Balta1701

Here's the actual schedule in case anyone is curious.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 03:11 PM) Fields got demoted even though he hit a grand slam in the perfect game. Just send Wise down if they get Rios. Wise doesn't have options left. He'd have to pass through waivers and we're terrified of that. That's why we sent Anderson down and kept Wise, Remember? (/green)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 02:52 PM) I think he has one AB since Kotsay got here, and that was the PH last night. And look what he did with it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 02:51 PM) Wise has been the last guy off of the bench since Kotsay got here. Wise would be gone in a heartbeat. I don't believe that at all.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 02:49 PM) ESPN speculation is around San Francisco and the Mets, Sox aren't mentioned. Both teams would make some sense, San Fran moreso, but if I was reading what you posted earlier correctly, would he have to get past the whole AL before he got to either of them?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 02:48 PM) I'm not disputing with the premise but I hate it when people use the word "terrorist" like that. On that I'll agree too. Although...the guys who are starting to twitter about bringing guns to the townhall meetings to teach SEIU a thing about the 2nd amendment...

Coke.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 02:27 PM) If I am the Jays, I let him walk so I can keep Halladay. It is a dream come true for them. The only thing better would have been someone claiming Wells. If I'm them, I hold out for the 48 hours or whatever and try to negotiate a deal to bring something back. If there's no deal in place, then I stun the other team by letting him go anyway.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 02:23 PM) They have it right. Gammons had a good article on the waiver wire a few years back on how everyone is put through it. For example I believe we put Konerko and Buehrle through in 2004 for pretty much no reason at all. The thing that makes this one interesting is...you could actually see the Blue Jays just letting him go.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 01:13 PM) How exactly does Viciedo's contract work? Is he a free agent after 4 years as this suggests? I've seen some say we have him under control afterwords too. If he is a free agent after 4 years, that's a pretty bad contract we gave him. From direct word of the White Sox brass...Viciedo is not a FA after 4 years. His contract runs for 4 years, but he will still be under the White Sox's control until he has accumulated enough time in the big leagues to qualify as a FA, or runs out of minor league options and is released. We get him the full 6ish years after his MLB debut.

Please use the Diamond Club thread. I'm closing this one, leaving it sitting here temporarily so that folks see it and see where to go.

QUOTE (bighurt574 @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 01:43 PM) His trade value is minimal, at best. If only one team put in a waiver claim for him, that basically means only one team would even take him (and his contract) for free. That's not what it means. Teams are able to put in waiver claims based on order of record. If the Washington Nationals wanted to put in a waiver claim on him, they'd have every shot to do so, and no other team would have the chance.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 01:18 PM) His defense is incredible if you put him in CF. Fangraphs thinks his contract is fair if you consider his whole game. The problem is...his contract may be fair, but he's on a team that can't afford too many fair, or especially any unfair contracts. And they have at least 1 of the latter.

QUOTE (GO CHI SOX! @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 01:13 PM) If the Blue Jays are gonna give him away, the White Sox should trade for him for this playoff run and trade him in the offseason, to the Giants maybe, for a better package then what we would give up for him in the first place. Only the team that claimed him can work out a trade for him at present.

Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein is fed up.

Really...yeah, let him go Toronto and you solve all of your non Vernon Wells related problems.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 10:10 AM) He wouldn't be expensive if the Mets ate the rest of his deal, which they would have to do to trade him in the first place. According to the article he's hitting 94 on the gun. If that's true then he's already better than Randy Williams. Then why would the Mets eat his entire salary?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 10:01 AM) There is a big difference to protesting and using violence. I understand Dem loyalists do not like when Democrat leaders are ridiculed, talked harshly to, or when a chant breaks out that is not “No Blood For Oil”; but this is no excuse to resort to violently attack people. Shameful. These Democrat goons look much worse than any town hall dissenter. It's interesting how I've read the exact opposite interpretation of those events at the same spot. The doors get closed because of fire codes, and the people outside get rowdy, start banging on windows, forced backwards by security, etc. Just to point out; there's multiple ways of seeing how that sort of mess went down. Especially when people from both sides are now going to these expecting a fight.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 09:37 AM) It depends how much salary the Mets will pick-up. If they're even going to give us money for the buy-out next year, okay. I can't believe the Mets would pay us enough to make it worth it, unless we gave them something pretty useful in return, and really, why would we want to give them something useful? They're not going to give us $10 million and Wagner for McCullough or something like that; for that kind of money they would want someone who could actually help them.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 09:28 AM) So, a 25% increase in spending is accounted for by an increase in the amount of civilian travel? That seems like an awful big percentage increase to only be accounted by the type of travel they choose or by inflation. If you are going to say that, you need to point to a reason for that rather large change. It seems pretty obvious that there is more travel spending going on. Read the caption, it says "Military travel is used on the majority of trips". That probably means the military is spending several tens of millions, to perhaps hundreds of millions, on trips. Not surprising, given the security and such required to take people overseas. If 80% is done on military travel one year and 75% is done on military travel the next year, there will be a 25% increase in the civilian travel expenditures for the same amount of travel, and the graph will look all evil and scary.

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 09:43 AM) Are you saying that he went from runway to dirt road? Unexpectedly bulldozed it during the night when no one else was looking.

Mark!

He's looked a lot better since the start of the Yankee series.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 07:31 AM) So last Wednesday the Treasury 5 yr note auction sucked some wind; but the next day teh 7 yera note auction was off surprisingly well. So well that the bidders ripped prices 5bps through where the when issued was trading just before the results were released. Why you ask??? Banana Ben and his men PURCHASED 16.97% of the auction. So the real bid/cover was much lower than reported. PPT to the rescue again. And I thought this only went on with the previous administration. Next week we have 5's, 10's, and 30's being auctioned on Tue., Wed., on Fri. respectively. So, somehow I'm supposed to be surprised by that? The Fed has been doing exactly that deliberately; it's part of their "Quantatative easing" policy; basically they're buying up U.S. treasuries to expand the money supply since they can't drop their interest rates any more, and they need like another 5-10% of interest rate room to truly account for the hole created by the bubble bursting.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 08:02 AM) More traveling or more inflation? The caption implies that it's probably neither of those, it's probably "More civilian travel, less military travel".