Balta1701

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:42 AM) I think the Mets are more likely to bring Delgado back on an incentive laden deal. Was a key part of their resurgance of 2008 when Manuel took over, and if they can sign Bay and get Delgado to rebound, their offense will look a lot better going forward. The question is...do the Metropolitans think that he can come back and stay nearly 100% healthy playing 1b rather than moving to the DH slot like he would in the AL?

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 12:16 AM) The Bears have given up on Lovie not Jerry Angelo. This team is unprepared to play on a weekly basis, see the penalties, poor play calling (has the red zone fade worked ever), and inability of players to get better over the course of the season and a career. Missing on the 2005 and 2006 drafts hurt the Bears a lot long-term...but there's more to it than that. I'm not sure whether or not a GM can be found who would have done a better job than Angelo with the same picks, salary constraints, etc. It's probable that there is, but let's not pretend that even the best GM's won't have a run of 2-3 stinkers in a row. The thing that really bothers me is what you cite here. It's how the Bulls look under VDN right now, it's how the White Sox looked last year towards the end, it's a team that doesn't care, that doesn't really want to come to the park every week and is now just playing for their paychecks. It's possible for a coach to turn that around, but if it persists, it's going to be a hard cycle to break (see: Detroit Lions under Matt Millen).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 10:15 PM) Which is fine with me. Dismantle it all. We don't need to work on rebuilding anyone. That is the problem with the mentality that has been forced upon us. It has lead to us rebuilding countries, economies, banks, health care, retirement, and pretty much everything under the sun. It is a disaster. And every time we yank out the supports, every time we tell someone "You're ok on your own without rules!" we wind up with another version of AIG. The reason we want to do this is not that we're wanting to destroy this country or stifle innovation. We believe that you make it a lot more likely that people will succeed if failure doesn't ruin their life, if they have a chance to recover. We don't think that a person should lose their health care because their business went under, we don't think that people should work until they're 90 because their financial advisor overinvested in AIG, we don't think that it's ok to tell someone that because their parents are poor they can't get an education, etc. We're not trying to destroy capitalism whether you believe it or not. The rest of the world has learned the lesson, and we knew the lesson a few years ago...capitalism is stronger if people don't lose everything when they take a risk. There's no reason why our citizens should be dying because they can't afford health care. If that's the thing I don't get, I hope I never do.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 10:13 PM) Do people have a choice to be involved in medicare, medicade, social security, and now health insurance. I think the word is PERFECT. Do people have a choice to pay for the military? Or to support the current police? Or to have their emails read by the government?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 10:12 PM) The problem is, just like the other great social utopias of history, it will collapse upon itself because a small portion of the population cannot completely and utter support a majority of a country. They can't be counted on to raise, feed, employ, care for, etc the vast majority of a population. Then we should stop dong everything possible to keep enriching that small minority like we have been the last 30 years, and work on rebuilding the majority (middle class) that we've been at war with since 1981.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 10:10 PM) You think enslaving generations into the dependency of the federal government? Ugh. There really isn't a point. While I don't understand this sentence...note the language being used here and how it is specifically designed to overwhelm logic. Enslaving? clearly this is evil and I don't actually need to consider the case.

If the money's there for a DH and Oliver...sure. If I have to pick between them, give me a DH.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 07:04 PM) "we're all just global citizens"... my gosh that thinking sucks. Because we're all better off if the rest of the world suffers.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 07:00 PM) If you want this country to survive, you have to get off of the government entitlements. Why is that so hard to understand? Oh, because that's the only way you know how to look at things. You've been suckered into the part of the population that says government is the only thing that can fix your way to anything that life throws at us as a country. At what point does it stop? That's what has made this country the most economically thriving country in the world was that the government generally stayed the hell out of the way until the last 70+ years (except Reagan - who only solved 65% of the problem and made the other 35% way worse). We WERE different, that is part of it. Liberals don't seem to want to admit that. They are always looking for the next entitlement or handout. Those rich f***ers can handle it! Evil bastards SHOULD pay the lower classes (redistribution of wealth is what we SHOULD be about). That thinking is so wrong. What the hell ever happened to making your own way? Now with all that said, there ARE times when the government should step in. I understand helping people up from difficult issues, and the safety nets. But fix the damn problems with the existing infastructure before you create the biggest entitlement of them all - but hell no, we can't do that, because then the power of the government wouldn't be what it is becoming. Really, you think that the government staying out of things the last 70+ years was what made this country great and it was Ronald Reagan who changed all that? The way I look at it, the wave of deregulation started with Reagan, that wave of Reagan started dismantling the safety net that had been set up by FDR and Johnson, and consequently the middle class started to be destroyed, economic mobility declined, all the issues we have with crappy regulation from the weakness of the FDA to the repeated economic bubbles started hitting, and consequently by every measure economic performance the last 30 years has been below that of the previous 30 years when we were under the ruthless hand of the New Deal and Great Society. I mean, if you wanted to try to argue that the last 30 years under the Conservative movement's domination was an improvement, then I could provide arguments against you. I'm just a bit baffled here.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 08:04 PM) That's blasphemy with some posters here Frankly...I'm not sure he really cares all that much right now. It's kinda amazing to me how far backwards the Bears have gone during the season.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 07:00 PM) Why you ask?? because thats who it'll end up being and im fine with it. If i was ozzie... 1. Pierre L 2. Rios R 3. TCQ R 4. Kong R 5. Teahen L 6. Beckham R 7. Jones R 8. AJ L 9. Lexi R orrrrr Pierre L Rios R AJ L TCQ R Kong R Beckham R Teahan L Jones R Lexi R 3 in a row is not that bad, and I kinda like AJ in the 3. I dislike both of those lineups. You've stuck Beckham so low in the order it will cost him AB's. I want him hitting either 2 or 3. AJ really doesn't belong as a # 3 hitter, he's just not an RBI/power guy like I want in that spot. And it's going to take a step forwards from Teahen for him to be an adequate option for #5. ANd in either case, you have a stretch where 5 of 6 hitters are RH and they're only broken apart by Teahen, that sets up quite well to have a RHP rip through the lineup.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 06:56 PM) I smell Cowler to the Bears. I must conclude that's who you're referring to, correct?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 06:47 PM) LMAO. Wildly successful. $50 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillion in unfunded obligations... and that's wildly successful. So, I guess this "health care plan" is going to be even more wildly successful. What a f***ed up definition of "wildly successful". We all need to keep sucking on that government teat. Seriously...this is just sad. You oppose every single effort to bring those costs under control and then rail about how they're unfunded liabilities. You oppose every effort to fund them and then scream about how bad they are. You rail against how much this plan costs when every single independent analysis says it cuts costs, saves the government money, and at least begins to bend the curve to cut into that giant future liability. You scream about that funding gap and then oppose adding things that would bring it under control, like a public option or hell Medicare-for-all. You scream about how inefficient the government system is and then ignore the fact that we pay 3x per capita what the average OECD country does for health care or blame it on the government while every other state where the government runs things it winds up costing vastly less. It's just flat out incoherent. You hate the plan, you hate government, and you refuse to accept any math, numbers, or statistics that say the government could ever do anything right. There's no logic, no argument, just anger. And yes, they've been wildly successful. They've taken the segment of our population that was mired in poverty, the elderly, and given them decent lives. I'm going to steal this graph from the Hoover institution of all places to prove it. The 1960's-1970's trends here are the great society at work.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 05:00 PM) I'd want to see more like an .830 or higher OPS for that kind of money. But if he puts up his 2008 numbers (.798 OPS, 47 2B, 32 SB), I'll be more than satisfied. I don't mind overpaying a little bit given the hole we've had there and the fact that he's going to grab a bunch of steals as well, so I'll say I'm happy with an .800 OPS. But frankly, coming from Torotno to the Cell, he ought to see a spike in his HR numbers and an OPS above what he's done in the past...if last year was truly a fluke.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 06:07 PM) I was thinking that it is possible for teams to turn it around in one off season. It has been done, but probably not without 1st and 2nd round picks. Spend FA money on the O-line, get Urlacher back, try to add a DB in FA, let the WR and Cutler develop, and it's possible. The key is the O-line.

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 05:15 PM) Losing is no longer in their vocabulary. I know that's extreme optimism but I'll take it. Kindly reassure me that's not because VDN has forgotten how to spell again.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 04:30 PM) Maybe in the meantime they can start collecting taxes from the whole world to pay for all of that freedom? Don't worry, I'm sure Iraqi oil profits will pay for that too. Worked last time right?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 05:40 PM) I have medicare and social security to back up my reality, not the phony bulls*** that Congress tells the CBO the bill is going to be. Which are, of course, 2 of the most wildly successful government programs ever, and the only reason either of them have any potential problems is the fact that Medicare isn't aggressive enough and thus it faces a large deficit once health care becomes 50% of our economy. But we've been over that.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 06:30 PM) my best fit is one Andruw Jones For what reason? Jones put up a .782 OPS last year, and has a .696 OPS over the last 3 years combined. Thome put up .865 and .847 OPS numbers the last 2 years. Delgado put up a .781 OPS and a .871 OPS his last 2 full years, and .914 OPS last year in 25 games before going down. Furthermore, our lineup is already RH loaded and could be weak against RHP if we don't have a LH bat to stick in there to break up Quentin/Konerko/Beckham/Rios/Alexei in the RBI section. I could live with a Jones/Thome or Delgado Platoon, but Jones/Kotsay or just Jones is a lot weaker.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 06:16 PM) Let's assume Rios has an OPS next year of .800 (not out of the question since he's been over .850 twice in the last 4 years and .798 in another of those) to go along with very good defense in CF. Meanwhile, let's say Torii Hunter has an OPS of .820 (which is also very possible as it's almost 20 points better than his career average) which, of course, goes along with very good defense in CF. Now, given the numbers in that scenario, would you say that Hunter would be worth twice as much as Rios? Would you say that Hunter's numbers would justify him being paid $18 million dollars while Rios gets just under $10? I don't think you can reasonably say that. Hunter gets a lot of props for making the stellar play and for bringing back as many HR balls as anyone, but if you believe the defensive stats out there, it's been a long time since Hunter has been an above average CF. He doesn't play balls very well and doesn't have great closing speed. He's had a negative UZR each of the last 4 years, for example. Rios has so far been a much better CF than what Hunter currently is; he's faster, plays the ball better, and sets himself up better. Rios doesn't make the stellar, over the wall catch (at least that we've seen so far, can you even do that in the Rogers Center's CF?) so he doesn't get the cheap, every-year gold glove like Hunter, but his defensive numbers are significantly better every year. That could obviously change with age, but if Rios gave us an .800+ OPS next year, not withstanding the number of bases he steals at a high percentage, he'd be worth every cent we'd be paying him, esp. since we've had a hole in CF since 2004 basically.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 04:27 PM) It is a term used in commodities trading all of the time. Thus, it's quite fungible.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 04:08 PM) The taxes collected (as specified by this bill) will not cover a pimple on an elephant's ass regarding the costs of this bill. Except...every analysis by the CBO, every non-partisan analysis, and pretty much everything coming out of anywhere that can add says the opposite. It's a free country so you do continue to have the freedom to insist that 2+2 = 3, but the last 8 years proved pretty well what happens when you try to govern based on that premisis. Like I said...you're basically arguing that the U.S. is guaranteed to go bankrupt in 20 years no matter what we do. In that case, we may as well give people health insurance and try to free up small businesses and the poor to get out of the disastrous individual market, since you've assumed bankruptcy is inevitable either way.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 04:07 PM) The whole damn bill is a public option, it's just not called that. (Co-Ops, hi) They didn't put those silly co-ops in either. It'd be nice if you'd actually argue against the extant bill.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 11:59 AM) I'd take his final totals as long as he plays plus defense in CF which I'm sure he will. For that kind of money...I want at least an .800 OPS out of him. There's no reason why we can't get better than that.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 03:05 PM) Looking at the spreadsheet, it looks like they have about $21 less committed in 2011 vs. 2010, but Thornton has a $3 million option which unless he gets hurt is almost automatic and Quentin, Danks and Jenks still with the arb, you would figure each gets a couple million raise at the very least, so that's leaves about $12 million if payroll remained the same, and you have your entire bench to work on. It gets eat up pretty quickly. Then again, the roster will look quite different a year from now. Some of the committments will be gone and some new ones will be on the list. It's also possible that if this team comes out and wins the division it could beat last year's revenue numbers substantially and create some extra room.