Balta1701

Senator Domenici lawyers up in the ethics/US Attorney firing case. And, here's the fun...one of the US attorneys casually removed last winter was Carol Lam, who ran the Duke Cunningham investigation. The lawyer Domenici hired...Duke Cunningham's attorney. Wheeeee!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 11:37 AM) But, it always brings up situations like this. I try to be red or blue blind to who it is and find a solution that works for everyone. Perhaps a blind super trust that every national elected member contributes to that buys every stock. The amount would vary, but every stock would be carried. So what happens in the case of someone getting elected like Bill Frist, where his family has owned a hospital company for years that receives federal money. Even if he slaps all of his money into a blind trust, he still benefits from business the Feds do with his family's hospital company. Or for a different case someone like President Bush, who may not have a clue what investments he currently has but who can take actions to benefit the investments of his father and the rest of his family? Do we require all family members to move all of their assets into blind trusts as well?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 10:10 AM) I know that this is all procedural and parliamentary rules, but I would think that if the Republicans wanted to block this, they could have. It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, it's just interesting. The cute little thing about that resolution is...all of the procedural and parliamentary rules that allow the minority to put the brakes on legislation in the Senate are actually contained within that organizing resolution. If I understand the system correctly, without it being passed, any rules not written into the Constitution don't really exist. In other words, the filibuster, for example, doesn't actually exist until an organizing resolution is passed specifying the rules for cloture. It is possible to edit these rules afterwards, but it requires either a 2/3 majority vote (according to the rules resolution) or something along the lines of the nuclear option. The only power the Republicans had at the start of the Senate before the Rules resolution was adopted was the fact that they still held the gavels in all of the committees. The one thing they could have done was refuse to hand over the gavels until they got a better deal in the rules resolution. I'm not exactly sure how this works, and my memory is a bit fuzzy over the last time it happened (2003 when the Dems held onto the gavels for an extra day because of something they were unhappy about in the rules resolution). I'm fairly certain that since the last Senate didn't pass any of the required budgetary resolutions last year, and the Dems had to quickly enact legislation extending the 2005 budget resolutions when they took power, taking that step would have shut down the government.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 09:59 AM) I am glad Mark has learned the art of the "no comment". It should serve him well the rest of his career. We've got our replacement VP candidate!

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 09:57 AM) And the Republicans agreed to this? That would be a surprise. The Republicans actually had no choice. The party in power is the one that writes the organizing resolution. In 2007, the Democrats have a majority as long as Lieberman votes with them and Jeffords does not caucus with the Republicans. I would also doubt that the Republicans would have included measures similar to 2000 when they wrote the organizing resolutions in 2004 and 2002, but I can't be certain without knowing where the hell to look for them, and I'm too busy for that anyway. The case of the Jeffords switch actually being able to change things in the Senate is, as far as I can tell, a unique event, precipitated by the dual facts of a 50-50 Senate on January 3 2001 and the fact that Al Gore was still VP on that day, which would have given the Dems the power to enact the organizing resolution if they really wanted to try to.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 09:29 AM) What about Robert Gates? He'd be a good pick. Joe Lieberman is a pick that would seem most likely. Not only would he "appear" to be bi-partisan but it would have the added effect of moving the Senate back in the control of Republicans, since the CT Governor is GOP. This is actually incorrect as I understand it. When the Senate adopted its rules at the start of this session, the way the rules were constructed, even if 1 Senator were to flip parties or were to leave, Harry Reid would still maintain his role as majority leader and the Democrats should still maintain committee chairmanships. It was different in 2000 where the Senate was actually split 50-50, and the Senate started off when Al Gore was still the VP. For about 2 weeks, the Dems had enough power that they could have actually constructed the organizing resolutions for the Senate if they had so chosen. Instead of being difficult, a deal was struck in that case where by the organizing resolution called for an even distribution of the committee chairmanship power between the 2 parties, and an additional clause was included such that the full set of majority leader and committee chair positions would flip fully to the new majority party in the event of a change of 1 seat (which wound up happening with Jeffords). That same sort of language was not included in this year's organizing resolution. It's always possible a deal could be struck or the new majority could just shut down the Senate until the new minority decided to listen, but even if Joe Lieberman switched parties today, as I understand things, the Dems would still control the machinery of the Senate barring a revisiting of the organizing resolution.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 09:26 AM) Well than one of the veterans would be out- I assume you are implying Jose, who, if I'm not mistaken, is signed through 2009. Seems to me he would be worth the least on the trade market considering his age and injury concerns. Jon Garland is only signed through the end of 2008. Jose Contreras is signed through the end of 2009. Both would be potential trade candidates at the end of 2007 if there was an extension struck with Buehrle (assuming good performance by our young guys).

Since we're talking specifically about issues with the VA, I'd like to hear people's reaction to this recent RAND Corp. study of health care @ the VA compared with other varieities of private health care in the U.S., which seems to show dissimilar results in cases where people actually get in to receive treatment.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 08:55 AM) I'd rather they just not extend him. We've got 3 pitchers locked up through 08' at about $32 million annually and contracts up after this year for Dye/Iguchi, and after 08' for Thome/Crede/Garland. We've got a slew of position players to either re-sign or replace on the free agent market. We don't have the capacity to have $45-50 million locked up in the starting pitching again. I like the idea of having three veterans and two young guys in the rotation for 08', and if there are others coming along, one more can move in after Jon's contract expires. Extending Mark at 14-15 per just puts us in a number crunch again, unless of course they decide to trade Jose next year or in 09. But as far as I am concerned, they can let Mark walk or deal him. Resigning both Buehrle and Vazquez absolutely does not mean that the White Sox won't have room for 2 young guys in the 2008 rotation.

QUOTE(joeynach @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 08:46 AM) Id say both sides agree in the middle say 4 years 50 Mil with some backload to get his 14 mil per. 11 in 08, 12 in 09, 13 in 2010, and 14 in 2011. Sounds fair on both fronts. MB is 30 games over compared to Vazquez being 5 games under, seems to deserve more. Just like with Mr. Vazquez...if Mark Buehrle is signable for a contract of reasonable length and dollars, absolutely you must jump at it. The White Sox have been really good about avoiding giving out no-trade clauses, I think the most they've done is let Konerko list like 6 teams he won't go to. If you can sign both Vazquez and Buehrle, absolutely, you do so, you let them pitch out this season, then see where you stand with your rookies, Garland, and the trade market next year. A pitcher like Vazquez signed to a 3 year, $34.5 million deal or a pitcher like Buehrle signed to a 3-4 year, $14 mil a year deal is probably going to be worth a hell of a lot more in a trade than either of those same guys signed to a 1 year deal.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 08:12 AM) Joe is on ESPN 1000 right now. Says Anderson has been the most surprising so far this camp. Says he sees a real difference in his swing, thinks he is going to have a solid season. Ya hear that Ozzie?!?!?!

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 05:49 PM) This is where I wish the President did have his line item veto to see if the TSA screener portion was the only provision of the bill he objected to. Somehow, I highly doubt it. The idea behind every line-item veto proposal I've seen at the national level, including the one Clinton had, was that it was to be used only on budgetary items, which as far as I can tell this is not.

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 05:49 PM) July 30th at Baltimore. 8-7 loss (ND) . Sox break a 2 all tie to take a 4-2 lead in the top of the 6th inning, Baltimore takes a 5-4 lead in the bottom half because Vaz implodes. I'd like to add, because I remember this game...this is one of the games where Rob Mackowiak in CF did a HUGE amount of damage. In inning 3, after a leadoff walk, Brandon Fahey hit a fly ball to center that Anderson could have had in his sleep. Because it turned into a hit, the O's had 1st & 2nd with nobody out instead of 1st and 1 out. That wound up turning into 1 run, and beyond that, had Vazquez throwing about 15-20 more pitches that inning than he should have had to. I wasn't surprised at all that Vazquez melted down later in the game, because of how hard he had to work in the 3rd. I bet you put Brian Anderson in CF in that game from the start, this one turns into a win.

The Senate has passed by a narrow majority a bill to enact the majority of the remaining 9/11 commission reccomendations. The bill is similar to one passed by the House in the Dems 100 hours burst. The fun part? President Bush has threatened to veto this bill, on the grounds that it gives the 45000 TSA screeners the same rights to unionize as other Federal workers. In other words, the Dems may have set Mr. Bush up to use his 2nd veto, and to have him use it on a bill reforming anti-terrorism efforts to be more in line with the 9/11 commission suggestions. This oughta be fun.

QUOTE(Wedge @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 05:36 PM) Something about "more years of Javier Vazquez" makes me want to put a gun to my head and pull the trigger, "fair market value" be damned. If nothing else, it just became a lot easier to trade Javier Vazquez if we decide that a few more of these guys in AAA this year are ready for the big show.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 04:36 PM) This situation is a first-look at socailized healthcare in America. Enjoy! I don't think this is the issue to start off on the government-run medice issue, but now that I've learned a bit more about it, I think it may be worth pointing out that there are 2 distinct systems here; the Walter Reed medical center, and as far as I can tell the majority of the centers that are having the severe issues with being run-down are not actually VA centers; the VA operates independently of the Army. Walter Reed, and the Army community hospitals, are not VA centers; they are run by the army. And interestingly enough, they are in fact not run directly by the army any more either: the operation of several of these facilities, including Walter Reed specifically, was outsourced in a $120 million or so contract to a company called IAP services...which is run by a former Halliburton exec, and which was one of the companies that couldn't deliver ice to New Orleans after Katrina. The main issue with the VA right now is that thanks in no small part to the Iraq war, the number of people who would have been eligible for VA treatment has skyrocketed, but at the same time, the amount of funds available to take care of those folks has not seen a similar increase; therefore, the VA has had to enact strict rules on who is eligible for treatment at their facilities, but that still has not been anywhere near enough to deal with the surge in patients described above.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 03:39 PM) It does change the amount of money available to make offers on one of the better free agent classes in a long time. How does signing Vazquez for less than he'd get in arbitration mean that the White Sox have less money available? The only way to free up more money would have been to not offer Vazquez arbitration and therefore let him walk with no compensation, at which point we very well might be playing the market for a $12 million a year mediocre starting pitcher somewhere.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 03:19 PM) Then they could always trade him. The value of an average pitcher with 3 years on his contract >> the value of an average pitcher with 1 year on his contract.

QUOTE(TitoMB345 @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 02:25 PM) I dont get it. Vazquez is being paid more than Garland now, when Garland is >>> than Vazquez. Because Vazquez is significantly farther past arbitration than Jon Garland, and Vazquez's extension was signed a year after Garlands after large inflations of salaries.

I'm surprised it took them 2.5 hours to get this ready. National Review: Pardon Libby (for those who want to read the justification that would be used if he were pardoned)

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 01:54 PM) Ok, then tell me what a fair deal would have been. Or tell me what fantasy pitcher that would could have signed for that money that could have fit into the rotation. Heath's arm motion looks ALOT like Kenny Rogers. I have a feeling Heath Phillips will be the biggest surprise out of the current group of pitchers in our minors, just like Buehrle was in the 2000 group.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 12:34 PM) DO you think if he sits out we wont trade him? I would rather try to get something for him if hes gonna sit out than just let him rot. The Patriots picked up an extra first round pick for Branch when Branch was holding out.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 01:33 PM) I'd rather have Javy at 3/33 than Buehrle at 3/45. Honestly, I think I'd go the other way; if Mark would have taken 3/45, I'd rather spend that on him than on Javy. I doubt Mark will take less than 5-6 years though.

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 01:25 PM) If he goes 9-13 with a 5.50 ERA he gets more than 11 mil in arbitration? Or is this based on your perception of Vazquez succeeding? Again, everyone, this is a high risk move in some ways. Like it or not, there is a chance this guy could psychologically fall off the cliff he seems to teeter on and put up ridiculously bad numbers. No matter what he does this year, if the White Sox were to have offered him arbitration...Javier Vazquez's salary would not have decreased in 2008. The only way that Vazquez's salary could have gone down, other than this deal, would have been for the White Sox to not offer him arbitration, at which point the Sox could lose him as a FA with no compensation.