Balta1701

There's really no way this ends well.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 08:56 PM) I'm starting to think Verlander is on PEDs. Since when did he throw 101? He threw 97-98 max when he first came up in the majors. Pitch fx has had him at about an average velocity of 95 since he came up, and in 06-07 he'd occasionally top 100. He had a yer in 08 where he didn't hit 100 then he brought it back. 08 was also his worst season.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 09:09 PM) I'm going to go with Soylent Green for short. That's...not half bad.....

I think so

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 06:44 PM) I forgot about 06 and 17. And Sox actually made it to the WS in 1959 I believe. Quite a drought after that. You won't get me to utter a negative word about Joe Crede. I stand by my statement that we don't win that year w/out him. For once greg...correct.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 06:37 PM) LOL at another home loss. It's hard to have this bad of a home record even if u tried. Ozzie is trying.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 06:00 PM) You're getting warm... You can't be seriously going for "the government shouldn't do these things in the first place" as a blanket statement.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 05:58 PM) So where would it fit, "the government contracts out way too much and should just get out of a lot of these tasks completely"? Since you couldn't take the time to tell me which tasks and just adopted the mantra that the government always does too much, I'm going to guess that's a pretty Republican statement. Getting rid of building inspectors, food inspectors, police, IRS tax collecting, and the Dept. of Defense., yeah, sounds like things we shouldn't be doing.

Just so I don't have to keep the tab open, here's that full study.

While I await learning what the hidden flaw they didn't take into account is, back to a previous topic, Ron Paul being asked what should happen to a person without insurance who gets sick.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 05:35 PM) I love how everybody is just ignoring the cocaine part because of how fun the Glen Rice part is. Honestly, neither would surprise me (ESPECIALLY the Glen Rice thing). Can I ignore both?

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 04:42 PM) So, what would really be the point? All it really shows is the solution to cutting costs is to not fire public employees and hire contractors do to the same work that they were doing. And again I would say that is pretty obvious, IMO. If the public sector compensation is out of balance (and I haven't said it is or is not), then get it in line if that helps with costs. If the public sector compensation is in line with the private sector then the only way to cut costs is to get out of some of the work that is being done completely (not outsourcing it, just get out of the business of doing it). I don't think that's obvious at all...outsourcing to private companies with claims that the contract will produce savings, booking savings immediately, and then having the actual contract cost significantly overrun the estimate is a very common thing to do in government. Happens all the bloody time. Usually the contract happens to go to a campaign contributor, too. In fact, I'd say "The government contracts out way too much and should just directly employ people to do a lot of these tasks" strikes me as a point of view that fits quite well within the modern Democratic party.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 04:43 PM) Props to Leyland for not conceding anything. He's fighting for playoff positioning.

sigh

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 04:25 PM) But god, just keep Cooper and we avoid the problem! Cooper might not want to stay. Those have been his coworkers for years now.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 04:17 PM) IMO, both studies are probably crap because they try to twist the picture to fit their own conclusions. I'm not sure how the Heritage Foundation did it in their study, but it is a pretty blatant twist in this other study to not even compare the same things. Although this study states that it was motivated by Heritage, it's clearly not even trying to compare the same things. It is dealing with the effectiveness of contracting out, which is a totally separate issue from whether or not federal workers employed by the government directly are overpaid. It's a pretty blatant completely new topic.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 04:16 PM) I think you are right, but that isn't proof that you do pay off an entire contract when you cut someone. Those are two different occasions. Not what I was trying to say. I'm using that to point out that a normal org isn't sitting on $40 million in spare cash.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 04:13 PM) That isn't the same scenario to be fair. Cutting a guy is different than trading him and paying his entire contract (except the minimum). Am I wrong that cutting a guy = paying off his entire contract at that moment?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 04:12 PM) Huh? The actual Major League quote is "Oh nobody's listening anyway". 2k5's at the stage where he's not even bothering to type the word "body" any more to make the major league reference regarding this team.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 04:06 PM) Source? A normal baseball franchise wouldn't be sitting on $42 million in cash that they could jsut come up with. They'd either have to take out a loan to do that or cut back on salary next year by $30 million to come up with that pile of cash. I can recall a good example of Sosa getting traded to the Orioles and the Tribune company eating $10 million, where the $10 million the Tribune co. ate appeared in their official financial statements that quarter as one of the company's largest losses. Do you really need a source on "cutting a guy = buying out his entire contract"?

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 04:01 PM) Well, the article was written in a direct response to a report that states exactly the opposite. The problem is that they didn't do an apples to apples comparison IMO. They compared "in house" work to contractor work, which I would think is always going to be more expensive to bring a contractor in. You could throw in private company ABC instead of the government and they would probably come to the same conclusion. I honestly wouldn't know since A, I haven't researched it, and B, I only see the conservative research group side. It would be much better if they did a study that compared the same sort of thing that the Heritage Foundation did. The problem is...the Heritage method is the wrong way to do it. Controlling for education, age, etc., is the only proper way to ask that question. It would be much better if the Heritage foundation produced an honest study looking at that question, rather than forcing other groups to perform dishonest studies to match a dishonest methodology.

"Good"?

Should we go over to Marty's "We need to fix this rotation!" thread and say "Done"?

If nothing else...cutting him immediately means coming up with $42 million immediately, as opposed to paying it out over 3 years. THat's a very steep cost for a roster spot.

Everyone likes a good joke.