Balta1701

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 01:18 AM) Except gas/transportation costs have gone up a lot compared to 15 years ago. And the costs for allocation of those vehicles, in general, for different tasks. But it's better than most of the alternatives. Which is why places like CVS and Walgreens have been getting in to the act...they're already in these locations with facilities anyway.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 06:30 AM) More people use AT&T and Verizon the the rest combined (by far), and both are quite expensive, upwards of 100$+ with the required and quite low capped data plan. Personally I use AT&T, hate it, have a smartphone, and pay substantially less than that. Perhaps you're referring to family plans only? Furthermore, it's worth noting that there are now a large number of providers who offer smartphone plans for 1/2 that amount, for dollar amounts comparable to the amount that a household would spend on telephone service anyway. So...you've clearly made the assumption that the poorest people who own smartphones will buy the same plans as the highest-income people who own smartphones, which is highly unlikely to be the case.

I'll call Toby Thomas

Cubs supposedly wanted to interview martinez

“@Schumouse: Derrick Rose has 70 points in the last 69 minutes he has played in the pre-season”

But the thing you guys are missing is that none of these things are going to happen until the economy gets back somewhere close to full employment, at which time the deficit mostly does close itself. That's why the CBO now says that the deficit as a fraction of GDP is now stabilized for the next decade plus; the interest rate spike prediction (which by the way we've been hearing from the same people incorrectly since 2009 for exactly the same reason, the fact that the economy has a giant un filled hole in it) only matters when people are getting back to work, paying taxes, and leaving unemployment. And also to note...the 30 year treasury rate is under 4% and has stayed there for years now. The actual market thinks that this interest rate spike will not happen in the next decades. (And no, this isn't because of the fed, when they would stop buying things prices barely changed).

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 06:46 PM) Because most smartphone plans are upwards of 100$ per monthum, no?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 02:28 PM) That is not a group with whom you want to be associated, I assure you of that. My recollection was 5/$60 from the White Sox and 5/$65 from the Orioles, but after taxes were included, his deal from Baltimore actually would have given him less disposable income. That's 100% how I recall it as well, the offers were just about equal with that taken into account.

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 06:19 PM) Instead of paying dearly for a player who's production has already starting dwindling, we get a cheap temporary replacement with offense that is just a step down from McCann. This simply isn't the case at all. 115 OPS+ for McCann last year, 94 for Pierzynski. The .722 OPS AJ put up last year was right in with his career norms. And if you're going to worry about McCann's production "already dwindling", come on, AJ is 5 years older.

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 06:01 PM) I know I'm in the minority but I think the better move at catcher is AJ Pierzynski. AJ could make sense if the team thinks Phegley is a long-term solution and AJ is willing to play about 50 games. I don't know if either of those are true.

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 05:42 PM) Glad this thread was made because we do still have the capability of spending. Not that either are likely in my mind, I am really starting to prefer Ellsbury over McCann. I hope we at least check in on him if he's 15-18 million yearly. The only way it makes sense to me is if we can get fair value in a trade for De Aza. The thing I keep coming back to is...I think De Aza is a 2 WAR player right now, give or take focus levels. Right now, Phegley is a 0 WAR player (although he could prove me wrong next year). That means to me the upgrade at the catcher's spot would give us almost twice as much bang-for-the-buck as an upgrade in the OF. If De Aza can be moved for someone else who contributes somehow, then that makes sense.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 05:26 PM) It is not about the money this organization does this over and over for no reason other than making someone's Dad happy. I just gave you other reasons in the previous post.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 04:49 PM) Only if they have numbers in front of them that the rest don't have that show somehow that their revenues didn't crater last year, and into this year. Keep another thing in mind though...even if the revenues dropped substantially last year...they also slashed payroll midseason and saved over $10 million. ($2 million Thornton, $5 million Peavy, $4 million Rios, give or take).

The other thing I definitely got when I visited Bristol was that the teams like having these type of guys around who have connections to the big league squad...they can hear things from above, they can send news and reports from above, and they also have grown up around major league front offices and locker rooms and can give the young guys insights into how to behave/prepare for those next levels. As long as they're not stealing playing time obviously from people who deserve it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 04:43 PM) His perks were still pretty nice at Apple, like getting a private jet and having his traveling expenses covered: http://www.redmondpie.com/steve-jobs-annua...ess-than-yours/ Let's also remember Apple wasn't nearly the company it is today until about 10 years ago. Absolutely true. However, the benefits of the transformation of Apple into a behemoth...didn't go to Steve Jobs. He drew a good salary with benefits yes, but he made probably 50 times more money at Pixar than he ever made at apple, give or take a factor of 2.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 01:52 PM) Or let me use another example, Steve Jobs 100 years ago, the jobs he created would have been solely in the US and benefitting US workers and the local areas they lived and worked. Now he created jobs in the US, but many more in other countries. yes, he was a job creator, but not nearly the extent that Carnegie was. And that isn't a complaint against Jobs, just the reality of today's world. One really interesting point is that by the standards of modern business leaders...Jobs's time at Apple was an abject failure. It made him a millionaire but the money he got from apple was pretty small compared to what he got from Pixar. Selling Pixar is what made him a multi-billionaire, Apple money was a small piece of the pie for him that really didn't pay off at all. Jobs created Jobs for tons of people at the place that he didn't rake in a fortune from.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 04:35 PM) Right, exactly. I'm just saying this is Jerry and his investors' money -- they aren't going to spend it just for the sake of spending it. But...if the opening day payroll comes in around $100 million...the people who have been screaming for years that the Sox are cheap will actually have a point for once. (That number chosen because they also get over $10 million to spend on kids next year...that would bring them roughly to the total amount they spent last year when you account for the trades...and they get the extra TV money on top of that).

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 04:26 PM) Yeah but money doesn't disappear if they don't spend it. Doesn't mean it will ever be invested into players though.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 04:13 PM) That would be a stretch. That'd be like adding McCann and Ellsbury and then some small pieces. But he's got a point on one thing...they saved over $10 million in salary this year on a team that started at $118 million. They're getting an extra $25 million in TV money. Including the Arb guys, we're at $80 million right now...so this team's cash position right now, after signing Abreu and assuming arb guys...is $50 million improved on last year.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 01:42 PM) So you eliminate loopholes that allow people to pay much lower than they should. Many people on both sides of the aisle wold go for that. But there is no reason anyone should ever have to pay more than half what they make to the government, no matter how much they make. We keep claiming that this is the case but it really isn't. This is the problem of asymmetrical interest. I may think it would be a great idea to eliminate a tax deduction that costs the government $10 billion annually for no real economic benefit, but someone is getting that $10 billion per year. That someone cares a lot more about that subsidy than I do about getting rid of it. I'm never going to come up with $50 million to lobby on behalf of getting rid of a billion dollar subsidy, but the people getting that subsidy will happily come up with $100 million a year to lobby for keeping it because the return on that investment is enormous. That's why the talk of "tax reform" keeps getting stymied. The people who get those deductions make a fortune on them, the people who would get rid of them would like to get rid of them but they're not going to put up any money to do so.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 01:00 PM) Have these top brackets ever actually paid anywhere near that, though? We often cite these historically high tax rates on the ultra rich, but I'm guessing none of them paid anywhere near that even during those times. Similarly though, many wealthy people can pay much lower rates right now. If you'll recall the example tax return of the last presidential election, Mitt Romney paid a 10% tax rate and he only did so because he didn't claim a couple deductions he could have claimed in the released version. (Now that he's no longer running for office he likely will submit a modified tax return for this year, bringing his total federal tax rate down to around 8%, which I note is less than I pay since the Payroll Tax hits me much harder than it hits him).

In the hypothetical scenario that the Sox did think that Phegley (or Flowers) was going to get another shot as the full-time catcher next year and could break out as a legit contributor...is there any other obvious LH hitting catcher who could fill the backup/part time role next to him?

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 01:19 PM) Cutler does all those things you listed. How about we add "can stay on the field at least as often as michael vick". (If Cutler misses more than a couple games, Vick will have played more than him the last 3 seasons).

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 09:42 AM) Kyle Seager? Brett Lawrie? Either of those would be an interesting option, but I would definitely think Lawrie makes sense as a guy we could target. They definitely have a strong need for pitching, and the fact that the Sox can send a tolerable player or two back who can cover 3b for them cheaply in Gillaspie so that it's not creating a mighty hole in their roster could be a key in making it work.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 08:22 AM) It won't be Hawkins doing the pushing. That comment was about Brandon Jacobs.