Balta1701

QUOTE (scenario @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 10:38 AM) Really? He's already stated he'd be willing to play on the northside... so obviously Chicago is an acceptable location. You're forgetting 1 thing. The AL has good hitters.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 08:46 AM) Paulson is now saying that they will NOT be buying troubled assets with any of the $700B bailout money. None. This is a fundamental shift from what they had originally said they would do when they asked Congress for the money. Now, this may or may not be good. But regardless, its bait-and-switch, and Treasury and the administration appear to have pulled a fast one on Congress. Actually, I'm not sure this is true. One of those additional 400 pages or whatever that they added to the 3 page document that Paulson originally requested was actually in there because there were quite a few economists out there who said "Paulson's plan isn't going to solve the problem, what you really need to do is recapitalize the banks by buying shares in them". So, based on this, in the final bill there was a clause inserted that said Paulson had the authority to do exactly this if he wanted to, because enough people were saying Paulson's original plan was stupid and this would work better. And now, a couple weeks later, Paulson himself is realizing his original plan was stupid and is doing it the right way, and Congress left him a door to do that if he wanted to.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 07:50 AM) The 1991 recession IS Bush's fault, as the 2001 recession IS Clinton's fault, as this recession is GW Bush's fault. You really should leave the partisian stuff out of it, because it isn't that complex on an economic level. Can't I throw a little 9/11 related blame in to the 2001 recession? Anyway...I actually agree with you here on this at some level. While I also think that recessions are something of a natural cycle, all 3 of these recessions have been directly related to asset bubble bursts, and in that level, all 3 could have been avoided or at least lessened by specific actions at the top.

Whoa, as a former Indiana University Union Board member...I'd like to say...GO IMUB! That's a Hell of a score.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 04:23 PM) Definitely give up what they want for Kaman, he's a great fit. I don't think we can really send them Gordon either besides the previously mentioned BYC for Deng though, IIRC he would have to waive his bird rights for that to happen, which isn't too likely. Gooden as cap space and then one of the young bigs works. But I'm not sure about what that does in terms of pushing the Bulls over the Luxury tax line (If we're not going in to the luxury tax, that would guarantee we couldn't sign Gordon by adding Kaman's contract next year - we wouldn't be able to add anything next offseason without hitting the tax).

QUOTE (rangercal @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 03:26 PM) If the clippers offered Kaman for Deng it would be a no brainer. The Bulls need a legit big in the worse way. Kaman is a top 10 C and only 26. Unfortunately, the deal for those 2 straight up would be impossible this year, because Deng is a Base year compensation player (BYC) and thus only like 1/2 of his salary counts in any sort of deal.

QUOTE (rangercal @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 02:28 PM) anything but Rose can go for Kaman Rather not give up Deng also, but with the contract he just signed they wouldn't want him.

Think I'll stick this here. Not every single vote is done counting yet, but a large enough majority are that we can start saying which pollsters nailed it and which polling aggregaters did the best work. Actual appears to be (plus or minus probably a tenth of apercent at this point): 52.6-46.1 The last poll from each pollster missed by: CNN: 0.5 Ipsos: 0.5 Pew: 0.7 Rasmussen: 0.7 ARG: 1.5 Research 2000: 1.7 ABC: 2.5 IBD: 2.7 Hotline: 3.7 Gallup: 4.5 Zogby: 4.5 Battleground: 5.7 CBS: 5.7 Fox: 5.7 As for the multi-poll people, I'll bet you can guess who did the best. FiveThirtyEight.com: 52.3 46.2 0.4 Real Clear Politics: 52.1 44.5 2.1 Pollster.com: 52.0 44.4 2.3

QUOTE (beck72 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 11:39 AM) Maybe. The Orioles do have a bunch of AA SP's [that would be able to start the year in AAA] that the sox could choose from. Bradley Bergesen looks like an arm that could develop and help the sox. But it doesn't make sense to get a closer when the lineup is atrocious. If they were in the NL, or maybe even the AL Central, with guys like Jones and Markakis as young talent, they might well think that they would have a shot at competing next year with a couple intelligent moves. But with the Yankees, Red Sox, and now the ungodly talent loaded Rays in their division, the Orioles would have to be idiots to try to "Win now". That said, the Orioles don't exactly make my list of "Smartest franchises of the last 10 years".

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 01:00 PM) I think he should have been given just a little bit more love though. I'll grant he should have beaten Webb and been in the top 3.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 12:49 PM) No kidding. His first time in the NL and he runs complete game after complete game to drive his team into the playoffs. Simply put, you can't only look at 2/3 of a guy's season. He was dominant in the NL, but that was only 2/3 of a season. If you look at the 1/3 of the season he spent in the AL, he wasn't nearly as good. Lincecum was the right choice here.

Don't want to give up Tyrus, but to Get Kaman...yeah I'd do it. Frankly though I'd rather move Noah than Tyrus in that deal.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 12:23 PM) Interesting, I thought Lugar already declined? He's fully qualified and probably the best for the job, though. Frankly I wasn't a fan of either state or defense going to a Republican (especially not both btw) but it'd be hard for anyone, anywhere to argue to me that there's a better choice for State than Lugar.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) The other thing is Thornton is a lot older than most think. I'm pretty sure he's 32 or 33. Turned 32 last September.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) That's certainly one way to go. If you want to be like the screaming liberal fringe, I can't stop you. Or, we can have some good discussions as the new Presidency unfolds, like we did about the volunteerism thing over the past few days. Some of us voted for Bush in 2000 and gave him every chance to succeed, before becoming cynical about him. Some of us took down all our anti-Bush stuff on a late summer morning in 2001. And at least gave him the benefit of the doubt until they saw what he was doing with it.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 10:05 AM) I wonder what he himself is thinking though... between Reid and Obama it sounds like they're patronizing him hardcore, almost like they're making sure he knows they're doing him a favor. But it probably wouldn't do them any good to burn bridges as long as Lieberman is useful to them. But...it's a real, real risk to keep Lieberman at a committee that has the job of oversight of the White House.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 10:39 AM) Somewhere there is a guy thinking pouring this on his girlfriend would be hot, and really, really, weird, is somewhere there is a girlfriend thinking it would be fun. And seemingly, one definition of that word "Somewhere" is "Texas"

Let's talk a bit about structural engineering and this level of earthquake. We've learned a lot about how these type of waves impact buildings. And in general, the result isn't really good. Lots of standard building materials aren't able to take the type of 5-10 meter per second sideways accelerations that hit during one of these quakes. The worst materials during a quake are materials that can't take tensional stress. Those are, essentially, brick and mortar buildings and unreinforced concrete buildings. IF you're in any of those when a quake, even smaller than the shakeout event, hits, then you're in some trouble. Get under the heaviest table you can find and expect bricks to be landing around you. And hope there's not 3 more floors above you. Quite simply, these buildings won't stand. And in terms of how many there are in the area...well, there's enough that there isn't the money to replace them all. And therefore, we're basically waiting for the demolition to be done for free, after which the government will probably step in and help pay for the new ones with insurance money. What about a standard house? Well, one nice thing about wood frames is that wood can take sideways shear strain quite well. It can flex. So, if you're in a house with a wood frame, you're actually in decent shape. It will flex from side to side. Rigid things like your concrete driveway may fracture, if you have a brick chimney for example, look out for that, but the house itself is likely to survive. But that's not the only thing a quake does. In an earthquake, there are waves polarized in all 3 directions, x, y, and z, and all areas inbetween. If you think about the waves as just x, y, and z, the x and y waves are the ones that shake you from side to side, the z waves toss you up and down. But, the z waves do the same to your house; they bounce it up and down. And when your house bounces up and down...there are still x and y waves passing, and moving the ground around while your house is airborne. Unless you've taken steps to prevent it, there's no reason other than blind luck for your house to land on the same spot that it lifted off from. This is by far the biggest cause of red tagged, uninhabitable houses during an earthquake; the house lifts off, the ground moves a bit, the house lands, and it's no longer on its foundation. You pretty much have no choice but to rebuild the house at that point. There is a simple solution available to this. If you sink some heavy bolts between the house and the foundation, you'll keep them together during the quake. If you own land in an earthquake prone area, do this. Now. It's worth the money. In California, most insurers won't even offer you earthquake insurance if you don't do this. If you're in the new madrid zone, it's probably worth looking in to having this done also. The alternative is a total loss of your house with no insurance payment. Finally, let's talk about bigger buildings. Turns out, the highest high rises are probably ok. They have to sustain shear forces daily due to winds, and they can therefore flex enough that they can survive the ground moving underneath them. The problem though, is the smaller high rises, the 10-20 floor buildings you see all over the area, like downtown Pasadena, Glendale, Hollywood, L.A., etc. A lot of these are steel frame, rigid buildings, and depending on how they were built, they are at a reasonable risk of total failure in the quake. After Northridge in 94, there was a building in that area that the inhabitants returned to, and discovered that the elevators didn't work any more. Turns out the building had been knocked off alignment by a couple inches. This tilted the elevators enough that they wouldn't run any more. And the building was a total loss. The shakeout scenario actually includes this as an emergency issue. They estimate that in this size event, probably 8-10 of these 10 or so story buildings across the L.A. basin will actually come down. The Shakeout scenario itself will simulate emergency responses to 5 collapses basin-wide. Whether they come down before or after they're fully evacuated will be, at some level, a matter of luck. But in addition to the rest of the damage around the basin, we're talking about more damage and collapse debris throughout the area than was generated on 9/11, in a number of sites, with possible damage to neighboring buildings if the collapses aren't vertical. 10 high rise buildings coming down across the basin on its own is pretty bad. Now include the rest of the disaster...and eek.

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 09:01 AM) I'm gonna go ahead and say this is gonna be gross. Real gross. Ever put mayo on a sandwich with bacon on it? Could be the same thing.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 09:39 AM) I'd bet big money that the Sox are shopping MacD, hoping to get something, anything for him. I'd agree. But something tells me, they're not going to have any more luck with him than they had with Masset last offseason, until the regular year starts and he starts throwing some big league innings.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 09:34 AM) Logan too. He is still so young (24!) and if he has options I would absolutely hang onto him and hope he can figure it out in Charlotte. He is a lefty who has shown he can have success. At his age, it would a dumb move to part ways. And I also think Contreras coming back in July/August in the pen could be one hell of a set-up man Logan is not out of options, so he'll almost certainly start in Charlotte IMO. MMac is actually the big issue in the bullpen. The Sox aren't going to want to buy his contract out and at the same time let him walk for nothing, but he's out of options so they can't send him down. If they go with a 7 man pen again, I think he winds up by default being #7 until they can do something with him.

Well, here's our starting point then: Jenks Linebrink Dotel Thornton Poreda Top 5 followed by potential backup options: MacDougal (Out of options now) Carrasco Wasserman Logan Eventually Contreras

QUOTE (beck72 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 06:30 AM) I don't know if Street would be the closer. Yet he'd be another option if Jenks was traded. Either way, he would be valuable in set up if he threw like he has been. Depends on what you mean by "Threw like he has been". If he threw like the has-been he threw like last year, then he wouldn't really be that valuable.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 05:30 AM) I laugh because this s*** happens everywhere, all of the time. It's always someone else's money. But you know, you gotta take care of these guys, because you gotta retain top talent.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 12:45 PM) Anybody see Nobel Prize Winner Krugman say we need another stimulus package. $600 BILLION DOLLARS. WTF!!! FWIW, here's the Nobel Laureate on where he came up with that number.