Balta1701

If Clemens's name is in there, it will come out. It might not come out in this report, but I guarantee you, if there's evidence for that guy having had something received...there's just too much money out there for being the first person to write that story for it not to come out eventually, and I don't care how good your coverup is.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 04:56 PM) The team didn't trade Aaron Cunningham for a guy they view as a part-time player. I think they're going to give the ropes (more or less) fully to Richar and hope he becomes an average (or better, if he's as good as his combined numbers of last season) player. FWIW, Bill James' handbook has Richar pegged for something like a .270/.330/.440 line next season which would be absolutely wonderful. I'll be interested in seeing what if PECOTA and ZiPS have him around that .775 OPS mark because if they do, I don't see any reason to do anything but let Richar take most of the at-bats there next season. Richar actually developed faster than I though the would when he hit the big leagues. He still showed a lot of the streakiness he was infamous for, but it didn't take him that long to get really, really, really freaking hot. He's been incredibly raw at every level he stopped at, just because he hadn't played much ball at all when the D-Backs signed him, which is why he floated around in their lower minor leagues for a couple years. When he came up with us, he was a disaster for one month overall, but at least showed some patience at the plate, and then at the start of September he was on fire with the bat for 2 weeks, which I didn't think he'd be able to do even if it was in September, just because he was against another level of pitching.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 04:32 PM) I completely disagree with your sentiment. I would never go into the long-term relying on these young pitchers we have right now. Quantity isn't quality and poor quality in great quantities isn't quality and I want quality. I just wish our farm system popped that out a little more often. I think you know how I look at this well too. My point of view is the "If we want to compete in the short term" point of view. For that, you do have to care about the quantity of guys we have in that sense. If your only concern is 2-3 years down the road when who knows what might come out of our system, then perhaps it makes more sense to swap a Fields for a Slowey/Garza, because if they turn into a #2 type pitcher or better, then they may well have even more value than Josh, as in the long term the only question that matters is their total value, while in the short term I think you have to take into account what you have and what you don't have.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 03:39 PM) Of course it depends if Bill Smith is in "KW mode" where he is trying to win next season. If he is, most likely they'll hang onto Johan, but to get the MOST value for him, it makes sense to deal him now for the package you've mentioned. And if the Twins are in "Win now" mode, then as far as I'm concerned, I think they're throwing away 2009-2011 as rebuilding years, because even with their current pitching prospects, I don't see them able to build a team that can compete in every phase of the game. They'll have M&M, but when Hunter walks, they'll lose a lot of offense and defense that they don't have anyone to replace. Nathan vanishes in a year also, which means their bullpen is about to take a major hit. They have pitching like we're discussing here that they could trade to fill some of those holes, but again, what happens when you trade a pitcher for a position player and then Santana walks? If any of those pitchers you keep turn out to be just average instead of studly, or get hurt, then you're pretty much dead in the water. IMO, if I'm in that job and I have the budgetary constraints, I have no choice but to trade Johan this year and try to rebuild as rapidly as I can. And I might even consider moving Nathan while I'm at it. Both of them should bring back vastly more in a trade than the 2 draft picks I'll get if they walk, and that payment would arrive immediately instead of 3 years down the road. Then again, as a Sox fan...I really hope they hold onto both of them.

In case you didn't catch it, and this has to play into this race somehow, Kerik was indicted today.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 01:13 PM) Has anyone here seriously looked into this as an option for energy use? In terms of supplying the world's current energy needs, there is actually well more than enough sunlight hitting the earth at any given time, and in fact more than enough sunlight bouncing back out to satisfy every scrap of energy we want, and probably 2-3 orders of magnitude worth of room for growth in consumption before we start genuinely running out of sunlight. There are people out there trying to develop systems using solar that could literally power the earth on the space that the deserts in Nevada take up. The issue is always how to get that sunlight and turn it into a form of energy that we can make use of, and that's a materials question or a monetary question or an engineering question. The energy to power this race is out there, from the sun and from the winds and other renewables...we just have to figure out how to convert it.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 01:33 PM) No idea where to put this, so here we go. The Yellowstone Caldera has been inflating at the fastest rate recorded since they began measuring in 1923 - about 3 inches a year - for the past 3 years. Some geologist from UU says no imminent threat is apparent. But the timing cycle, if it can be relied upon, does seem to indicate that we are coming up on a slot. This could be nothing of course. Hard to tell, it seems. There is your mildly alarming thought for the day. No one, and I mean no one, knows more about the Yellowstone volcano than the man they cited there. No one. Trust me. In terms of Yellowstone, it's actually a system I know moderately well. Right now, that area is actually overdue for a small-scale, maybe even St. Helens size eruption. Usually those happen once every 10,000-100,000 years, and it's been well over 100,000 since the last small scale eruption. But, Yellowstone is also doing something unique right now; the hydrothermal activity there massively increased about 125,000 years ago, to a scale that it can't maintain without starting to cool the magma chamber below it. In terms of a large scale eruption, the caldera simply doesn't yet seem primed for one of those. There would likely need to be a lot of motion beforehand...because you need enough motion to actually crack kilometers of crust to break through. But we are really overdue for a smaller scale eruption, even just a small flow.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 02:51 PM) I can see why the Twins would do this. They're obviously loaded with good young pitching, and they've got needs in their lineup. Still they have targeted some position players with their early picks in the draft over the past couple of seasons I think. I could see them doing a Carlos Gonzalez plus another spect for one of Slowey or Garza possibly, or something such as that? I suppose they have doubts over whether they can afford Mauer and Morneau once their current contracts are up. It's a shame from their sake that Carl Pohlad is quite the cheapskate because if they could have kept the current nucleus together, and they'd be even better. If the Twins want to set themselves up for the next 7 years, I still say the single correct decision is to trade Johan to someone like the Dodgers, Angels, Yankees, or Mets, someone with a solid farm system who could afford to resign Johan...for pretty much everything they've got. Kershaw, Kemp, and Laroche would fill what, 3 holes on the Twins, set them up for 7 years with minimum contract high talent guys, and allow them to spend money elsewhere even this year. Trading a young pitcher for a young player would be nice for them...but it doesn't do 1 thing; it doesn't prevent people from walking. Trading Johan before he hits FA, while Ballsy, makes your clock go from 1 year before 1 guy hits FA to 6+ years before a couple guys start hitting FA. If you're operating on a budget, I don't see how you can't try it.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 01:09 PM) And looking for one last big contract according to the rumor mill... And strangely enough, he wants to sign said contract using some sort of tar from a pine tree...

QUOTE(Wanne @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 02:25 PM) I'd rather have Richar at 2nd and leading off than have Owens as an everyday player. Whether some folks here like it or not, JO did actually put up numbers during his 2nd stint at the big league level and during his time in the minors last year that suggest he wouldn't be the worst option in the world as a leadoff hitter. Post All Star Break, which is for all intents and purposes his 2nd call-up (there were a couple games beforehand), he hit .278 and put up a .340 OBP, and was 27/33 in stolen bases (82%). It is also worth noting perhaps that his walks/PA trended up, and approached 1 walk per 10 at bats for the latter 2 months. If, for a moment, we do not care about the slugging...if all we care about is whether or not we'll have a guy on base who can score when the boppers come up...right now there is no better option on our roster. And given that a .340 OBP is right around average for major league leadoff hitters, it may well be that there are few better options available and even fewer available at a price and quality of defense that would interest us. Richar's OBP's last year by month for Aug & September are .290 and .294. While I expect those to improve as his work with the bat improves, it is worth noting that with the exception of his 1 year in AA, he has never had a BB/PA matching what Owens gave us in the big leagues last year (including his time at Charlotte), nor has he been nearly as consistent at taking walks and getting on base as Owens has at any level. In terms of getting on base, he may well find himself, even fairly soon, being an ideal number 2 hitter, as he does get on base somewhat, but in terms of patience at the plate he has not in his career been at Owens's level and his OBP is entirely going to be vastly more determined by his ability to get base hits than for JO. Furthermore, one of the Knocks on Danny has always been he's streaky. We saw some of this in September, where he was putting up an OPS of over 1000 or so for like 2 weeks, then finished the month with a .752. While these are good numbers for a rookie, making the minimum, and at 2nd base...I really don't think streakiness is a quality we want defining a top of the order hitter. It might work in the #2 spot, because he could spend time when he's not getting base hits moving runners over and the pre-Thome fastballs might help him out of slumps quicker, but that is another issue worth considering. If we went solely on potential alone, right now on our roster you put Owens leading off and you basically have your choice of Uribe, Richar, Fields, and Pierzynski hitting 2nd, with Richar having the best chance but it all depending on his development. Both of them can provide OBP, both of them can provide hits, both have the ability to score from first on doubles, and both can steal bases to get themselves in scoring position and force people to give Jim fastballs. And IF these guys put up numbers like they're capable of doing, then we actually have a fairly solid top of the order already. But if either of them struggle or take longer to develop in their 2nd year, then we have a big problem.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 12:34 PM) 3. I don't care who bats 2nd. The only time he's really batting "#2" is the first inning. The rest of the game you have Richar batting #1 (even though he's 9th), Hunter bats #2, and so on. I garauntee a first 3 of Hunter, Thome, Konerko would score more 1st inning runs than Richar/Hunter/Thome. That's the point. With our lineup though, that's not the issue at all. The issue is going to be that they'll always be hitting in front of Thome and Konerko. Which means they better either be getting on base a lot, because those 2 knock the ball out of the park a lot, or they better be getting either themselves or the person in front of them into scoring position, because those 2 guys are really good at driving folks in. If Hunter has a .330 OBP and it's Uribe, Hunter, then Thome, then I'm afraid Big Jim is going to be mashing a lot of solo shots.

The other question in terms of solar panels, etc., to consider is going to be whether or not at any point we actually in this country start dealing with CO2 the way we deal with other wastes; as a commodity and not something that can be freely emitted to the atmosphere. As long as we can consider that we're absorbing 0 cost by heating our homes with fossil fuels and letting the CO2 out, then fossil fuels should stay cheaper than alternative options. If you start factoring in a cost/ton of CO2 released, then you rapidly get a different answer.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 11:51 AM) or that the free agent pitching market has gotten out of whack. Remember that Barry Zito guy? What will Peavy cost? 40 gatrillion dollars. How much money do the Yankees have? 400,000 gatrillion dollars.

As far as I'm concerned...no, I do not trade any of our young bats for young pitching unless the deal is an absolute steal (Kershaw for Fields or something like that) My reasoning is very simple...our system has pitchers. They're not necessarily Johan, but we all know what kind of crapshoot pitching prospects can be. Even the top prospect pitchers often fall apart (Gavin Floyd?) or come down with an injury. But starting pitching is one thing our system does have. We may not have anyone as good as Garza or Slowey, but it's also entirely possible that when everyone hits the big leagues, we may wind up with guys who are their better, their equal, or who are at least close enough. We have an awful lot of depth of young starting pitching. So much so that I still think it makes a lot of sense to move Garland, Contreras, or both of them to try to fill in our position player holes. Floyd, Broadway, Haeger, Gio, Sisco, Masset, Danks, all of them at least have it within them to come out and within the next year or two put up average numbers, and with guys like Buehrle and Vazquez in the rotation already, that might be all we need. On the other hand, look at our position player prospects. At the top levels, well, we had Fields who came up last year, Richar who we traded for, we had Owens who did ok and might be able to be counted on as a leadoff guy, we've got a pair of strugglers in Anderson and Sweeney, and maybe a couple of backups. You hardly find a guy in our system who we might count on in the next couple years to come up and fill any hole, let alone fill the specific holes we'd expect to see (SS, C, OF). Carter's several years away and in terms of a position player, if Sweeney can't step it up, he might be our only shot. We're already dumping money on guys like AJ, Uribe, and Dye because we simply have no one who can replace them. Now, you want me to trade one of my only quality position players for a pitcher? That's fine if it's a steal, but what are the odds of that? Let's say we move Fields for a pitcher and then Crede's back flares up again. Are you ready for a full season of Andy Gonzalez and Pablo Ozuna at 3rd base? You could give me Santana in the rotation and that still wouldn't make up for that disaster.

On a different subject, Bloomberg seems to have noted the connection between foreclosures and the bankruptcy bill.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 11:32 AM) Oh I agree we will get some inflation, more so than the 1 to 2% we've seen since the early 90's. But I am thinking more like 3 or 4%, or even 5%. Not 10 or 12% craziness like the late 70's and early 80's. Oil has gone up what, 25% in the last couple months, from the $70's to $100? That's the kind of thing that eventually has to trickle through, and it's going to hit the products people buy. The question is going to be the scale of it, and I don't think anyone has a clue where the ceiling will be in that market right now.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 11:26 AM) Thus, as I pointed out, corn derivatives. Milk is up mostly because of the rise in price of feed corn. That rise in price is at least partially due to the ethanol trend. We are again back to the fact that ethanol might be a nice bridge, but its not a viable long term solution. Soft drinks and eggs, same thing. Corn-driven. But here's the one thing that bothers me about the people who only look at the "Core CPI", the part of it excluding energy and food...that's like 50-60% of my non-rent expenditures each month (and rent's been going up slowly also). The price of corn is going up in no small part because the price of oil is going up and the price of oil is going up in no small part because the dollar is in collapse mode. It's sometimes a useful exercise to look for inflation in the part outside the CPI, but right now, the part of the market that is going to be the hardest hit by inflation is the core part...energy and food, and there is not a soul in this country who won't be hit by that (it won't matter for some but it'll still hit them).

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 11:19 AM) Wait... you aren't saying that prices are rising dramatically now, are you? Because it looks to me like, other than energy-related and corn products (and their derivatives), prices are staying very stable. I do think we'll see some inflation due to corn's ripple effect, and the price of oil. But I don't see it as being out of control. Those drops in rates are not suddenly going to flood the market with cash. People are too tenative about credit right now, and people includes business. I just don't see it being that bad in the near term. ETA: And I forgot, major factor here - demand will slow because of the credit crisis, and that will keep some prices down. I'm a very good shopper so I've been able to overcome it, but I must say at least for me, I've seen a lot of prices at the grocery store going way, way up in the last year. I'd say that in the last year and a half, the amount I pay for Milk has gone up 75%, OJ has gone up 25%, soft drinks about 20-25%, eggs 20%, and on and on. (OJ by the way is a unique one, as it went up when much of the CA crop was lost in a freeze). I mean, if nothing else, I certainly feel like I'm paying a lot more for many of the items I buy than I did a year ago.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 11:13 AM) While I agree that situations have gotten bad, I guess I don't see this drought as being a definite example. What's the connection? Overpopulation is an issues I suppose, brought on by humanity. But are you saying the drought is due to human environmental impact? I think that's a tough case to make specifically. Well, one could argue that it's at least possibly related to climate change, but I'm not going to be the one doing that, as I've said in the past you can never link a particular event to a changing climate. What the drought in the SE does show is our way of treating the earth. THis drought has been building for a long, long, long time, and it's just been getting worse. But until right now, until the very very end, the states involved have taken essentially NO effort to plan for conservation. They literally will be running out of water in a couple months, but they just sort of assumed until the very end that everything would be fine, that there was no need to inconvenience people and ask them to conserve, that farmers could keep using the same amount they used beforehand, that there never needed to be a surplus. There's some level of arrogance in assuming that the climate for a region will never change, and that humanity can use it for whatever it wants because there are always systems in place to take care of things. These states could have acted a long, long time ago and bought themselves many more months, if not years of water, but instead, they're literally at a point where their only options are prayer and rain dances.

So, I think it's fairly obvious how bad some of the environmental situations have gotten when you start reading articles like this.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:36 AM) I could see it happening. I will be interested to see this report and who is named. I wouldn't be shocked if it is a bunch of average to slightly above average players without naming huge names, therefore they will celbrate the quantity of names and hope it takes some heat away. I really don't believe it could happen honestly. There'd be way too much of a chance of it leaking out, given as many people as have been involved in this investigation. You don't think that some of the people who talked to Mitchell's investigation might leak at some point? Or some of the people at MLB? Or that Congress couldn't step in at some point and get its hands on a key document. Just running through my head, in terms of what's going to form the basis of the Mitchell report, you have involved: The federal government guys who broke up the ring involving the guy working for the Mets The other guys involved in breaking up all of the other rings (Grimlsey's, etc.) we've uncovered the past year or two Mitchell's large team of lawyers, press people, research people, etc. Everyone in MLB's front office, which isn't exactly known for keeping secrets Mitchell himself (who has an awful lot of friends on Capitol Hill) There are a ton of people who have already gotten their hands on this information. Which is why we're already seeing leaks of names even though the report isn't even ready yet; there are enough people out there who have seen bits and pieces of the information that if MLB decides to go all Da Vinci code on protecting, oh, let's say Jeter or someone like that (btw, I'm not accusing Capn Jetes, just giving the level of name where MLB would have reason to do so), then eventually, someone is going to realize that there's a monstrous, sell-a-ble story out there for being the person who leaked not only that Jeter had done so but that MLB had covered it up, and it wouldn't take long for the subpoenas to start falling.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:33 AM) More bloodletting today, it looks like. Is major inflation on the way? One of the guys on the fed who I'm told is usually one of the biggest inflation hawks seemed to suggest that inflation right now just wasn't their big concern when he spoke yesterday.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:48 AM) I don't think Fields is really a 2-hole hitter, despite what Ozzie seems to think. You might want to consider putting Hunter in the 2-spot, actually, flipping him with Fields. But really, no one in that lineup is an ideal #2 hitter. I think Josh wound up hitting 2nd last year sort of by default, because someone had to hit 2nd. I think even Ozzie can't be crazy enough to want him there.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:45 AM) Where would Hunter hit in an order that includes Thome, Konerko, Dye and Fields? If the Sox added Scott they'd have 3 lefties in the lineup but it would be pretty much impossible to avoid batting 2 of them back to back. Scott Fields Thome Konerko Dye Hunter Pierzynski Uribe Richar As this lineup sits right now, I don't see how you can hit Torii anywhere else but 2nd. Depending on whether or not Crede is moved, you have something like: Richar Hunter Thome Konerko Dye Fields AJ Crede Uribe or Owens Hunter Thome Konerko Dye Fields AJ Uribe Richar Unless we can get a dynamite LF for Crede, I actually kinda like the 2nd one of those. Too many damn strikeouts at the top of the order, but it's better than having Fields at the 2.

I can't find a full transcript of his testimony today, but right now there is an actual Army interrogator testifying before Congress on what techniques work and what ones do not. He's actually been water-boarded during his training. He's arguing that the procedure is useless, and that a careful and intelligent interrogator will be able to get vastly more information quicker simply by being smart about how he questions people. The Republicans are trying to hammer him on the ticking time bomb scenario, and he keeps coming back and saying that they're simply wrong You can at least get a summary over at this blog, which has had its eye on the testimony today. If anyone finds a better summary of this guy's testimony I'd be happy to post it. He appears to be getting at the entire heart of this matter; that torture actually makes getting reliable intelligence harder than simply following the standard procedures outlined in the interrogation manuals.