Balta1701

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 03:35 PM) .282/.370/.513/.882, 39 AB, 5/10 BB/K - Anderson .281/.294/.469/.763, 32 AB, 0/7 BB/K - Dweezy .364/.432/.545/.978, 33 AB, 3/3 BB/K - Getz .233/.333/.256/.589, 42 AB, 7/6 BB/K - Owens A couple more ticks upwards for Anderson and we're right back in to Anderson/Erstad territory.

John Manuel of BA there.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 02:43 PM) If your the Broncos and can get the first pick, you do it. You then can trade the first pick to other teams. Who else is crazy enough to want that cap hit?

QUOTE (daa84 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 02:31 PM) i agree with getz leading off and have been saying it for a while...i can live with ramirez in the two hole....i think by the end of the year fields might not be a horrible option, but you can't have two guys who in were in AAA a year ago leading off, so ramirez is the default candidate because i think he makes a bit more sense there than AJ Fields K's so much right now that I don't want him there unless he majorly cuts down on that #. Then again, if he cuts down on his k's to the point where you'd want him in the 2 hole, he's going to be hitting .290+ with 40+ home runs, so he'll be a cleanup type guy by then.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 02:27 PM) How about Getz for leadoff, and Ramirez as the number 2. I understand that Ramirez has a low OBP, but he seems to feast on fastballs and CQ would provide protection behind him. The biggest reason I like Alexei in the 2 hole is that Alexei makes contact. The only guy with fewer K's/AB on the Sox than him last year was Cabrera, and that was Alexei's first season and he had some major early struggles.

No DJ we don't want Alexei leading off.

Oh, GOODIE. Somehow, I just don't believe the AIG folks on this one just yet. Not sure why.

God I hate the enhanced call-in broadcast. Just call the game!

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 01:50 PM) He did last year too towards the end of the season if I remember correctly. He then had a good game in the playoffs, but BA is far superior in my mind. The advantage given to Wise is he hits lefty and BA of course is the righty, but I think in the case of D Wise this is overrated. The problem with that simple analysis is that Brian has been inconsistent in his career in which guy he hits better. In 2006, for example, Brian was a fair amount better against righties than against lefties. Therefore, we benched him and put in Mack against righties.

Matthews homers. 3-0 Angels. If anyone's watching, is Gavin getting the ball up a little too much?

2-0 Angels as Floyd gives up a home run. The leadoff walk scores.

Gavin with 0 issues through 2. Couple of longer fly balls that stayed in the park, that's it. Kroeger makes an out. I think his hot streak has ended. He needs another one to make the team. Beckham grounds out to Aybar. Figgins steals a hit from Miller.

Nice to see the big man back.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 10:17 AM) Cramer did go out of his way to get CEOs and the like on to put them on the record talking about thier companies. If he is getting lied to, and there is no other information to contradict what he is saying, there really isn't much that can be done. Except...they could actually try doing some reporting.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 10:14 AM) So get rid of the system and make it totally public? Then, the "rich" get their guy, right? I'm asking because it's something that I wish we ALL could fix. Yes, totally scrap the current system, and offer a competitive system that is funded through tax dollars. It has to actually meet all of the fundraising demands and not be restrictive such that there's no benefit to people for opting out, and it has to allow people to spend even more if their opponent does opt out or is rich enough to self-finance. A number of states have tried similar things. There is of course a downside, as it makes it harder for 3rd party or insurgent candidates to truly get a shot. Hillary Clinton might well be president now if that was the system. But I think it'd be a major improvement, most importantly at the Congressional level.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 10:09 AM) I hadn't thought of it the way you said it, and that's true too. So I guess we're screwed no matter what. There's no way that we can get rid of corruption unless lobbiests are 100% outlawed, and that won't happen. 3 words. Public campaign financing. It's the closest thing to a panacea I can offer. It's difficult to institute and people can still go around it if they want to self-finance, but spending the $5-$10 billion in public funds on making sure that no official campaigning for office has to beg businesses, interest groups, and rich people for money will pay for itself many times over.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 10:05 AM) I used to be on that banned list! What happened to Nuke Cleveland? Keep in mind I was gone for 3ish years. There was an issue with him really wanting to post some anti-muslim stuff, he earned himself a suspension for it, and hasn't come back since.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:55 AM) Exactly! And we expect "change"? That's the hard part and why I asked the other day... is it time for term limits? And as I replied...term limits do nothing as long as the system requires you to kowtow to the highest bidder in order to get elected. Hell, if we're looking at it in that regard, it could easily make things worse, because it takes a lot more money to run a competitive race than it does to run nearly-unopposed.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:26 AM) Our government is just as corrupt (if not more so) then any of these businesses you love to throw s*** all over. Of course it is. Because for at least the last 20-30 years (can't speak to before that because frankly I wasn't around)...they've been run by the same people. That's the short definition of a plutocracy.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:45 AM) Actually, my first thought was exactly the same one... the weather was pretty temperate across most of the country, not to mention it's the first month in the south after "winter". I also wonder if all the new FHA programs helped a little. That was my other thought, but I didn't even mention it because I didn't figure anything could have hit yet, between the FHA, the stimulus plan's housing incentives, extra funds being pumped in to the GSE's, and so forth. And anyway, if those things were what drove them...wouldn't you expect housing purchases to pick up a bit before the construction starts?

How did the NY Times expose Bush's illegal wiretapping without subpoena power?

A question for anyone who has an answer...yesterday's rally was promoted in part by a significant surge in new housing starts. My question is...why was there a surge in housing starts? There's still a fairly large glut of housing on the market, prices are still falling significantly, credit is still tight. It seems like a surge in housing starts now is way ahead of the game even given that it takes a while to construct housing. We're sitting on an 11 month or so supply of housing at the last numbers I found, where a 6 month supply is typically normal. The only reason I can figure for why there would be a surge in housing starts is if there was anomalously good weather throughout much of the country. Can anyone explain to me how else that makes sense? It seems like another pulse of construction will just wind up increasing the over-supply unless there's a huge surge in buying.

How I've missed those...

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:18 AM) Didn't know Thome was having back spasms. If that's an issue he'll probably hit under .100 in April. Get well, Jimmy. He took about 6 simulated at bats yesterday and is supposed to play today against the Halos.

It doesn't hurt us that much to give Marquez a start or two.