Balta1701

Don't we do that every other post?

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 12:47 PM) Braves are going with a kid at 1B (Freeman maybe?), so why can't we give Viciedo a shot? Rays will probably plug Jennings into the outfield. 2 examples of contenders plugging kids into important positions this offseason. I don't know about the Braves, but I think it's safe to say that Jennings has been developed more in the minors and in the states than Viciedo has.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 12:46 PM) Zelda was a video game that I used to enjoy on the NES. Atari rules...I actually found an Atari simulator clone on the shelf a few days ago for about $25.

Xerasia might be helped by an appropriate conditioner.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 12:39 PM) Unlikely. Changing the subject is the subject. Very quick you are to revert back to the previous subject.

Tough to shoot a grizzly when you don't know how to shoot.

Really, didn't you just change the subject?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 10:41 AM) But "I don't like having limits" is different from "they can't do that." One could certainly argue that a big reason why the internet has "Grown up" in the sense that it has, to become such an important part of so many people's lives, is the fact that prior to now, companies haven't been able to do that. Give you an example...if there are only a handful of companies that control the infrastructure, and building new infrastructure is prohibitively expensive, what's to stop those companies from setting up partnerships with certain search engines or e-commerce sites, such that it becomes nearly impossible to do business with anyone who isn't a partner with your service provider? What's to stop a company from disadvantaging certain websites because they don't like their political content?

Obviously, I have no idea what I just read.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 10:15 AM) http://www.usdebtclock.org/ $40,000 per person. Almost $14,000,000,000,000.00. For example we owe China $880,000,000. This year we will have a deficit of $4,000 per person. If we ever do pay back all that debt, who will be paying it? My taxes were cut, so it can't be me, but I wonder who will be paying that $40,000 per person debt? In today's dollars, the debt after WWII was something greater than $60,000 a person.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 09:51 AM) So, what are people's thoughts on foreign entities taking some of the Feds emergency funds? On the one hand, they paid it back with interest, so no loss. But on the other, there was potential for losing hundreds of billions if those banks closed. I didn't care for the original bank bailout, and I don't really like the idea that the Fed is becoming a world bank. Edit: here's the link: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4dd95e42-fd6d-11...l#axzz16xwmUz4S I'm not sure how I feel about whether or not it should be legal...but I understand the motivation. If say, DB or someone like that falls, it doesn't matter if they're based in Germany, that takes out all the U.S. banks as well.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 09:58 AM) It's a s***ty practice, but I don't see why this should be illegal. They're providing the service, they can charge what they want for it. That just means other companies (AT&T U-Verse for example, which I have and which is great) can give you unlimited/unrestricted plans. Comcast sucks anyway. Why anyone uses them is beyond me. I can't speak to Comcast...but I'd also add that AT&T thoroughly sucks as well.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 09:57 AM) If the Sox don't trade a pitcher, is Jackson the closer? No. There's been zero talk of doing that.

Decent read..."Twins, Rays must rebuild bullpens to bet back to postseason."

QUOTE (balfanman @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 09:47 AM) That's just it though. Other than maybe Danks, they are all a little risky, there is no where near a sure thing in the bunch. I can't see trading a starter simply based on the fact that we don't need him. Here's my question in reply...how are you defining "a little risky"? Are you defining it in the sense that they're all a little risky to put up an ERA around 6 and only give the team 20 starts next year? Or are you defining it as "well, they might only put up ERA's in the low-mid 4's and be say, an average 2nd starter"? If you're going to tell me that they're a little risky in the sense that they might completely collapse...well you're right, but there's not a single pitcher in baseball you couldn't say the same thing about. You could spend $175 million on Cliff Lee and still think "well, he could get hurt and revert to his nearly non-tendered form". But that's a gamble I'd take. There's probably a reasonable chance that all 3 of them somewhat struggle, put up ERA's somewhere between 3.50 and 4.25, and give you 175-200 innings, maybe with a nagging injury or two that costs a few starts here or there. But that isn't bad! That's pretty darn good! And if any of them take a step up above that, then that's close to a dominant season.

If the Senate spent every moment of its next 2 terms (aka through Jan 2015) confirming currently nominated individuals, it still wouldn't confirm them all, now that the "every nominee must be discussed for 30 hours" standard is being used as a weapon.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 09:33 AM) Sure If all thing work out positively on our starting staff we are fine, but what are the odds ofI'd say they're probably higher than last year. Last year we had Garcia and Hudson as options 5 and 6. This year we have Jackson and Sale. Even I will grudgingly admit that Jackson should perform better than Garcia, and at worst, Sale is at the same level as Hudson (and is potentially quite a bit above him). Peavy was worrisome coming into last season since he spent so much of 2009 hurt anyway. Danks, Floyd, and Buehrle...well, frankly each of them has significant room for improvement from last year, and there might not be that much risk on the downside for any of them.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 09:21 AM) I understand. Just means were one step closer to counting on Pena or Linebring to be a pivotal piece of the bullpen. That won't work. Clearly. If we go into next season with Linebrink and Pena as anything other than the 6th and 7th guys in the bullpen, we're going to be finding a way to trade for a reliever at the deadline. That said...Jenks was still part of the problem last season. A huge part.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 09:22 AM) Hooray! More powerful monopolies! Anything else is Socialism.

4 losses in a row for the Lakers, and the Clippers beat the Spurs last night behind 31/13 from Griffin.

For those who don't watch the politics...the FCC is currently deciding regulations regarding high-speed internet content. Yesterday, they released a draft report of their proposed regulations. They're incredibly "business-friendly", in the sense that your average small consumer gets screwed. Quite literally, it would make what everyone is complaining about Comcast doing above 100% legal; charging fees for different types of content moving over their network. The public comment period on this ends in a couple weeks.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 08:50 AM) Not unexpected, but every day feels like a bucket of reality hitting me that we are going to really suck next year. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

At least that post made some sense.

Your post looks funny, and I think it actually starts with !--q.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 04:21 AM) Why would it be very bad? There's no reason to believe he's suddenly going to suck and hit like Pena who many seem to love so much? The guy is a professional hitter who is actually improving his approach. Frankly, I can give you a couple reasons. He's had hand issues for several seasons now that have hurt his production when they acted up, and I believe he still has an arthritic/degenerative hip condition as well, on top of the fact that he's just in his mid 30's in general and that's when pro athletes start to break down. I'd still go for signing him, but I'm not going to pretend that there's no reason to think he could suddenly suck next year.