NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:45 PM) Still makes no sense. Poor plate discipline is not what I'm referring to about Thome. (who could never make teams regret using the Thome shift) Thome's not on the Sox get over it. Yes, he's on the Twins. Success on the Twins does not = success on the White Sox. It's not a hidden secret anywhere the Sox would prefer Dye over Thome as a DH. Players say things and do change their mind and they had their hopes on that. Thome is not the difference for either team winning the division. People forget April and May never existed when this team wasn't doing anything right. Those games count too. I'm not even sure where to start here. First, YOU brought up plate discipline! now you are saying that's not what you were referring to? I'm getting dizzy here. Where are you getting this secret info that they preferred Dye, when it seems obvious to everyone else it was the opposite? Thome's numbers are FAR better than Kotsay/Jones, its not even close, so how could you say that's not a difference in a tight race? And what the heck do April and May have to do with this discussion? Where did that come from?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:36 PM) Hah...It must be nice to be omnipotent. Explain to me what exactly the discussion is then, so perhaps I might be able to sustain your interest and pass your high threshold of what qualifies as useful here. I've never argued, nor will you find many that will argue, that it is in "our" best interests for Iran to have nukes. The point I am making is that you can come up with justifications all day and night for why we should be the decision-maker regarding who does and does not get nuclear weapons, as well as why it isn't a threat to the world that we have 4,000 of them. But my guess is that the have nots and the more progressive nations of the world would not find the issue so cut and dry. And when you were born into the side of the haves, it's a lot easier to convince yourself that your government is protecting the world, that your government is trustworthy and competent enough to maintain a huge stockpile of weapons large enough to destroy the world 1000 times over, that the governments of others are incompetent fools not to be trusted with the same tools that yours is, etc. Personally, this is the perspective I find most interesting about this issue. It does seem like it stimulated most of the discussion on the issue, doesn't it? Whether you choose to find it useful or informed, I could not care less. You keep arguing about whether the US has the right to be a grand decision-maker, or if they are omnipotent. I'm saying, it doesn't matter. If you are the big kid on the block, you want to protect your own best interests (like everyone else), but you also can make a choice to be a bully, or protect the interest of the majority of smaller kids on the block. Keeping nukes away from Iran is the latter, therefore, its the right course of action, in my view. And this haves and have-nots thing is playing into the argument that we SHOULD keep nukes out of Iran, because again, as it happens, that is in the best interests of the have-nots as well.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:20 PM) How far do we go to prevent that? Unilateral military action? Its a value equation, so that depends on the precise circumstances. In the case of Iran at this time, from what I can tell, I'd say no. But if other data becomes available that they are on the verge of getting them, AND if I felt we could get rid of that capability with some high degree of certainty, then I would consider it. But only after many other things were tried first. QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:25 PM) Balta, There is no proof Israel has a nuclear weapon. A deterrent only works if the other side knows you have the capability. Deterrents dont work as a surprise. So Israel, is excluded from the comparison. The whole world "knew" Israel had nuke(s). Proof is irrelevant. The deterrent effect was in place.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:17 PM) Tyranny of the majority. Which is why the NPT is so important. Iran decided to give up its "right" to develop nuclear weapons. The fact that countries signed a treaty to give them up, suggests to me that absent that contract they had the right to pursue them. No country has legal "rights" that any other nation need recognize unless they choose to. This is, again, an empty argument. And calling it tyrrany is a pretty ridiculous stretch.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:16 PM) It's really easy to make this argument when you've got money down on the leading horse... Your idealistic one-liners are noble but uninformed and also useless to the discussion. Read my post again - and tell me what in it you disagree with. Tell me how a nuclear Iran is good for the world. Tell me how it isn't in our best interests to keep Iran away from nukes.

Forget the "rights" issue here, its meaningless. These are states dealing with each other. The fact that they signed the NPT is a nice discussion piece, but really nothing more. Simply put, its in the best interests of 95% of the world's countries and their populations that Iran does not have nukes. Therefore, many countries, led by the US, will work to prevent it. And I completely agree with them doing so. It doesn't matter what you think of US conduct, or of the fact that we've had nukes since 1944. Doesn't matter. What matters is what is best for people going forward. And hell, I would even say that Iran with nukes doesn't help its people much either.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:32 PM) From our point of view. There are many others out there that think we are trying to take over the world and take over its natural resources. From the point of view of all but a small handful of nations. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:33 PM) The rest of the world benefits if there are not nuclear armsraces between small countries every time there's a dispute between them. Every country in the world benefits if they don't have to worry about the country they're in a trade dispute with going off and starting a nuclear weapons program to make sure they control that product. Just some examples. Exactly.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:29 PM) What is it about "our" interests that makes them so much more important than the interests of others? Because "our" interests are for the protection of most of the world, in this case.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:07 PM) No, I mean I'll be fishing off of the same dock as someone else. We'll be using the same bait/lure/weights and cast our lines about five feet apart. The other person will catch fish all day, and I'll maybe get lucky with one. Could be the way you are reeling it in, or how deep you let it drop before you reel.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 12:57 PM) Good call. Maybe the team isn't really that good. Right now is a bad time for the bull pen to fail. Where's the angst against Coop? How about Walker? Ozzie is the one who runs far too often, and causes this team to run into more outs than any other team by far. Ozzie is the one who didn't want Thome or a real DH, he wanted the rotating B.S. that we currently have, which has been far and away the biggest detriment to their success on offense. Ozzie is the one who ran JJ Putz out there three days in a row, if you want to get more specific and more recent. Ozzie deserves a significant portion of the blame for the Sox being 3 out. Now, he does not deserve ALL the blame, by any stretch. Similarly, he deserves some credit for making sure his team didn't quit, and came roaring back into contention. But again, not all of it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 12:10 PM) Significant numbers of refinancing: good. Propping up home values with taxpayer dollars; fails every time. (worth noting...the Administration could have pulled something effective as stimulus in terms of a refinancing program a year and a half ago, but the HAMP program has been perhaps the most abject failure of anything they've done). I think his overall plan is good, but it requires also revamping Fannie and Freddie to be operationally solid in order to work. I also still think that one of the best stimulus ideas they could have implemented was buying property outright. They could still attempt that - some localities are doing it anyway.

Pimco chief sez more stimulus pleez, for the housez. Wants to auto-refi all FNMA/FMAC mortgages, to provide $50B-$60B more money into the economy and prop up home values.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 11:50 AM) I'm curious as to why making the playoffs makes a difference (unless we would make it due to a drastic shift in his baseball philosophy). For two reasons. One, I think given that we're in contention, he deserves the chance to finish proving out his plan, even if I don't like certain aspects of it. And two, even though I despise certain things he does, if he does manage to take this team to a division win, then I might just be wrong. In that case, I want him to show me again.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 11:50 AM) Has Sale been that good? I have been out of state and (mercifully) haven't seen a game since Thursday. I'll say this much. We have the right guy on the mound tonight. I said "so far" because he's only pitched four times. First outing was a walk and a hit and got pulled. Since then, 3.2 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 1 BB, 3 K.

a, c

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 10:02 AM) I've only been fishing a handful of times in my life, but I really like it. The only problem is that I'm just a terrible fisherman. I guess it has more to do with luck than any particular skill, as I do the exact same thing as the person/people I'm with, but I will never catch anything. Have to know what to cast and where to cast it. I actually love playing guide when I go on canoeing trips now, I don't even do the fishing - I just put someone in the front of the boat who wants to fish, and I show them what to put on the line, take them to a good spot, and show them where and how to cast it. You have to know how to "read" lakes and rivers to find the best spots for what you are looking to catch.

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 09:36 AM) But the ground is even at the bottom. It's not like you have to spend $25m+ a year to be competitive in the draft. The difference between being a team that sticks to slot anda team that spends in the upper tier, is what, $4-5m? With the way revenue sharing is even the lower revenue teams can afford to part with that amount - and many do. It's a myth that just the top teams spend big money. Look at what the Nationals have spent these past two years, the Pirates spent well over $10m this year, the Royals consistently spend $6m, $7m, $8m+, the Indians spend over $8.5m this year, the Orioles spent over $8m. All of those teams have spent more this year than the Yankees, yet it's not going to guarantee them long-term competitiveness. Introducing a salary floor, or forcing teams to spend a certain % of their revenue on salary would be a better way to make the league more competitive in my opinion. A salary floor as a % of revenue doesn't work because teams will have wildly different cost structures outside of player personnel. Stadiums they own or don't, have to maintain or not, for example. Tax structure. Things that are not easily modified. I see what you are saying, you don't have to spend player personnel type salaries to be competitive in the draft. And as I said, until the system changes, the Sox should really work to put more money into the farm and the draft. No argument from me there. I just disagree on the way to make the rules better.

QUOTE (stretchstretch @ Aug 16, 2010 -> 10:46 PM) too many people are straying from the original question and replying about this year--DH, Thome, Peavy, bullpen, etc. The question is about the Sox tendency to have a weak 2nd half, and the Twins completely predictable 2nd half rise. I would like to hear more from the knowledgeable, fact-holders more about why every late summer in memory feels like a replay of the one before. I think there are two posts in here with data on Sox second halves, not one countering with MN numbers. And no one is asking if the Yankees have MN's number. Does a single person here, in their heart, really feel the Sox are capable to passing and keeping MN down for the remaining stretch? Doesn't almost everyone hear feel like we've been here over and over and over again? When we were 3+ games up, and had numerous opportunities to get it to 6, each miss felt like blowing a 10 ten game lead because I KNEW the twins were going to do the annual mult-game leapfrog in a week's time....and here we are....and I would bet a week's pay we'll finish 8-9 games back, without hesitation Did you not read Greg Hibbard's post just above yours? It refutes your statements and further, does exactly what you asked in the bolded.

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 08:46 AM) That's a horrible idea. Penalizing the players for refusing to sign is absolutely not the way to go. What if you're a top high school prospect (i.e Auston Wilson) who says to teams "don't draft me I'm going to college", then some team drafts you in the 12th round and offers you slot money ($60k-ish). Through no fault of your own you've just lost $2m+. You'd basically be forcing all players to sign out of high school for far less money than they deserve. Either that or you'd get all the top prospects renouncing their U.S. citizenship and moving abroad so they could be signed as IFA's. Neither one of those is a good thing. The slotting system should be removed and the signing deadline brought forward. If teams want to spend more money in the draft then they should be allowed. There's no cap on payroll's, so why should there be a cap on draft budgets? It's a completely legitimate way to allocate your funds, after all. First, the answer to this is simple - if you are going to college, don't enter the draft. No one is taking away your money then. But perhaps a better way is to have a slotting system that teams have to follow, period - not just a suggestion. They establish slot money values, and teams can only vary from that (up OR down) in their offers by 10% or something. Might work better. But if you allow teams to get into these continuing bidding wars in the draft, you will exacerbate the problem of having a handful of teams being good all the time, and that is not good for baseball. Player payroll at the major league level, versus draft money - those are different animals. IMO, the best way to make teams more competitive in baseball is to make the ground even at the bottom - the draft.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 12:00 AM) I've been watching River Monsters and all these other monster fish shows and all I can think about is getting out on the Rock River to try and catch some monster catfish. Watched that last night too - the one with the Goonch Catfish in India. The show is really pretty stupid, but its cool to see the big fish he catches. I could care less about his laughable theories and excuses to go fishing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 08:10 AM) I'm sure you didn't mean to...but I think the whole first paragraph of your argument is exactly what I put in my parenthesis. It's a much more stable cash outflow for the company correct...but it's a much less stable inflow for the retiree. In other words...the company benefits because they've transferred the risk of a downfall from their liabilities on to their workers. I think you also need to add a major exception to your argument that broader markets and mutual funds pay out better over the long run...because for the last 10 years that's been essentially untrue...broader markets and mutual funds have paid out worse than holding nothing but cash/bonds over the last 10 years. On your first graf, I think it simply makes more sense for the recipient/employee to take the risk than the company - and by the way, get greater rewards too, long run - because the recipient can wait 30 years for the payout. The company, in a pension situation, has to pay out every single year regardless of the markets. And this goes to your second graf. The "lost decade" is exactly the reason why it benefits both the company/agency AND the recipient/employee to have their money in the markets in a 401k. For the company, it means they can survive a down market, and still employ people. For the employee, it means a buying opportunity over the long haul.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 05:47 AM) If not giving him consistent AB's messed with his development, then screw Ozzie. If its just a cold spell, thats fine. Seems to me, players who get demoted always go to one extreme or the other when they first go down - either red hot, or ice cold. Then they head back to normal. I wouldn't worry just yet.

1. The system needs to change. The slot system is a good idea, but only if its enforced harder. Players who refuse to sign after being drafted, if they were given an offer of at least slot money, should be ineligible for any draft bonus any kind in the future. That's a good start. 2. Despite not getting Grimes and Terry, this is the third straight draft by the Sox that I am pretty happy with. Looks quite good to me. Too bad 2009 got hit by the injury bug. 3. Until the system is fixed, I agree that we should be trying to be at least competitive in our draft spending, and find a way to get a few more guys.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 07:59 AM) Serious question...why? Is there some inherent benefit to a defined contribution plan compared with a defined benefit plan that is actually going to convince me that they're better? (And by convince me, I'm trying to deliberately exclude variations on the company assuming less risk, because I'm going to counter that having individuals assume more risk is bad). Well, I tend to look at this as if these were all businesses, even though many are actually government entities. The reasons are pretty simple. You are promising a consistent cash flow out every year to a number of people, based on returns you get which are NOT consistent. The only way you can feel OK about that as a leader of a business or agency, is if the inconsistent returns give you serious premium over the intended outflow over long periods, to make up for the periods where you are hemorraging cash. And frankly, I would not be OK making that leap of faith, especially when I know that I have to invest in relatively conservative vehicles for this type of service. Furthermore, over the long haul, the broader markets and mutual funds will pay out better than any pension would anyway, so its better for the recipient as well - with one exception. If/when the agency/company running the scheme falls short and turns it into a pyramid scheme, with inflows being heavily leveraged for the outflows, then the current recipients win, and everyone else loses. 401k with a match is simply the best, safest model for everyone involved.

QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 06:33 AM) My dad just lost $300 per month from his. I am all for phasing out pensions. But I am adamantly opposed to taking away money to those who already have it granted to them. If you have put in X dollars over X years to provide payouts of X dollars later, you should get those, unless the government entity is literally bankrupt. They should really just say, no one new goes in.