Balta1701

That's gonna be a billboard I hope?

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Dec 3, 2005 -> 11:42 AM) If you missed the boat, I must be dry-docked with you. I think teams have Carlos Beltran fever, paying more for potential than what he has consistently done. You know you're right...now that I look at it...Beltran's best season he put up numbers only barely better than what Konerko put up last season, yet he's getting $5 million a year more than PK. (OPS around 910 for Beltran in 2003-2005, .909 last year for PK)

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Dec 3, 2005 -> 11:25 AM) How dumb is it to trade for Wells if you could have jsut signed him again a year ago? Who is this? Carl Everett? Hey, he did request it.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 3, 2005 -> 11:14 AM) Hell, aside from the JD Drew fiasco, I could say that the Dodgers moves were smarter than the Angels the past year and a half or two, the only problem was the Dodgers were absolutely ravaged with injuries in 05. Yes, the Dodgers were ravaged with injuries, but I don't know how you could have expected any less out of the Dodgers with the people they grabbed. Look at their pickups last offseason...JD Drew, Jose Valentin, Jeff Kent, Choi, etc. You don't sign Drew without expecting him to get hurt. You don't sign guys like Valentin and Kent at their ages without taking a big chance on them getting hurt. They basically asked for Gagne to get hurt when they traded away his setup guy in the bullpen last year and were forced to ride his arm on the way to the division.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 3, 2005 -> 10:44 AM) One other interesting tidbit is that in addition to Furcal the Dodgers are in talks with Seattle to acquire Adrian Beltre. Its preliminary at this stage but contrary to some reports Beltre is believed to be on the market. The Dodgers would want the Mariners to pick up some of his contract. Now this would be a move I'd fully endorse as a Dodger fan. Hell, I'd endorse picking him up as a Sox fan (but that ain't going to happen and the money could be spent in better areas). I guess whether or not that turns out to be a good deal would depend a lot on which Beltre shows up. You find the Beltre from 2004 and its an instantly great deal no matter who they give up. That leaves the question though...where is the Beltre from 2004? Did he only get himself in shape to sign a contract? Did he do something different or stupid last year? Did the change of scenery hurt that much? Did he take some special pills to help him in 2004? Beats the hell out of me, but that was a huge dropoff in performance by him this year.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 3, 2005 -> 01:19 AM) More news; Yeah that's smart, because the last time Texas had a $20 million plus guy with the bat, it worked out sooooo well for them that they had to trade the guy...for Soriano!

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 3, 2005 -> 10:14 AM) He is an upgrade, imo. If he stays healthy....and if he doesn't wind up being kicked off the team

I just find something amusing about Boston getting Dave Roberts...the man with the most important stolen base in Boston's history, back after only 1 year.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Dec 2, 2005 -> 10:17 PM) I have often posted here about how I feel themedia is quick to point out the ® in politicians when they are accused of wrongdoing, and ignore the (D) when they are accused. Here is a story that seems to take it to a new level. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051128/pl_af...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl The sample line I am complaining about is WHY was that mentioned? There will always be republicans in government. 20 years from now, will they still be representing George Bush's party? This is a new low in reporting, I think. Just out of curiosity...can you name a Democrat currently accused of the same thing?

QUOTE(qwerty @ Dec 3, 2005 -> 12:01 AM) No one should EVAR know that much about a vacuum. That's roughly 1/8 of what I know about them. That's why the PM suggestion was included.

Ok, as my nest, and my personal favorite example as to why modern "Vacuums" don't work, aside from the fact that after 5 or so years their suction is gone...we're going to delve into the designs of the vacuums themselves. Forgive me if I swear a little bit here...aside from the pitching contracts that the Yankees and Diamondbacks signed last offseason...this may very well qualify as the single stupidest thing I have seen in my lifetime. This next topic is one of many obvious flaws built into the design of your modern vacuum on the shelves at Sears or any other department store. The sad part about the Dyson machine is that it corrects one of the minor flaws, and leaves the consumer stuck with a $500 machine still trying to function with the major flaws (like being made out of cheap plastic) still dominating. What I would ask you to do next is this: go look at the "Hose" configuration of your standard vacuum cleaner at any store you want...whether it's Sears, Pennys, whatever. Pick your brand...Hoover, Dyson, etc. Here's your task...follow the main hose. The main "hose" connection always runs first directly from the motor to whatever air filter there is on the vacuum. That's the standard way of designing a machine. Use the hose vacuum to pull air through the system. There are 2 key problems with this design...the first has only been solved on the Kirby, and the 2nd has only been solved on the Kirby and the most expensive of other machines. First...the Kirby has a metal plate behind the fan which runs the main vacuum. The key part of this plate is that it directs all of the dirt picked up by the Kirby away from the motor, such that no dirt gets into any of the moving parts. No other vacuum has this protection system - the other machines actually move air in a path which takes dirt and grit directly past the motor, which can wear out/burn out the motor within a shockingly short time (Leading to those horror stories you'll hear about vacuums that last 6 months to 1 year). The Kirby avoids this problem by sending the air on an alternate path - totally avoiding the motor, so that you never have problems with the operation of the system due to the motor wearing out. Beyond the problem of pulling dirt directly through the motor...there is an even more foolish problem in my opinion...that being the pulling of dirt from only 1 side of the machine. Here you can see a prime example of this flaw in a $600 Dyson machine...there is only 1 pipe in the "Head" of this vacuum, and it isn't on the side you're looking at. The only hole which pulls in air is on the far left hand side. This is obviously idiotic...as suction decreases with distance from the source of the suction. We have tests which can prove this conclusively....on the side a a large distance from the main hole....the vacuum basically does absolutely nothing (While new)...simply because the hole is too far away from the material you're trying to pick up. I've dealt with a few of the key problems with modern "vacuum" cleaners in these posts, including the Dyson models. None, in my opinion, come close to the Kirby in terms of either cleaning performance or longevity. That's why I purchased one myself, and why I use it regularly. No vacuum cleaner on the market today is build like the Kirby. Is it expensive? Yes. ou will need to pay 2x the price of your average dyson to get one. But here's the key; over the long term, it actually costs less to own a Kirby than a Dyson. It's hard for me to demonstrate this over the internet, but I have seen it with my own eyes. A Kirby will pull sandy material out of a carpet which a Dyson will not. As a Kirby salesman...we had a test where we would run the opposing vacuum (including DYsons) over any carpet somewhere between 50-100 times. We would then vacuum with the Kirby only 10 times and still pull up significant amounts of sand. The sand that the Kirby removes is horrible for a carpet if it stays in there. Imagine a piece of sandpaper being ground over a piece of carpet - sand grains in a carpet do the same thing. They cut the carpet fibers and wear down the pile, making the carpet look work. By using a kirby on this carpet...you actually get the ability to remove the sand, which can significantly lengthen the life of the carpeting in ANY house...no matter the kind of carpeting the house has. On average, the carpeting in a house will last somwhere between 10 and 20 years. With a Kirby, this value can be easily doubled, simply by removing the sand from a carpet. By removing a large portion of the sand grains, the carpet wears out much slower, and it has been shown that the carpet need replaced on a much longer timescale. So, if you buy a Kirby to care for the carpet, instead of replacing the stuff on a 10-20 year timescale (depending on how much you care about wear on it) you'll wind up replacing it on 20-40 year timescales. If each carpet replacement costs $20 -$30,000, this is an absolutely massive savings in itself, ignoring all the other benefits of a Kirby. Again, I am telling you this based on my own experience selling Kirby's and seeing the opposing equipment. While the Kirby costs 2-4 times the cost of your average plastic machine, it easily overwhelms that cost in temrs of longevity and savings through peformance. On top of the savings through simple vacuuming, there are many options that can save you more money through easy cleaning of your carpets yourself and other features. My personal advice is this, and it's quite simple. Having seen what I've seen, I would never, EVER spend the money on any other machine. Pick your other machine an PM me, I'll tell you its flaws. No machine on the market even comes clsoe to the Kirby. Not in the least. In my opinion...if I walk into a house with a Dyson, I basically expect to sell the Kirby within 10 minutes, because I know how filthy the carpets will be without even vacuuming the things, simply because of the machine they're using. Again, if you want more details, PM me or schedule a Kirby Demo yourself (want a good deal? You're talking to the right person...I know their pricing structures). I hav e no financial interests in this...but if you spend money on a Dyson to take care of the carpets in your house, you are absolutely out of your mind.

OK, the next topic which we're going to discuss, which is the 2nd reason why I spent the money to buy my own Kirby, is the performance of the vacuum itself. I feel I've already established why the Kirby lasts far longer than any other machine (send me a PM for more full technical details if you want, I'll be happy to provide after I finish my finals and I have more sober time to type)...now I will establish why the Kirby performs far beyond any other machine, and why it saves you money far beyond any other machine.

Please folks, don't reply until I finish my next detailed comment...this is totally serious, and as a dust-mite allergy suffering person, I really do mean every word....

I spent 3+ years selling Kirby vacuum cleaners door to door. I am no longer employed for the company, as I am now a graduate student at Caltech (this is my real career...as opposed to selling Kirby's, which I did entirely to save money to move out here) Therefore, this is my honest opinion as a former salesman of those vacuums. If you are looking for a vacuum cleaner which will: 1.) Last longer than any other vacuum on the market right now 2. ) do a better job of cleaning your home than any other vacuum on the market right now 3. ) In the long term save you more money than any other vacuum on the market right now: My opinion is this: You are wasting your money if you purchase anything other than a Kirby vacuum cleaner. I have nothing financially to gain by telling you this - this is my honest, personal opinion after working as a carpet cleaner for 1 year with Heartland Carpet Care (based in Portage, Indiana) followed up by 2 years as a salesman working for a Kirby distributorship in Dyer, Indiana. There are several flaws with the "Dyson" system that are obvious to anyone who seriously knows how the technology works. First and foremost...their vacuums are made largely of plastic. The Kirby system is made of 100% aluminum. The problem with a plastic vacuum overall is very simple; plastic is less durable than any sort of metal. The real problem with plastic is this; when you hit a plastic vacuum against a solid object, like a wall, the plastic tends to bend. You won't see this with your eyes - it's too rapid of an effect. But what is actually happening is this; to absorb the impact, the plastic frame of the vacuum buckles slightly (about 10 degrees or so) in order to avoid major fractures due to the force applied. The problem is this: Almost every plastic ever known to man will develop what are called "Microfractures' when they are placed under extreme stress for a limited amount of time. The concept of these fractures are very simple; imagine the front of a vacuum slamming at full speed into a wall. The vacuum slows from full speed to zero velocity in a microsecond. In order to take up this stress, the only thing the skin of the vacuum can do is bend to take up the strain. Think of a stack of papers which you push on from both ends...it bends into a fold. You've seen this dozens of times in your life...push on anything which is composed of a thin layer of some flexible material and it does the same thing. When you bounce a vacuum cleaner off of a wall, the exact same thing happens...in order to accomidate the stress, the plastic lining of the vacuum bends slightly. The real problem is...plastic does not bend easily like the piece of paper you can hold in your hand - plastic is much more resistant. In the full extreme of plastic bending...instead of trying to fold, plastic materials deform by some combination of bending of molecular bonds combined with breaking of those molecular bonds...if any of the bonds reach a specific yield stress which is the value which would cause them to break. So...what am I saying? I am saying that any vacuum built out of a material which can exceed the yield stress of the material of which it is constructed will fail within a short timespan. Sadly, the stress due to a vacuum bumping at full speed into a wall or a couch is easily enough to exceed the yield stress of the plastic shell of a Dyson vacuum, or any other plastic-based-vacuum cleaner, over the timescales involved in deformation of the vacuum due to an impact. So, let me make this as clear as I can...you slam your vacuum into something, the vacuum deforms due to the impact, and you form microfractures in the skin of the vacuum. What can microfractures do? The real key is this...air is much less dense than any solid in existence...so even the smallest fracture in plastic will cause airflow through the plastic where the fracture exists. If many fractures exist, the airflow through the plastic will be very significant, and if the plastic frame of a vacuum is undergoing this process of repeated microfracturing (all it takes is a bump against a couch) then the strength of the vacuum will gradually DECREASE with time, as the frame of the vacuum cleaner itself becomes gradually weaker with time. The only reason I tell you this is that I have seen it with my own eyes. As a Kirby salesman...we have instruments which allow us to perform independent tests on the "Suction power" of vacuum cleaners, with all other variables held constant. I can tell you this as an absolute fact...as vacuum cleaners age, their "Suction power", however you want to measure it, undergoes a rapid decline. It is massive...to the point that if your vacuum lasts 5-10 years without needing replacement (i.e. the motor turns on)...the suction power of the vacuum approaches ZERO. In other words...you're running the motor of the vacuum, but you're not really pulling any air out of the carpet itself when you're running the thing - all of the air pulled in by the motor comes through the skin of the vacuum itself as it builds up these microcracks. So why do I own a Kirby vacuum myself? Because instead of the vacuum being made of plastic, the skin of my vacuum is made of aluminum. While this adds quite a bit to the cost of the device...the difference in performance is absolutely massive...as when you hit an aluminum device against a wall or a couch, it does not deform like a cheap plastic appliance does. Aluminum is immensely stronger than plastic...thus, when it hits something, aluminum does NOT reach its yield strength, and therefore does not begin the process of microfracturing which can rapidly decrease the performance of a vacuum. What does this mean about the vacuum itself? It means that the vacuum will last MUCH MUCH longer than your normal plastic machine. Based solely on the nature of the shell, your average Kirby Machine will last 30-40 years. I can tell you this, because I have seen it with my own eyes - Kirby vacuums built 30+ years ago perform a better cleaning job than any other machine on the market today other than the modern Kirby machines and 1 other machine called the "Royal" (which basically takes advantage of expired Kirby patents). The 30 year old aluminum Kirby's do a better job of cleaning than the 3 year old Hoovers, Dysons, and any other brand (proof forthcoming). I bought a Kirby 2 years ago, so I am not saying anything I am not willing to risk my own dust-mite-allergic lungs on myself. There will be more vacuum science in my next post.

Dude, you are both going to love me and hate me after this next comment...give me 20 or 30 minutes to type the thing in full.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 2, 2005 -> 10:21 PM) Tommy John award for simulated game pitchers. I like it. Beckett will win it in the AL and Burnett and Wood would battle it out for the NL crown. I know Prior would also likely compete for the NL crown, but ugh, there have to be more pitchers who would compete for the AL Crown than that. The numbers just say there have to be. Pavano, Mussina, and Wright with the Yankees? Do the Yankees even pitch simulated games? I haven't a clue, the first time I ever heard the term "Simulated game" was with the 98-season-ers.

QUOTE(TheBlackSox8 @ Dec 2, 2005 -> 09:44 PM) Where is Pujols in your lineup?? Ok, so I've been drinking. Give me a break, I'm a geologist, it's half our profession. The best post-steroids hitter in baseball absolutely hits either 3rd or 4th. I hit Ortiz behind Pujols on that team. Go ahead, find a way to pitch to that.

Good. Something to slow the improvement of the Cards down. The Cubs should be happy...K Wood and AJ Burnett could compete for "Most games spent on the DL" in that division.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 2, 2005 -> 09:29 PM) I think A-Rod has to play for the U.S. He made a big thing about wanting to play for DR or whatever, but Selig said he's going to play where he's placed which will be USA. Sorry, kinda cut that last post off 1/2 way through. Last I heard ARod wants to play for his "Home" country, and that's the DR. And I've heard nothign that says Selig won't let him. His heritage is DR, even though he was born in NY.

If 3 of the final 4 teams don't involve the U.S., Venezuela, and the Dominican Republic...something will have gone horribly wrong with the world. Like Gagne with an 8 inning save or something like that. Japan, Korea, and Mexico could possibly compete with them, but come on...Pujols, Tejada, Pedro, and Ortiz on the same team? Texiera, Bonds, Clemens and Prior? Santana, Abreu and Ordonez? Small Notes - ARod won't compete with the U.S...probably The dominican Along with Pujols and Ortiz. Izturis is likely out until the AS break next year, so no 2b for him. If you ask me...the Dominican looks unstoppable. ARod, Tejada, Manny Ramirez, Ortiz, Tejada, Aramis Ramirez, AND Vlad the Impaler in the same lineup? Along with Pedro and Bartolo as starting ptichers? Wow wow wow. Aside from Olivo, the weak spots in that lineup hit 30+ home runs per year, and the weak spots in the rotation still win 10-15 games. I'd watch that just to see that lineup hit. It'd be like an all star team every game. How the Hell do you even pitch to that lineup? Hitting 1st, Jose Guillen, 2nd, Arod. 3rd, Ortiz. 4th, Manny. 5th, Tejada. 6th, Vlad. 7th, ARam. 8th, Soriano. And Miguel Olivo batting for the Pitcher. WOW. The 2nd through 8th hitters could all hit above .300 with 30-50 home runs in a full season. Shuffle them around as you wish. And give them Pedro and Bartolo starting games.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Dec 2, 2005 -> 07:30 PM) I went to the World Series statistics page to see if there was anything in the numbers that showed that any one of the pitchers he mentioned deserved to be featured on the DVD for any reason whatsoever. http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/interl..._and_events.jsp And I found there really is no reason. Brad Lidge, 3.2 IP 4 hits 2 runs, 2 earned runs(which both lost the game) 1 blown save 4.91 ERA (Paraphrasing Buck) "Do you think The Cardinals should have pitched Lidge in game 6 to get the taste of that Pujols home run out of his mouth?" "I don't think that taste is there" - McCarver "Podsednik swings and hits a high fly ball, deep left field...that ball is GONE!" -Buck "That taste is there now" - McCarver

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 2, 2005 -> 12:33 PM) If Ozzie is worried about Anderson's defense, then Anderson should feel safe about his job for next year. This is one thing I'm confident about just from our numbers last year - aside from ARow, Brian Anderson is by far the best defensive outfielder in our organization. Brian Anderson is also the most prepared outfielder with the bat, having spent a year at AAA ball, when no other real outfield prospect has. Brian Anderson deserves shot #1 in the outfield next year. All he has to do is match Rowand in run production in his rookie year and he's in good shape. That means Crede numbers basically - like 20 home runs and a .230-.250 average, which he should be able to do easily if he learns anything at all.

Frank has had 2 bone fractures less than an inch apart in his foot. I'm told the only reason he didn't have surgery on the second break is that it was so close to the first break that he couldn't. Even if he comes back, that foot will not be fully healed, and he will end up re-injuring it after some time. It may take a season, it may take 2 weeks, but it will not be able to support the stress of Frank's swing and running the bases.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 2, 2005 -> 08:30 PM) I agree, Uribe was phenomenal batting 2nd in 2004. I dunno, I just really like Gooch batting 2nd. You could almost always count on him to get the guy over or get the guy in. If Uribe can show that he can do that and produce like he normally can...it would be a big plus. I still think Uribe's problem is that he has an absolutely awful swing. Just watch it. When Uribe sets up, he has his feet about 1 foot apart. Albert Pujols has his like 3-4 feet apart. When Uribe swings, he ends up with his feet spread about as far apart as Pujols, which means he thrusts his whole body forward to drive his swing. Pujols drives the ball by shifting the weight between his legs, Uribe drives the ball by shifting his whole body. The difference between these 2 batting styles is that that Pujols's method allows him to keep his eye on the ball longer, because his head stays still while he's shifting his weight, while the Uribe method involves a much longer process of moving both his feet and shifting his weight. 2 years ago, Andruw Jones was doing exactly what Uribe is doing - starting off with his feet close together and taking a big stride while shifting his weight. Last year, Jones spread his feet apart, shortened his stride, and suddenly was able to have more time in his swing to focus on the ball. Juan Uribe is where Andruw Jones was 2 years ago. Incredibly strong, but flying open and away from the baseball too often. It's a problem with the way his swing is built. He needs to spread his legs out and let his swing do the work, instead of forcing his legs to go through the swing like he is now. If Greg Walker could convince Uribe to spread his legs out before he hits and shift his weight while keeping his head still (so that he could see the ball better) Greg Walker could turn Uribe into a triple crown contender. Uribe is that strong. He just needs hitting mechanics. When Walker first started working with Uribe in 2004, Uribe spent the first 2 months of the season hitting like .325. He had a terrible June and July, and hit over 300 again in september and october after hitting .289 in July. Uribe could be a great hitter, he just needs to be taught the mechanics of a swing. He had terrible mechanics all last year, which is why pitchers could get him out on the pitch low and away (strikeout) or the pitch up high (Strikeout or popout). Spread Uribe's legs out, teach him to drive the ball while keeping his eye on the ball for a few more moments, like he did in early 2004, and you'll turn him into a monster.

QUOTE(Antonio Osuna @ Dec 2, 2005 -> 06:56 PM) I tip my hat to those who stood up for the truth and corrected me. I do, however, put forward an argument that a switch-hitting .295 guy with only slightly inferior defense to Crede is going to be much more valuable to us than Crede and his streakyness. Somehow, I just have this feeling that next year will be the year that Crede's streakiness turns into a nearly .300 average and a 25+ home run campaign. Especially after he finally found a stroke that worked for him from September on.