Balta1701

QUOTE (dpd9189 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 12:49 PM) Cubs are probably 2-3 years away from being a real contender again. However Bruce Levine just reported that they're preparing to make a serious push for Adrian Gonzalez. That's a move that would speed things up. I wonder if Castro + Cashner would be enough to get that done. I bet Castro + Cashner + Colvin probably would.

I think NSS and I were talking a few weeks ago about how widespread the problem of outright fraud in foreclosure proceedings currently is. Here's a from-the-press, somewhat-anecdotal, ridiculously high number, from a state where foreclosure is a judicial proceeding (such that people shoudl in fact know).

QUOTE (3E8 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 10:43 AM) Do you guys think Sale is ready to begin the 2011 season in the starting rotation? He has never started a game in professional ball, and wasn't made a starter at the collegiate level until his second year. Basically in the past three years, he has started less than 30 games. Before entering the Sox rotation, he's going to need significant time at the minor league level. To start this process next season means a talented cheap-as-possible arm is removed from the bullpen, and leaves us with 5 pen spots to fill on an already tight budget. I'm all for maximizing Sale's value and making him a starter, but I agree with Cooper that it shouldn't be started next season. On average, your typical 5th starter picks up only about 20-25 starts and throws about 120-ish innings. Sale hasn't made 30 starts, but he's pitched around 150+ innings each of the last 2 years. If Sale does what he's done the last few years...he'll be more than adequate in the 5th starter role. The guy has already proven he can get people out at the major league level, the guy has proven he can carry the innings load against lesser competition. It's possible he could still benefit from some time in the minor leagues...in particular if he has any issues with the control on his tertiary offspeed pitches. The injury issue is the other thing to consider...but then, why would you make him a starter in the first place if you thought he was going to get hurt pitching 175 innings this year?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 11:09 AM) CRE? Sorry, I'm not familiar with that acronym. "Commercial Real Estate".

Ghosts scare people.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 10:32 AM) What if that temperature is enough to rip the space time continuum and create a pocket of anti-time that would move backwards through space time? I think, in that case, we can count on Q helping us out by giving the Captain a chance to un-do the damage.

BTW, Here's a piece from Hollinger's article yesterday about the year's FA signings.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 09:29 AM) Profits are very relevant to the health of banks. Where are you getting the idea they aren't? I think you are just using hyperbole to prove a point here... what's true is that a good profit does not mean necessarily that a bank is health overall. But its also true that profitability is helpful and a sign of strength in at least some business units. The banks are lending less, and lending to more high quality candidates. This is exactly the kind of build-up they need to restore the quality of their debt loads. So yes, their debt loads are indeed changing - foreclosures come in and are written off, debt is replaced by healthier candidates, and oh by the way the REO's take the artificial profit out of the market and keep it in house to help offset some of the foreclosure losses (don't start Balta - this is still a losing game, they're just taking some of the loss back). Also, the capital pumps into the market have allowed banks to inflate their assets both directly and indirectly. I have to say, I really have no idea why I was called out here. I think you're basically arguing that the banks are taking profits and only lending to high-quality lenders, so that on balance their overall debt picture is actually safer...which I think is probably a good thing and which is a statement I'd probably agree with. Am I missing something? What point did you expect me to make here?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 09:23 AM) Exactly. And for better or for worse, the banks are married to the rebound. Doesn't that essentially mean that they're screwed forever, or at least until we can inflate a bubble in something else to offset?

So, here's Olbermann releasing a statment, thanking his fans and basically going "team Coco" on MSNBC.

Even if I need to celebrate? Sigh, you ruin everything!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 09:18 AM) Banks are vital to economic growth. They have to be healthy to sustain growth. Until the real estate prices rebound enough to free up lending again, it isn't going to happen. There's no good reason to expect any sort of long-term "rebound" in real estate prices though. Pre-this bubble, real estate prices had in most places quite tightly tracked the inflation rate; that's sort of the long-term real estate market. If real estate prices tried to rise above it, you'd get more building and that would push prices back down, on average. Real estate shouldn't be the kind of market that can "rebound", real estate should be a steady, long-term, fairly safe investment.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 09:14 AM) (which of course is exactly what the left is trying to do by forcing banks to keep bad debts on their books) Wait, when did we want them to do this?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 09:08 AM) Quite honestly, unless the housing market recovers significantly, it is a classic bubble. This problem was caused by the housing/banking crisis. By and large that hasn't been fixed yet. Banks still have tons of bad loans on their books, and aren't able to lend at rates anywhere near sustaining a recovery. Without banks healthy, growth isn't going to be sustainable. (Which, you'll note, some of us were saying was the inevitable result of keeping the banks alive in early 2009 rather than seizing them and just eating the losses).

Another solid game for Gibson too. 16 points, 6 rebounds 5 blocks, 3 assists, 5 TO's, 7/12 from the Field.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 08:45 AM) How about if he becomes a top closer? Is that still a waste of the 13th pick? Frankly, yeah, it's still disappointing. If you're going to spend the 13th pick on a pitcher, you don't really want a guy who's ceiling is 60 innings. Closers are too easy/too cheap to find compared to starting pitching.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 08:49 AM) Lewis Black has a great comedy routine where he talks about the 300$ rebate checks most of us received about 8 years ago. Our government, in their infinite brilliance, spent something like 50 Million dollars in postage/printing/manpower to send out a letter to every American informing them that their check was in the mail. Nothing like putting that letter in the same envelope as the check to save MILLIONS in postage, extra envelopes, extra manpower, etc. They have NO idea what efficient means. You do realize why they did that right? Come on man, that's marketing. That is a very large, federally funded ad campaign for the party in power.

Can I get a (insert that woop-woop sound)?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 08:17 AM) So let's have a theoretical discussion here... let's say the economy does indeed pick up steam during the next 6 months or so. What are the political ramifications? It helps Obama, but what about Congressional GOp'ers and/or Dems? Anything which makes people happier with the president = good for the entire party in 2012.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 08:17 PM) You don't think sending money to Washington to send it back to its place of origin to be spent is going to result in waste? If I replace the word "Washington" with the phrase "Wall Street"...doesn't that argument work equally well?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 09:18 PM) If Peavy does come back at 100%, I would rather see Edwin Jackson get a shot at closing with Sale in the rotation. I think with Jacksons stuff, he could be one hell of a closer because he wouldn't have to pace himself out at all. By the way...giving up Hudson, getting back a very good month of August, a poor month of September, and then a 1 year experiment as a closer? Yuck.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 01:35 AM) (Joba would be a great buy low candidate too if the Yankees are down on him at all) The problem with the Yankees is that they're not going to sell him low unless they sign a replacement first, and they've had weak middle relief so many years in a row it's hard to see them saying "We're now in a position to dump middle relievers". I mean, if you offered up a legit reliever...say "Matt Thornton", they'd bite, but they're not likely to deal him unless they can seriously upgrade that position.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 07:29 PM) That direct economic impact is less than what the multiplier would have been without the waste factored in. i'm going to be out of my league here quite soon, so let me just put this one up in reply, and note that whatever you say, I'm not going to respond unless it's something I know better.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 07:23 PM) All of them are money that is taken out of circulation in the general economy, and is subject to the governmental waste factor before getting redistrubted, probably to replace already lost funds. Those moneys that would be getting spent and subject to the multiplier effect and generating more income and income taxes instead are disappearing. Its all interrelated. Now not necessarily 2k5...for example, if the liquor taxes were dropped, wouldnt' that lead to: consumption of more liquor, and therefore potentially negative externalities associated with that? Furthermore, would you disagree with the idea that things like the defense department, infrastructure, education, etc., have made positive contributions to the economy on their own?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 07:21 PM) All those things are for city, county, state governments etc. I mean, I pay property taxes to Anne Arundel County, not the feds. Further, let's say that all of it did have something to do with federal revenue, add it all up and sit that number next to the Bush tax cuts, how does it look? I'm guessing pretty tiny. To be fair lost...I think when you add together all of the nation's property taxes and compare that to the yearly $300 billion or so cost of the Bush Tax cuts, I'm betting property taxes are quite a bit larger.