Balta1701

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) Again, yeah, great time for that, if you have the money. If you have maxed out your credit card, but the rate on getting another credit card is insanely low, and you think you can invest some money smartly... sure, it is tempting. It should be. But do you just entirely dismiss that at some point, if you run up so much debt, the risk is too high? No investment, infrastructure or otherwise, is without risk. You are failing to see that side of it. Lets ask this in a different way. The debt to GDP ratio in the U.S. is close to unity right now. That's not the highest its been in U.S. history, but it's getting close. However, Japan is facing a debt to GDP ratio of 230% and that will shoot up while paying to rebuild from the tsunami. The Japanese however are paying a whopping 3% interest on their 10 year bonds. Why should the U.S. debt risk be so much higher at 100% of GDP than Japan's is at 230% of GDP?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) Again, yeah, great time for that, if you have the money. If you have maxed out your credit card, but the rate on getting another credit card is insanely low, and you think you can invest some money smartly... sure, it is tempting. It should be. But do you just entirely dismiss that at some point, if you run up so much debt, the risk is too high? No investment, infrastructure or otherwise, is without risk. You are failing to see that side of it. Relative to the inflation rate...the yield on the 5 year T-bill is negative right now and has been for the better part of a year. If there are any things that the government would be spending money on, any construction projects, anything, it could actually save money by starting that project now rather than 5 years from now. The interest rate compared to even low-level 5 year inflation projections is negative. If we start something in 5 years, it will cost $100, if we start it now, we'll pay $95 (in constant dollars).

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:59 PM) He and Hudson are prime examples why teams shouldn't give up on good young starters because of a few rough starts, especially when they've shown swing and miss stuff. I don't think the Yankees necessarily "gave up" on Kennedy as much as really wanted the return in that trade. They gave up Kennedy and Jackson to get back Granderson. That seems like a fair price

QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:46 PM) Kind of like our prospects? Yeah. Our prospects stink when they go to other teams.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:43 PM) Jenks thought that the House-controlled GOP already did this twice. I'm fairly certain that the Senate would pass this quickly. He's wrong. The House voted 318 to 97 against a clean debt ceiling bill earlier in the year. (Most of the Democrats voted against it so that the Republicans couldn't use it as a political noose). Right now there's nearly 100 Republicans in the House who have signed a letter saying they wont' vote for a debt ceiling increase under any circumstances, I believe. Enough that Boehner can't pass a bill without substantial Democratic support. That means he'd have to bring the bill up for vote with substantial opposition from his own party, nearly half his caucus. That's a mess.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:41 PM) LOL no, a clean increase with no strings would pass easily. ? I seriously don't believe so. I don't think it would get through the House. I'm not sure about the Senate.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:38 PM) Hasn't the GOP done this? Twice? (to the zero for Democrats) But the Senate said no? And why waste all that time/effort if ultimately the President is going to say no, like he did last night? No, it has not been done, there was a "give everyone a chance to vote against a clean debt ceiling bill for political posturing" vote a couple months ago. The Republican who introduced the bill even voted against it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:34 PM) There's also this. I should correct myself. The "Bush/Obama tax cuts."

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:31 PM) And I think those are both stupid ideas. Burying us in more debt is a horrible idea of the long term, we need to start making dents in the deficit, then the debt, ASAP for many reasons. And even larger tax cuts is equally idiotic. If you want to make the deficit go away completely, just stick to current law. Thanks to the PPACA, if you stick to current law, the budget is fully balanced by 2015. There is only a short term deficit if Congress does things like extending the Bush tax cuts.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:27 PM) LOL, OK. You go right on believing that EITHER extreme is worth listening to in this case. You can believe that we shouldn't cut any spending at all if you want to, because of the delicate economy - and then see what happens to US paper. Or if you were on the other side, you can go right on fantasizing about miraculously creating growth by cutting government discretionary spending to the bone. Does anyone really accep that logic? Yes. I fully accept this logic. Virtually that exact statement has been written dozens of times since 2008, and still, "U.S. paper" has run well under the inflation target. Banks like JPM have lost billions betting you were right. Inflation is no threat until there is upward pressure on wages (unless we default). That won't happen with 9% unemployment. Every cut we make right now is a job that is cut, is a taxpayer that goes from paying taxes to collecting unemployment and Medicaid, and might well have virtually no impact on the deficit.

Jeff Karstens went to the Pirates from the Yankees in 2009 and he's lighting up a 2.28 ERA this season. For his age, Tabata hasn't been bad either.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:20 PM) Maybe, just maybe, Austin Jackson? I would also put Brett Gardner in that group. Jackson, I knew I was missing someone. Gardner is still a Yankee. No one disputes that they keep some solid guys. It's the guys they trade that people think go all Willy Mo Pena on the teams acquiring them.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:13 PM) Tonight's #WhiteSox lineup vs. DET: pierre7, ram6, pk3, dunnDH, q9, rios8, aj2, beck4, morel5, buehrle1 (game on CSN) Dunn Cleanup against a LHP with a 93 mph fastball.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:57 PM) Yankees prospects scare the s*** out of me. No matter what, it seems like if the Yankees deal them, they flop hardcore. Some recent succesful ones might include Ian Kennedy, Marcus Thames, Juan Rivera

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:09 PM) A thread about "Super Congress" and not one post mentioning super strength, flying, or mutations? I thought those powers were reserved for the Ex-Presidents.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:05 PM) 2. Among Congress and the PResidency, as far as I can tell, Obama is the only one trying to do anything sane here. I think it is fascinating that centrists and moderates seem to agree that Obama is the sane one, while the people deeply on one side or the other are saying it's all Obama's fault (but for different reasons - Dems because Obama is giving away lots of cuts, GOP because he wants to raise revenues). That tells me Obama is the one to follow here. Do people really accept this logic? Honestly? It seems like such a complete and total copout to me. I read it as saying "I can't be troubled to learn the logic of either side or both sides, so I'm just going to point at the one that sounds like they're in the middle of the 2 sides" Not only does it leave you open to having your own politics totally shifted because of either side shifting towards their extremes, but IMO, it also leaves you unprepared to evaluate proposals critically.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:24 PM) I have direct deposit but my physical check still comes through the mail. We still get a couple of bills via snail-mail and anyone that has a magazine subscription still needs it. I'd say that a whole lot of business clients still make use of postal delivery on a regular basis, I make use of it a few times a week either sending/receiving, both for work and personal, and it's probably a pretty decent communication line in rural areas as well.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 11:15 AM) Seems resonable, but I think long run, we're better off with Peavy in the pen for the remainder of this season. With what we've seen from Peavy so far...disagree. He needs to be out there pushing innings. It's the only way he's going to build back up the strength in his arm.

QUOTE (JohnCangelosi @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:13 PM) Please don't tell me Below is a soft tossing lefty???

Mark!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 10:07 AM) How the hell can you know that ahead of time? If nothing else, getting this guy out from under the gun is going to be a positive thing all by itself. If the well really is as poisoned there as has been portrayed, getting this kind of a talent is worth the shot. And again, this guy is already largely better than our current CF, even with as bad as he is playing right now. Hell that in itself could be the playing time argument you have made for Lilli. The point buried here is that all of y'all are arguing that what we'd be doing with this trade is acquiring an .850+ OPS corner OF (his defense in CF is below Rios's if you believe Fangraphs) while paying the price for a .740 OPS corner OF who is sorta on the bench. I just have a lot of trouble believing that this would work out as easily as we want. That no one else would step in with a better offer if they thought he was a .850 OPS CF, that the Cardinals would part with him for the price of a .740 OPS corner OF even if he was in the manager's doghouse.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 09:56 AM) Alex Rios - 28 at acquisition Colby Rasmus - 24 Alex Rios - $9.7 million in 2010, $12 million each in 2011 and 2012 and $12.5 million apiece in 2013 and 2014. Colby Rasmus makes much much much less. PLEASE don't compare those two situations again. The only similarity between the two players is the fact that it says "CF" next to their name. Rasmus hits from the other side, runs better, has world's better discipline, and more natural power. The situation in St. Louis is a f***ing joke. LaRussa has made it his personal goal to "win" against Rasmus, and publicly shoots the kid down every chance he gets. The dynamic between Rasmus and the club has further eroded since Mozeliak publicly asserted that he was adamantly opposed to trading the team's 2005 first-round draft pick. Manager Tony La Russa acknowledged before Saturday's game that he now considers Jon Jay his primary center fielder while Rasmus sorts through a two-month slump. La Russa two weeks ago defended his coaching staff against any charge of being unable to help Rasmus by citing Rasmus' preference for "outside" hitting assistance. Jay's Saturday start against the Pittsburgh Pirates was his fifth in eight games. Rasmus entered Saturday's game as a defensive replacement after pitcher Jaime Garcia was allowed to hit for himself with a runner on base in the top of the eighth inning. Only LaRussa would stick Jon Jay out there and make it so public he's doing so while benching Rasmus. Colby does not work well with LaRussa's pin-up boy Mark McGwire, and has been funding his own instructor just to get out of his slump. Of course, this doesn't sit well with Tony, as YOU MUST WORK WITH MY BABY BIG MAC. The situation is s***. The White Sox would be getting an elite talent and future superstar for a sweetheart deal here. If the trade were offered to Kenny, it'd be done already. Except for the difference in ages, the situations sound a lot more similar than you're willing to admit. Rios had issues with being coached and seemingly still does. The contracts, yeah, that's different, but I already admitted that. Rios was also a spectacular baserunner in Toronto, regularly at 90% on his stolen base clip, and generally expected to be a 30-30 guy when he was making AS teams at 25. Your entire argument here boils down to "Rasmus doesn't work with the Cardinals current hitting coaches and wants outside guys". Yet, you've given me no reason to expect that Greg Walker will be a guy that Rasmus will work well with. And even worse than that, we've already seen what happens with guys on the White Sox who don't want to listen to Walker's coaching suggestions...that's the Nick Swisher route. Why again should I think that switching to Chicago will correct these issues? I understand what the issues are, repeating them doesn't do anything for me. Tell me why moving to Chicago will be a panacea.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 09:43 AM) haha touche. i had my dates wrong. in any case - like was said above, his walk rate is really solid - last year, and the first chunk of this year, showed the potential this kid has. and yeah of course at this point it's still just potential, but again - if you can get ELITE potential while dealing a FA-to be pitcher and a 35 year old rp and ONE prospect that isn't named Viciedo... sigh. this is just going to go around and around and around because for some reason a bunch of y'all don't agree that that's a great deal for us. Let me put it this way. I've seen the Sox acquire an underperforming but very talented CF recently. We're currently regretting the Hell out of that move. Yeah, there's differences in contracts, but we also gave up nothing to get that current underperforming CF. I'm just asking someone to convince me about why Rasmus will come here and be an .850 OPS guy when he's a .740 OPS guy right now. Or at least tell me "He's got a xxxxxx that has bothered him all season right now". Or something like that. Y'all can't seriously expect me to believe that "Walk will fix him" is the answer.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 09:42 AM) Such a move would leave the team with just one big underperforming bad contract in Adam Dunn. Jake Peavy disagrees.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 09:33 AM) almost EVERY young player has a sophomore slump. almost. every. single. one. Why is he having a sophomore slump in his 3rd full MLB season?