Balta1701

Ah whiskey...

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 09:27 PM) I can't guarantee it, but my guess is the White Sox don't believe Jenks is washed up. You know, I don't think he's "Washed up" either, is arm still can pop 98, but I'm just not sure that he has any idea how to harness it anymore. We'll see if a new pitching coach can do it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 10:00 PM) What these GMs are faced with, however, is losing because of no relief corps, or overpaying for it. Is it acceptable to have a championship caliber team in place, other than an effective bullpen, and to not pay for it because it would be overpaying? Perhaps in a perfect world every team could develop their pen from within, but absent that, should a GM refuse to pay up? Wouldn't it be a waste of the other $100 million committed already to go into a season with an ineffective bullpen? It seems to me that this is a result of a need for some kind of certainty, even if it is based on hope or recent history, to have one's bases covered, rather than to go into the season with the prayer that the pen will take care of itself through a more efficient process. Furthermore, what's worse...going to 3 years with Jesse Crain, 4 years with Scott Linebrink, or 7 years with Carl Crawford/Jayson Werth?

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 08:59 PM) I think there's a few players that become available that make teams rethink their plans a little. Greinke may be one of those for many teams... again, just brainstorming here and thought of the Jays because they're mentioned in the main article The big difference is that he's only signed for 2 years. If it was like David Price who's under team control for a while, maybe, but if you trade for Greinke, you need to win this year. Bautista's a FA at the end of the year and God only knows what you get there, and then Greinke's gone next year.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 08:56 PM) Exactly. Which is why I believe the Jays wouldn't be a player. They appear to be totally committed to building from within. And although I don't know their system...I'd say that's exactly what they ought to be doing.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 08:54 PM) Also, some teams just roll the dice, baseball has been flat-lining in Toronto for a few years now, and if they think this might be the move to get some relevancy back, then they may pull the trigger. Trouble is, that's pretty much a recipe for long-term mediocrity, giving up things not because it's the best move to win, but instead because it might help put people in the seats.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 08:52 PM) The Jays are stacked with quality arms right now. That's why they were able to trade Marcum and not really downgrade at all. Which to me begs the question..."why would you give up quality cheap and under control arms for Greinke unless you think you can field a 95 win team next year with him?"

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 08:50 PM) I'm not singling this particular prospect out, hell he could be the next V-Mart for all I know and every team in the league's scouts agree on that, but I take NYY prospect trumpeting with a grain of salt because they're the Yankees. Not saying the org hasn't produced some wonderful players but there's also Joba updates we had to endure only because he was on the NYY. I totally agree, and if I were the Royals...I'd be a little excessively skeptical with any offer from the Yanks. I'd be demanding they overpay.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 08:13 PM) Well I'm not certain that they did. But even if they did, they'd be getting two pitchers in that scenario rather than one. I think this is probably also a scenario wherein the two sides were sort of ready to part ways just because of the wear on everyone involved. Not even necessarily a performance-related issue, but just because of the personalities. You really don't think the inconsistent performances of the last season mattered more than the personalities? I doubt they'd have cared one iota how out of shape Jenks came to camp every year if he put up an ERA of 1.50 each year.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 08:47 PM) if the Blue Jays can pull it off, it would be a major blow to the NYY The question for any team like that is...if you give up a major young piece for a $10 million a year pitcher under control for only 2 years, can you actually win anything to make it worth it? Even if Bautista repeats his year, I'm not sure the Jays can.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 08:43 PM) They're looking at a rotation right now of Sabathia, Burnett, Hughes, Nova and Mitre right now. Other than C.C., that's an extremely questionable staff. Nobody knows what Pettitte's plans are. Combine that with what the Red Sox have done and I guarantee you they'll make a huge play for ZG if he agrees to go there. If they give up that catcher Montero they probably have the ammo to get it done...but the issue is, they also want him in their lineup this year. So they'd wind up having to make themselves worse to do it at a different position, and Russell Martin isn't going to be an exciting option there right now.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 06:32 PM) Despite him losing some of the stuff he may have had 5 years ago, he still has quite a live arm relative to his competition. And yet, despite all that, when you're watching his fastball on TV, it looks about the same speed as Shingo's. I can't figure that part out.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 06:13 PM) I'm really hoping they play Tebow on Sunday, because before my degenerate ass left Vegas to come back to Chicago this week, I put the Raiders -6.5 in my parlay Frankly, the Cardinals are playing a 6th round pick as their starter. Their season is over. Put the kid out there and let him start getting game experience, even if you think he's a complete moron and doesn't belong in an NFL huddle. Miracles do happen.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 06:23 PM) oooo the general business of government? tell me more! You know, confirming judges, spending bills covering most of the things government does like the now-failed omnibus spending bill, etc.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 06:21 PM) The Red Sox showing him $12 million obviously points to the fact that they believe he can be an elite setup man or a potential closer. The numbers last year say that Jenks was in fact unlucky compared to where he should have been (way high BABIP, still decent stuff), and the Red Sox are the team most likely to buy that out of any in baseball thanks to Bill James. At least personally though, after watching him last year, I'll believe it when I see it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 06:03 PM) imo more than the congress of 2002-2006 Well see about that. Those Congresses passed the Iraq war, the Medicare insurance company bailout act of 2003, and a whole ton of tax cuts, in addition to the general business of government. (You didn't say they had to be good things).

I just learned that the Chief Operating Officer in charge of the Denver Broncos football operations is the cousin of one "George W. Bush". I think that explains a lot.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 05:32 PM) That would be my guess too, but this is the Yankees we are talking about. If I were an NL GM, I wouldn't hesitate about offering him $4/1.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 05:04 PM) Seeing him talking football gives me hope I can find a full time job that I am not qualified for. Governor of Alaska.

Senator Corker has threatened to pull his vote on the new START treaty if the Democrats pass the Don't ask, don't tell repeal. Senator McCain also delivered a rambling anti-new-START performance on the Senate floor which really wasn't linked to anything rationally. Both of them voted for the motion to proceed. If both of them vote against the treaty, it would stand at 65 votes in favor and fail. Edit; I think I was wrong, another place says Sen. Corker voted against the motion to proceed, but McCain did not. 66 votes would still be a failure.

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) is sounding like a no-vote on the standalone DADT repeal for whatever reason. That would mean that the Dems would need Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, and Brown all voting in favor of it to reach 60, with no other losses.

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 02:12 PM) So when's the physical so they can actually make this official? Sounds like next week.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 02:12 PM) OK, that's different. Of the money allocated, what is "spot on" isn't black and white. I think what you are getting at is, who determines what "wins" the grants? What value is being added in each case? I don't know those details. First, the NSF sets funding goals at the upper levels. These decisions are in part political and guided by Congess, and are in part governed by people at the upper level of the NSF. In general they're somewhat vague. For example, I might have a research directorate working on "new infectious diseases" or "environmental impacts of oil spills". Within that group, active scientists are drafted to form a review panel. The leaders of that panel are given a certain amount of funds that they can disperse. They set the rules for what types of projects they're willing to fund and make those available online through NSF's funding website. There is then a period of a few months where scientists throughout the country prepare and submit their grants. Meanwhile, a full panel of reviewers is set up. Those things aren't easy. You need to tell exactly how you're going to do them, you need detailed budgets, you need to establish that you have the equipment to do the measurements you want, you need to demonstrate how it will improve education, you need to establish how it will provide public benefits. In general, you send these proposals through several people at your own institution, through collaborators at other institutions, and through your university/insitute's office of research, all of which offer checks, suggestions, etc. Finally, you submit the thing 23 minutes before the submission deadline. Once the deadline passes, the several dozen or more appropriately directed and formatted grant applications are distributed to the review panel for a period of weeks. The reviewers then grade each one based on the requirements of the panel. The review panel includes both scientists and people representing NSF. In general the chairs are scientists working actively in that field, as are the large majority of the reviewers. The panel then meets and establishes group grades for each proposal, in person (i.e. there's no opportunity to anonymously game the system). In general, there is about enough money to fund the "A's" if you're lucky. Only the top 5-10% of proposals wind up funded. After all that, NSF distributes their funds to the winning proposals. While the grant is out, there are then multiple times that the principal investigator will have to submit summaries of what work has been done, where the publications are, what students are you funding, etc (and if you're failing to complete the appropriate tasks, your funding is at risk).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 02:11 PM) A small objection to that. If some crappy research at Argonne gets approved, Argonne, the scientists working on the study, tangential employees and probably the local community all benefit from it. But while that is true...none of the people making the choice on whether or not to fund the grant have a say in funding it. Worst case scenario, maybe you get 1 person from the same institute on a committee dealing with a grant of his or her colleague, or you get a friend dealing with a grant from his or her colleague, but NSF works very hard to avoid that...and even if it does happen, one person does not have power over any review panel. Worst case scenario, there are multiple leaders of every review panel, with a full panel of other reviewers underneath who might call them on it. If I work on the synchotron and I start funding projects on the synchotron that aren't good just to keep the thing running, I'm going to not only piss people off because good, publishable work isn't being done, but I'm also going to wind up sabotaging my institute's reputation, to the point that I myself will wind up struggling to get funding.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 01:28 PM) Good God, we got the kid for nothing off the scrap heap and turned him into a top 10 closer over 4 seasons. That's not too bad of work. The reason that the Red Sox might actually do that though is that Papelbon keeps trying to look like Jenks in 2009...he keeps looking like something's going wrong, he just hasn't completely fallen apart yet.