Balta1701

QUOTE (rangercal @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 07:12 PM) As hard as it is for me to say, take Rose off the floor in the 4th and we might win. And then suddenly he outsmarts the Heat.

And Dwyane Wade just does that.

And then he misses the free throw that would have made it a 4 point game. Argh.

Joe Mauer to have an MRI on his ailing back.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 05:53 PM) I don't think anyone disagrees with you that they have a ton of risk on everthing right now. However, the mark-to-market rules and the ESTABLISHMENT of a proper market is a lot of the problem. The fed was trying to establish a market for it, and that's failed... as to why I'm not sure because I haven't read enough on it yet. I do know that they are trying like hell to get a realistic handle on the market. That is very difficult because how do you value something that no one is sure what you will get out of it? With that said, if the government is going to back it, then the market should go higher, much higher in some cases, which would suggest that the banks have lowered certain assets too low. The problem is, everyone knows that the government simply can only go so far backing these assets before people simply aren't going to want to bail them out any more. What %age of Citigroup do we own now? I mean, just look at the numbers. Citigroup's total market value right now is what, about $10 billion? (Haven't done the math today, it was around that # on Friday). Look at the deal the Federal Government struck with Citi in November. Citigroup would take the first $29 billion in losses on their securities. For the next $272 billion, the losses would be split 90/10 with the government taking 90% of the losses. Out of their first $330 billion in losses, the Fed was going to absorb $245 billion. The U.S. government has guaranteed to take on $245 billion of Citigroup's losses, basically agreeing to pay Citigroup $245 billion, and their total value now has dragged itself below $10 billion. The only way that makes sense is if the markets currently think the losses Citi is going to take will overwhelm $245 billion from the government, since Citi supposedly has $108 billion in emergency reserves based on that report that I just posted. The Federal Reserve has expanded its balance sheet by $2 trillion over the past year, buying up these assets. The Fed has guaranteed $245 billion in Citigroup's assets directly. And yet, the market still thinks that Citigroup is nearly worthless. The market certainly isn't always wise, but the numbers there are staggering. They're expecting Citigroup to be unable to cover $350 billion in losses.

Some new data backing up my case that the banks problems aren't related to the fact that they're not allowed to pretend their mortgage backed securities are worth more than anyone would reasonably pay for them. The problem is they're way, way over-exposed to risk on every side. One thing I still wonder about is the exposure of these guys and of AIG to bankruptcy on the part of GM/Chrysler.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 03:34 PM) The push-back begins. Now that the restrictions are gone, this will be forgotten about as an issue for years for 95% of the population until either someone from the other side takes office and tries to reinstate the ban or actual cures start being produced.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 04:49 PM) But it was so different in 2004-5-6-7 that Democrats wanted George W. Bush to fail. Just saying. Which is of course why they blocked every single thing he tried to do. That's why we never invaded Iraq. That's why Bush never appointed any Supreme Court Justices over a filibuster and now we have only 7 justices That's why every funding resolution for the Iraq war was filibustered, and the war that never happened ran out of funding in 2005. That's why he wasn't able to institute $3 trillion worth of tax cuts in his first couple years over intense filibusters.. Thank Goodness that's why the Patriot Act was filibustered. /kaperbole. Seriously...one could make a much more coherent argument that the Democrats wanted George W. Bush to fail so badly that they gave him every single thing he wanted for 8 years, realizing shrewdly that everything he touched was going to implode, while now the Republicans have to keep him from succeeding and thus Obama can't be allowed to pass anything because that might actually succeed. Somehow I doubt anyone is that crafty, but at least it offers an explanation for behavior that doesn't contradict what happened.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 03:28 PM) I am very worried about Danks. Maybe they have caught up with him? Discuss It's spring training. We're due for some dead-arm period starts.

Oh Goodie, a Mike MacDougal sighting.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 03:20 PM) Apparently Erstad never left. Erstad's first at bat with the Sox was a home run.

QUOTE (scenario @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 02:24 PM) "Little Hurt"? I still have the ball somewhere that Craig Grebeck hit right at my head.

QUOTE (almagest @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 02:03 PM) Podsednik had the same issue Owens has in his last year in Milwaukee, IIRC. Every swing was uppercut, and all he got were weak grounders and popups. The White Sox and Pods obviously did some work to help Pods with this in '05, so they know what they're doing. Why don't they work with Owens, or (more likely) why doesn't he listen? Owens may just not be strong enough to do anything with that type of swing.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 02:01 PM) I think that's a very apt comparison. About a .75/.80 BB/K and .100 ISO. Efficient baserunning and solid defense up the middle. He's certainly not going to kill you or piss you off in the leadoff spot. Maybe less power, maybe a decent number of additional walks, which I'll take out of that spot.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 01:51 PM) Except Griffey and Swisher were a combined 1 for 11 w/ 0 HR pinch hitting last year. Anderson and Wise both hit 1 a piece. Betemit hit 3 in 29 AB in '07. Also worth noting is that Anderson and Wise both had 14-12 at bats as pinch-hitting, so they're not far from Betemit's ratio there.

JVB in.

QUOTE (BFirebird @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 01:46 PM) Getz bringing them all home. I agree with Kalapse on Betemit. Just think about our bench the last couple of years. Have we had anyone that could come in and hit a homer off the bench? Anderson/Wise/Griffey/Swisher. And Geoff Blum.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 01:43 PM) Conditioning? Gavin hadn't pitched so well for so long before? Certainly could play a part in it, but there's got to be more to it than that. Floyd's innings jump last year was about 25 innings over 2007, Danks's innings jump was like 75 innings. Some people just develop differently. If Floyd's in a little bit better of a position to throw 200 innings this year after throwing 200 last year, he could take another major jump. Just look at his August/September splits. His ERA was 4.56 and his OPS against him was .808 after August 1. He kept winning games and giving us huge wins, a lot of it simply on balls, but compared to the 3.43 ERA and .695 OPS against him through July 30th, his 2nd half was a downer.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 01:22 PM) IIRC he really stunk it up last year in ST and came out on fire when the season started He was 5/37 in the spring last year for a .135 average.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 01:13 PM) On this team, I would say Danks gets more out of his stuff than anyone except Mark Buehrle. I can actually agree with Gregor if you word it a little differently. I really believe that Gavin Floyd has better pure stuff and potential than Danks does. Danks just has a HUGE edge in the mental aspect of the game, which we all know how important that is in the game of baseball. Gavin Floyd is blessed with more potential and stuff than most of baseball. He just has to learn to harness it. One thing about Gavin though is that his fastball so far doesn't seem to hold up as well as Danks. At least last year, if you looked at the gun, you couldn't tell whether Danks was in the 1st inning or the 6th, whether it was April or August. Gavin declined a bit more during the games and declined a bit more as the season went along, although he gutted out a fair number of huge wins in August and Sept.

QUOTE (BFirebird @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 01:25 PM) But can Wise lead off? Or would it be whoever starts at 2b? If Owens can't hit around .300 and steal at a 75% clip, then you have to go with whoever is at 2b. There's just no other way around it. I could live with any of Nix, Lillibridge, or Getz leading off if they can hit adequately.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 01:25 PM) LMAO When your hitting coach has to deny that you're having "a terrible spring"...you're having a terrible spring.

QUOTE (BFirebird @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 01:22 PM) I feel like we are just beating our heads against the wall with this issue. The coaches have to see what we see....they just have to. Link

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 01:06 PM) He looks slower than ever so far, and his bat speed also has been really poor. It's a shame we couldn't trade him for Bailey, as he's looked very good. Dye hit .238 last year in the spring and I could swear I heard the exact same statements about his bat speed. (Not to say that I wouldn't want Bailey though).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 10:37 AM) Actually I think we are saying two completely different things. I am saying you don't have to have a trade to have proper valuation take place. Forcing the market to recognize prices that probably don't refect reality, and making banks fail for that is just dumb policy, especially when it is forcing us into a gynormus debt situation and ruining the economy. The private sector recognizes how randomly these valuations are taking place and wants nothing to do with them. That is a rational market decision. You can't really tell me that you believe the actual market value of mortgages from two/three years ago is less than 5% of what they were worth then, yet we are supposed to assign those values to banks? Ok, so basically, to first order you're adopting the Treasury/Fed position that these assets are going to be worth more in the long run than they are now and the banks are being forced to underwrite them because no one else wants to risk holding them right now. I'm taking the position that $8 trillion + of wealth has vanished and these securities are still over-valued, to the point where having a genuine value placed on them would send the banks in to bankruptcy. If you're right, then TARP is a hell of a deal for the taxpayers and for the Fed, as is the nationalization of the GSE's, and there will be an end to this if we buy time by continuing what we're currently doing. If I'm right, then the only end to this is to have the government take the losses and break the banks apart in to entities that are no longer too big to fail. I'll leave it at that. Good discussion.