NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 03:14 PM) He's not only been my favorite Sox player, but I would also say he's one of the 3 most important in Sox history as well. I'd hate to see him go to the Cubs, but I highly doubt he does that. PK 14 as a Cub, D Lee as a Sox. That would be weird, wouldn't it?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 03:54 PM) The NJ one is not completely funded, that's why it is stopped. And with the ones that were originally mentioned, who has to maintain those systems once they are built? You now have a new expense on the books when the states are already broke. And You know that they will not be creating any kind of profit to pay for themselves. Sure, they will have 'jobs' during the construction of it, btu what about when it is done? Oh wait, union jobs to run it, I see. Another expensive bill that the states would have to find a way to pay for. That grant is kinda like someone buying you the 11 CD's for a penny from Columbia House for your birthday, and then leaving YOU with having to buy the remaining 10 at full inflated price to fulfill the committment. Only this committment never ends, just gets more expensive. You are vastly overstating the maintenance costs to the state. States don't generally have to maintain in this situation, its Amtrak and the freight lines that will pay for this line. NJ one I agree though, New Jersey was on the hook for big bucks and any cost overruns, so I can understand it in that case.

I still think the advanced defensive metrics, while way better than what we had before, have their weaknesses. I think certain positions, particularly C, 1B and P, they just don't work as well as they do for the other positions. Not enough balancing of factors. Also, the variation in some players from year to year seems, at times, to swing too widely to reflect reality. Still, a guy with the numbers Jeter put up as noted above, clearly, should not a GG winner.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 02:42 PM) 11/9/10: The date the GG award officially died for me. This award needs to be motherf***ing abolished ASAP. It's become beyond despicable. Less this, more this... QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 02:49 PM) Once Palmeiro won it in 1999 with 28 games played at 1B, I pretty much stopped caring about which undeserving players won it.

How pissed would Sox fans be if the Cubs signed PK14?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 12:26 PM) I wonder if Castro + Cashner would be enough to get that done. I bet Castro + Cashner + Colvin probably would. Leaving the Cubs with A-Gon and a whole lot of nothing else for their future, a guy they may not even be able to re-sign, and does nothing to address their pitching issues.

QUOTE (dpd9189 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 11:58 AM) Anything the Sox get from Peavy now is just a bonus, I don't see him being the same pitcher he was when he won the Cy Young with SD in 07. Just too many injuries. The bolded really doesn't make much sense, he's only had one pitching-related injury. But I agree with your general point, that it isn't even so much a question of if he comes back healthy... its more about, if/when he does, will he be the same pitcher? My feeling is that he will profile like many pitchers after TJ or other major surgeries, where his first year back is a struggle, but second year back he has a good chance of fully rebounding.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 12:19 PM) Profits help stockholders, not banks. Banks are a whole different entity. Profits are 100% irrelevant to the health of a bank. The only thing that matters to a bank's health is what their lending ratios look like, and if there is bad debt stopping them from being a solvent bank. I think you are focused on only one of many factors in the health of a bank. You and I just don't see this the same way.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 11:33 AM) I think NSS and I were talking a few weeks ago about how widespread the problem of outright fraud in foreclosure proceedings currently is. Here's a from-the-press, somewhat-anecdotal, ridiculously high number, from a state where foreclosure is a judicial proceeding (such that people shoudl in fact know). If that number is even true, its still not spelling doom like you think it is. What it means is, they have to go back and re-do the paperwork. Its extra time and money, and its not good, but its far from economy-shattering. As I've repeatedly said, what matters is the percentage of actual loans and their underwriting that turn out to be materially flawed, and further, how many of those have been securitized, and of those, how many have contractual points that allow for any sort of push back, and of those, how many of the securitized debt instruments have any large percentage at fault, and of those, how many holders are willing to spend the time and money going after this. Its a % of a % of a % of a % of a %.

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 09:39 AM) I'll miss Morgan and Miller. I know its the popular thing to hate on them in a very exaggerated way but those are the voices I was used to for Sunday Night Baseball. They were nowhere near as bad as people make them out to be. Cynicism and questionable name pronunciations don't bother me at all. I hoped they would at least stick to the radio call, but I guess that isn't happening. I want Marco Scutaro to have a monster year, and every baseball he hits against the Yankees is a dribbler just out of the reach of their shortstop. And I hate the Red Sox. The problem with Morgan isn't cynicism or pronunciations. Its the fact that he is just so ignorant, as well as racist. He's a terrible announcer.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 10:09 AM) I'm not sure why that is. A lot factors into these things. Are we talking about per individual house that their taxes are higher? Or are we considering their taxes higher because it's a denser population? Location also matters. Property tax paid as a percentage of assessed value. The assessment ratios are constant in Cook County, so the only variation is tax paid versus value as a ratio. Just seems odd to me that someone living in a place like Northfield pays a lower percentage of their home value to property taxes than someone in Robbins. Its regressive.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 09:43 AM) A lot of the 3rd qtr earnings were dure to lower loan cost provisions. I do not believe banks have even started to address the CRE loans on their sheets. If they did, you would see foreclosures up the yin yang and we just do not see it. Home equity loans are an albatross on the banks balance sheets too. And they own the majority of them, unlike mortgages. CRE? Sorry, I'm not familiar with that acronym.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 08:58 AM) They need to be low in Chicago, unlike the surrounding suburbs who pay much higher taxes, a HUGE percentage of those taxes go to their schools. Agreed, but, doesn't it seem a little broken to you, that people in Northfield pay a much lower percentage to property taxes than people in Robbins?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 08:45 AM) I live in cook county now, and my taxes are over 2700$ a year, and rising. I just saw an article this morning in the Trib, that stated that the percentage effective property tax rate for Chicago residents was actually one of the lowest in the metro area. Northfield was the lowest, and the highest was in poor areas where property values have sunk badly. The property tax regime in Cook County is actually quite regressive.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 08:45 AM) A bank can make a significant profit, and still be insolvent. We saw that many times during 2008 and 2009. Which is basically what I just said. You are saying profits are meaningless to the health of a bank, and that is just not true. What I think you mean is, a bank can make a profit and still be unhealthy. Do you not see the difference I am getting at here? Profits are good, they help banks, but that does not mean profitability = health.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 08:38 AM) I have to say, I really have no idea why I was called out here. I think you're basically arguing that the banks are taking profits and only lending to high-quality lenders, so that on balance their overall debt picture is actually safer...which I think is probably a good thing and which is a statement I'd probably agree with. Am I missing something? What point did you expect me to make here? From our previous discussions, I got the impression you were thinking the banks were actually making a profit from foreclosures, which just isn't the case. I didn't want you to grab onto the point about REO divisions making money (which they do), and think that meant that banks were making money from the foreclosure process. They are losing money, just trying to cut those losses. That's all I meant. Sorry if I made a bad assumption, or if I misunderstood you.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 08:23 AM) They aren't "healthy". Profits are irrelevant to the health of a bank. They are making money because they are able to get deposits are articicially low rates, while lending at much higher rates. The problem is that doesn't change the debt loads they are carrying from the real estate collapse, or the negative values which are tying up more capital that can't be lent. Profits are very relevant to the health of banks. Where are you getting the idea they aren't? I think you are just using hyperbole to prove a point here... what's true is that a good profit does not mean necessarily that a bank is health overall. But its also true that profitability is helpful and a sign of strength in at least some business units. The banks are lending less, and lending to more high quality candidates. This is exactly the kind of build-up they need to restore the quality of their debt loads. So yes, their debt loads are indeed changing - foreclosures come in and are written off, debt is replaced by healthier candidates, and oh by the way the REO's take the artificial profit out of the market and keep it in house to help offset some of the foreclosure losses (don't start Balta - this is still a losing game, they're just taking some of the loss back). Also, the capital pumps into the market have allowed banks to inflate their assets both directly and indirectly. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 08:23 AM) Exactly. And for better or for worse, the banks are married to the rebound. No one with half a brain cell is expecting some big jump in the real estate market. There will be small rebounds along the way of course, but just as you and Balta are saying, a healthy market sees steady growth, and the market hasn't even gotten to that point yet. Its at a point of general stability, and slow growth should in theory be next.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 08:18 AM) Banks are vital to economic growth. They have to be healthy to sustain growth. Until the real estate prices rebound enough to free up lending again, it isn't going to happen. As I said, they are healthy, and the numbers the last few quarters bear that out. Smaller banks are going under and being gobbled up by bigger ones, and the bigger ones have been making very good money. And real estate prices are being helped along by REO's that are often divisions of those banks anyway. Prices seem to be bouncing around a line that, according to people in the industry, now reflects something close to true value, or maybe slightly under. The market is by no means strong, but its gotten pretty stable, and growth should be next up.

Also, the housing market is indeed healing. New construction numbers dropped off a cliff and have stayed low, which is good. Housing inventory numbers have been more or less stable for a while, which isn't great, but they haven't had a rising trend in a while now. Foreclosure pace has slowed (even before the paperwork issues), but the banks are doing exactly what is ideal here (intentionally or not) - smoothing the pace of them reaching the market. This is being helped along by opportunistic REO's and the like, where some profits are actually being made. Prices on homes continue to fall as they needed to (and resisted for some time), and lately seem to have been bouncing around a line, which is good. Basically, the housing market is delicate and weak, but no longer falling off the cliff.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 08:08 AM) Quite honestly, unless the housing market recovers significantly, it is a classic bubble. This problem was caused by the housing/banking crisis. By and large that hasn't been fixed yet. Banks still have tons of bad loans on their books, and aren't able to lend at rates anywhere near sustaining a recovery. Without banks healthy, growth isn't going to be sustainable. It may not be sustainable, but its not a bubble, not in my view. Bubble means not only that its hyper-inflated (which neither the markets or the greater economy are at this point), but that its propped up by fakery or non-real values of some kind. That's not the case here. Banks have been getting healthier for some time now, so I'm not overly concerned about them or their role at this point in the greater scope of economic growth. Yes, there is the mortgage underwriting problem, which will bite some people, but I think we're already seeing its not going to be the epic disaster that some feared. Yes, the need for regulation is still there, as some holes still are exploited. But overall, the sector is much healthier than it was a year ago, or 2 years ago.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 07:44 AM) If I replace the word "Washington" with the phrase "Wall Street"...doesn't that argument work equally well? Both have waste, but only one can turn a profit to offset that waste. Now, before you go off the deep end in response, I am not saying that means private business should do everything. Some things are just better handled by the government, obviously, despite the fact that there may be more waste or inefficiency there.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 02:08 AM) I know nobody cares about my argument and you'll all point to different sabes stats but ... if the AL is so f***ing superior, how did the Giants maul our big bad Rangers in 5 games?? I think the AL-NL thing is overrated. Baseball is baseball folks. The AL still owns the NL in interleague record, which is the only stat with enough sample size to be meaningful here (All Star games and WS are just too chance-ridden). But, it does appear in the past couple years that the gap is closing a bit. They probably aren't as far apart as they were.

I still think this decision will be guided by the 90% chance that the Sox trade an SP, likely Danks or Floyd.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 08:03 PM) In this case, I'd say he's right. This is a 100% federally funded initiative that was meant to be part of a regional effort. The state loses nothing, and stands to gain jobs, cheaper and more efficient transit, and probably more tourist dollars. What possible reason does this Governor have for turning it down than to make a political point?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 06:22 PM) To be fair lost...I think when you add together all of the nation's property taxes and compare that to the yearly $300 billion or so cost of the Bush Tax cuts, I'm betting property taxes are quite a bit larger. Cook County generates something like $3B-$4B in property taxes annually. Just to put it in perspective. Cook County has what, maybe 5-6 million people or so? If its $3.5B for 5.5 million people, that's about $650 per person in populace. If that ratio roughly extends laterally, you get $195B.