Balta1701

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 06:40 PM) He will prob be up the end of next season with a shot in 2010. Depends on how our middle infielders go before then.

Damnit, come on Danny, spring training for you should be over, it's time to turn it back on. You destroyed this league last year.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 05:37 PM) Not only that, but it will be at least 2-3 years before Beckham does anything of note at the MLB level. This isn't the NBA or NFL. You know, it's actually entirely possible we'll see Beckham faster than that. He's a multi year college guy, part of his projection says he might be a quick riser through the system.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 05:36 PM) DFA Quentin I just threw up a little...

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 05:26 PM) He's going to make a fine SS once Cabrera leaves next season. Ramirez and Beckham will hopefully form a nice tandem up the middle of the infield. Don't count out Richar just yet

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 05:28 PM) It's not that any of these 5 guys couldn't be studs, but they seem to fit the profiles of being overdrafted, sans Beckham. I don't mind overdrafts on principle...I just mind overdrafts if the reason isn't 100% your scouts belief in their baseball ability. If someone tells me they've got a stud that no one else has found, that might be plenty of reason. But I really doubt that happened in KW's case.

Quick low pitch inning. We really needed that. 3 more of those would be great.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 05:19 PM) How can you grade a baseball draft this early? I just don't understand that. It seems that people grade on if they liked the players. What if KW jr is the next Curtis Granderson. Nobody knows, I think you should wait 5 years to grade a draft. Yeah you should wait...but still, there's no reason to think that KW JR wouldn't have been there in 3 or 4 rounds if we'd wanted him then.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 06:16 PM) People are already turning towards higher efficiency and green energy. I'm not debating the need for that. I'm saying that bringing the government in to it via taxes is not the best way to get on top of the alternative energy game because the government is almost always horribly inefficient with money. We have a lot of private ventures investing money into alternative energies right now. Yes, we still have a lot going into oil and coal, but we still need those right now and will need them for a while to come. I think adding more taxes will just force more companies out of the country, hurting the economy and lessening our ability to invest in alternative energy. The counterpoint is...if you raise taxes, the only way those companies are going to be forced out of the country is if the raising of those taxes reduces the amount of energy they're able to sell...aka reduces the demand for that energy (especially the high carbon energy). You can't just move a power plant to China because the government instituted a fee on high carbon energy here. The only way that the case you propose happens is if we cut our non-renewable energy consumption, which I think we'd all agree is a good thing. One other point I'd like to add here...a big part of the reason this is an issue at all is that in this case, the market itself was totally inefficient. The market itself paid for the production of the good in a supply and demand system. But for 100+ years, it did so without acknowledging that there was anything else happening, like either the depletion of those resources or atmospheric changes. The market itself failed. This is why oil companies and other energy companies do business the way they do...outside of energy companies in California, they make more money by selling you more energy. But the problem is, this only works for a system where you have essentially an infinite amount of supply and no harm done to any other system because of it. Both of those are untrue. The global energy crisis and global warming is a function of the market being simply designed in a way that it can not deal with the problems at hand. That's why setting up this system is important...a carbon price, done right, helps give the market a reason to take in to account those other effects that haven't been dealt with by the market at all.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 05:12 PM) Sorry, I didn't notice the implied green. Implied NSS, or implode?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 06:09 PM) He's still at a halfway decent pace... 51 thru 3 innings. But he's gonna need to go more than 6 if he can Exactly. That 7th inning is going to be pretty important tonight.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 04:56 PM) ...and government gets bigger, everyone's energy costs soar, and the economy drops. Yipee! Except...maybe, just maybe...we finally get out ahead on renewable energy, instead of behind, and we wind up in a much more solid position long-term economically by getting ourselves away from shipping $300 billion to the middle east every year. Like it or not, energy costs are going to keep going up if we do nothing, so the economic hit you're talking about is going to happen. I think we should benefit from this if we can.

Jose needs to be more economical with these pitches or we're going to have a Loaiza sighting after all the bullpen use yesterday.

QUOTE (Wanne @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 04:58 PM) pathetic ball/strike ratio 18/22 Jose doesn't seem to have his greatest stuff tonight. Thankfully we're playing the Royals and have a 4 run lead, so he has some margin for error for once.

You know, with Jose on the mound, I think it's almost unavoidable that the leadoff walk to Gathright turns in to a run. He'll just swipe the 2 bases and then any contact scorse him.

QUOTE (kwolf68 @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 04:56 PM) Gosh it's wonderful playing the Royals. Suddenly we know how Cub fans feel every day.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 05:47 PM) It's carbon-neutral either way. That carbon will be emitted by whatever digests the wood or by burning it. Will that stop all-knowing government from taxing it? Probably not. Belgium passed a BBQ tax. They fly around in helicopters with IR cameras to make sure people have their permits. I think they repealed it because they realized how stupid it was, but I put no level of stupidity past misinformed and politically opportunistic politicians. See, if you design the tax right and have it based on units of carbon actually emitted...then things like that won't happen, because it'll cost too much to use the gas to fuel the helicopter. But again, I'll be the first to admit...Europe screwed their system up...because they didn't do it like a tax. The big problem was that they simply handed out the permits for free to the companies that were already polluting. While this is better than nothing because it rewards them if they cut their production, it also removes any penalty for having a high carbon emission system like a 40 year old coal fired power plant. The better way to do it is to auction off the emissions permits to the companies producing the fossil fuels. The price for the permits gets absorbed in to the price of the fuel that way, and the price of high carbon energy (like coal) goes up relative to the cost of lower carbon energy (Natural gas or renewables).

Pablowned!

Can someone say what Dye and Swisher did? Gameday seems to have forgotten that Dye batted.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 04:40 PM) I think it's a bad idea to draft a relative (worse a son) IMO. Represents a conflict of interest. I have no problem with those sorts of drafts. Mike Piazza says hi. I have a problem if your team overdrafts them.

Good ol' Gameday. Pitch 3, in play, out. Pitch 4, ball Pitch 5, foul.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 04:30 PM) And like Alpha pointed out, the rich will just pay to cover their carbon outputs on their yatchs, Leer jets, mansions, etc. Those who would be hit the most would be the middle class. With energy prices increasing the way they are, natural market forces will curb carbon output. No need to grow government to do it. This is actually a large part of the point, in my eyes, of these sorts of cap and trade and carbon tax systems. Because the rich will be able to pay for it, they'll continue to do so. That raises the funds that the government can put in for research and to pay to reduce the impact on the middle class. Make no mistake though, there has to be pain on all parts if we're going to fix this problem rapidly enough to avoid much, much worse pain. But the good news is...the lowest of the low hanging fruit are often still out there, because there's been very little monetary incentive to fix the problems (i.e. oil companies, coal companies, energy companies outside of california...they all make money by selling you more energy and releasing more carbon, and since there's virtually no economic incentive for them to change their behaviour, they haven't). QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 04:30 PM) Even if we were to agree that we need to reduce "Joe Sixpack's" carbon output so that he stops grilling, driving, having bonfires, etc. How many times do I have to point out that burning wood products is actually carbon-neutral as long as you're replanting trees in the process?

Jose's a bit wild so far. But out of the first unscathed.

QUOTE (Wanne @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 05:16 PM) would be if ya stepped in a big pile of dookie....... Watch where you're walking then. And otherwise, it gives you new things to throw at Gathright.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 05:14 PM) I don't know. But, outside of bunting, that description fits Orlando Cabrera. But unfortunately...right now, with Swisher's bat having so many holes in it, there's no logical candidate to hit #1.