus they have Clemmons, Ingram, and Meyer who are all legitimate 3 star recruits. In Fran I trust!

I love it. And Iowa let Brust go to Wisconsin a few years ago when they fired Lick. This will be a nice piece for the Hawkeyes a year from now.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Jun 11, 2012 -> 04:32 PM) Give me Trout over Harper any day and twice on Sunday. Kid is awesome. How did the f***ing Angels get him? I remember being very high on him in that draft.

If I were to get Soriano, it would be to put him at 3rd base. It would probably be a horrific disaster but he's got a strong arm and should have good range for a 3rd baseman. That said, its been a good number of years since he's played in the infield so it would probably be a train wreck. But the Cubs would have to pay a crapload of that contract and I'm not going to give them much of value. That or you'd trade someone else with a contract the Sox don't want for him + another asset.

QUOTE (Brian @ May 22, 2012 -> 05:44 PM) Tell him to stop drinking and driving. 3? Hope he gets the book thrown at him. I'm no lawyer so I can't answer the above. I would think he's pretty screwed (depending on the circumstances and assuming he was over the legal limit). 3 is a huge problem, usually at that point, you need a lawyer because you are facing potential jail time and you are facing a potential long period of time without being able to operate a vehicle. At this point, the individual clearly isn't responsible. I'm sure he's spent a lot of money on his 1st two already (isn't the average DUI something like 6-10K between court fees, fines, penalties, and increased insurance costs). That is a heck of a lot of cabs. At this point, whenever he can drive again, he should get a breathalizer and blow it before he gets into a vehicle (that is if the court doesn't require him to have one of those things jerry rigged to his car that requires you blow into it before driving).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 06:35 AM) But the house that a loan is against is NOT an asset in the sense of other assets a financial instituion holds. There is a difference between an asset you unencumbered, one that you own but also hedge against, and finally, one that you do NOT own but have a LIEN OR RIGHT against. The last scenario is the case here, and I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that they don't have to revalue those annually. Maybe they should, but right now, I just don't think the banks are reassessing every real estate piece they have a loan against every year. You do assess there fair value annually under SFAS 157, however, it isn't a true fair value and it is for disclosure purposes. Only when you've gotten to the point that you truly don't expect to recover the payments on the loan, do you run into the point where you will have a write-down on the loan (and set-up a reserve). And in many instances, you pretty much aren't at that point until the payments stop coming. The fair value disclosure for each of the big banks will disclose how they calculate the estimated fair value and typically it is based upon the interest rates compared with market rates, which isn't always the best approach but is an acceptable approach. The real kicker is the LTV ratio's which the allowance is typically based upon. It would be impossible (and I know I've said this in another post) to calculate the fair value of the underlying collateral for every property owned, so the companies do it on a rotational plan and get some of the information in this analysis, and if a loan is impaired, they will look to the underlying collateral (as you would never write it off more then the underlying fair value of the collateral you'll receive) as the new carrying value of the loan.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 06:55 AM) SOX requires proper and regular asset valuation. That is the biggest reason that most banks went under. It wasn't runs on deposits. SOX was not related to this. SFAS 157 (and formerly SFAS 109, IIRC) are what cover the fair value disclosure requirements and neither are related to SOX.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 05:19 AM) Yes, and then attempt to gain relief via seizure of the linked asset - the home. But as I said, I really don't think SOX required what you are suggesting for mortgages. Though it might be a good idea to do things that way, as it might give a better indication of the actual capital health of the banks. On a sidenote, none of this is related to SOX. If you guys want to look up the specifics, you can go to ASC 948 (talks about all the specifics on Mortgage Banking Accounting Guidance; You can find it on the fasb's website). It takes quite a bit to take losses on these loans. They will disclose the fair values, but it is an approximation and the fair value is primarily based upon the rates of the loans vs. current market rates (so often times a loan with a high interest rate shows up with a strong fair value, but the reality is, that loan might be on a property that is way underwater and really isn't worth even close to that).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 06:43 PM) Now wait, I am not 100% sure it works that way. Doing that would require the banks to re-value homes regularly, and they don't do that. Furthermore, the bank does not own the asset - they have a lien against it. As I understand it - and I admit this is more from the investment side of the world, not retail loans - loans are assessed by risk level and assigned a projected % of loss. The bank then has to maintain assets to protect against that level of anticipated loss, plus some degree of margin as specified by banking regulations. They got in trouble before by building the math based on the assumption that home values were always at least what they were at the time of loan origination. When that ceased being true, it all fell apart (this is the mortgage aspect of the fall-apart). Now, one way to address that COULD be to force revaluation of homes and look at LTV ratios in assessing capital requirements... but I didn't think that was actually being done, at least not yet. They do look at the ratio's but it is on a rotational plan that they will update the valuations of the underlying properties. It would be physically impossible to do an annual valuation on every loan a residential lender has debt to.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 06:43 PM) Now wait, I am not 100% sure it works that way. Doing that would require the banks to re-value homes regularly, and they don't do that. Furthermore, the bank does not own the asset - they have a lien against it. As I understand it - and I admit this is more from the investment side of the world, not retail loans - loans are assessed by risk level and assigned a projected % of loss. The bank then has to maintain assets to protect against that level of anticipated loss, plus some degree of margin as specified by banking regulations. They got in trouble before by building the math based on the assumption that home values were always at least what they were at the time of loan origination. When that ceased being true, it all fell apart (this is the mortgage aspect of the fall-apart). Now, one way to address that COULD be to force revaluation of homes and look at LTV ratios in assessing capital requirements... but I didn't think that was actually being done, at least not yet. I'm a little late to the party, but you are right Matt. One of the primary areas I work in is related to this specific topic.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jun 11, 2012 -> 04:27 PM) If you want to win this year deal Viciedo for a starter and trade for Youk. Sounds like a terrible idea. Who plays in the outfield then? Last I looked, Viciedo was one of the big reasons the club is where it is. He's 23, can rake, and is cost controlled for a long time. Trading guys like that, especially given the overall lack of any sort of position prospect in our system who could even come close to replacing him in the next year, would just be asinine.

I realize the division is winnable, but I really don't want to see the organization making any short-sighted moves. I want our young guys to play and would support a trade, but we got to either be getting a great value in an expiring contract or a player who has a long term future with the franchise (in which case, I'm okay giving up a lot for them).

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jun 11, 2012 -> 11:48 AM) I don't know, the Spurs destroyed the lineup with Perkins/Ibaka a lot of the time and Kendrick still played heavy minutes. I don't think their defense is very good with one less rebounder and rim-protector and it'd force DaQuan Cook to play more. I feel like Miami would love for OKC to go small, it'd be one less shot-blocker to discourage drives and would probably give Miami a rebounding advantage. They still have Ibaka who is a great shot-blocker. And defensively, lets be honest LBJ is going to get his points. The key is Sefolosha's D on Wade and Ibaka on Bosh. I like both of those match-ups from the Thunder's perspective. On the flipside, Westbrook gets away from d'ing Wade (at least at times) which means he has more energy going against Wade offensively.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jun 11, 2012 -> 11:17 AM) Well, Thabo and Harden aren't generally going to be on the floor at the same time, unless they go small and end up negating one of their advantages with Ibaka/Perkins inside. That was basically my point to start with, the Thunder have to make some choices. They really only have three wing players and one that's a defense-oriented player, while the Heat have two elite wings and two more that play a lot. Do they go small to matchup with the Heat and compromise one of their advantages with Ibaka/Perkins? Does Thabo guard Lebron and force Durant to play a guard where he has a quickness disadvantage, or does Thabo guard Wade and force Harden/Durant to guard Lebron? Do you try to hide Durant on Battier to save his energy for offense and hope Ibaka can hold his own on Lebron? All of those choices have some issues. Lebron can score on any of them, to me it's which option causes the fewest other problems. I'd definitely try Ibaka if it were me, he's athletic and really long even if he is at a quickness disadvantage, and it puts less defensive pressure on your best player. Have him play off Lebron a bit to make it a little easier to stay in front of him and hope Lebron takes the jumpers. Then you can put Thabo on Wade for long stretches and try to limit his impact and put even more pressure on Lebron instead of potentially giving Wade a matchup edge. Ibaka is already going to be a bit out of place chasing Battier out by the arc anyways if you go the other way. When Ibaka is on the bench, you rotate some combo of Thabo/Durant/Harden depending on who is on the floor (ideally in that order). I fully expect the Thunder to play small. The Heat don't have any bigs and Perkins is best for being a physical defensive presence against strong bigs. He won't have that role and offensively he won't take advantage of the Heat. On the flipside, Ibaka should be fine on Bosh so you can play small and really take advantage of your matchups (which means you get Harden on the court more).

QUOTE (balfanman @ Jun 7, 2012 -> 07:37 AM) Playing time could be an issue though. They can't find much time for Lilibridge now, how are they going to be able to give Danks much time unless (by some miracle) thay have an offer on the table for Rios.....yeah right. I wouldn't think that they would want to bring Danks up just to have him take up space on the bench. That's why I'm thinking that Johnson may be who they're looking at, especially if he is capable of playing a "respectable" 3rd base. Johnson, IMO, would be more likely to provide a little more offense than Danks would, especially when you consider who they would be replacing (Morell,Hudson over Viciedo, DeAza, Rios) in the lineup on any given day. Given how Lillibridge has played, I'm not surprised they haven't found much time for him. Lilli got hot last year but other then that, he's a pretty futal offensive player. And defensively, while he's very very capable of playing a whole lot of positions, Danks is a better defensive outfielder.

Hopefully that is the case Dick. The only issue I have is I want to make sure Danks gets some playing time. He'll be a good fit for the club during interleague.

Ran up against two pitchers who were on in 2 straight games. It happens. Get em tomorrow.

Dang. Forget about it Rios. You've played great d all year.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 6, 2012 -> 07:13 PM) You have Lillibridge/Escobar to pr and play outfield, I think it's important to get an another 1b on the roster in case Konerko has a setback. If PK is completely healthy as of tomorrow, then by all means, let it be Danks Any schmoe can play 1b. Lillibridge can play there, Dunn can play there, and I'm sure Danks could play there if need be. I really don't see much value in carrying 3 actual 1st baseman on your roster. Plus Flowers can play there as well. Unless of course they can all rake, but I really don't think Dan Johnson is that type of guy (but maybe I'm wrong and he's figured things out).

I thought Rios had tied it up there. He hit that hard.