Balta1701

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 11:02 AM) Unlike every other national rail service, Amtrak doesn't own the rails it uses with the exception of the Northeast Corridor (Washington D.C. - Boston) and a portion of track running from Chicago to Detroit, and I believe some of the Caltrain lines that it runs in Northern California. On the tracks that it runs trains on for intercity service outside of the Northeast, it has the lowest priority in traffic dispatching, because of the bizarre track ownership situation. Although it is a quasi-public company and has requirements to run routes that are unprofitable, it has never been fully funded. It has been unable to maintain its rolling stock in a way to maximize the speeds that the current trains could acheive. It has been unable to improve much of the track it does own to eliminate grade crossings that would allow the train to increase its speeds on intercity routes. Amtrak is, to my eyes, this bizarre cycle of budget cuts where its budget starts off inadequate at some point while the government funds roads, it's forced to cut back on service because of it, people fail to use it as an option and build their homes and businesses based on the assumption that the only method of travel is going to be the well funded roads, and then they demand additional budget cuts on Amtrak because no one's riding it. A true mass transit system has to at some level be an organic thing. When you have a functioning, well designed mass transit system, the area will grow around it, and that will in tune feed continued development or improvement of that system. But if you start off with a limited, inadequate system, and expect that it will grow itself at some point, its never going to be able to grow itself because the growth will follow the money going in to roads and away from the areas that could be served by a transit system.

Well, that means that the last remnants of the Neal Cotts trade are gone. Does that also finish off everything we got from the Foulke deal? I think so.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 10:59 AM) I thought he didn't start getting benched until June, when his avg. was still below .200, no? Someone may have pointed this out already...but this isn't true. Mackowiak was the starting CF on game 2 of the regular season that year. And the substitution pattern almost never stopped, no matter how many balls Mack missplayed, no matter how many times Anderson saved a game with a catch (Hafner's fly ball vs. Cleveland), no matter how much Anderson's batting improved in the 2nd half of the season, no matter how many times Mack said he was ill suited for CF. It was a platoon from day 1.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 10:39 AM) After listening to his comments after disciplining Duhon(say that 7 times fast), I have complete faith in Paxson cutting the fat from this team. He is pissed On a good note, did anyone notice the impact Thabo had on the lineup last night? I really think he is starting to find himself offensively and defensively now, his confidence is way up there. The big run in the late 1st/early 2nd that gave the Bulls the lead they held for the full night was keyed with a lineup including Tyrus and Thabo. As punishment for building that big lead, they hardly played in the 2nd half.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 10:38 AM) He gets hurt every year. He hurt his wrist, had rotator cuff tendonitis and a concussion all in 2007. I want to say he had some wrist issues in '06 though. If not, I do believe he missed some time, but I may be thinking of 05. Although he was benched constantly in 06, there was never more than a day or two where the reason for it was explained as an injury. It was that Mackowiak = wins.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 10:34 AM) his wrist was injured in '06? Well, it probably was, considering that last year's DL stint was a reaggrivation of an old injury, but that probably wasn't the key factor in his struggling.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 10:04 AM) Unless you need to commute from one suburb to another and not into the city. I can't imagine how much larger the mass transit infrastructure would have to be to help with all the people that take 355, 83, or 294 from the southern suburbs to the northern suburbs. It would take me about 2 1/2 hours each way to use public transportation right now. Part of the reason that these commutes exist is the lack of solid mass transit architecture in these areas. It's vastly cheaper in terms of time to drive those distances than it is to live closer in but take mass transit. A key part of the energy problem is actually this issue...because we've put so much money in to roads, it actually encourages urban sprawl, which is in most cases a big detriment to the environment, as it winds up chewing up more gasoline, requiring more roads, and just spreading everything out.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 10:19 AM) It wouldn't need to be trains only, but even a bus from my front door to O'Hare (I work about a mile away from the airport) would double my commute with all of the stops and generally driving slower. I just don't believe that mass transit is a feasible option for everyone. I do what I can and carpool with my gf who works down the street. Mass Transit clearly isn't a feasible option for everyone, and I don't think anyone would argue that point. But I think that there are a lot of places (i.e. Los Angeles) where a well developed, well funded Mass transit system would be an excellent option that would cut pollution, cut energy use, and save the nation a boatload of money compared to having half the city spend 5 hours locked in gridlock every day because there aren't enough roads to take care of the cars. Furthermore, I still find it pretty disappointing that the U.S. is so far behind the rest of the developed world on high speed rail lines. There are more than a few routes in the country where a well developed system would be an excellent alternative to air travel (The entire east coast from Boston to D.C., for example, or San Diego to San Francisco/Sacramento going through L.A., or L.A. to Vegas, or maybe St. Louis/Chicago/Detroit)

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 09:59 AM) No time to post the link, but Rocco's MLB career is possibly done with, and I worry about his long-term health. Took less than a minute.

QUOTE(SoxWS05 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 10:16 AM) How about Neil Cotts and Shingo? Maybe Jeff Samarjia (spell?) Cotts put up a 4.83 ERA and a 1.45 ERA in AAA Iowa for the Cubs last year, and those numbers were virtually identical to his big league numbers last year as well (that says something both about Neal Cotts and about the quality of the NL Central). I for one really don't want to see the team trade Anderson now.

QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 09:41 AM) I am thinking that Cooper meant that Ohka would be a possibility for call up. He was talking about the lack of depth in the farm system wasn't he? I don't think he was talking about whether Ohka had a spot resrrved on the roster. If he pitches well enough in ST to earn a roster, I see no harm in giving him the last spot for April and sending down both MMac and Wasserman. If he struggles a few times in April, then bring up whichever of the other 2 is pitching the best.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 09:30 AM) Oh ya, I'm sure teams are just lining up to trade for Ohka. If somehow he could come out and put up a solid ERA out of the pen for a few months, and the Sox fell out of it, then we could at least get something non-terrible for him. There's always demand for relievers at the deadline. But of course, if he could have a solid season somehow, that makes us a lot better too. He wouldn't be the first reliever pulled off the scrap heap by a team to turn in a good season.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 09:27 PM) Bulls need to go hard after either Jeff Van Gundy or Tom Thibodeau as their next coach IMHO. Both would suit the style of play the Bulls have had under Skiles / Boylan. I'm really not sure the Bulls are set up to play like they did under Skiles/Boylan. With their age and with the athletic big men they have, I think there'd be a decent advantage to the Bulls with opening up more and picking up the pace. I mean, Noah's literally a point guard who grew another foot who can now get you a dozen rebounds, and Tyrus is still a pogo stick. Throw in Luol Deng, if he can ever find that outside jumpshot he had last year that has totally deserted him this year, and the other youngin's in the backcourt, and they'd be well set up to push the tempo more rather than playing the slowdown half court game.

QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 08:13 AM) I think it will take more than a few games in ST for him to learn to hit the breaking ball. There is nothing wrong with some time in the minors to get the rough edges off. I would think he has a future in MLB with the Sox although I wouldn't be expecting him to be the one spring boarding us to a championship. We're still sitting in a place where we're very likely to have an opening at SS at the start of 2009, maybe earlier if our MLB team implodes again. Hell, we have 2 MI spots that should be open by the start of next season. There's a place for both him and Richar if they can stay healthy/perform this season in AAA.

QUOTE(Melissa1334 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 09:03 AM) i agree. sure BA might be the better player, etc but then we become really right handed and dont have a legit leadoff/speed guy. i dont think we should get rid of BA though, if we're going to get garbage in return. if we're out of the race in july, trade dye. Dye has a NTC for this season I believe.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 09:01 AM) I wish he worked for a candidate I liked. He will be regarded as one of the most brilliant political minds of this generation. He just, IMHO, used his powers for evil. He's now an unpaid, unofficial adviser to the McCain campaign.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 08:19 PM) I think I read that the Bulls are now the youngest team in the NBA. And you would be correct. And after they subtract Duhon and add in the #9-10 pick in this year's draft, then they'll look even younger (although each person will add a year). They really could use a vet stuck in somewhere. Maybe someone who winds up being a better leader than Ben "clubhouse killa" Wallace or Griffin were.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 08:13 PM) So, the Bulls absolutely dominated the Jazz and won by 12 tonight. I'm officially diagnosing this team as bipolar, which is better than the just plain bad they've been most of the year at least. Give this team a solid coach, system, and maybe a leader somewhere and it could turn around real quick. And play the damn kids.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 07:25 PM) How about a Crede for Rowand trade God no, I want no part of that contract, it's hideous!

Remember that Limbaugh led campaign to get Republican voters to support Hillary so she keeps the race going and keeps battering Obama? A few states ago, i.e. in Wisconsin, Obama was handily winning Republican crossover votes. In Texas and Ohio, it was much closer, only a single digit win. Tonight, according to CNN's exit polling, Republican crossover voters went 77-23 in favor of Hillary. That's somewhere in the neighborhood of a 50 point difference amongst that group between what we saw in the race 3 weeks ago and what we're seeing now.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 06:46 PM) The problem is that Ferraro seemed to say that Obama is where he is because he's black. I would say he's doing so well because he's a great candidate, and I don't know how Obama being black helped him win in Iowa, or Idaho, etc. Ferraro, 1988.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 05:50 PM) you beat me too it. I was just about to post it. I have 58.68-40.74 So I rounded. Big whoop. What matters is that would translate to roughly a 18-15 delegate split I believe, which actually helps Hillary a bit because that margin is smaller than the popular vote margin.

QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 05:42 PM) Hm.. Is Alexander a fit in Chicago or is he too expensive/risky? I'm personally just not sure he brings all that much. He had that one great season running behind Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson, but since then, he got his big contract, and seems like he doesn't really do anything. He doesn't seem to push that hard, doesn't make a big difference, and the Seahawks have often looked better without him. If he's cut, I could see bringing him in as a better backup for Benson, but I really wouldn't be excited about it. Could be wrong and it could work, but he just doesn't impress me at all right now.

Exit polls suggest it'll come out at around 59-41 or so. Networks all call it for Obama.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 04:18 PM) So we magically have the perfect tax level on fuel, not too high and not too low. /faints Actually, I for one would argue that it is too low. But there is sort of an artificial equilibrium that will establish itself no matter what tax rate you set that will hold the price the consumer pays roughly constant. If you raise the gas tax, then the price of oil drops somewhat as demand drops, bringing the price at the pump back to where it currently is. If you lower the gas tax, the price of oil will go up as demand increases. I'd argue that the drop in demand associated with an increase is desirable on its own, but that's sort of how the market works. There's a feedback either way that is going to push the system back towards the current point.