Balta1701

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jul 7, 2009 -> 09:18 AM) That's what I'll start doing the moment a trade is announced, assuming we get him. BTW I also really question the early reports on these things anyway. Rosenthal says the Jays "wouldn't hesitate" to open bidding to the Yankees and Red Sox. Really? I imagine the priorities go 1) dump Wells in the deal, 2) dump Rios in the deal, 3) NL, 4) anywhere but the AL East where he'll kill us all year. I don't think they'd hesitate to open it up to them either. They'd just be asking for either Lester or Chamberlain, plus someone else from each team. If they're asking for Beckham or Kershaw/Billingsly, then that's about equal value, and why wouldn't they open up the bidding if they can get one of those guys? That's the whole point here. They've set the price so ridiculously high right now that they'd trade him to their worst rivals if that other team met the price. There's no reason to deal under those circumstances. You can't win that deal.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 7, 2009 -> 09:16 AM) Limbaugh could do that too if he wanted, but he just chooses not to and to be an ignoramus instead. Frankly, I dunno if he could. Have you ever heard a serious policy discussion from him? Not just on his radio show, but in private speeches, appearances, writings, etc.?

From the "Good things that happen because of government mandates" file: the government has mandated a phase-out of normal, high energy incandescent bulbs by 2012. Normally, no money was going in to research on new types of IC bulbs because hey, energy's cheap and we can make the bulbs cheap and no one has to worry about the external costs. The government makes policy requiring more energy efficiency, and suddenly money goes in to research, and people start coming up with more efficient versions of IC bulbs to meet the standards and satisfy the people (see; this thread) who are worried about CFL's for whatever reason. The government stepped in to mandate something to better society and to force people to come to grips with the fact that there are external costs that the consumer isn't bearing (environmental degradation) and the market reacts rapidly. Impressive.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 7, 2009 -> 07:42 AM) Liberal talk radio personality? Sometimes controversial? The things people on my side will come back to in order to defend him is that he's actually a legitimate policy wonk. He could sit down with top people from think tanks and go on about policy details with the best of them. He went from being a comedian with a political bent to expanding his political thoughts on a radio show with a non-trivial amount of policy details thrown in to actually organizing and running a campaign for the Senate. You could sit him down tomorrow and go through the health care debate, and the next day he could explain to you the finer intricacies of the difference between a carbon tax and a cap and trade system.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 7, 2009 -> 07:36 AM) I, for one, am looking forward to the "tell all" book Levi Johnson is apparently going to be writing. He may be a total douche, but there will be some hard truths in there. I could not possibly care less about that.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 7, 2009 -> 08:09 AM) They would prefer a single payer system. As would I. But when you are trying to get things done, sometimes you need to take steps. Little by little. And make compromises. I think the ultimate goal is something close to a single payer system, but you cant get there in one big leap as many would like. It's too politicaly hard to do. A single-payer system is not necessarily the best way to go. Canada and Britain make it work effectively with government controlled costs, but they don't necessarily get the best overall health care outcomes. There really is benefit to competitiveness; private companies having to compete with a government-run plan will only be profitable if they can provide actually better quality health care, rather than the situation we're in now where they can become profitable by avoiding payment to anyone who actually gets sick. A hybrid model is employed very effectively in places like France, Germany, etc., and that situation is IMO likely the best balance. You just need an effective public plan combined with a purchasing mandate to make it work.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 7, 2009 -> 06:51 AM) Take the decisions out of the employers hands and give it back to the individual. That would help immensely. To shoot past the annoying "The free market always works and is always better!" platitude here, there is actually serious discussion out there about whether or not this statement works correctly for health care, and in this case there are a number of specific reasons to believe it does not. Here's an old but good commonly cited paper on this discussion. There are a number of particular issues. I can gather up the information on my own to decide what car to purchase, whether to purchase a car or not, etc. I can't do that for health care. If my doctor tells me I've blown my knee out and I need surgery, I can't exactly shop around for a better price. If my doctor tells me I have cancer, I don't have the option of deciding to suspend treatment until my personal economics are better. Alternatively, insurance companies have even less information; they don't know how your knee actually feels, they don't know whether or not treatment that you feel you need is appropriate; they're making decisions based entirely on their models, and their models say "It's unprofitable to insure people over 65". So we get stuck with a gaping hole in the market, no one will insure anyone over 65, until Medicare comes along and forces the issue; the government steps in back in the 60's because so many of the elderly are winding up bankrupt and in poverty because of health care costs. Another example...let's shoot back to the cancer issue. In an ideal economic situation, prices are set such that you maximize profitability without driving away customers. You have to lose some customers though, because if everyone buys your good, then you have it priced too cheaply. Standard supply and demand curves. Apply that now to life and death situations. The ideal price for a good will be the one that maximizes profits without driving away too many customers; that'd be the most profitable method right? So what happens to the people who would normally be left out? The people who don't buy the expensive item because it's more than they're willing to pay for it? Do they not treat their illness? Are they allowed to die? The Supply and Demand curve applied correctly kills people; the penalty is so high that the equilibrium supply and demand curve intersection runs almost to infinity, because you can keep pushing the price upwards as the penalties for avoiding care are so bloody high. Third, the argument you're making is obviously that "Oh, people just use too much medical care. They don't need to go to the doctor for problem x". Which in fact, may be true. If I proposed something like that though, regulations regarding when people can see their doctor, wouldn't everyone else start screaming "OH THAT'S RATIONING AND WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!!!"? That is quite literally what you're proposing as your solution; increased rationing on the basis of income.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 7, 2009 -> 08:17 AM) The Dodgers would need to part with either Billingsley or Kershaw to make the deal according to Rosenthal, so they would not have all three. The Blue Jays just aren't going to get that kind of deal from anyone. They're not getting Becks from us, they're not getting Billingsly or kershaw from the Dodgers, they're not getting, you know, Tommy Hanson from the Braves, whatever. If they're asking for untouchables, they're not really interested in dealing him. The Dodgers could make a solid package perhaps with a guy like Elbert combined with one of their more recent draftees, but it's still a package that I think Poreda + Richard + one of our A ballers likely beats. Halladay for either Billingsly or Kershaw is just stupid from the Dodgers perspective.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 6, 2009 -> 05:29 PM) Oh that's right, I was thinking 60, but they cut it down to 50 now. Piazza and Buehrle would never have been drafted. Buehrle went in round 38.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 6, 2009 -> 05:32 PM) They also gave him a $150k bonus. Which was what, 1/4, 1/5 of the bonus our 7th round pick got?

QUOTE (qwerty @ Jul 6, 2009 -> 04:44 PM) He is one of the two best pitchers in the major leagues, it's between him and johan. They can get quite the haul regardless. That's an interesting comparison. Santana was younger, closer to FA and therefore about to be more expensive, but also at the top of his game and in his prime years as opposed to at the back end of them. Here's what the Mets gave up for him: Humber was coming off a season where he put up a 4.27 ERA and 1.24 WHIP for the Mets AAA team, and a 7.71 ERA in a few shots with the big league mets. Gomez had a 1/2 season in AAA in 07 with a .777 OPS, and put up a .592 OPS in the big leagues. He did so at age 21, so he was considered a potential growth projection. Mulvey and Guerra were potentially projectable guys; Mulvey's been hanging around the minors for a couple years now, and Guerra was dealt out of high-A ball. They were at the time the Mets #2,3,4 and 7 prospects, but a lot of people thought it at best an adequate package for a guy like Santana. Richard and Poreda together have already done as much or more in the major leagues than what the guys the Mets gave up for Santana have done. Richard, Poreda, and someone with talent from the A-ball levels is about an equivalent deal, quite frankly.

I think mine was in an A's Sox gamethread talking about whether or not Zito was a juicer. That's the earliest I can find at least.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 6, 2009 -> 04:32 PM) And every liberal blog is going to find a way to statistically tell you that our health care system sucks. Of course! Then please, provide me with compelling data to the other side. I load you up on data and you don't like it. Fire back the same way; don't just give me these anecdotes. Give me something to justify why we spend 2x as much as every other country per capita and why so many rankings put us so far behind everyone else in the West, regardless of lifestyle.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 6, 2009 -> 04:25 PM) I don't know why it's so hard to say that this system is the best in the world, yes it's screwed up and needs some reform, but government is NOT the answer. Because quite frankly it's not. We spend 2x as much as everyone else and produce the same or worse overall results. It really is that simple. We're paying so much that our system should be the envy of the world and the only people it works well for are the really well off.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 6, 2009 -> 04:08 PM) I think we're latching on to some of these guys a little too tightly (is that a word?) due to the fact our farm has been so horrendous most of this decade. I mean it was just 2-3 years ago our top prospects were Lance Broadway, Kyle McCulloch, Charles Haeger, Ryan Sweeney, Jerry Owens, Robert Valdio and Ray Liotta. The failure of some guys doesn't mean that Beckham and Viciedo and Allen and Poreda and Richard are going to fail as well.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 6, 2009 -> 04:08 PM) First of all, you have to remember scale. That's exactly the point of a government plan, scale produces economies. That's why we allow all those mergers, remember?

Finally be able to afford health coverage for my wife.

Switching topics, here's another look at global health systems and how much better France and the Netherlands do at health care than us. Good read. Somehow they manage to avoid doing exactly what 2k5 says is unavoidable.

QUOTE (Cerbaho-WG @ Jul 6, 2009 -> 03:49 PM) To go further, why would Hudson or Jordan Danks be untouchable? If anything, they would be prime players to be traded because their stock is extremely high right now. You're talking about a GM who flipped de los Santos after one phenomenal year (and a better one than Hudson is currently having), so I don't see why anyone outside of Beckham and possibly Vicideo should be untouchable unless you're just ignorantly latching onto someone. Are the aforementioned players extremely valuable? Absolutely. Should they be untouchable? Of course not. Hudson...yeah I could see moving him. But right now, you move him as a centerpiece of a deal. Not as Hudson + Poreda + Richard or something like that; he's climbing too rapidly. D2: the mighty Danks is untouchable because of his brother, quite frankly. We're not getting both Danks brothers to change agents away from Boras so that we can sign D2 and then trading away D2 while pissing off D1. Flowers is untouchable in the sense that we need a catcher; AJ's no spring chicken right now, and Flowers is on the perfect schedule to replace him. So basically, if you're moving Flowers, it's also as the centerpiece of a deal, and it's got to be such a good deal that you don't mind having a major hole appear at the Catcher's spot in 2 seasons.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 6, 2009 -> 03:49 PM) So pretty much you're in the pass on Halladay camp. No problem. My problem is when I see something like "I'd love to get him as long as we don't have to give up Beckham, Danks, Allen, Hudson, Poreda, Flowers or basically anybody with a fraction of talent." lol. I would give up Richard and Poreda combined, or something along those lines. For a guy Halladay's age and only signed for 1.5 years I won't go beyond that. I'd only igve up 2 of the guys you list, and I wouldn't go for Beckham or Danks, and Flowers going would only happen on the condition that he's the only major piece from the top levels of the minors. If I had a scout or two saying there was some reason to undervalue one of those guys then that could change my thinking, but quite simply, even if all we get is an adequate back of the rotation starter from Richard, a very good bullpen part from Poreda, and average production from Allen, those 3 guys at minimal cost for 6+ years is worth a hell of a lot more than 1.5 years of Halladay unless you guarantee he wins you the world series this year, and no one can guarantee that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 6, 2009 -> 03:49 PM) How much money would you be spending if your entire existence was on trial? Less than that, because I don't have money to purchase health insurance, let alone defending my existence. And anyway...if the government is so inefficient at everything it does, then health companies have absolutely nothing to worry about from this reform; at worst they'd get extra customers.

The Health Care industry is currently burning through $1.4 million a day on lobbying the federal government.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 6, 2009 -> 03:33 PM) You crack me up sometimes. You're honestly gonna tell me you would have a problem parting with Allen, Poreda and Richard for a pitcher the caliber of Roy Halladay because there's a chance his arm could fall off? Given the salary issues, yeah I might have a problem with that. We're going to really need someone at 1b in a year or two and Allen is on that path, and he's a lefty to boot, which will provide some balance in our lineup. I could live with it, if we thought Hudson would be ready to go next year, thus we'd still have another cheap starter, and we'd have some money to spend at 1b to fill that hole. I really don't like the idea of trading 3 guys for Halladay at his age and with his contract status; the odds are at least 1 of those 3 is going to wind up be really quite good, perhaps more than 1 of them, and that cheap pitcher/player/both could be really useful to us.

QUOTE (Frankensteiner @ Jul 6, 2009 -> 02:06 PM) What FAs do you want to buy? Because the upcoming free agent market looks terrible. Give me Halladay any day of the week. Not necessarily anyone in particular. I just wouldn't pay that price for Halladay. Hell, if you want him, he'll be a FA in 1.5 years. That's the point.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jul 6, 2009 -> 01:21 PM) Anyone think Thome might hang it up after this year? I think it'd take him at least 2 more years to get to 600, and he's really slowing down big time. He can't hit lefties at all it seems like (except for a select few), he isn't clutch at all, his bat is slowing down, is starting to struggle to catch up to good fastballs, etc. Plus, he can only play DH and is an injury concern. I love Jim, but no way I want him back next year. Jim's been in a funk since we started the interleague games. I never say Thome's done based on Thome in a funk. I'll say Thome's done when I'm convinced he's no longer coming out of that funk. He's still just as streaky as always; next week he could hit 5 home runs and I wouldn't be surprised.