Balta1701

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 04:45 PM) That's what I asked in another thread when people were counting that and draft pick money and int'l signing money toward payroll. It never got answered and it needs to be answered. I don't think anyone can tell whether Hahn is bluffing or not when he says the total for the year is $85 million. He could count things either way. However, if we're trying to assess "does this team have money to spend right now" then it absolutely makes sense to account for Abreu's signing bonus and the additional draft/international spending if we're comparing to where we were last year.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 04:08 PM) I'm not changing the game, you said Bush is partly at fault because his policies (on terrorism, 7-8 months into his presidency...a poor claim to start) caused 9/11. How someone can be responsible for something that literally no one could have predicted is beyond me. You're grasping here over your hatred of the guy. And ok, so you're blaming Bush for the failures of constructing levees undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers in what, the 60's? 70's? So for every road accident out there caused by faulty design you're blaming Obama because he didn't spend money to fix it? I mean, I get it, Bush is to blame for everything in the world from 2001 onward, but the 60's? That's a bit much. If a bridge fell into a river tomorrow and it had been removed from the list of "things that need to be repaired" in order to come up with funds to pay for the Medicaid expansion, you'd have a great point. And literally everyone in that community was screaming "something big is about to happen please do something about it". That is documented over and over. The last time that happened in the intelligence area was the millennium plot, which the previous administration went into crisis mode in response to. When they got the first hints of a guy arrested that might have been connected, they rolled the plot up completely because they were watching for it.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 03:43 PM) Im still on the fence about Tucker. He never really had a chance this season with all the injuries. I wouldnt be opposed to a change but its obviously very unlikely after one season. Emery has been solid with addressing team needs so far so hopefully that continues. That defense looked awful when healthy.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 03:51 PM) Was/is AQ the only terrorist group out there? I agree the claim was exaggerated, but at the time i'm not sure it was out of the realm of possibility. Again, we just had 2 planes crash into a building. Security and threats in 2001 were unknown. Then don't launch a gigantic, full scale invasion of a country until they are known.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 03:45 PM) That 9/11 commission was horses***. Go watch the HBO documentary on the team that was hunting Bin Laden for decades and all of them were SHOCKED that he was able to plan a domestic attack like that. They suspected he might be planning something, somewhere, but no one in any intelligence community thought he would crash 2 planes into the WTC. The 9/11 commission and all those hindsight conclusions are no different from a corporate injury report that lists a "cause" of an accident. 99.9% of the time it's not proof of any negligence, it's just trying to attribute blame so that people feel better about safety. The Katrina claim is a joke. The state and local governments are to blame. They had all sorts of money for public improvements over the last how many decades and they never fixed the levees. They lined their own pockets. Seriously, if all you have is "the government cut taxes and didn't spend more money!" is all you have, that's a really weak claim. Well of course no one thought they would "crash 2 planes into the WTC". You've just changed the game though. Everyone in the intelligence community knew "something big was about to happen". Something big happened. The intelligence community had every bit of information they needed to unravel that attack, including people in custody beforehand, but there was no one "shaking the trees" at a top level to try to put together all of the correct details. The Army Corps of Engineers is 100% responsible for the construction of those levees, and the final reports found that the failures were 100% due to design flaws; lack of height and failure to understand sediment conditions. In ~2003, there was a report put out naming the 5 most likely natural disasters to hit the United States and its infrastructure over the next several decades. The earthquake on the southern San Andreas was #1; a storm destroying the Levee system in New Orleans was #2 on that list. The night before that storm hit I got radio reception in the middle of the Beartooth Mountains. Every single person in my group of geologists said "well, that's it for that city". Everyone knew what was going to happen, the levees needed rebuilt to modern standards but the money was spoken for. (Interestingly, another item on that list was a major hurricane striking New York City). And as I said...when one of these disasters strikes...the only organization that is going to be able to provide aid is going to be the federal government. That's the case all the time; states can help but every single state and local agency is going to be completely overwhelmed. That's the rule, not the exception. The only ones who can respond to a disaster like that are the people at the Federal Level, and they spent the day having cake with John McCain.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 03:38 PM) Would they have still given him that same contract if they could go back to that moment with the knowledge he was going to be a full-time 1B as early as 2014? I think so. The thing that makes you question that contract is the disappearance of the power he showed in that MVP campaign.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 03:25 PM) 9/11 and Katrina were partially the fault of Bush policies? Really? And Iraq is still no Vietnam. Just add it to the list of failed US military intervention. That's how it will be viewed in the eyes of history. On 9/11 his administration absolutely played a role. I'm not hanging this entirely on them, so let me be clear, but the 9/11 commission report could not have been more blunt on that fact. They came into office weeks after the organization responsible for the Cole attack had been understood. The Clinton team said they weren't willing to start a long campaign with only a couple weeks left in their administration and left that to the Bush team. The Bush team came in focused like a laser on national missile defense. By all accounts, the people in the intelligence community were begging them to focus more on Al Qaeda and screaming something was about to happen. I believe the phrases "summer of threat" and "all signs were blinking red" were used in the testimony or something like that, however, there was absolutely no efforts taken in response to those threats. I'm not sure if the quote "all right, you've covered your a**" that Bush supposedly said after receiving the August 6 PDB is factual or not, but it sums up their response during that year. Now to add some of the cautions. They certainly weren't the first president to underestimate that threat. They certainly inherited an intelligence organization that was bloated and unable to process its own information rapidly enough. They inherited an FBI that wasn't thinking about that group. And they were absolutely hamstrung by long delays in the Senate getting people confirmed -a problem the 9/11 commission recommended we fix and a problem that has only gotten worse since. So don't get me wrong here, there's more than enough blame to go around. Pick your fraction, they need a very significant portion. And on Katrina...yes...a whole lot of that failure hangs on them. Again, not all of it...you can blame Nagin for not having a plan to get people out, etc. But the Army Corps of Engineers could have fixed those levees years beforehand had money been available and had it been a priority. It wasn't, tax cuts were. And the only organization in this country who can respond effectively to a multi-state, war zone level disaster is the federal government. That job was left to the former head of the Arabian Horse Trading Association.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 03:17 PM) The defense seems like a lot cause right now, but if they can make some strong moves they can repair a good amount of it with a few moves. Hopefully they can rework Peppers contract again. It will nice to get Briggs back and maybe they can resign DJ Williams. They need to get rid of Anderson for sure and at minimum need 1 new starting safety and another defensive tackle and probably a corner. Look what they did to the offense in one offseason, 4 new starting offensive lineman and a tight end. It remains to be seen if Bostic or Green will be able to become competent starters, but its at least nice to have some youth at the position. SMc also had a very nice game against Green Bay so maybe he can contribute. If they can tweak the secondary and shore up the dline they might be able to turn it around pretty quickly. I think that a coaching change needs to happen on that side of the ball as well.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 03:08 PM) Vietnam, to me, was worse...I realize Iraq and Afghanistan are looked at as horrific mistakes in judgment, and I agree they were, but I also think we need to recall this was the first time since Pearl Harbor that we've been attacked on American soil (not that you could forget) and there was incredible pressure to react. I'm not saying what ultimately happened and the duration of it doesn't rise almost to the level of indefensible, but I think a LOT of Commander's in Chief would have fallen into the same trap. Then as soon as you get in there you're constantly making decision after decision to justify earlier decisions and casualties. It's all too easy to criticize now, but to pretend as if the decision, at the time, was a simple one, is unfair. An awful lot of people voted to enter those wars. We can all say we were duped by the supposed evidence of wmd's but let's face it, people were going to see what they wanted to see to justify enacting revenge on the Middle East for having the audacity to attack American soil and to hit those targets in particular. Frankly, I heard everything they said at the time in 2003 and I thought it was a very simple choice. I looked at their case and thought anyone who listened to them was a fool. I even gave them their fair shot, at least through Bush's speech in October 03 to try to sell the thing. Didn't join the anti-war segment until after that. It was 100% abundantly clear that they wanted a war and they were willing to do anything possible to get it. And if "we needed to kill more people in response to 9/11 and Afghanistan wasn't good enough" was in fact the real reason for that war...well then the people who made that call are truly sickening. I know at least NYT columnist Tom Friedman endorsed that perspective and I think that's a fair word for it.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 03:12 PM) It has been a brutal year injury wise league-wide. I think that seems more accurate to me.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 02:53 PM) I agree. The president is just one part of history. But for that President in particular, I can point to at least 1 of his disasters and say "This was entirely his choice, to the letter". You can spread blame around for the economic crash, 9/11, the drowning of an American city, the debacle in Afghanistan to some degree, the surveillance state, but his policies definitely played into all of those. But the Iraq war, why-ever it was launched (a book is coming out soon/just came out trying to puzzle that out and still coming up with no good answer)...that was 100% his choice. How that war was planned, the torture campaign, the details...in 30 years historians will be telling that story as "his war" and "his failure" because it was. It may not have been at the level of the second world war, but that was just about the second longest war in American history.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 02:48 PM) Wouldn't that still give you $10 million left to play around with? I think Abreu was $17 million this season... We're at $50.2 million guaranteed for 6 players other than Abreu. $67 million with Abreu for 7 players. B-R has $12 million for arbitration with De Aza, Beckham, Viciedo, and Flowers. That's probably a reasonable number, maybe $1-2 million high if the team is good negotiators or cuts Flowers loose. That's $79 million for 11 players. Fill in the roster and you need another $8 million for 14 players who make close to or just above the league minimum. Thats $87 million. If the payroll is $85 million, we're already there.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 02:46 PM) I don't follow politics like you guys do, but my thoughts are just that you can't compare Obama's Presidency to any in recent history...has anyone ever had to deal with this level of idiotic stubbornness from the opposition party before? Or since Lincoln anyways? Seems to me like the game has entirely changed. 2 presidents ago, we had a president impeached but not convicted, we had a completely unified opposition voting against his tax policy, we had a very long government shutdown driven by party out of control of the White House, and we had people coming up with literally insane conspiracy theories about the President non-stop (see; Congressperson shooting a watermelon to demonstrate how the President arranged the murder of one of his staffers). A few differences might well be that I think the world is facing bigger challenges right now thanks to the wars of 2001-2009 and the darn near complete economic collapse. The expansion of the filibuster/shutting down of the normal judicial nomination and appointment nominations processes probably deserves to go on the list in favor of your point as well.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 02:41 PM) Merkin just published an article with a lot of stuffing, but two interesting tidbits: --The Sox HAVE talked with Saltalamacchia's camp already --The Sox will apparently have a payroll in the vicinity of $85M to work with. I believe they are currently in the high 50's, without getting into arb or pre-arb numbers. That doesn't count Abreu. If you count Abreu and reasonable arb numbers, they're at ~$87 million. If that's the payroll, they are done.

Tonight should be the first time Derrick Rose has ever faced Kyrie Irving.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 02:15 PM) People f***ing bring it up and I respond. I feel the same way. Because you constantly insult anyone who works for the public sector.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 02:02 PM) Nothing extraordinary, either bad or good. This is about the most incorrect description of the period in United States history from 2001 to 2009 I can possibly imagine.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 01:33 PM) It was actually on the show the Sox did on MLB Network. Thome wanted to come back and would have played for $1 million. Ozzie wanted more flexibility with the DH position. JR said Ozzie should get the type of team he wanted to manage. Thome went to the Twins, had a great year. The Sox power was short, needed a left handed bat, and wound up with Dunn in 2011. One other detail was that Kotsay had arrived late in the previous season, Ozzie liked his "leadership" and insisted he be retained. He was re-signed in October of that year, filling one of the roles on the bench. Since he wasn't really useful in the OF, that meant the White Sox were going into the next season with a national league style pinch-hitter on the roster who could occasionally play some 1b. The decision to sign him made it really hard to sign Thome as well because that would use up roster spots needed for guys who could play the field. It wasn't the key factor, that was Ozzie wanting to rotate the DH position, but the fact that an NL style pinch hitter was already under contract probably played into the decision.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 12:19 PM) You're missing a couple things. We were at 119 last year to start the year with only the players on the 40 man. No draft spending factored into that number. Consider the extra 25 million for the TV deal and dock 10 million for lack of attendance. So taking that 87 million number you threw out there, there is 32 million just to get to 119 million. A number we could possibly pass due to the TV deal. Do I think we'll start '14 with a payroll over 110 million? No, but there is room if the right move presented itself. Why is the bolded the appropriate assumption? Dont forget they also slashed ticket prices last year and still saw a drop in attendance. Revenue could well be down more than that. And on top of that...you're ignoring the fact that the Sox did not pay $119 million last year. They might have been prepared to pay that much had they had a winning season but they did not. They cut probably more than $10 million from their payroll during the season - and don't forget how adamant they were about not sending money with the people they were trading.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 10:05 AM) I don't agree on Roberts being purely aligned with big business. What he is, is aligned against certain extensions of regulation. By nature that is often pro-business, however, his PPACA decision was certainly the opposite of that. Here's some actual numbers if you want to see how far the court has lurched in favor of the Chamber's positions in the last decade. Yes, that was pre-PPACA and that was one big case; the question is how you weight that one case against dozens of other ones. Another big difference is the willingness of this court to overturn or completely change policy based on 5-4 decisions; I'm under the impression previous courts have shown much more restraint in doing that with narrow votes.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 09:55 AM) Roberts, despite your dislike of him, I think has been pretty consistent in how he reads things, and he has not been a conservative rubber stamp. He's been a big business rubber stamp more than anything. That's where he's really made the difference - if you bring a case conservatives might care about against big business...he votes along with the Chamber of Commerce almost every time. I'd say he certainly put a heckuva lot of effort into it, but couldn't get the Congress to go along.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 09:05 AM) Well there may be. If Paulie comes back ( hope not) he may be reduced to a DH. Abreu is going to play 1B but we are not sure how well. When the Red Sox were looking at him, they projected him as a DH when Ortiz retired. Just to stress again from a baseball perspective...let's imagine that the Sox sold off Dunn and re-upped Konerko. De Aza Beckham Garcia Abreu Konerko Viciedo Ramirez Keppinger/Gillaspie Phegley/Flowers No one sees the obvious baseball problem there? Our lefties are De Aza and Gillaspie. Just from a baseball perspective that's a lineup set up to be destroyed by RHP.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFan05 @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 12:01 AM) The weak Alexei to St. Louis rumor should be dead now. The Cards and Rockies are discussing a Tulowitzki trade (Cards would be incredible if he stays healthy). On an unrelated note, Gordon Beckham got married yesterday. So it becomes clear that St. Louis is willing to take on salary if they can get a serious upgrade to their SS position, no deal is yet completed, the Sox have a SS who costs substantially less than that guy and doesn't have the health concerns, and that is supposed to "kill" the rumors rather than "inflame and encourage" them?

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Nov 10, 2013 -> 07:42 PM) Yankees acquired Vernon Wells with basically a 2 year/$14 million contract. I'm sure they would be willing to take on 1 year of Dunn for $10 million. I could see Texas willing to do it as well if they miss out on McCann. Mitch Moreland is their best LH bat. But there's no way they'd give you anything of value if they need that bat.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 10, 2013 -> 06:45 PM) Except the IHS was designed and implemented as a defense program. The Supreme Allied Commander oversaw its construction! He got the idea in war, he literally said this would be for the defense of the USA. Stated goals and s*** dog. That's a whole different story than cowardly adhering to my definition of what government should do (mainly because there's no real way to defend anything else they're up to) and then trying to improvise ways all your pet issues help defense. B-b-but the soldiers want free stuff and I want free stuff! Gubmint, oh lord and savior Gubmint, give us some more free stuff because itll make us safer. And now it's barely used for that. When new roads are built, they're not conceived for defense purposes. Literally no one thinks "Hey we need to rebuild this road because the army might need it" or "we need a new highway here to allow for troop movement in the event of a soviet invasion". It's an insane stretch, but hey it lets you sleep at night and hate the right people without feeling guilty, so go with it I guess. Maybe the next time you look down at those miles of concrete and aggregate, you'll realize that today, you hate everyone driving on that including yourself and think they're all scum.