Balta1701

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 12:02 PM) You could, but you just said yourself that you shouldn't. Maybe I should have rephrased it as a product of playing with Brees and in that system And if I wanted to be picky, I could certainly say that Roethlisberger is particularly effective throwing down the field on broken plays, and that Wallace could easily have benefited from that. Anyway, Mike Wallace appears to be an excellent receiver, and I'd probably take him over Colston too, but mostly because of health reasons...if there wasn't also the draft pick involved. But I certainly can't say I'd "Much rather have him over Bowe or Jackson", and that was the original statement.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 11:44 AM) He never said that. Although he is better than Colston, who is a product of playing with Brees, and I'd take him over Bowe/Jackson/Jackson since he's less like to whine, pout or take plays off And I can't immediately respond that Roethlisberger is an excellent passing QB as well? Roethlisberger's QB rating over the last 3 years is ~ 96, compared to about 103 for Brees. Brees is clearly at another level, but over the last 3 years, Roethlisberger has been #5, #5, and #10 in the league in QB Rating.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 11:06 AM) But even in HAMP, this does appear to fall within those rules. Ok, then in no longer trying to be argumentative, genuine question...when did Congress ever explicitly approve HAMP? My impression is that it was just something that the Treasury created itself under its existing TARP authority, in which case they can just change the rules however they would want. Is there explicit legislative rules here? Your post makes it sound like there are, and that contradicts my current understanding of that program.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 11:26 PM) Again, this is silly. Wallace IS one of the top flight WR. I'd much rather have him than Bowe, Jackson, Manningham, Colston, Wayne, etc. Really? How on Earth do you come to the conclusion that he's vastly better than Bowe, Jackson, or Colston? He's not obviously higher than any of them in terms of total receptions, total yards, or yards per reception.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 10:45 AM) Fine, give Viciedo some of Lillibridge's AB's vs RHP, but I want to see both de Aza and Fukudome in the lineup vs RHP the first month or so to figure out how they are going to do. Why on Earth is "Figuring out what a 35 year old is going to do" against RHP any sort of priority whatsoever? He has a .775 career OPS against RHP, and if he's going to do better than that, it's going to be based on luck. His numbers screamed downwards last year compared to both his career and the first half, with a .723 OPS against LHP on the year. He is the definition of a backup. Play him like a backup. When someone needs benched (hi my name is Alex Rios), bench them. When someone needs a day off, give them a day off. But we don't need to see what he can do, we don't need to develop him, he doesn't need his at bats, and all treating anyone as a platoon player with him will do is retard the growth of a guy we actually need to perform. If someone in front of him totally fails to perform, then you evaluate what the best thing for that player's development is...whether it's a week off or some time down at Charlotte. The idea of another platoon because we're scared to trust the guys we need to trust really angers me. It was one of the worst things Ozzie did. Still say it cost us the 2006 division. If the kid is coming up, play the kid.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 10:21 AM) Congress DID approve the MONEY for HAMP, and the spending within HAMP falls within the confines of what Congress set out. How can you not see that? And it doesn't matter what agency the revenue from the settlement is accounted to. It is a revenue item somewhere, and the only way any agency can spend it is if their legal charter establishes in law such spending. For example, the Department of State takes in revenue for passports, and it can obviously use that money, within certain parameters. Does Treasury have a Congressionally-approved mandate to be able to re-spend money it receives via legal settlements as it sees fit? Maybe, but I doubt it. Where is the Treasury department taking any revenue in here? Where is the federal government taking in any revenue? If the settlement is structured such that there are 2 parts...payouts to the states so that the states go away, and then writedowns of private mortgages, with additional HAMP funding going to the banks to grease the wheels, there is no money taken in to the Feds that Congress needs to disperse other than previously allocated TARP funds. This is probably why they wrote the settlement that way anyway, so that there would be nothing for Congress to approve.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 09:30 AM) LOL...you aren't one for the drama. You view 2012 simply as a developmental season. Some people think we have a shot to win. I'm looking to balance the two, at least at the beginning of the season. I think Fukudome can be extremely valuable to us in the #2 spot against RHP. I want to get his bat into lineup as much as possible against RHP in April. That means Rios and Viciedo will need to sit sometimes and I'm fine with that. Viciedo had a sub .500 OPS against RHP last year. I'd rather pick matchups where he can succeed initially and gradually give him more playing time througout the season. I'm not so sure having him struggle terribly is necessarily better for his development. Some guys that struggle early on develop bad habits and get away from what made them successful in the first place. If we have a shot to win, we are not winning without Dayan Viciedo raking. It really is that simple. Kosuke Fukudome putting up a .750 OPS if we're lucky in the 2 spot will not make this team competitive.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 09:06 AM) Here is the key difference you keep dancing around... HAMP was money approved by Congress to be spent in a specific way. Regardless of whether it was part of TARP or not, Congress approved the spending. Money coming from this legal settlement is a Revenue item to the US government. The executive branch, in my view, cannot simply spend money as it comes in, without Congressional approval. Does that make it more clear? No, because HAMP was never approved by Congress. The treasury department received approval to spend $700 billion under TARP as it saw fit, with the guidelines that it was spent for these goals: "(1) protecting home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings, (2) preserving homeownership, (3) promoting jobs and economic growth, and (4) protecting the interests of taxpayers. ". Congress effectively approved the Treasury department spending TARP funds however it wanted in the housing market. Furthermore, I don't see any evidence anywhere that the Treasury Department is taking in any income through this settlement (show me where I'm wrong). The 2 parts of it i can see are payments to the states and mortgage writedowns (financed by the HAMP program as I've noted).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 10:30 PM) If you want the full protection of the First Amendment, put your name on it. If you want to run ads, dont hide behind a corporate shell. Technically, Congress through its authority to regulate interstate commerce could actually ban this part of the practice if they wanted to. They can't prevent large private and corporate donations to PAC's, but they can still set the disclosure rules. The DISCLOSE act was proposed to do something similar, requiring statements of corporate political spending and with whom, but it died on the Senate by a vote of 59 in favor and 39 against (which tells you something else about how stupid this system is).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 08:38 AM) If you read the entire thing I posted instead of that one line, it would make sense. The "US", as meaning a party to a suit, agreed to a settlement. But that is not the same legal authority as the "US" that passed HAMP, because of the key difference about purse strings. Did the "US" actually pass HAMP or was that TARP money (I like alphabet soup).

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 08:43 AM) Also sounds too good to be true, and a business model that is destined to crash and burn. It basically relies on people gambling, and it's legal to do over the internets (so far). There's a limit to how big they can get since the rewards aren't "Cash", but the gambling market in this country seems healthy to me.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 08:00 AM) This is how I'd start out the first month or so. Inevitably guys will play themselves into more playing time and some less. If the outfielders hit well and an infielder struggles, Lillibridge can take more IF at bats and leave more for Viciedo. Or if Dunn never recovers Viciedo can play more 1B/DH. There are a lot of possibilities, but this is how I'd start out to get a chance to evaluate everybody. If Dayan Viciedo needs to play his way into playing time over a veteran, put him at Charlotte and stop the charade. Or Hell, just release him. He's proven everything he can prove against minor league pitching, he's proven he can hit some levels of big league pitching, but he hasn't yet proven he can adapt to big league pitching as pitchers learn different ways to attack him. You know how to prevent him from ever learning that? Putting him on the bench/platooning him. He also hasn't proven he will be a solid RF. You know where he won't learn how to do that? On the bench.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 08:03 AM) I thought Ozzie did pretty well managing the bullpen. It's filling out the lineup card where I thought I could do much better than Ozzie. Managing the bullpen? Maybe. Knowing when to pull Jake Peavy and Philip Humber as starters? Awful, awful, awful. Maybe the worst decision making I've ever seen by a Sox manager.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 08:33 AM) Even with all of that factored in, I still think the Tigers are that much better than the Sox. 2k5 and I agree here. The Tigers won 95 games last year. They then added Fielder. There's definitely some downside room for them. Verlander won't repeat last season, so subtract 2 wins there, maybe subtract another win for Valverde not being magic, probably subtract a win or two from either Avila or Peralta not having incredible seasons...but that's still starting with 88 wins if a lot goes wrong. Then, add in a full season from Fister, maybe some improvement from Porcello, maybe some improvement/consistency from Scherzer, Turner in the 5 spot, and on paper they've shored up the rotation which was a weak spot last year, then add in Dotel to the bullpen. And then you still have room for kids like Austin Jackson and whoever they have in LF to grow a little more and improve still. If no one from their big 3 gets hurt or falls apart, that's a 90+ win ballclub.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 08:30 PM) More on the productivity, wage and COL gaps: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis...-come-from.html Meh, I wish there was a better discussion there.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 04:05 PM) Because it wasn't agreed to by the US. How is that even possible when the Dept. of Justice was a major negotiating party in the creation of this settlement?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 06:49 PM) Who is this player you speak of? You're telling me that if we're talking "Player ceilings/upside", Carlos Quentin's ceiling isn't an MVP caliber OF? Considering he was an angry slap of a bat away from being an MVP once, that's clearly his upside...he just can't reach it because of injury. Similarly, Jake Peavy's upside is a Cy Young award winner, but he can't reach it any more because of injury.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 05:07 PM) It would also be impossible to paint a picture so pessimistic I'd argue with it. I think the proven part of the talent is down from last year, the upside is higher (even subtracting Dunn and Rios). I believe the attitude will be better. I really disagree with the idea that the upside is higher. That's the one thing I can't see. Last year's team had a huge upside. This year, we've subtracted an MVP caliber OF, a near all star reliever, and a guaranteed 10 win, 200 inning pitcher. The fact that part of the "Upside" goes into replacing the upside of those guys means that at very best, last year's team had a higher ceiling.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 02:30 PM) I don't see how the settlement against the banks here can leverage the HAMP monies in that way, I don't think that is legally valid. I also think we should wait to see how the supposed clause is actually written. That said, I am glad this is being discussed, on the off chance it really is that ridiculous of a hole. And if it is that ridiculous, not only is it bad for all the obvious reasons, I'd suspect there will be court challenges as well as a lot of political vitriol well-deserved. How can there be legal challenges to a settlement agreed to by the US and 49 attorneys general?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 01:18 PM) You're not going to get a 1st rounder that would equal the talent of Wallace. If this last NFL season showed us anything, it's that a powerful offensive combination masks a lot of other deficiencies in your team. I'd do this in a heartbeat. Really? No one in the first round will be equal the talent of a guy who went in the 3rd round himself? Exaggerate much? Seriously...if Wallace was the only WR on the market, I'd say yes and spend the money + pick on him. He's probably not even going to be the best WR on the market, and the others won't be restricted. If it costs an extra $1-2 million to bring in one of the other guys, the draft pick is worth way more than that.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 11:48 AM) I hope he's just the CEO of the team, so to speak. He can't know anything about handling pitching. I would think he has never has thought much before about hit and running, when to steal bases, etc. I hope he lets Cooper make all the pitching decisions and his bench coach most of the other in-game decisions. The guy has absolutely no experience. That's OK, though. Ozzie was hated so much by fans he's an easy act to follow. Hopefully a guy who played 3b and actually had to do things like know when to hit and run will be decent at knowing when to hit and run.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 11:07 AM) You can't really blame them though, in 84 they had Drexler and Bowie looked legit and Oden would be the best big man today if his health wasn't so s***ty, I remember watching Oden vs Howard a few years ago and he was manhandling Dwight. Most teams will pick a legit looking center because thosr guys are far and few between. I think there were a fair number of people worried about Oden's long term health coming out of college. Of course, with Durant being a twig, there were probably just as many worried about him...but that's why you do physicals and such.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 11:40 AM) It's seemingly doable, but for a team like the Bears that has a lot of other issues that they need to address, giving anywhere around $10 mill this year to a WR plus a franchise tag on Matt Forte while giving up their first round pick doesn't seem wise. This seems more like a move that the Patriots or Ravens would make where their teams are good all around but their one glaring weakness is a deep threat WR. I wouldn't give up the first rounder and the money. Too many uses for both.