NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 09:54 AM) LOL, no they don't. They're already saying they'll block the defense spending cut trigger. And leave the rest in place, and if they had their druthers, cut a bunch of other s*** too. By the way, don't mistake me for saying their plan is good. Not at all. I just see the reality that the GOP is more likely to reduce the deficits than the Dems are.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 09:53 AM) Of course, the actual points made earlier get ignored as well. but hey, Mark Kotsay! Keep going Balta, maybe you'll win a cookie.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 09:51 AM) You're damn right I won't acknowledge that there are risks here, just like you won't acknowledge that "fewer U.S. jobs" is a risk associated with shutting the program down. Actually I 100% agree with that. You are right in that if the program doesn't exist, and if the industry is incapable of doing this themselves, then they won't be able to spend the money on an ad campaign. That means less jobs (maybe a dozen of them). Of course, the industry could also find other ways to raise the revenue for the campaign, as many professional and commercial groups do, without the government.

Oh good, Balta and SS2K5 are here to argue something to death, so no one is willing to step in and actually talk about the question posed in the thread.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 09:45 AM) Link You are still getting the government involved when it shouldn't be, and there are dangers every time you do that, beyond what the supposedly scheduled cost structure is in the current plan. But that is something I suspect you won't ever acknowledge exists.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 09:40 AM) So that it is actually an industry-wide effort. Then let the INDUSTRY handle it! Government should not be getting involved in this, it is patently silly. QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 09:40 AM) What on earth politics are you watching right now? The "we won't raise any revenues" guys? Give me a break. The same ones who want to cut everything (for better or worse). No doubt in my mind the GOP is more likely to more heavily dent the deficits than the Democrats, as a whole. No doubt at all. But really, the problem is both parties of course. Dems want to raise more revenues and spend a bunch of money, Reps want to reduce revenues and cut a ton of programs. The smart course is what some of the few moderates left in Congress are suggesting - smaller cuts, more reorganization of the social programs to be less costly, some tax increases. A combination. I don't get how people don't see the base problem we are in now - we have debt that is unsustainable (thanks in large part, as I said earlier, to the 2000-2006 spending binge), but also have a huge recession to power out of. The only way to attack both is to do some of all the above, not just cut or just raise taxes or just throw more money at it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 09:33 AM) Why the f*** should the government be taxing the purchase of christmas trees simply to aid growers in an advertising campaign. Even if it's a penny it's a waste of government resources. That's the part that puzzles me. If the growers want to get together with the sellers and add 15 cents to each tree to fund advertising that helps all of them, great, go ahead. Why get the government involved in an advertising campaign at all?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 08:50 AM) No, it'd be absurd to say that they're more likely to address the debt and deficit since they're largely responsible for it and refuse to do anything but cut social spending and cut taxes. You think the Democrats are more likely to cut down deficits than the GOP, right now, today? Now THAT is absurd.

OK, here is a list to start from. This is my order of which cities make the most sense and are most likely to get teams. Discuss and provide your order, and/or add cities... 1. Charlotte / Carolinas 2. Nashville 3. Albuquerque / Santa Fe 4. Portland, OR 5. Las Vegas 6. Salt Lake City 7. San Juan, PR 8. San Antonio / McAllen 9. Indianapolis 10. Vancouver 11. Mexico somewhere I'm willing to bet that three of those get teams in the next decade.

Expansion team discussion moved to The Diamond Club.

With the realignment of Houston to give each league 15 teams, the topic has come up again about adding another 2 MLB teams. Plus with Tampa looking likely to move in the next few years, let's look at the cities involved and debate. I'll move some of the posts on this from PHT, then give a long list to work from, and we can see what order people would put them in...

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 08:57 AM) I was actually thinking Portland/Vancouver to the AL (rivalry with Seattle) and one of Memphis/Charlotte/Indianapolis to the NL Memphis won't get a team. Nashville is in the same state, almost identical population for the metro... except Nashville has a lot more money, and isn't already heavily aligned with one team (STL, just up the road from MEM, and has their AAA team). If TN gets a team, its Nashville. And I just don't see Vancouver getting a team. Its less than a hundred miles from Seattle. But this is a fun thread idea for The Diamond Club, I'll put one in there for this discussion.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 03:45 PM) Svaim. Actually it is a W sound. Swaym, if you will.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 12:41 PM) You can say the exact same thing about Verlander. No, because Verlander actually did look that dominating to me. Valverde didn't. Call it the eye test or whatever.

They may not be able to renegotiate, since the state has zero leverage here (at least for another decade or so). But the Sox may offer some token change to the money situation, just to make the problem go away.

Hmmm... full season package only went down 2%. They seem to be targetting the smaller packages for some reason.

I think they recognize they've been disappointing for 3 straight seasons now, the economy sucks, and they want to retain as many season ticket holders as possible.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 08:08 AM) Who is "they"? I really hope you don't mean Republicans, because that'd be a pretty absurd claim. It would be absurd to say that the Republicans can't fix everything? I'm confused.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 05:56 PM) Bulls*** they will address that problem. The only problem they will address is lowering taxes. They won't address health care which is the main cause of our debt. They are frauds. Health care is not the main cause of our debt, though Medicare is a part of the problem. Not sure where you are getting that. Also, I didn't say they would fix everything, or fix that - but that they, as a whole, are more likely to address debt and deficit issues than Democrats. And its true. Which is not to say that I entirely agree with them, as I do not, at all.

US Debt hit $15T. Scary stuff. The GOP is out in chorus decrying it, which I totally agree with... then they blame Obama for it. What planet are some of these guys on? If they want to say that $15T of debt is dangerous to our nation in a multitude of ways, I'll agree. If you want to say we should elect leaders who will work to reduce that, I'll very definitely agree. If you want to say that (current) Republicans are, on the whole, more likely to address that problem... I'll agree to that too! But Obama's fault? Come back to earth. Who took us from a budget surplus to massive deficits we can't get out of for a decade? Oh yeah, GOP-controlled Congress... many of the same shmoes who are out there yelling about it now. Iraq War? Afghanistan? Adding all sorts of layers of bureaucracy to the federal government? Ramping on even non-war spending on the military and massive rates? Cutting taxes for millionaires all the while? Tax and spend is bad. Spend and spend is worse, and that is what they've been doing. So don't give me that bulls***. If some of these right-wing folks would actually admit that THEY THEMSELVES made many of the mistakes that got us into this mess, and if they were actually willing to make comprimises on the budget deals to fix said mess... then I might respect them. No? Then shut the f*** up. Sorry, nothing new here, just needed to air it out. --- On a happier note, I loved the will power article on CNN from two former moderates. And I love that Dick Durbin, who I usually detest, is at least attempting to provide some leadership in the budget negotiations. Tom Coburn too, again usually despise the guy, but on this he seems to be making some effort.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 04:33 PM) I feel like Vegas, Portland, Charlotte, San Juan, and Vancouver would all be good places for teams. This subject comes up in here about once a year. I've never seen Vancouver mentioned though, Seattle is right there. The cities I usually see mentioned are: Las Vegas San Juan, PR Portland, OR Charlotte or other Carolinas city San Antonio / McAllen Albuquerque / Santa Fe Nashville Salt Lake City Mexico somewhere, but that doesn't seem like a great idea right now I'd guess that list is your starting point. And I'd be good with 32 teams as well, when the economy picks up again. You may also see some teams, like maybe Tampa Bay, move to one of those cities eventually as well. Every one of those areas on the list has some good reasons to get a team.

QUOTE (flavum @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 04:06 PM) If there are 150 interleague series total, and 26 weekend and 25 weekday blocks to work with, then basically they have 50 blocks to work with, with one bye for 1 AL and NL team on a Tuesday and Wednesday. For the purposes of this example, let's just assume the weekday blocks are all Monday-Wednesday, and there won't be any interleague games on Thursdays. 24 Monday-Wednesday blocks (1 bye, 1 AS Break) 26 Friday-Sunday blocks If they had 3 IL series at a time then there is your 150 IL series. But they'll probably stack more toward the middle of the season and only have one at a time in the last month of the season. One new thing they could do that I like is Opening Day vs the Cubs. It would be a new twist on interleague play that could work and help attendance the 2nd and 3rd games of the season. Not every year, but once in a while would be kinda cool. On less interleague---they could have done 12 game each, which would have been 4 series each--60 total series: 5 weekends x 3 series= 15 series 21 weekends x 1 series= 21 series 24 weekday x 1 series-= 24 series One weekday bye for one AL and NL team on a Tuesday and Wednesday So, they could have done 12 under ideal math, which never really works with that many combos... so you would probably end up with 15 anyway. In other words, they couldn't have reduced them by any significant number, if any at all. I don't mind going from 15 to 30, with a more NFL-like schedule. Others don't like it I guess.

QUOTE (flavum @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 12:57 PM) No they don't have to increase it. They just want to because they think it makes them more money. In fact, they could reduce it to 12 games per team and still have enough schedule to spread it out over a 26-week schedule. With 30 games per team, there will be 150 interleague series, which means on average there will be 6 AL, 6 NL, and 3 interleague games going on at any given time. This whole thing just pisses me off. They add a wildcard where teams have the time to play the games against each other to compete for those spots and they decide to play the opposite league MORE games? f***ing ridiculous. You are forgetting that MLB teams are never, ever off on Friday, Saturday or Sunday (and I guarantee they won't change that). So you don't have 7 days a week to work with, you have 4. And since the scheduling is not a perfect thing, you also need a little wriggle room. So yes, they will need to add more interleague games.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 11:46 AM) Anyone have any idea what is going on at Van Buren and Wells in the financial district? All of the Chicago networks have cameras set up there. New Occupy protests? Someone got a lousy burger at Billy Goat?

My biggest problem with expanding the playoffs is that the season already lasts too long. Real baseball should not be played in March or November. Maybe they can shorten spring training a week or something.