Balta1701

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 03:23 PM) I get tired of the myth that Kenny has such little say in this organization. If KW made those decisions on his own I have no idea why he came back.

QUOTE (LVSoxFan @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 01:45 PM) Although is anybody else noticing how KW is escaping all blame for this in the media? I mean, in Beantown right now it's pretty much a given that Tito AND Epstein are on the way out. If nothing else, he did offer to resign, and was correct to do so. The owner has decided to retain him. Whatever that means in reality, my interpretation is that the owner himself had a lot of say in the signing decisions last year, because really, those busts were definitely fireable offenses.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 02:39 PM) JR will take alot of heat from Selig since he is on the MLB minority hiring commitee, If he hires Francona over Alomar or Martinez. JR to his credit has been a leader in minority hirings with KW as GM and Manuel and OG as manager's and I do not see that changing IMO. I just want the best guy to lead the Sox on and off the field. I can't believe that after the Sox's record over the past decade that JR would take any heat over that at all.

So, there was a meeting of the minds in Boston this morning, and Francona is at least not yet officially out, and no one is commenting on squat.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 01:11 PM) Even with the fall in attendance up there, it really doesn't leave much upside to sell more tickets. Again, 50k tickets or so = $2 million in revenue.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 12:35 PM) I think that is a question for both sides of town. Maybe I just have an unduly low impression of Cubs fans, but I feel like gimmicks work better on impacting ticket sales on the North Side.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 12:33 PM) I don't doubt this for a second. It would take some convincing to get LaRussa to agree as he's not keen on having KW remain as GM. I did find it interesting that Williams made a point of saying he could work with anyone in the Comcast interview. I'm surprised that Chairman Reinsdorf didn't move Williams up to pave the way for LaRussa's return. How do you know this?

I'm still undecided on how to feel about this one, so, since this is the Republican thread, I'll post Ron Paul's comments on that killing and see how things go from there.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 12:12 PM) i think their recent history with baker and piniella is going to deter them from going all out for the splashy hire. at this point the fans know the product on the field isnt going to the ws next year barring a massive offseason spending. hiring francona to coach a team that was put together on a budget isnt going to swing that fanbase anymore. they wised up this year, they didnt show up when the team sucked. francona isnt going to spin the turnstiles in july i6 the team is 20 games under .500 An extra $2 million is what, 50k tickets sold for the whole season? That's where I'm looking at it from.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 12:00 PM) That's actually a good point. I suspect you're right and that moves like the Quade hire prove it. I think the issue with the Cubs/Francona would be more the contract length. Signing him would probably provide the kind of boost that fanbase likes...he's a recent WS winner and that would probably pay in ticket sales for the difference between him and someone like Quade, but only for a couple seasons. If you have to lock him up for 4 years, then any boost from hiring a WS winning manager will fade away.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 11:58 AM) when did we start pretending that this is some sort of new idea? When we had a good example done by the Democrats.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 11:51 AM) This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't equation which makes having a discussion about it very hard, if not impossible due to the sheer number of factors that can be involved. Unfortunately, while these types of endeavors are very expensive, and often fizzle out, it's of my opinion that they're also necessary. When they don't fizzle out, you get things like DarapNET > ArpaNET > InterNET, and I don't see anyone complaining about that little invention. But that said, when they do fizzle out, you lose hundreds of billions of dollars with no explanation. IMO, the biggest problem today comes from the mass corruption, from both sides of the aisle, and the sheer cost these projects seem to run now. It's not even inflation adjusted money we're talking about in many regards, it's just out of the realm of sanity in blown up costs, such as loaning hundreds of millions on a single project that lasts mere months, with almost no accountability. When it works, and we invent something great, nobody cares how much it cost...and they shouldn't so long as it's something tangible and real, such as the Internet. But I'd love to see some line items and complete expense reports to see where this lost money went on the failed endeavors that resulted in less than nothing, but let's be real...they'll never show such a thing publicly, and if they do, it won't be for decades when it no longer matters and people have little recollection of the project in question. Let's make a key point here...no one has lost "Hundreds of billions of dollars" on any greentech investment. The Solyndra "corrupt loan" (which, at least based on my reading, was a reasonable investment at the time, although it seems like Dec of last year was the time to cut and run from that one) was $500 million. That is, for example, a factor of 18 less than the amount of money that the Inspector General said utterly vanished in Iraq.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 11:54 AM) i think your "deeper pockets" theory is going the way of the dodo. Ricketts is no Tribune corp The question is...is a manager who has 2 WS wins in the last 8 years worth an extra $2 million in ticket sales per year?

And I'm just imagining the people who take a possibly questionable but aggressive loan program (that was so awful the Bush Administration tried to approve it on January 19, 2009) and generalize to the idea that there is substantial crony capitalism in the green energy markets (not like those perfectly honorable fossil fuel markets).

Let's try to find an appropriate deep fryer.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 11:36 AM) Obviously we need more than we have added if the prices are up 50% since Obama took over, how is that not totally obvious? Especially when green energy policy in this country consists of giveaways to Democratic supports that aren't being based in reality, nor properly vetted. You're right...we need more energy production...but you still seem unclear on the concept. The global economy needs more energy than the globe can possibly produce from fossil fuels. The world is drilling and pumping like mad. The world has had energy prices through the roof for 7-8 years. It has not produced an increased production of fossil fuel energy...energy production has simply stayed flat. This isn't just happening in the U.S., it's happening everywhere. And "Since Obama took over"...do you realize how foolish using that standard makes you look? The stock market is up 40% since Obama took over, clearly everything must be fine and Obama is the best President for business in U.S. History, right? unless the January 2009 circumstances were somehow unique.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 11:32 AM) I am still 100% convinced that if the US government should be supporting any line of business right now, at all, it should be renewable energy. The positive impacts are simply huge. Which is of course why the House is so determined to cut renewable energy investments at the Federal level. After all, it's clearly wasteful spending.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 11:30 AM) So clearly we should protest and halt all efforts to increase supply. Which is, of course, the exact opposite of what we've been doing. But every time I point out that drilling in the U.S. is as active as its been since the 1970's, I hear crickets chirping.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 11:27 AM) What does that have to do with my post? QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 11:13 AM) Just because certain members of the Fed board feel that other methods may work better, that doesn't mean they are "ignoring half the law". It means they think that further action on their part in regards to employment is either too risky, or has too little effect, to be a worthwhile endeavor. Yes, he consistently predicts that additional fed action is too risky, and he has also based those predictions on estimates of recovery, growth, and inflationary responses that have been significantly optimistic.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 11:26 AM) The funny part is that about the time energy prices peaked, the economy fell off, just like I predicted it would. I'm pretty sure I've been writing that we're in an oil-supply-constrained economy since the 2008 price spike. The corollary to your statement is that any time the global economy tries to grow, if it doesn't become more energy efficient, it will cause a price spike that will cause yet another fall off.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 11:13 AM) For each of those two items, monetary policy has the ability to play a role. But that role can vary a lot, and in both cases, you have the problems of limited armament available, and of extent of effect versus other actions outside the Fed. When it comes to stable prices, monetary policy plays a big role (though there are other factors as well). That role has relatively predictable effects, and it is a direct action. Therefore, the actions take on that side are much more clear in need and response. But even in that case, other factors play in, and you do not have unlimited abilities. But when it comes to maximum employment, the effects of monetary policy are much weaker. If one believes that other actions - whether tax cuts or governmental stimulative spending, for example - would be more effective, and leave the Fed with more flexibility, then you have to weigh those. Just because certain members of the Fed board feel that other methods may work better, that doesn't mean they are "ignoring half the law". It means they think that further action on their part in regards to employment is either too risky, or has too little effect, to be a worthwhile endeavor. This is just not as black and white as you are making it. Of course, you really don't think it's going to be hard for me to find 2009 and 2010 vintage quotes from Chairman Plosser arguing that fiscal and monetary stimulus had served their purpose, we'd average 3-4% growth in 2010 and 2011, and the Federal Reserve should pull back on its QE1 programs and not do QE2 because it will drive massive inflation...do you? Here's his argument in 2009 that it was time to start pulling back (I haven't excerpted his predictions about growth, which were also missed). ANd here's him in 2010 on how QE2 would overheat things.

Just don't bring me that donut.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 11:04 AM) does that still exist on the site, or was it taken down? you can get basically the same info at Baseball Reference.com these days, so I think Kal stopped doing updates.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 11:01 AM) We have commodity based inflation all over the place, and that isn't good enough for you? Hell the the biggest tax of all against the poor is things like energy and food prices. I guess the poor don't really matter though because pretty much any left wing policy towards food and energy involves making them more expensive anyway. No, that isn't good enough for me, because the response to it should not be "Let's take fewer steps to help the unemployment rate". Of course you're going to say that's somehow not what you're arguing...but again, I'll come back to the inverse relationship between inflation and employment for that. But that's left-wing economics again. The best way to get commodity prices down and under control would be to substantially slash the economy again. If we decrease economic performance, we will again decrease demand for those goods. Otherwise, you're going to have to deal with the fact that commodities have suddenly become constrained due to an effect which isn't demand outstripping potential economic performance.

He's a Russky!