Balta1701

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 10:49 AM) And it's hilarious to listen to you guys rant about how bad the court is, while ignoring who's currently going through the nomination process. "Politicized." Ha. She fits in well with the mold of the modern court Justice.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 10:46 AM) I agree, I just think that will be the most he will achieve as a major league hitter. Will achieve...i'm starting to agree with you. Could achieve is something different, but that'd take a complete swing restart and overhaul and it looks like he's not up to doing that.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 10:40 AM) But his ceiling is only as a 7 hitter in the National League or 8 in the American. I disagree on that being his "Ceiling" if we're defining ceiling as the best player he could possibly be. I just think it's becoming progressively less likely that he'll reach his ceiling

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 10:35 AM) I hate to say it, but I'd guess it would be Hudson, Morel and Brandon Short for Dunn. Short should have been promoted to B'ham a long time ago considering the numbers he's put up in W-S. If the White Sox give up that package, they better resign Dunn after 2010. That's approximately the type of package I might settle for if I were Washington...but I'd also listen for better offers as well, and it's probably 50/50 whether or not I'd get one.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 10:27 AM) Good post. I still don't know if I would give up Hudson or Flowers for Dunn though. Maybe Torres and Morel or Retherford or Danks 2 or someone like that. And if I were the Nats...I wouldn't even think of doing it for any and all of the other guys you list.

The Sun Sentinel doesn't know how Bird rights work if they believe that. If all 3 wanted to play for the Heat, they could make it work, you just have to do the contracts correctly.

Link

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 10:14 AM) One thing I am curious about is how Dunn were to react if he were put into a division race. Some guys just take it to another level, others just wilt. Dunn has never really been on a team that has been in a race Didn't Arizona trade for him while in the NL West race in 2008?

A while back we had a long discussion about a case in Michigan where the electric company turned off the power of an elderly man during the winter and he wound up freezing to death. Can't find the thread, but here's another one for that pile.

Man, bond yields are falling off a cliff. 30 year hasn't been at this level since April of 2009.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:55 AM) But it is. When you want a right leaning opinion, what channel do you turn on? FOX. That's IT. Not NBC, not ABC, not CNN, nor CBS. Those *ARE* left leaning stations, so stop pretending otherwise. And what channel do you turn to when you want a left leaning opinion? You watch Olbermann and Maddow, and the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. You don't watch anything else on MSNBC, and you don't watch anything else on TV. You might go to PBS if there's a good frontline on. But if you want the left-side equivalent of Fox, you go to the internet, because none of those channels you want to call liberal come anywhere close to being liberal.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:51 AM) Don't get me wrong, on Fox there is PLENTY of conservatives, some of which disguise themselves as centrists (like Beck tires to do), but the majority of conservatives are in one spot -- and that's Fox. I've heard liberals/dems say what that other guy said before -- that the tv media is dominated by the right, and it's just a ridiculous notion. That's all I interjected into this conversation to straighten out...because it needed to be straightened out. Sometimes when you overhear a conversation and someone says something so wrong, you just have to stop and correct it. And the idea that the TV media is dominated by the left is equally wrong, so I'm stopping and correcting it. You just don't want to be challenged on that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:41 AM) Has the SCOTUS always been this politicized? Those who know the court better than me may disagree, but I feel like at least from the 50's/60's on, it has been, even if we don't want to admit it, the question was just who was in control. We had the Warren/Marshall courts back then, who enforced a lot of social decisions on matters like race, abortion, and now we've replaced it with a court equally willing to use its power to enforce pro-corporate actions. I can't speak to before that, but I can come up with the notable examples of FDR's fights with the courts over new deal legislation and his "Court packing" effort in response.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:40 AM) And if you honestly think Olbermann and Maddow are the only left wingers on TV, there is no point talking to you -- it's obvious you know next to nothing. And at this point, it's insulting to even try talking to you, as you're playing dumb on purpose. That's not what I said, I admitted them, I asked where their parallel was on Fox. Of course there are other liberals on TV, but there are plenty of conservatives on other networks as well. Like I said, if you wanted to pick your issue and start coming up with reports from FAIR, I'd start replying with media matters posts on how issue x that the Left cares about got no coverage, and all we'd do is go back and forth. Which is where we're going. No matter what I'd be willing to cite, you know you're right in the middle of the spectrum, and therefore anyone to the left of you must be liberal, and anyone who challenges that is insulting you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:42 AM) I think the argument might be cutting the government program all together. I really hope more people in the campaign this fall take up that mantra.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 11:27 PM) Bosh for Deng and the 2011 #1 pick? Worth noting...the Bulls have traded their 2010 #1 pick in some fashion. I'm not sure exactly how the rules would work on this trade because it can't be finished until after the draft, but teams are barred from trading away their first round pick in 2 consecutive drafts (Which is where all those swapping-picks deals come from).

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:36 AM) You could possibly argue the radio is more even, however, television is NOT -- there is *ONE* major right wing news organization in the ENTIRE US (FOX). To pretend otherwise is ridiculous, so just stop. And there are zero parallels to Fox on the left. You'll fire back MSNBC with Olbermann and Maddow, and then I'll ask who the Fox version of Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan from the left are. It's only ridiculous because you're a conservative. I think it's just as ridiculous to declare everyone but Fox to be a bunch of liberals.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 05:03 AM) I can't be the only one that feels like giving up Hudson and/or Flowers for 3 months of Dunn is way too high of a price? Will Dunn be a type A FA though and cheap enough to offer arbitration to? Yes, Dunn will be a type FA, and yes, he'll be offered arbitration. If he accepts arbitration, his $12 million/1 year salary is low enough that any other team out there needing a 1b/DH will still be happy to trade for him next year.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:31 AM) That's a lot to give up. How would the picks work...what rounds, etc.? The Nats will get at the very worst a sandwich pick (just after the first round) and an early 2nd rounder. The Nats could get at best a sandwich pick and a mid-first rounder. If Dunn signs with a team that is drafting in spot 1-14 in the first round, they are awarded a "Sandwich" pick and that team's 2nd round pick. If Dunn signs with a team drafting in spot 15-30, the Nats receive that team's 1st round pick and the same sandwich pick. In a supposedly deep draft next year, those picks would have a ton of value to any team trying to build through the draft.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:25 AM) Unfortunately this has been the trend for a long time now, and all that has happened is schools have gotten worse. Serious, non-ranting question in reply...can you back up the statement that "Schools have gotten worse"? I've gotten the impression from my readings that the U.S. education system has, at least going back to the 60's, ranked consistently at the middle or bottom of the pack of developed countries, but that it has sorta just stayed there in that area. It's produced good schools where property tax returns are high and crappy schools where they're low, with the occasional outlier, and every education innovation from New Math to Charter Schools has been a bandaid to cover that up. Can you correct my impression and argue to me that the trend line is not flat but is instead down?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:11 AM) I've said before, people were up in arms over the Roberts nomination, but I am much more OK with him than I am with Alito. Alito is just plainly in over his head, and worse, he's a political wind sock, which is exactly what you do not want on SCOTUS. I think an accurate description of Roberts is that he's scalia but much smarter. He holds most of the same beliefs, but he's able to maneuver the court much more effectively (and he's helped by having the Chief Justice spot).

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:15 AM) The medical bills you will receive from your doctor have not changed, they have not gone down, and they will not go down because of this bill. Queue the same for the bill you will receive from the drug companies, hospitals, nursing services, etc. You attacked the wrong bad guy and accomplished nothing. Congratulations. Oh, so now you're in favor of the government cutting the bills that it pays to doctors and hospitals? Gosh, where have I been attacked repeatedly over that.

The problem is...you calling those news sources liberal has as much meaning as me saying they're conservative. For every example you give, I could fire back with another. You could give CBS and Bush's 2004 guard document story, and I could fire back with the Iraq war. You could fire off the Obama campaign as the media swooning over my guy, and I could fire back the Gore/Bush campaign for the media swooning over the Republican. We'd go around in circles, I'd call your articles from Bernard Goldberg crap, you'd call my Media Matters posts crap.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:12 AM) Dunn will be a Type A free agent next year and won't take ARB. The White Sox would stand to gain draft picks from him walking. Which is why his price for any team trading for him will be high...the team acquiring him needs to give up something worth substantially more than 2 draft picks. If I were the Nats, I wouldn't trade him straight up for Hudson. It'd have to be Hudson + Flowers + some A-baller that I like.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 08:32 PM) It's exactly what Barackus the Great is doing. He's making the government so large, so intertwined with our daily lives that when anyone goes to cut anything, they'll scream just like you all are screaming now. OH THE TEACHERS. OH, NOT MY (insert social program here). The system CANNOT support what Democrats have created, and now someone comes in and cuts programs, you act like he's got blood on his hands. It's a fallacy of Rex, or something... So, your argument is that the federal government should be paying teacher's salaries and making layoff/firing decisions? I'm all about that.