Balta1701

$4.47 right now, actually down from a week ago.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jul 16, 2008 -> 07:46 AM) And that would have been bad because...? I don't really care much, as I don't see the Bulls competing next year, regardless. But short term, Camby's a nice player to have, and long-term, you get out from Hinrich's contract. Not sure if they would have wanted Hinrich, though. The Nuggets were wanting to move themselves out of luxury tax territory. That means that they needed to trade Camby to a team who either had a contract that just expired (Memphis, basically) or they needed to trade him to a team that was under the cap (Memphis or the Clippers). The only way for the Bulls to get a piece of this would have been to trade Hinrich/Hughes to either Memphis or LAC for a draft pick, thus allowing the Bulls to get under the cap. Considering the Clips just signed a PG, they're not going to have any interest in that. And Memphis isn't going to be spending money right now, they've made that clear.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 06:32 PM) Are you saying that The Senate Banking committee is not in charge of The Senate Banking Committee? or That Schumer was not in charge of the Senate Banking committee, therefore holds no responsibility? or The correct answer to the problem was not on the Senate Baning committee? I think the answer is #2, for 2 reasons. First of all, Senator Schumer is, as far as I can tell, not in charge of the Senate Banking committee, Senator Chris Dodd is the current chairman. He is on the committee but is not chairman. Secondly, the only Democrat other than Senator Dodd who has been chairman since 1995 was Senator Sarbanes, who was chairman from 2001-2003 after Senator Jeffords flipped the Senate when it started off 50/50 and went to 50-49-1. Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) was chairman from January of 2003 to January of 2007.

QUOTE (Jeremy @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 03:44 PM) I don't understand what's risky about Fields; it seemed we nearly had him penned in as our starting third basemen for the next several years entering spring training. Is it just that he's a high strikeout player and has had a down year so far this season? Neither seems like a huge concern to me. My next question would be, what type of player are we looking at as our next 3B? Fields has looked like a rock solid young player much of the time IMO and will make something like $400,000 next season. Do you really want to pay someone else $8 million or $12 million (if that's even in the budget) next season? I'd much rather spend it on a different position. You're leaving one potential item out...Josh Fields wouldn't stay with this organization too long if Mr. Crede were resigned. He'd clearly be dealt for some piece that would hopefully be moderately useful elsewhere. If you can get Joe Crede signed for what you'd have to think is below market value, I think you have to do so and then move Fields if you're intending on competing next year. We're not in a rebuilding mode right now, as evidenced by the fact that we're at the top of the Central, and holding Crede and trading fields makes us better if Crede is resigned at a reasonable amount. Btu with a Boras client...how many ever sign for reasonable amounts?

QUOTE (NYSox35 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 03:59 PM) If it's 4 years @ 8 million per for Joe, count me in! That is pretty damn reasonable. He'll give us a much better all around 3B than Fields w/o hurting our budget elsewhere. I know that'd be a real good price for Joe, and I think you'd have to sign him for it...but i'm always going to be nervous about signing a guy to more than a 1-2 year deal when he's already had a major back problem.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 02:40 PM) I don't want to start any partisan debate since the Democrats have their hands all kinds of dirty right now... but weren't the Republicans firmly in power when people started noticing this might be a problem? January of 2003 to January of 2007 in the Senate, January of 1995 in the House, and the only interruption from 1995 to 2007 in the Senate was 2 years at essentially 50-50, right around 9/11 "Trust the President" time. Although, one could certainly argue that the housing market really started to go up above inflation in the late 90's, it really started going crazy around the 2000-2001 recession, when the credit market expansion was used as the way to bail us out of the business-led recession that happened after the tech bubble burst.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 11:59 AM) Throw the Cubs in there and that is exactly what I am expecting it to be If they're smart...that's exactly what they'll focus on not doing. Let ESPN do that. Where in MLB is there better room for revenue growth? Trying to squeeze more ticket sales out of the NY and Boston media markets, or by bringing other teams up on to a national stage? How much potential revenue growth is there from bringing teams like the Rays and Marlins right now out of the shadows? Or think about the last few years, every year there's been at least a couple of surprise playoff teams that no one knew beforehand. The Tigers, the White Sox, the Indians, the Rockies, the D-Backs? MLB has already built Ortiz, Jeter, ARod in to stars. If they want to build their game even more, they need to build up some of the other guys out there. Verlander. Longoria and the rest of the Rays. The Uptons. Josh Hamilton (how many people out there have ever watched him play a full game? Or at least had done so before the Rangers played the Sox?). And so on.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 01:49 PM) Financials are a tremendous 5 year play, imo. Considering that the government keeps refusing to let them fail...that's probably true. I could still see them heading in a downwards direction for at least another year or more though, because I still think we're still only in the opening act of the housing bust.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 01:25 PM) While I think the whole idea of Schumer somehow causing the collapse is laughable... I do agree with you that he and others responsible for oversight (not just in Congress, but in the responsible agencies as well) should be embarrassed, and some of them should be out of their jobs or committees. On that part, of course, you won't get any disagreements, except from other members of Congress.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 01:21 PM) Another question, where was Schumer and the Senate banking committee when this problem was developing? In the minority, stuck without subpoena power.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 12:36 PM) Buy now. If you're looking purely long term I'd agree on that. Long term in the 20-30 year window. But for the next several years, I think things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 12:34 PM) Circus Circus and MGM have amusement parks (Circus Circus also has a circus type show). Bellagio fountains are cool. Treasure Island Pirate show as well (although I don't know if the show is now "adult themed". Caesars Palace has the gladiator type of show that people like in the forum shops. The TI pirate show is fairly adult themed. It's about as risque as you could get while still having it out in front of the place on the street. The Caesars show in the forum shops is just some statues that move around and talk, it wasn't all that impressive. The fountains are a must. I stayed a night at MGM and didn't see anything resembling an "Amusement park" like you refer to. They have a lion enclosure which would be nice to visit with some kids, and a few attractions there like the TV show thing or some of the shops (Rainforest cafe) might be nice for children, but I think they're focusing on the 20-40 crowd and didn't have all that much.

So I see the Dow appears to be closing below 11000 today?

If you're looking for both better gambling and drinking, honestly, I'd avoid the main ones on the strip you hear about. They're more set to be resorts. The odds aren't as good on most games, the drinks at all the bars are through the roof, they're geared to be more resorts that have casinos stuck in them rather than casinos. If you're insisting on staying somewhere mid, the best place I found for compiling discounts was smartervegas.com. This thread at fatwallet.com is also updated fairly rapidly when a hotel comes out with a new deal. Lots of places on the strip will offer a room for about $70 or $80 and will include things like activity or dining credits to keep your money there. If you're looking for more gambling, cheaper drinks, etc., places that are a bit older, like the Sahara, the Riviera, all of the places downtown near Fremont street fit your description. Usually those are the more for the gambling types, less for the blow a lot of money on shows and get a wonderful room types. There's an offer up now at the Sahara for like $37 a night.

QUOTE (RME JICO @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 12:36 PM) What does Moyer have to do with Buehrle? He has been an All-Star once in 22 years. Moyer had 700IP and 34 wins at age 29, Buehrle has over 1500IP and 100+ wins. No comparison. Moyer is important for one reason...longevity. You put MB with Moyer's longevity and he probably gets to 300 and gets in.

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 11:33 AM) Well I'm going to Vegas in a few weeks also (yes I'm going everywhere it seems), for a boys weekend with about 4-5 guys my age. Hopefully staying somewhere close to the Strip. What are the best Casino's, clubs / bars etc. if anyone's been? Just got back. Need a lot more details to answer this question. What are you looking to do? What sort of clubs/bars are you looking for? How much are you looking to spend on the hotels, casinos, clubbing etc. Are you a gambler or are you looking for other entertainment? Will you have a car? The good news on Vegas right now is there are an insane number of deals cropping up on hotels, since pretty much every company embarked on a major building and expansion project within the last year or because they had such success during the housing market boom, and now it's turned around and gas prices have gone the other way so they're all suddenly caught having more rooms than they can fill.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 12:31 PM) He's in the same boat as a couple other Sox players. Really good, but not great. Players like Dye, AJ, Konerko, OC, Vazquez and Crede. I think if MB keeps his career going for as long as some other, similar style control pitchers (thinking guys like Glavine, Moyer, yes I know the comparison isn't perfect) then I think Mark is at a level above any of those guys.

QUOTE (RME JICO @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 12:28 PM) Comparing the others pitchers posted, other than wins, Mark looks pretty good if either of these make it. If Mussina keeps up for the next couple years what he's doing this year, he has a shot at 300 and making it. I'm still amazed at what he's doing this year though. Blyleven always has people pushing for him, and I think eventually he'll be a veterans committee inductee, but those 2 are right at the edge. If Mark keeps coasting along at 10-12 wins per year he just isn't going to get it. He doesn't have the stuff to go Cy Young crazy (although even getting 1 would help)...his best chance is to get in the neighborhood of 300 wins and preferably hit that mark. If he gets to 275 and winds up his career as the closest to 300 out of the crop of pitchers coming of age in the 00's, that might do it given how often people are talking about the number of decisions going to starters decreasing, but that win total is his best shot unless he does something crazy in the postseason.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox15 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 11:16 AM) Maybe Hawk will get in as a broadcaster. He was actually a Frick award finalist like a year or two ago and I think he'll get that eventually. Like him or not, he's been an institution on the south side for decades now.

Just got back from there actually. Honestly, there's very little around the main casinos that I'd say is geared for Children. Circus Circus is supposed to have a decent amount of stuff that might be enjoyable, but out of the hotels that's probably it. The Strat has a few rides at the top of the tower, not sure on the height requirements. Some of the shows might work out well, not exactly sure what your family would be considered "in to". Go catch the Star Trek Experience before it goes away at the end of August. Here's a good forum with a list of family-oriented suggestions.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 11:57 AM) Encouraging a distributed system via tax incentives, research and development grants, and mandating net use power grids in a certain timeframe, would be a better solution than waiting for the BLM to get its act together. Not only is it a government agency, but its way understaffed (I actually have some specific knowledge on this), and developing large plants takes significant time. If you make solar cells effectively cheaper now, for businesses and homeowners, the market will push solar power along for you. And meanwhile, you add some new jobs to the private sector. Large plants are needed for one specific thing that normal cells can not provide though...energy storage. The normal energy usage curve during a day is phase-shifted by a few hours from the sun intensity curve...power usage rises in the morning at a time after the sun goes up, peaks usually in the afternoon I think, and then drops off slowly through the evening. Solar peaks at mid day and declines until sunset. A large plant can develop things like thermal technologies that allow energy storage to meet nighttime demand, something that can't be done with simple photovoltaics.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 06:51 AM) Moreover, the Bush administration did that suspension on the development of new solar, so... the dumbness of that made his net effect on energy neutral, not positive. Actually, that decision was un-done after public outcry (See one of the energy threads, I posted that before I took off but I don't really remember where). But there is still a big backlog of applications for solar plant development that the BLM is well behind on taking care of (a backlog which would be fixed by hiring more people I believe) so there's still an issue slowing down that development in the government.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 10:42 AM) 10 straight years of 18 wins starting this season won't even get Buehrle to 300. To talk about 300, Mark needs to both start getting his win totals a bit higher than he has the last 2 years (get back in to the 15 win a year range) and he needs to hold those kind of numbers until his mid 40's.

1 of 3 things will have to happen. 1. Close in on/get to 300. 2. Step it up for a couple seasons and pull off at least one Cy Young. 3. Some major additional postseason heroics, where he's looking at more than one additional ring. It's the hall of fame, not the hall of very good. Mark has spent his whole career so far at the very good level. If you're hanging out at very good, you need to hang out at very good for an extra long time or perform in several postseasons.

John Danks...it's time to pitch like...well...um...John Danks. Go out & get em kid.