NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 10:15 PM) If St. Louis is in it, it's over. It certainly does change things. If its true.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 05:02 PM) The "logic" behind some of moves that are supposed to entice season ticket holders kind of draws these people, who earn enough money to buy tickets in large sums, as pretty damn stupid. Or, smart enough to realize that building a farm system is important to them only insofar as it gets them good players - and is therefore a gamble. Just because people would rather watch a semi-competitive team for 2-3 years, who has a shot at maybe doing something, instead of watching a circus act for those 2-3 years, doesn't make them stupid. You want a championship for the Sox? You want post-season appearances? Then by the nature of the fan base, who shows up for winning teams, this is the only road you can take if you want a real shot at success.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 04:59 PM) Anything that would placate a few season ticket holders! It is amazing to me that people here still don't know the history, and how Sox fandom works. Soxtalk is not representative of the fan base as a whole. A full-on rebuild over a period of 2-3 years - which by the way makes little sense when you have immovable contracts like Peavy, Rios and Dunn - empties the stadium. That doesn't just effect those 2-3 years, it effects what money the team has to develop and sign players in the future. This is why rebuilding on the fly is the only practical approach for the team to be successful. Well, one of the reasons. I personally don't care much about an 80 win team versus 85. But if they are in the hunt for more of the season, that absolutely will put more butts in the seats, and that absolutely has an effect on future payroll possibilities, both directly and indirectly.

QUOTE (joeynach @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 04:54 PM) The Sox are talking about moving what they can and getting prospects and salary relief. If they do trade CQ, Danks, Flloyd, and Thornton as rumored why in Hell would they resign Buehrle for 3 years and 39M. Its one or the other, you keep em all, resign Buehrle and add other pieces, or you sell off reduce payroll and rebuild the farm. One or the other, and from what has been said thus far what on earth makes u think 60% chance sox essentially go All in again and thus retain Buehrle. It isn't one or the other though. You can trade Danks and Quentin, for example... sign Mark... and you have, IMO, a team likely to do better than last year. Call it whatever you want, but just because you decide to trade players, doesn't mean you are throwing in the towel and rebuilding. As I've said before, the signal is Danks and Floyd. If they both go, they are rebuilding, and then I agree, Mark makes limited sense (but still not none). If they trade only one, and sign Mark, they plan on trying to compete, while gaining a few prospects and rebuilding on the fly.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 03:44 PM) Ken_Rosenthal Ken Rosenthal Source: #Twins also on Buehrle, joining #Nationals, #Marlins, #Rangers. Offer not as strong. Others believed 3 yrs in $36-39M range. #MLB Interesting - $12M-$13M per for 3 years. I was saying before all the sweepstakes he'd get less than his last contract, and everyone scoffed. He's not likely to get the 4/$56 kind of deal people are talking about, unless one of those teams goes nuts. At 3/$36-$39, if the Sox can move a few salaries, I'd love to see them do it. And I still stick with my earlier assertion, 60% chance he stays.

Its Monday, and the Sox are asking NYY for Banuelos and Montero in exchange for Danks. NYY says won't trade either. I'm guessing by Wednesday we'll hear he was traded for one of them. Also, although Danks is under control for 1 year, he has more value than that to a team like NYY. They are a team that could afford his next contract, and they get a 1-year control period to negotiate it, doing more direct analysis all the while.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 02:06 PM) Great, the thread's about to go down the drain. Needs more news or rumors. Or cowbell.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 12:41 PM) So he needed a 100% approval? What the f***? Q, you are usually a very observant poster... what are you talking about? 12 of 16. 12... of 16. There are 16 votes total. You need 12 - which is 75% - to get in. Minoso got 9, which is 3 short of the necessary 12. He got 75% of 75%.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 12:05 PM) How does 9/12 not get in? That's 75%... 12 gets you in, out of 16.

QUOTE (MAX @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 11:33 AM) Food for thought regarding the 7.7 trillion - - - Some have explained it as a way for the banks to return to normalcy. The argument is that banks would no longer move funds between each other due to overwhelming concerns at the time. So the Fed stepped in and dealt with each bank separately to encourage trust. The claim is that the fed basically functioned act as an intermediary.The 'loans' were paid back very quickly, so the debt was merely a short term liquidity solution. Not sure how much truth there is to that, but it contrasts sharply with the situation going on in the eurozone. These countries are incurring real debt, also in the trillions, that will take decades (in some cases) to pay off. Doesn't really make sense. Because if these were just interbank loans, then it should result in a $7.7T negative net effect. The net effect should be near-zero. So I don't believe that at all. Also, I still think you and Balta are understanding what I was getting at earlier. Right now, the money is flattened and gone. Then it, it wasn't. The effect on currency fundamentally, purely based on basic math, should currently be zero. But currency, like debt obligations across borders, is valued in significant part on risk. Think of this (admittedly imperfect) analogy... you are sitting at a poker table with a bunch of rich guys, and looked at video of the games later. One guy put extra chips on the table from his pocket that he didn't have before, to make it look like he was stronger than he was. He never actually played them out, but it did have an effect on the game. And more importantly, it has a serious effect on how you see him the next time you play. This story is starting to get a little more traction in the press now, as it should.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 11:47 AM) So does Minnie Minoso get another shot next year or was this a one shot deal? He potentially gets another one in three years, but not guaranteed.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 11:33 AM) Chizik voted OSU 5th. Someone in the Harris poll voted OSU 6th...behind Houston. No, Chizek had OSU 3rd. Calhoun had them 5th, as I was referring to earlier about head-scratchers.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 10:11 AM) Nick Saban voted Stanford 3rd, OSU 4th Troy Calhoun with some head-scratchers.

Received 15 of 16 votes (12 gets you in). Minoso got 9 of 12.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 09:14 AM) Do people who give up their child for adoption usually have the ability to restrict certain traits of prospective parents? QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 09:21 AM) Disagree with this. Should we disqualify a child a loving home because the birth parents who are forfeiting their right to raise their child decides that they don't want their kids raised in a family of (gay people/black people/muslims/christians/hispanics)? Last time I checked, if you abdicate your right to child rearing, you abdicate your right to child rearing. Sort of answering to both... 1. I actually don't know what the laws are on this at present. I personally feel that if a person or couple is going to give a child up for adoption, that they should have the choice as to who gets him or her. If they want to abdicate that choice to an agency, that's fine. But if they want to interview and choose, that is also fine. 2. I agree that if you give up the child, you give up the right to raise it. But I think that begins at the moment you actually give up the child - not before. I think of it as similar to godparents. You choose, essentially, the person or couple you would most trust to raise your child if something horrible happened to you as a parent(s). No one tells you who to make next of kin, you choose. Similarly, if you decide you need to give up a child when it is born, you should have some choice as to who they go to.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 07:52 AM) I think the best situation for a child is to be raised by a mother and father, but I think a gay couple raising a child is only slightly less ideal and certainly far, far better than being raised by a single crackwhore who has children by 3+ different men. So I'm not at all opposed to gay couples adopting, but my only disclaimer is that if the parents giving up the baby have a moral objection to it, they should be allowed to place that restriction on the adopting parents. I pretty much agree with this. I think having both a male and female parent and influence is the ideal circumstance... but I also think that having two loving parents who function well is far more important, regardless of gender. And I also agree that if people are giving a child up for adoption, they should have as much choice as they want about who they give the child to.

Giant Wetamay the the heaviest, but not so sure it is the "biggest". There are phasmids (walking sticks) that are way, way longer than that. Here's one...

Huntsman and Paul elect to avoid the Trump Fest Debate. Huntsman and Gingrich to have a 1-on-1 long form debate soon, Gingrich's idea, and Newt wants the same with other candidates too. Wasn't someone asking for something like this just recently?

And, let 'er rip...

Published UE rate drops from 9.0% to 8.6%. 125,000 jobs added is the official number, below ADP's estimate... but, previous months were revised up yet again. Part of the UE drop - approximately half if you extrapolate out the numbers - was due to about 300k people dropping out of the UE category for various reasons other than a new job (stopped looking, retired early, etc.). But even half that, 0.2%, is still something. Economists now talking, with all the US news recently and the Euro crisis leaning more towards stabilization, and the US economy "turning a corner". Still not seeing profound growth, but we are going from weak growth, to moderate growth.

QUOTE (MAX @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 10:54 PM) It doesn't really change what I said if they are physically holding it or have the known power to create it (which I also mentioned). Those two are polar opposites in terms of effect on currency value and assessed risk levels. One uses real money, the other creates new money. Adding money to the supply is accretive, it absolutely has an effect on the fair value of the currency - but of course no makret correction occurred because no one knew about it.

When you open an article with this: Why not just wear a big sign that says "I am bitter and incapable of objective reporting"? Or, why not title the article "My bias is so crystal clear that only an imbecile will take what I write seriously"?

QUOTE (MAX @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 08:46 PM) I would think that the Fed holds trillions of dollars for situations like this, just as the Bank of Japan does for example. The money that the Bank of Japan holds is not in circulation, until they try to manipulate their currency. The major players (granted not the entire public) are aware that the fed is holding trillions, or the power to create trillions, and that is already priced into the value of the dollar, just as it is priced into the value of the Yen. With that in mind, the fact that trillions were loaned out, and are now repaid, doesn't really change the current value or future outlook. That's how I see it. You are working on what I believe is a false assumption here. The Fed does not hold $8T for situations like this. That money has to be created in some fashion. And adding $8T in total open USD is enough to have a material effect on currency valuation, not to mention this opens a door for a lack of risk floor in the eyes of foreign holders of US debt. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 09:21 PM) Wow, you guys have a problem with that? I can complain about the fact that the fed did not extract a pound of flesh from those banks, firing and bankrupting their execs, but I have no problem with the fed doing that. That is literally its most important job and the fact that the ECB won't do that is why Europe is facing a continent wide bank run. I don't disagree that the Fed has a role to help protect the currency. I also think an argument can be made that it plays a role in maintaing a stable financial industry. But I do not think that creating a created-money slush fund of $8T was a good thing, nor do I think it was a good thing that their balance sheet is non-public, nor do I think it is a good thing that the Fed can do such a thing without executive or legislative authority other than its own. And finally, I sure as hell don't like that the banks were able to access that kind of capital and put the entire country at that level of risk, with apparently no negative consequences. And even if you think this was necessary, how is it I am the only one who seems to see what this revelation means to the status of US currency and our foreign-held debt???

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 04:52 PM) Thought nothing of the sort, I know whatever party in power tries to maneuver it to their advantage. I think it is wrong, however it is done. Making districts that contain '70% minorities' or '75% of one party voters to be a safe district' is just wrong if there is no cohesiveness in the district. I think the law just says it has to have x amount of people, not x amount of Republicans, Mexicans or other. Having districts that worm across the state just to make up some desired population density is wrong. Agreed.

QUOTE (MAX @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 02:44 PM) It was an emergency measure. The money came from the Federal Reserve, yes. You answered your own question. That currency is not in circulation, as almost all of the loans have already been repaid. So there almost certainly won't be an effect on the market like you suggested. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 02:45 PM) I would bet it was created money. But you see, by using the money (which was real, then gone) that way, you bring into question the full faith and credit behind US currency. If the currency in actual circulation can be bent THAT dramatically without public knowledge, that has substantial effect on US debt and currency value to the world. We're not talking a few billion dollars here - we are talking about an amount that would substantially increase, albeit temporarily, the amount of USD in circulation. I'd bet there will indeed be a market effect, because the rest of the world will take this into account when dealing with US currency and debt now.