Balta1701

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 12:54 PM) Balta, how often have you driven past wind farms? After driving past coal mines and wind farms, I will take a coal mine any day if the only environmental impact of the two is visual. I really dislike travelling for an hour and seeing turbines. The past couple summers driving through most of the rocky mountain states has really soured my appreciation of wind power. I don't think most people realize how many turbines are installed and over how wide an area. I've done the drive from Indianapolis to Gary quite a few times and I enjoy watching that wind farm expand. I also lived in California for 6+ years where there are a variety of older wind farms. And I've done the full east to west coast drive 6 times now. I would be happy to fully agree with you guys on the necessity of protecting sensitive areas, on the necessity of taking steps to minimize the impact on birds, on not putting a windmill 15 feet from a Bald Eagle's nest. The best place in Tennessee for a wind farm would be the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and no one would be louder saying "no" than me. I have zero problem with driving for an hour through wind turbines. I actually would like to see even more, I get more excited by them the bigger the farm is. It's no different than Cell towers to me. I'm more bothered by miles and miles of corn fields with nothing in them. These things are just excuses to me. We don't care about birds being killed by buildings or cars but it's a huge problem when 0.01% as many are killed by wind farms. We don't care about giant scars on the landscape from coal mines or agriculture but we care about not ruining the scenery of the great plains with wind farms. We don't care about pumping out black clouds of soot from factories, coal plants, and vehicles, but oh my those windmills look terrible.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 12:20 PM) How are you defining war? QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 12:21 PM) Oh, the poor innocent Native Americans. Before Columbus showed up they just wanted to live in perfect harmony with nature and sing Beatles songs in a drum circle. Yea, right. The Aztecs were f***ing brutal. Not just their weird human sacrifice rituals that get talked about a lot, but theyd just attack anyone near them and enslave them. They did manage to build what by all accounts was a magnificent city and a pretty interesting culture on the back of murder and slavery but to hold them on a moral high ground to the Europeans is ridiculous. If you think the Dutch, British and Belgians were mean colonizers look at the Aztecs, everyone since save the industrialized killing machines of the 20th century is small time. The Iroquois werent much better. They werent as much into the slavery and sacrifice side of things but even pre-Columbus theyd invade other tribes. They were no less expansionist than the Europeans who eventually beat them. Hell, the Illini got chased up a hill and starved to death like 100 miles south of US Cellular Field by two other tribes. Thats not even starting with Fort Dearborn, Roanoke, Jamestown... Point is, these dudes eventually got beaten at their own game. They werent doe-eyed innocents that got wiped out by an evil maraudimg white race. They knew what was going on because before we showed up they were doing it to each other. It's finally happened. I've been pushed to the point where I have zero choice but to agree with Duke on a post.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 12:34 PM) I care. Thankfully you don't work in an occupation heavily reliant on cheap fossil fuels.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 12:09 PM) What kind of team would look at Beckham and Semien as relatively equal options? A team wanting to compete this year and having no one whatsoever to play 2b would clearly prefer Beckham. Semien is a guy who you just wouldn't want to count on for this season, and you really wouldn't want to burn a year of arbitration by having him as your opening day 2b unless you had a good reason to.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 12:17 PM) The question I keep wishing someone would answer is why didn't the clean players rise up? Why didn't the guys who were getting screwed by not taking PEDs not go public in a big way? Absent of any solid information that I can find my answer is that they were intimidated by MLB Inc. That they didn't want to bite the hands that fed them. Now, MLB Inc. decides to clean up the players. I can see a backlash against MLB and empathy for players in all this. It must be infuriating when your employer basically rewards you for rules breaking then suddenly adopts a holier than thou attitude. It sickens me that the game was basically taken over by cheating. That "Locker room culture/everyone does it" aspect plays in there also. When McGwire's bottle of Andro was found in his locker by a reporter, the big complaint from baseball people was violating the privacy in the locker room, not the guy having a PED sitting in his locker. It's one reason why I hold Frank and the 03 White Sox in such high regard...for actually being willing to do the right thing despite that no-snitching culture.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 12:08 PM) They certainly needed some time to understand what kind of war it was they were fighting. Tribal conflict was just that -- tribal. They didn't realize that this other enemy (or, for a while in some circumstances an ally) from across the ocean would look at every human being on this continent as an enemy. They're thinking that Tribe X, Y, Z are all sovereign entities and not unlike the Europeans. Europeans just saw "Indians." I think if Native Americans had some way of perceiving that the goal of Europeans was total conquest of lands more numerous than they could have fathomed, things might have been different. So while Native American groups knew all about fighting "wars," there was nothing so imperial before. I don't believe they could have guessed what kind of goal was being pursued by Europeans nor could they have collectively realized that they needed each other, all of each other, to oppose this group. That's an incredibly far cry from innocent farmers who "Have no understanding of war".

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 11:59 AM) Plus it is difficult to fight a war when you don't realize you are fighting a war or have no understanding in your life of "war". WTF? What civilization on Earth are we talking about that "has no understanding of war"?

QUOTE (bulokis @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 11:22 AM) I would not mind that deal. Just like to keep Reed though. The Yankees could certainly use a backup plan in their IF, particularly for 3b, assuming ARoid's suspension holds. We might be able to get some value out of Gillaspie here.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 01:52 AM) Dude, wind farms are an eyesore. The Columbia River Gorge is ruined by them, as is the US-2 run up to Glacier NP through the Blackfoot res and so is Elk Mountain. Theyre cool the first time you see one but they look like s*** after that. If you want to preserve the earth's natural beauty, a rare (I think only) instance where I endorse government involvement domestically youre doing a lot more harm than good with wind farms. Find something else less obtrusive. If I have to sacrifice to save the planet I still want to enjoy the scenery were trying to save Because we care a ton about how bad coal mines look in Montana.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 01:26 AM) I would think they would gladly trade Gardner and make Ichiro their 1 or 2 man in exchange for a starter and/or reliever. They could probably still do that if they rotated their DH spot between McCann, Tex, Soriano, and Beltran (which doesn't sound like a bad idea altogether anyway if they have competent backups at 1b and C)

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 07:18 AM) Yankees continue to spend. The 37 year old with the OPS in the low .800's is a lot less scary than the 30 year old with the .900 OPS (even when ballpark factors are included).

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 01:06 AM) Yankees still need to address the back end of their rotation and bullpen....but 1-6, and, assuming healthy Jeter and Johnson, that's a VERY strong line-up offensively. But there's also not a single person in that lineup who isn't an injury risk.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 07:41 PM) If he pitches well, he is a guy looking at a 6 or 7 year deal worth WAY over $100 million, probably closer to $150 million. Yeah, but to get to that point where you'd have confidence you'd need 2+ years of him pitching like a 4-5 WAR pitcher again. Even a solid season from him this year no way you'd sign him for 6 years. Worst case scenario if you traded him for a pittance but shed the entire contract...you're out maybe 2 WAR each year if 1 WAR = $5 million. Worst case scenario if you hold onto him = the 2012 and 2013 John Danks, paid for the next 3 years. At the very least, there's a balanced risk in both cases that could be pushed one way or the other by how desperate your team is to clear payroll and whether or not you have a replacement pitching candidate.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 07:33 PM) Trading Danks now would be a big risk. You know, that's not how I'd describe it at all. I'd describe it as a moderate risk. If he returned to his former self...he becomes a "moderately" underpaid pitcher. Trading away a guy on a minimum salary with the potential to become a #2 starter is a high risk. Trading away a guy making $15 mil a year for the next 3 years who has the potential to become a #2 starter is at best a moderate risk. Even if he returns to being a #2 starter...you've still cleared $15 million a year for 3 years.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 07:27 PM) So Balta's chart is wrong? It wouldn't surprise me, I wasn't impressed with the quality of "South African GDP data" when I googled it. Darn socialized countries like the United States spoil me with good data.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 06:45 PM) You know I couldn't even count the number of dead eagles I saw downtown today there were so many. I would love to see a Catskills a bald eagle. Your liberal douchiness is astounding. You can also notice that here are the details from the article you quoted which give a firm number for "bald eagles killed by wind farms". I would like you to prove you're not equally douchy by taking that exact figure and calculating the probability of finding a dead bald eagle at a wind farm.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 06:46 PM) The White Sox signing Konerko as their 25th man will be a low-cost marginal upgrade on their DH situation (if nothing further happens) And a marginal downgrade on their bench/roster.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 06:16 PM) Is Perez really better off against major league pitching than Phegley? I 2nd taking a pitcher and sticking them in the bullpen. Brody Colvin was a stud who has ran into a ton of mechanical problems and lost any progress to his career. Could be a classic Coop can fix 'em case. Burawa, Nelo, and Nesbitt all have power arms that could make sense in the bullpen. I don't think it makes sense for the Sox to take any righty with their bullpen as it is. Reed, Jones, Lindstrom, and Belisario give 4 of those already. It'd be nice to have at least 1 slot for Petricka or Webb, whoever earns it, and there's a solid chance one of those guys will rapidly out-pitch any Rule 5 pick you slot in there in the spring and the pick would have been a waste. A lefty? Bring it on.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 05:45 PM) Bush lets evil corporations kill eagles to keep precious energy companies in operation. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/d...;utm_medium=RSS What a jerk. Are you opposed to buildings? Cars? Pesticides? Cats? Electric transmission? Fossil fuel extraction? . Remarkable how that gets to pretend to be a talking point against wind farms when they're actually taking strides to minimize it, whereas few to none of the others have to do so, unless you've seen some sort of effort to protect buildings from bald eagle strikes other than clear-cutting the forest nearby.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 05:23 PM) You're still b****ing about this? Doesn't your head hurt? If 95,159+ posts doesn't show that "I let things drop when people stop replying to me", I don't know what does.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 04:30 PM) Serious question: is there data out there that playing 162 games instead of 150 is going to up your chance of injury during the season? With out knowledge of any actual data I bet the increase of injury is almost 0. I agree, there's no reason to carry a backup 1b on this roster for Abreu when Dunn can be the emergency fill-in. Abreu should be pushed past 150 games this year. Seriously though, compare the two situations. We're so worried about backups for 1b for some reason that we have 4 different guys on the roster who can backup 1b (5 if you count Flowers). And I think that's a great illustration of why I'm still convinced this takes away a bunch of playing time from Abreu and hurts the roster.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 03:46 PM) The thought of Clowney and Watt on the same team is scary, but you have to get a QB. In this modern NFL if you don't have a QB, you don't win the Super Bowl. Now if they think they can get a Cutler or someone like him, I would go with Clowney. Houston is one of the those teams that could be a lot better next year. I feel the same way about Atlanta. The FA period would be over before the draft, so they'd know whether they'd landed a FA or had a solid trade option before the draft.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 04:06 PM) Not happening. You can bet the ranch on it. I'd agree with that after this signing. Reed/Jones/2 lefties/Belisario/Lindstrom is already 6 and I'd be stunned if they're not going to have one spot for either Petricka/Webb/whoever earns it. And heck, they may need to drop to a 6 man pen sometimes this year based on carrying an extra DH on the roster.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 03:38 PM) Here's a scenario: -Sox want 3 lefty, 2 righty rotation with Sale at the top, Q as a 3, X lefty as a 5 -Two trade options present themselves: 1 we deal Santiago away and pick up a really good looking MLB-ready or close prospect or else we get a young MLB player; 2nd scenario we get a decent looking reliever and/or UT prospect from another team that agrees to take on all Danks salary in the belief that Danks will return to near 100% prior effectiveness and they are getting a steal Which option do you take? Immediate salary relief + potential small piece with Hector in a guaranteed spot, or do you eat the money, deal Hector for another young piece that you believe can help now? Since I think both of them have the possibility to be substantially better this year, I move Danks's contract first unless I think I'm stealing someone in a Santiago trade. My real answer would be to wait for the deadline unless again someone offers something really tempting.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 03:00 PM) Apparently they have changed the rules and you can no longer call up someone from the minor leagues if your players get hurt. Thanks for the clarification. Apparently the idea of players breaking down if they don't get adequate rest seems to have eluded you.