Balta1701

Ok Brent! Good call on the hit and run there Oz.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 02:25 PM) Leadoff walk. We'll take that. CS coming?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 02:21 PM) That's still better than Hawk with beer or no beer Really...no it's not.

Something delaying the start here?

Bring it Edwin.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 01:55 PM) I don't really care what my brother does. Does this really matter? Although we don't play MLB.. I don't know that it does matter, but I also don't know that it doesn't. I do know that Jordan Danks has failed to earn a major league roster spot even as a backup right now.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 01:35 PM) I guess that's sort of a bad comparison to make though. If the whole league is down, then the whole league is down, so the you can't take a team's numbers this year and compare to the league last year. Except for the fact that it makes your offense harder to watch.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 11:22 AM) From here, it sure looks as if Jordan Danks is a better player than he was a year ago. I would not be surprised if he makes Sox in 2012, as backup CF if nothing else. I think he will have an edge over Lillibridge next year. Only if they're really trying to keep D1.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 01:06 PM) I heard Michael Kaye on the radio this morning and TWICE he mentioned that the Yankees would be looking to add a starter "like a King Felix" before the deadline. Is Felix even available? The fact that he said it 2x made me wonder. No, Felix is not available. The Mariners have pitched themselves into contention and Felix recently signed a contract extension through 2014.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 01:12 PM) I can't remember, who did we get in that deal? Some rookie, I think they had him playing 3b.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 12:03 PM) What the f*** is Michael Jordan wearing? Does it look like his collar has baconed a bit to anyone else?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 12:25 PM) I think the original Star Wars movies fall into that category for sure. Those movies revolutionized action movies. They were like the Beatles for my generation. I'll take Empire up against any Sci-fi movie that's come out in the last 10 years. The only competition I can think of is the LOTR trilogy...and that was kinda a book.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 01:17 PM) But if it were any other year, both would suck hard. Not necessarily. If current trends continue, in 2-3 years, this level of offense could look remarkably good.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 12:17 PM) Cubs lineup has scored more than the Sox this year, but of course they have the advantage of having their pitchers hit instead of Dunn For once fathom... Props.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 10:44 AM) This is not the happy go lucky times for banks you seem to think. Have you taken a look at Wall Street profits since 2009? A new record every quarter just about.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 10:36 AM) Not really. The banks are mostly not getting what they want. But certainly you are right that they were let off the hook after TARP to some degree, and that's why I am saying it would be smart to tighten the regs, but do so clearly and immediately so that we can clear that hurdle. There's a 2 way street problem here, and it comes out of the Congress. The best way for this to work would be simple regulations. Both 2k5 and I agree on that. It saves accounting work (his opinion), it makes things idiot/lobbyist-proof (my opinion). Works either way. Problem is...the big banks know that too. If the regulations were simple, there wouldn't be workarounds. So any time a simple regulation solution...like an across the board limit on leverage, or having banks hold onto some fraction of assets they issue, or the dividing line between commercial banks and investment firms comes along...it gets hammered by lobbyists, so that it becomes complex enough that either they can lobby effectively on obscure issues or so that there are enough loopholes that the regulations really won't matter. What we wind up with is a patchwork of things that are occasionally effective but become huge enemies of the financial industry (See: the CPFB) and enormously complicated, loophole-filled regulations sit on the books, keeping lawyers employed finding workarounds and lobbyists employed rewriting the rules to make things slightly better for Wall Street at every step.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 10:17 AM) Is that the new explanation? Japan is sunk because they never moved their debts off of the books. Which coincidentally is what the Obama administration is trying really hard to do by stalling foreclosures, plus all of the ridiculous programs to go with it that haven't worked, but sure cost us a lot, and still keep debt and toxic assets on the banks books. That is, of course, what happens when we...um...listened to the banks (and you) and did exactly what they wanted. Remember your "Paying his neighbors mortgage" complaint? And the original Tea Party rant? That is exactly what that was about. If we took taxpayer money and did anything to really redeem those loans, it was bailing out people who screwed up unfairly. They had to learn their lesson.

Scalabrine is already reportedly on his way to Europe.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 10:10 AM) my turn Laugh all you want...that's the exact story of Japan's lost decade. Little to no inflation pressure, banks imploded due to risky assets that they never moved off the books, banks sucked up every safe asset they could find but had little reason to invest in anything new. Undershot inflation target...actually wound up in deflation.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 10:03 AM) Then don't expect banks to loan Exactly the point! They imploded themselves. The logical response is to grab every safe asset possible and avoid risky investments. There's no reason to expect them to loan on anything risky when they can be holding T-Bills. The way around this is to satiate the demand for safe investments by making their value go down and to make those previously risky investments less risky by making their safety go up. In other words, stimulate demand by making sure people have jobs and for God's sake don't undershoot your inflation target.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 10:02 AM) I like David Stern. Even if you think David Stern is the greatest commish any sport has ever had, you also have to add in the "but yeah, Sonics fans, we know" clause.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 10:02 AM) Dude is so going to be a stroke victim. 8 months of sitting back, watching film, and having no one to coach? Might be the longest vacation for him in his life.

Why do I love this?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 09:45 AM) Oh please. What, I can't play confused?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 09:44 AM) Who is responsible for the requirements? Considering how weak Dodd-Frank was in the first place, and the fact that they've only really changed capitol requirements for systemically important institutions...I'd say maybe the New Deal, since it created the FDIC which would shutter banks instead of letting the runs happen? Considering that the large banks leveraged what, 50-1 and then imploded? I'd say that they are.