NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 10, 2010 -> 08:26 AM) We wasted those quality starts on a mediocre team, and we looked dead ass in terms of any sort of offense. If they don't turn it around starting tonight, it might be over...we can't sustain a prolonged slump right now without losing heavy ground to the Twins. Over? Sheesh, we're tied for first. "Over" is an incredible overreaction. Winning this series is definitely big, but its not "over" for either team even if one sweeps the other.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Aug 10, 2010 -> 07:33 AM) That will only happen if Kotsay is DFA'd I'm not sure of that. I know everyone says that Ozzie loves Kotsay therefore Kotsay will always play full time if he's with the team... but once Teahen is back, I think its actually possible that Kotsay is indeed let go... and if not, will play less often.

This was the first bad series the team has played, basically, since the first week of June. That's two months, and that's pretty amazing. This was bound to happen eventually, and it happened on the road, against an underachieving team who just got a new manager. Losing 3 of 4 is nothing to panic about, at all. The only really scary thing is the offensive woes, and the fact that the Sox are still without a major league DH. Not sure there is any way to address that at this point, but perhaps getting Teahen back might help a bit, if he plays over Kotsay.

I've never owned an iPhone, but tried them out. To me, the iPhone and newer Android OS phones were pretty similar in functionality. One better than the other in some ways, but not a lot different. So when I bought my new phone recently, it was simple - AT&T sucks, I was already on Verizon, plus the iPhone is just really expensive compared to even the best Droid phones. So I replaced my BB (which was OK but really not that good) with an Android Incredible. Love it so far, though a few little email functionality pieces for business users could be better. Way better than the BB overall though, except those couple small email things. I'm a fairly simple user - email, text, occasional FB/Twitter, internet, tasks and calendar/exchange use for work. Occasional phone calls, and other things rarely. That all said, I still hope that in two years I'll get my ideal phone: basically what I have, except 60 GB+ capacity for my full music collection, more sophisticated mapping software for offroad use, a tough-box case of some kind, waaaaaaay better battery life, and a GMRS self-powered radio. I'm not holding my breath.

Per Roto, Morneau will NOT be making the trip to Chicago.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Aug 9, 2010 -> 02:56 PM) Apparently AJ is gonna be Jackson's guy, but I'd rather see Castro in there to supply some kind of punch. AJ has been just pathetic this season. AJ isn't losing the starting job, and really, he shouldn't. Therefore we need him to get out there every day until he gets tracked again.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 9, 2010 -> 02:49 PM) It was slightly profitable for the city. It's very profitable for a private company. I'd say its slightly profitable for both. Again, look at the length of the contract, against that $10B profit, and look at the risk horizon. It was a trade of cash flows, a swap if you will, and I think both sides made out well.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 9, 2010 -> 02:26 PM) I know you cited that earlier, but at least to me, it seems to be in conflict with the idea that a government shouldn't be running any system that turns a profit. Not at all. To me they are different dynamics. Having things cost what the private market dictates may, at times, mean they are paying substantially more than their raw cost. Sometimes that does have good effects on behavior, and further, if that means private industry runs the action instead of government, then you also get a greater chance at efficiency, growth into jobs that aren't undersalaried and overbenefitted, etc.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 9, 2010 -> 01:39 PM) Let me supply a counter-example NSS...let's say that I'm running a municipality, and I discover that there is an inverse correlation between how much people pay for a service...I'm going to use garbage collecting in this example...and the cost for that service. In other words, it costs more to throw out more trash. Therefore, if I set the price at the exact amount that it costs to pay for the collection, processing, and disposal of the trash, or if I subsidize it somewhat through other tax dollars, I wind up collecting more trash. However, if I raise the rates significantly, it turns out i turn a significant profit, but the amount of trash I collect decreases massively as people recycle more and use other means of disposal like mulching, etc. Your argument seems to me to imply that all cases where a government entity turns a profit should be viewed as a bad thing and a potential spinoff opportunity...but you're ignoring the potential societal benefits that can come from things costing more to use than they do to run. Parking meters/congestion pricing could certainly fit that description. Two things. One, I never said it was bad - in fact it is an opportunity, if a profit is turned (in this definition of profit), that should be exploited. Two, you need to look at the full effect of that demand change - people might indeed recycle more or compost, but a lot more will just throw their trash all over the place. So certainly, care needs to be taken here. If garbage collection is a money loser at current rates charged to residents, then you should explore raising the rates slowly and carefully, and within certain boundaries. If collection is so costly that only a massive fee increase covers it, then you may need to supplement with general funds (from taxes or special assessments) in the short run. Also, your bolded line is sort of hilarious, since what you say I am ignoring, I SPECIFICALLY SAID earlier as a benefit.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 9, 2010 -> 01:24 PM) So all government services should be break-even at best? Wouldn't a slight-profitable service and a slightly-unprofitable service work well together to allow the government to keep taxes slightly lower? That's what I mean - they should not be profitable, they should be two things: necessary, and at-cost. Profitable is not one of them. But... there is obviously some difference here in what we are considering profitable. Firefighting, for example, will never be profitable, unless we plan to make it a pay-for-service function, which I doubt anyone wants to do. But how do you define profitable? If you allocate $1M to your FD, and they complete the year on $950k, are they profitable? No, they just didn't spend as much as you thought. That rolls into the debate of whether services should be pay-for-service break-even (i.e. DMV charges for driver's licenses exactly what it costs to provide them), or tax-supported. In the case of parking meters, on a direct revenue versus cost basis, if they are making "profit", then one of two things should happen - sell the business for its value, or lower meter prices. If they lose money, you may have to raise meter prices.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 9, 2010 -> 12:42 PM) They'll have to find a way to spin off those money-losing operations or citizens will simply have to give up those operations. Selling off all of your profitable assets just doesn't seem like a winning proposition unless you have massive cuts or tax increases. Actually, I think that's exactly what government should do. Keeping profitable businesses doesn't make sense for government, for numerous reasons. Government should focus on doing two things: what it was chartered by the people to do, and adding services along the way that only make sense for the gov't to do (and that private industry can't or shouldn't or wouldn't do efficiently).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 9, 2010 -> 11:57 AM) 1. I can take the same opinion as the Hudson deal here...if you're holding a possible investment vehicle, and every price that you are offered in exchange for it is a low-ball offer, then you don't make the deal. Simple arithmetic spells it out here. If I were to be holding a $1 billion investment and it returned a whopping 3% over 75 years, that would total that same $10 billion that they're saying the contract would be worth for JPM. The city basically bet that the returns on their $1 billion investment now would be 3% or less over the next 75 years. While, that may be somewhat true given the conservative economic era we're in, historically that'd be a very bad rate of return. The big side effect I'd like? Higher taxes? (Temporary stimulus now is the side effect I'd assume you're saying, but that doesn't mean it's a good investment) I was actually referring to the effect that people are already driving less, and taking public transit more often, as a result. Trib documented it recently. Anyway, yes, obviously, you need to draw a line somewhere going in, as to your bottom line. How bad is your need for that cash, plus value of side effects, such that below some certain $ amount, its not worth doing. Why is $1.2B too low, but $2.1B good enough? How did you determine that? Your calculation is too thin, because 75 years os a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG time, and the risk that you are not attenuating for is HUGE at that time scale.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 9, 2010 -> 11:50 AM) But what are we going to do when the city has sold off all of its cash-generating operations to fix short-term budget gaps? Instead of having some profit come in over the next 75 years from parking (and Midway and the skyway and whatever else is privatized), they get some money upfront. Instead, these profits will get funneled to wealthy board members and shareholders instead of supporting local government. I don't see that as a winning solution in the end. That's why the article said: "The present value of the contract was $2.13 billion, more than the $1.15 billion the city received" What you will get when its done selling off what it reasonably can, is a smaller, less costly, more transparent, more effcient government... more private industry jobs in the area where there is growth potential with those companies, not dead end jobs alone... and less debt to saddle future generations with. Those alone are a lot of good. That's not even getting into smaller things. PV calculation based on what run rate? And again, PV gives you a target, not a sale price. Sale price is subject to counterparty. Using NPV like that is only useful when looking at a bulk of held assets or cash that you can sink when all else is zero'd out - government runs too cyclically for that to be useful as an exact number here, and you aren't including the opportunity cost and savings either. Its more complex than that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 9, 2010 -> 11:49 AM) The reason I found that version particularly interesting is that the new state estimate was that the appropriate price for that deal should have been >$2 billion. There are a total of, as I recall, two companies in the US who even do the kind of work that is required here (not talking the bank here - I mean the operator). What it SHOULD have been is entirely subjective, the reality is what someone was actually willing to pay. Do you really think the City would have not tried to get best money here? No one wins on that. By the way Balta, one of the big side effects of this over time is one I'd think you'd fall in love with.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 9, 2010 -> 11:39 AM) And the federal government could learn from all of that. I'd like to see that as well, in many cases. Not all, or even most - but there are businesses the government (federal, state, local) is in that could be done more efficiently by private business. And if those businesses can be run profitably, so much the better - because that means they have value, and the government can get some cash out of it too. By the way, do people think that $10B profit (over 75 or however many years it is) just gets sucked into a hole and dies? That money will create more jobs. Furthermore, have we already forgotten, again, the time value of money?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 9, 2010 -> 11:40 AM) The end result of it is that private citizens pay more. Either though higher taxes to support the city spending or through higher parking rates that go to corporations. That is true - a specific segment of citizens (those that drive to places they probably don't have to), will pay significantly more money to park on the street. Never said otherwise. I know it seems strange, but sometimes it benefits people to pay more for a service. There are all sorts of positive side effects to this, but again, that isn't shown if all you focus on is the big gross numbers.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 9, 2010 -> 09:00 AM) Bloomberg Heh, Waguespack is my alderman. So, On a % basis, JPM makes like a 10% profit on the deal over a very long period. The City of Chicago gets its few billion almost entirely upfront, and gets out of a slightly better than break-even operation. They get that cash at a time they need it most, in a deep recession. The city's residents start paying meter rates that are equivalent to what private lots charge in similar areas. And they also get a private company doing the work, instead of the city, which most people seem to want. I'll say it again, this deal only looks bad if you pick the gross numbers to look at. If you take it all into account, it was a good deal for the city to make, and I am saying that being one of its residents. He's looking to do the same again for Midway, BTW, and I'm in favor of that too. City government will be much more effective if they can focus on fewer, more core tasks, and have more cash to spend in bad times. That last part will also keep the city more competitive than it otherwise would have been.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Aug 1, 2010 -> 01:07 AM) Ha and you made me defend putting Shirek in my top 15. QUOTE (JPN366 @ Aug 5, 2010 -> 05:28 PM) Charlie Shirek was demoted back to B'ham and placed on the DL. Heh. Charlie is my AAP, I like him, but his continually dropping K numbers combined with the repeated DL trips make me nervous. He's interesting definitely, but I would like to know what is up with him this year - what is his injury? I do think the org likes him, but something weird is up.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 01:46 PM) I don't care if he is a scum. I cheer these guys on to play baseball. I'm not married to him, nor do I know anyone that is. Obviously I would prefer he not beat her, but my primary concern is to get to the postseason. QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 01:47 PM) Sorry, I really care less about Myers as long as he helps us win games. You guys are welcome to feel that way, but I find that a little sad. I don't need angels, but I refuse to root for the success of complete scumbags like that. I just can't do it. AJ is an "asshole" in the sense that he is annoying, plays a little dirty, etc. I can handle that no problem. But that's a long way from beating up your wife in public.

QUOTE (IceCreamPants @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 01:40 PM) yeah because here is is perfectly fine for you to tell a mod to f*** himself.... oh wait.... no you cant do that Go f*** yourself. A la mode.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 01:36 PM) @BNightengale - #mlb White Sox have Edwin Jackson included in current trade package for Dunn. If Sox get Dunn, then will try to land Astros' Brett Myers The wife-beater? That would piss me off. I'd love to get Dunn, but Myers is a scumbag and I don't want him near this team.

QUOTE (Soxman72 @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 01:32 PM) Does anyone else find it odd that the Sox are not getting any money in return from Arizona? Usually the Sox get money back in a trade and IMO this is a tell that Jackson is going to be move for another player(s). Thoughts? I am not sure we know that for a fact yet. There may indeed be money.

QUOTE (girlslikebaseballtoo#26 @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 01:30 PM) I'm hearing that the deal is Hudson/Holmberg for Jackson ...where are these other names coming from?!?! I'm so confused ..someone PLEASE fill me in!!! There is a lot of rumor noise out there that the Sox are still after a bat to upgrade at DH (or other positions potentially), and that one possible way to do that is to trade Jackson to the Nationals for Dunn in some deal.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 01:10 PM) Aren't "3 way trades" technically all separate independent of one another, at least officially? Sox could very know well know what they are doing. Trades are contracts, and there are most certainly tri-party contracts. Not sure why baseball trades would be any different, but I confess I don't know for sure.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 01:04 PM) I think he got Jackson because Washington wanted Jackson and not Hudson. Here is what I don't get. If this were really the case... why take the risk of swinging independent trades? Why not do a three party deal all at once?