NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 12:16 PM) http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/A...e-Unraveled.htm Yeah, seems like they screwed up here multiple ways. One, to try to rush a very large investment before the research was done, purely so that they could make a staged announcement on time... Two, to violate basic rules of portfolio management in high risk areas - they put tons of money in one basket, instead of smaller amounts in many... and Three, they picked a company to do that with, which is connected too closely to the Administration. Just business stupid decision making.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 12:07 PM) What a bizarrely titled article. There is one line at the very end that talks about meeting someone through charity who changed his civil unions ideas, and that apparently makes them a liability? Not one person or organization said anything to his charitable giving being a negative thing, or viewed as a negative, but somehow they are a liability? I should know better than to read HuffPo. I agree. If you actually read the article, first of all, it makes me like him as a candidate that much more. But second, it really us amusing how HuffPo wants to take a small piece of his life and make it into a wedge issue between him and other parts of the GOP. As he said himself, plenty of Republicans are OK with civil unions anyway. Some aren't. This only adds to the picture that Huntsman is a moderate Republican, but the article really should have been something accurate, which is to say, a study of the candidate's charitable efforts (which are pretty impressive).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 11:04 AM) I was a HUGE Kip Wells guy too. Going back even further, Ivan Calderon. But Ivan had a pretty decent major league career.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 10:48 AM) I really liked Ryan Wing when he was in the system before he had his arm problems I remember him. When he came back after missing basically 2 entire seasons, as a reliever, I thought he could be a Scott Radinsky type guy. Then OAK picked him up in the Rule V and put him AAA, and then I believe he went to Japan.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 10:43 AM) Currently, the Sox have had 1,791 AB's this year with players who have a batting average of .250 or below. (not incl pitchers) The equals roughly 35% of the time. 1,100 AB's with players with an avarage south of .250. (roughly 22%) Something is off with your numbers. This would indicate that 13% of the team's at-bats have been with a guy hitting exactly .250, which seems impossible.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 10:22 AM) It amazed me how easy it would have been before 15c3-5 got passed. It still isn't that hard. Honestly it is easier at a big bank, because they have more rope to work with. Though there is no doubt multiple people screwed up and will be justifiably fired. That is what I was really getting at. It is a lot harder nowadays to pull it off with few or no people knowing about it. There had to be other people who either knew about it, or were really bad at their jobs and missed it.

Yikes. It is amazing something at this level could still happen. Yes the rules and governance are confusing, yes there is huge motivation to make money no matter what. But large banks like UBS have internal rules and laws of governance that are basic stuff, and someone screwed up. Either other people knew about it and allowed it to happen, or there was an utter and catastrophic failure of compliance within the firm.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 08:40 AM) There's a big piece that you're missing though...the study compares the price for contracting out to the price for having the same task done by long-term government employees. What you're asking is again a different question - I'm not trying to argue that the government sector is always more efficient than the private sector, that'd be silly, and that's what I think you're getting out of that because of your statements that "There is usually a reason why this is contracted out". Almost every case that they discuss is a case where the contracting out happens by choice, not because the government is incapable of doing so. DOD maintenance and logistics. State Department Security. Security at medium-level government facilities. Human Resources and oversight of contracts. Operations at West Point. "Simple" IRS collection cases. TSA screenings. Management and upgrading of Coast Guard facilities and equipment. Intelligence gathering. Almost every single case they cite in their survey is a case where the Federal government used to do a function using its own employees but then, sometime between the 1980's and now, decided that it would be cheaper based on some estimate to outsource the function to a private company. They are not doing anything that the government doesn't have the capacity to do, the government is stopping doing a function, laying off the people who are doing it, and adding an outside company to do the function on the grounds that some estimate says it would be cheaper and because the mantra of this era is that the private sector is more efficient. In almost every one of those cases, the federal government is performing the service, there is an estimate saying it would be cheaper to outsource this function, and then the function winds up being substantially more expensive once outsourced. How is that missing anything? I specifically said that was what was being compared. What I am pointing out is, that does not mean the private sector (or public for that matter) is more efficient in any broad sense. What it means is that outsourcing specific tasks within an existing overhead structure is not generally going to save money in the long run. And by the way, that is a lesson the private sector is learning too. You know how, for the past 5 to 10 years, software companies and other technology services have been moving so many jobs to India? Programmers, help desk call centers, etc.? Executives were salivating over the idea of getting a programmer for a third of the salay of one in the US. Of course, they didn't save nearly as much money as they thought they would, or in some cases none at all. And the cost over there is skyrocketing... companies are slowing their pace of India-sourcing, and many of them in fact have reversed the flow.

Ehren Wassermann. Also Ross Gload, though he did find a niche as a major leaguer.

Don't let the door hit ya on the ass on the way out.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 05:12 PM) You can't be seriously going for "the government shouldn't do these things in the first place" as a blanket statement. Nope. And I wasn't really trying to say the study was flawed, because it isn't. What is flawed is the conclusions you and others are drawing from the data. Think of it this way... 1. Republicans, generally, tend to favor more privitization. They say that some things (lots of variability in terms of what things) are better off in the private sector, as opposed to public. One of the arguments is that, in general, private business does things more efficiently than government. That cost levels should be lower and/or the profit difference in private business is plowed back into the company and jobs some of the time. Does this sound right so far? 2. You show us an article, which shows that when government agencies outsource work to private firms, as opposed to doing similar jobs in-house, they end up paying more money. The cost of the job when contracted out to the business sector is more than if it stayed internal. Still sound right? 3. From these pieces of information, you conclude that perhaps the private sector is in fact not more efficient, and in fact may be less so than public. And further that privitization of government work is not a savings at all, and may cost more. These are what you are trying to say, right? The problem is that going from 2 to 3, you have made a logical leap that is not supported in fact or data presented. The data does not say that the private sector costs more to do some specific service or provide some specific need. It says that if said service is still a government task (and still with all the overhead and oversight of it - which is cost), but if some parts of that work are outsourced, the cost goes up. This is not surprising at all. As a general rule, even in the private business world... if you have some specific task that needs to be done as part of a larger service structure, and if you find you have to contract out for it, it will almost always cost more. But you do it anyway because you have to for some reason. Could be you can't find the resources who can do it full time, or it could be that it is a short term gig that makes no sense to hire full time, or could be you want to try something out before committing to it, etc. But the effort to bring in outside contractors for work almost never is about getting it done cheaper. Basically, your conclusions are based on a study that isn't what was presented here. That study would need to go something like this... Find a specific service that government provides, and look at the complete cost of the provision of that service... then find the same service in the private sector, and again look at the full cost to the consumer. Then compare. Now, you have a valid comparison. Here is another analogy. Often times, a business may have some product, service or business line they are experimenting with. For whatever reason, it may have value, but they don't think it fits well... might be too far outside their skill zone, might not balance well in terms of risk with the rest of the company, might not be able to grow further while part of the company, etc. Basically, they feel that someone else could make more money from it and do it better - and therefore, it has value in sale. So they sell it, or spin it off with some equity interest, or whatever. What they don't do, because it would be stupid, is outsource the core work but keep all their managers and overhead around it. Do you see what I am getting at here? The study you posted tells of the dangers and costs associated with having to contract out pieces of work for a government agency. It does not tell us that private industry is more, or less, efficient and some given task.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 04:58 PM) So where would it fit, "the government contracts out way too much and should just get out of a lot of these tasks completely"? You're getting warm...

I know the game doesn't matter, but I'd love the Sox to put a run up here, so that Valverde can blow a save. I can't stand that guy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 02:14 PM) This is good enough to stick in here in case I ever need to remember it. I can't believe people aren't seeing the obvious Business 101 thing here... you are saying that private sector work is more expensive, and therefore less efficient, than public. Thus countering conservative claims that private business does it better than government. Of course, the data you are presenting doesn't say that at all. I'll see if anyone else can spot why.

One thing should be clear here, this is not the bank's fault, at all. The son is the asshole. If the son did something illegal, he should be prosecuted. The question is, should the law step in to help with certain situations? And if so, where do you draw the line?

I was hoping to watch this one and see Axelrod pitch, but can't watch it. Can someone give a report on how Axel looks? Stat line for the game looks quite good for a major league debut. What is his velocity? How is his stuff?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 01:15 PM) I had forgotten about that. I wonder if that would have changed anything anyway. Back surgerys are notorious for being unreliable. QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 01:17 PM) I bet Joe wishes he could get a redo regardless. Doubt it. Anyone medical person, or any former or current patient with major back issues, will tell you clearly and absolutely, that surgery always needs to be the last resort when it comes to back problems. It was only smart for Crede to try everythign else first, I don't blame him one bit for it.

I agree, that was a good piece. I am merging it with the existing Ozzie Rumors thread, but I like it.

Seriously, AJ ahead of Bradley and Zambozo? LOL For more funnies, take a look at the Smartest 15 list. Ivan Rodriguez, who as I've read before is sort of known as the dumbest catcher in baseball, is on the list. Awesome.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 10:13 AM) Fixed. Incorrectly... what you said is true offensively only, and even that has some exceptions. Until very late in his short career, he was a well above average defensive 3B.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 09:48 AM) Thought this would be interesting. If we look at the states where the same party has won, each and every presidential election since 1992, (so 1992, 96, 2000, 2004 and 2008) and assume the same party wins again in 2012, here are the current electoral college totals. Obama 242 (28 shy) Republican 102 (168 shy) The following 19 states have shifted over the past 5 elections. NV, MT, AZ, CO, NM, IA, MO, AR, LA, IN, OH, KY, TN, GA, FL, NC, VA, WV and NH. I think it would be a fair assumption that a few of these states, (AR, LA, KY, TN and WV) that were won with Clinton's southern strategy, are off the table. So lets add those to the Republican column. So now its 242-140. It also seems like the Obama administration is not heavily planning on winning IN again, and MT is probably off the table too. Let's throw those to the Republicans as well. Now its 242-154. At this 242-154 level, there are 94 winning combinations for Obama, 47 for the Republicans and 12 combinations that would create a tie. With the remaining states listed as undecideds, the one state, that mathematically, the Republicans must win is FL. Fun program to play with. www.270towin.com I think AZ is off the table for Obama, same for GA and NC. I would say IN and NV are very long shots - if he gets those it means the economy is in huge recovery mode, and he wins in any scenario. Last I saw, PA won't be splitting. But NE does, although I think if it is a regional split, GOP gets the whole state anyway. So Obama effectively needs to get 28 EV's from some combination of: CO (9), NM (5), IA (6), OH (18), FL (29), VA (13), and NH (4) Obviously, Florida is the brass ring. And I think VA will be awfully tough, so if the GOP wins FL... the only way for him to win is to win Ohio. Vice versa, if the GOP takes OH, then Obama needs to take FL. Basically, again, it comes down to OH and FL. If either candidate take both, none of the rest of it matters. If it is 1-1, then Obama likely wins (if the 1 he wins is FL, then he absolutely wins). We can't get rid of the electoral college for Presidential voting soon enough.

Moved to the Buster.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 09:39 AM) Hmm. When I think of craziness and insanity, I think of 2008 when all the idiots and clueless people rushed out of the woodwork to put a moron in the White House. Luckily, he's lost that pop culture appeal and people are realizing that "Hope and Change" was bulls*** and the dude's just another politician. It's going to be a tough race in 2012, and Barry will have a tough time against GOP frontrunners Perry and Romney. A lot tougher of a time than people here seem to think. We can argue that all we want, pointing to different poll numbers that support our sides. But the only way to tell is to wait til Nov 2012. I just like the GOP's chances. I think, barring some super-major global or domestic event unforseen, the question of whether or not Obama holds the Presidency can be easily boiled down to two variables: --Does Perry or Romney win the nomination? --Has the economy improved, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the months or year prior to the election? Expressed as a sort of equation, using UE standard as a catch-all economic variable, I see it this way... if Perry wins the nomination, UE needs to be 10% or higher for him to beat Obama... if Romney, then UE needs to be 9% or higher. That's where I'd put it right now.

Depending on how this worked... if the son was conducting financial dealings for the property that were either not communicated clearly to the property owner, or if he did anything otherwise illegal, he should be prosecuted. The other thing is, this is a good argument for making sure foreclosures are seen and reviewed by an actual judge, not just someone at a desk signing papers. Because once in a while, when you have a situation like this, I think a judge should have some power to grant temporary stay - with the condition that the mortgager gains possesion of the home in the event of the death or moving out of this resident. A 101 year old woman isn't going to be in that house forever, and this would even help the bank in some ways not look like the "bad guy" (even though they really aren't the bad guy at all, the son is). In other words, I am OK with the occasional exception being enforced by the authorities, within strict bounds.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 07:59 AM) Honestly, before he had that gruesome leg injury Ozzie Guillen was one of the best defensive SS to ever play the game. One of the best "ever" may be a stretch, but certainly during his time, the only guy better was the other Ozzie. That's something a lot of people don't see when they look at the stats, and assume Ozzie was bad at baseball. No, he was below average hitter, who played well above average defense at a critical position.