Balta1701

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 05:17 PM) Sorry, I can't blame Bush for not knowing everything about everything. I think he has been busy. I agree with you at about the 50% level...but he didn't just say he didn't know...he actively said she was wrong, and it turned out he was wrong. He probably didn't have a clue and didn't want to be called on cutting the budget for something that was actually good and useful so he just obfuscated a little bit. He can't know everything about everything...but he could at least say "I'm sorry I don't know" instead of getting caught making up facts when he obviously didn't know. Anywho...not a big deal to me either way. Not like the Pres has a line item veto or budget-adder where he could go and personally restore the thing. We can blame him and the Republicans all we want for them deleting the thing in order to try to pay for 10% of the tax cuts that the student will have to pay for the rest of her life, but who cares if he didn't remember that one detail.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 11:36 PM) After Philly fans went apes*** about him wearing that Bears jersey, going to the White House with the Sox may not be a good idea for Rowand. Last year after Derek Lowe and a few others were already gone from Boston, they put their BoSox uniforms back on in the Boston ring ceremony. A few people around did complain, but for the most part they were scoffed at.

Well...somehow, I bet a lot of people saw this coming.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 02:23 PM) 1. Abreu improves the team. 2. An improved team has a better chance to repeat as champions. 3. A championship teams draw more fans. 1+2+3= MORE MONEY! Several points in reply. 1. There are 2 ways we could make more money by winning games; selling tickets at higher prices or by filling more empty seats. We already have set ticket prices for this year, so let's throw that out the window. 2. Therefore, the only place we have to increase revenue this year is to sell more tickets. 3. We have already sold a significant number of season tickets...to a base of over 20,000. We will have many games which are almost certain to sell out...Cubs, Red Sox, Yankees, etc. 4. The games which are during the summer will also sell well...simply because it's summer, we've already won a title, and we should at the very worst have a decent team next year.. 5. In other threads, for a variety of reasons...we have estimated that the stadium will probably average somewhere between 35,000-38,000 fans per game this year. 6. This leaves only a limited amount of slack in the form of available tickets. There will be no tickets for games people actually really want to see, and very few for summer games, even those which people don't really care about, like games against K.C. or Tampa or someone like that. 7. Therefore...the only way we can grow the revenue any farther is to find a way to sell more tickets to games with teams that we already should be beating during times when the weather is poor and kids are back in school, since those are the games which will be the most readily available. The question I put to you is this...please prove to me not only that winning increases revenue...but that Bobby Abreu will sell more tickets to games that we should win anyway...and that he will be able to sell roughly 250,000+ more tickets overall, given how many games are already sold out (assuming each fan in the seats spends an average of over $40 on a game, including parking, food, and the cheap, available seating for those games which hasn't been grabbed by season ticket purchasers)

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 02:17 PM) I cannot believe the ignorance of some of you. Who here wouldn't spend $50 to make $100? You have not yet explained how exactly spending money on Bobby Abreu this year will make the White Sox a richer team.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 02:11 PM) The first (unwritten) Rule of Business..."It takes money to make money.". And I take it the $95 million we're spending in salary this year is not money because...the players have agreed to be paid in the form of items from Wendy's dollar menu? "Today, Jon Garland signed a contract extension with the white sox worth a reported 9 million Frosties a year."

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 01:24 PM) Because, for the most part, it's not party line that people vote for in Congressional elections, it's the incumbent. Once you seat someone in a post, it's very difficult to unseat someone in the following election. And given how important seniority can be towards getting plum assignments on committees in the House and Senate, and how important those committee assignments and chairmanships can be for bringing home federal dollars to your state...there's actually a real major disincentive to replace someone who's served more than 1 term.

QUOTE(robinventura23 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 01:27 PM) So who makes more starts next year? This guy or Wood? Miller.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 01:05 PM) One word...LEVERAGE! The Sox can always borrow against future value to make up for any deficits!!! This only makes sense if, as I pointed out above...several things happen. First of all...they can grow the revenue in the future to make up for the losses this season. This is simply unlikely, as if the break-even point this year is somewhere around $95 million, that means we'd basically have to start selling out the stadium every single game, and have revenue from several playoff games, just to turn a profit in the future. You just can't magically make seats appear, and increasing the ticket price will drive attendence back down. The other option then, would be cost-cutting in the future. This would almost certainly have to be achieved by reducing the costs of the players in the future, as again, there's almost no other revenue that can be added. Now, if our minor leagues cannot provide say another BMac or Buehrle for the next 5 years, or we trade away youth to get a guy like Abreu, then we're in the situation of having basically no choice but to save money by putting people on the field who simply will not win ballgames. This will then probably drive people out of the ballpark, meaning that the quality of play on the field will decline even further. Without some new revenue stream...going into a deficit to pay for a guy like Abreu will almost certainly mean that we will have a worse team on the field a few years from now, and it may very well destroy the gains in attendence and salary created by spending the money on the big name right now.

QUOTE(Frank the Tank 35 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 01:12 PM) So next year will probably be one of our most profitable years ever in terms of revenue meaning that the FOLLOWING year (2007) is when the "re-investment" is due according to Forbes. If 2007 is when we'd take the bulk of the hit for an Abreu contract, it looks like it lines up directly with the year that we should be able to afford the most salary. (Be back later to continue this engaging discussion ) But the problem is...we've already massively increased our investment for next year, from something like $75 million last year to something like $95 million next year (and I think that's even more if you count the buyouts for Thomas and Everett). This reduces the profitability next year if the team is profitable, and in fact makes it far more likely that we'll lose money (what happens if, God forbid, Buehrle or Konerko were to get hurt and we miss the playoffs?)

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) The Seahawks would've destroyed us. With the way the Bears played against the Panthers...yeah of course. They couldn't stop Goings in that game...why would they be able to stop Alexander? They couldn't get pressure through Carolina's line...are they going to get through the better Seahawks line? The Bears defense from earlier in the year...whatever happened to it...may very well have beaten the crap out of the Seahawks. But the Bears defense that showed up 2 weeks ago would have been destroyed by Seattle.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 12:56 PM) The current Sox ownership paid something like $25-30 million for the team; it is currently valued at more than $300 million. Is $300 million more than $30 million? I'm not sure...evidently I'm bad with numbers. So, your advice then would be for the ownership group to sell the team, and use the money gained from selling the team to pay Mr. Abreu's added contract. I can't see any problem with that idea, can anyone else?

Without a citation or link to the exact article...how in the world do you expect us to be able to evaluate that claim?

QUOTE(KWs OK for Me @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 12:19 PM) Seattle did a whole lot more than simply "throw 2, 3, or 4 guys at Smith." They were able to do something that the Bears were unable to do, get to the QB. Seattle showed a great ability to pressure Delhomme without needing to send a blitz. Their front four was able to constantly collapse the pocket and reduce throwing lanes and get to Delhomme (very similar to what the Bears did the first time they played the Panthers and held them to 3 points). They were at a huge advantage though because they knew full well that the Panthers couldn't run the ball. If their front 4 focused entirely on rushing the passer...because of the lack of any talent remaining at RB for the panthers, they were going to stop the run anyway, so they could focus all their energy on disrupting Delhomme. Stick Foster or even Goings in there and suddenly those linemen have to both be concerned about stopping the run and gettign to the QB, and since you wind up moving in different directions to do those 2 things, the job for a d-lineman becomes far more difficult.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 12:46 PM) The 1987 Bulls were probably just as bad, if not worse, than these Lakers. Jordan was also 24 in 1987. Kobe is currently 27, with significantly more experience in the league than Jordan had then also.

Let's add 1 more detail to this budget talk...it may very well be possible for the White Sox to operate in a deficit for 1 year or more. However, we're not talking about just putting a couch on a credit card here...we're talking about multiple millions of dollars in deficits. You don't get those credit lines all that easy...you have to offer something up. The ownership of the White Sox is in a place where their main assets are the White Sox (and the Bulls of course)...they don't just necessarily have a lot of cash lying around to cover operating in a $10-$20 million hole year after year after year. If they were to take out some sort of loan to allow for improvements of the team this year, using some share of their equity in the team...at some point, they would have to find a way to pay that loan back, unless they had more significant cash reserves than I know about. That basically means that in order to try to win even more this year...they'd have to be willing to cut costs in the future. But if they cut costs significantly in the future to pay back the expenditures from today...then through the cost-cutting, they may very well destroy some of the growth of the fan base accomplished by the winning. Operating in a deficit is practical if you have large cash reserves to finance the deficit, and you expect revenues to grow in the future to the point where they would be able to cover both the increased costs and the repayment of the debt...which simply can't happen here, as the stadium is only so big. We're not talking about a government here which can simply print money.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 01:33 AM) When the terrorists take the words, or at least the spitit of the words, from a Democrat to use for their jihad, then maybe that said democrat should STFU. Just a thought. Osama Bin Laden...2002. When the terrorists take the words, or at least the spitit of the words, from the Republicans to use for their Jihad, then maybe those Republicans should STFU.

American Research Group: Do you approve of the job President Bush is doing? 36%: Yes. (Yeah, I know I'm the guy who always talks about the stats, and there's a finite probability that he's actually at 39% or so...but 36%...yeesh, that's roughly the %age of self-identified Republicans in this country)

This actually illustrates a very interesting part of our health care system...doctors aren't exactly required to give patients full information about their conditions. In many cases, the only way a patient can get full information about their treatment from the doctor is to in fact file a malpractice suit, simply to make use of the disclosure requirements of the courts. It's disturbing...but that's how the law is written right now. All she wants is the information on her case.

To answer the question posed in the title...this is one possible future for Wal-Mart, if the employer-provided health care system continues in this country, and is mandated by law in states/the whole country for certain employers...and if no government action is taken to reform the health care system to hold costs down at any point...and if people aren't willing to just, you know, fall ill and die.

And yes...the Bears plan for the Panthers was absolutely moronic. If you have a pro-bowl corner on your team and you're facing an MVP caliber receiver...they should be matched up every play, and the corner should probably still get help, exactly like the Seahawks did. The Bears also got in trouble though...when their front 7 couldn't stop the run.

Carolina was doomed probably the week before when they lost foster...but certainly doomed when they lost Goings. How many teams can survive a playoff game with their 4th string running back as their only weapon on the ground? How woudl the Bears have done if they lost Jones, Benson, and Peterson? Remove Parker, Bettis, and Staley from the Steelers? At that point...the Panthers simply had no skill left in the running game, and the guy just slammed into the pile, got 1-2 yards, and left Delhomme on a 3rd and 8 or so. If the Panthers couldn't run...the Seahawks could just drop several people back to double or triple cover Smith, because they didn't need the extra people up front, and their D-line could just go straight for Delhomme. Losing your running game is a recipe for disaster for almost every team, but especially so when you're playing a very good team on its own.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 09:46 AM) I'm glad some people are mentioning older names like Wilt and Oscar Robertson. The Big O is probably one of the most under-rated players that ever played the game. I think the golden era in the NBA is the late 80's-early 90's but the a lot of the guys that were playing in the 60's could take on players of our generation. Personally I still feel that it's almost impossible to say that "This player from x generation could take this player from y generation" just because the training regiments and athleticism have changed so dramatically in the past few years. Statements like that always bug me. Who knows...maybe if Wilt or O were 23 years old now, their bodies wouldn't hold up to a heavy lifting and training schedule as well as some other folks, and they'd wind up sitting on the bench injured a lot. It's been known to happen to very talented people these days already.

Has anyone yet suggested that we now may actually have evidence of senility setting in on the part of Wilson and Levy? Just to stretch my memory, can someone remind me of where Jauron coached before he was with the Bears?

Isn't there some irony built directly into saying "1 prospect is twice what another prospect was" if the other prospect was a pretty major disappointment? 2 times zero is still zero. 2 times a very small number is still a very small number.