NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (chwhtsox @ Mar 1, 2010 -> 09:04 AM) I can buy the "SUV's are needed for Chicago winters" argument. The bicycle patrol idea isn't reasonable IMO. Can you imagine how vulnerable a cop is riding his bicycle on Thomas and Springfield (I can name hundreds of other intersections as well, not a knock on the example I used). Bike patrol and foot patrol in dense urban areas are key components, and can produce great results. It puts cops in front of the community in a much more accessible way, and they get a lot more information and help. This has been studied and found to be the case. That doesn't mean you do it in every neighborhood and get rid of the cars - it means that in certain areas, bikes are great, other areas foot patrol is great, but it has to be handled by the precinct captains in where those pieces work best. I'm also not personally a huge fan of just pouring more cops on the street to reduce crime. It often doesn't work, and in fact can be counterproductive for a variety of reasons. I'd rather have fewer, better cops.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 28, 2010 -> 02:05 AM) Do you repsect a Ford Pinto? Do you respect a Chevy Tahoe? You answer those questions, and you get the answer to your question. Cops have a psychological role in the community until action calls, and then the lights themselves matter. If they drive around in a cheap car, they won't get respect, and never will get respect. If they really want more respect, they can start by not looking like slobs. That drives me nuts. Some of these CPD guys, they might as well wear a sign on their forehead that says "mess with me". There's a reason why Troopers don't get f***ed with nearly as often, and get more respect - and it isn't their cars. Its that they look like somoene you wouldn't want to mess with. They're in at least reasonably good physical shape, uniform is crisp and clean, equipment nice and shiny, and most importantly, they have command presence. QUOTE (SHIPPS @ Feb 28, 2010 -> 07:09 AM) It doesnt have to be a pinto people. Whats wrong with the Impala's that they have had throughout the years? Much cheaper and easier on gas. You guys are taking what I said and going on the other end of the spectrum instead of meeting in the middle somewhere. Pretty sure I gave you a comprimise.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 27, 2010 -> 09:11 PM) I don't get why this is such a big deal. Melissa Isaacson's article on ESPN Chicago about this was perfect.

QUOTE (SHIPPS @ Feb 27, 2010 -> 09:07 AM) I am sorry I appreciate our CPD but as bad as this city is in debt (and I am sure this goes for many other cities also) why the hell do they get a fleet of pimp ass Tahoes to drive around in? We couldnt have found something more efficient than some gas guzzling awesome looking Tahoes. I mean these are luxury vehicles really and they have a s*** load of them looking brand new shiny clean every day. What cops need in a car is, unfortunately, not in good marriage with fuel efficiency. You want them to use less fuel and buy fewer cars? Because I agree. The answer isn't different cars - its FEWER cars. More foot and bike patrol, fewer squad cars, in the dense urban areas. That should be the solution, IMO. And its better for a whole lot of reasons that go beyond costs as well.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 02:06 PM) I am stunned if this turns out to be true. He is definitely moving the Beckham route, though Beckham was more fundamentally sound which is why I'm puzzled with this. Mitchell still has some holes he needs to work out. He will be exposed against lefties pretty badly (though he still has excellent discipline), and if he takes over center, which he is still raw in as well, is Danks a LF? RF? promoted? Perhaps the B-Ham hitting coach is a better teacher for Mitchell than the W-S hitting coach is for Jared. I gotta say this though... I hope Jared never turns out to be like like Juan Pierre. If he can get a bunt game... fine, but he doesn't need to do that all the time. Anything else from Pierre... I'd rather have Jared watch tape of Crawford/Sizemore/Span. I think Danks ends up in AAA.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 12:45 PM) I'm contemplating doing some kind of crude depth chart for the White Sox minor league players. It's all speculation on my part, but I think I have an idea where players will be assigned to start 2010. I think Viciedo, Danks, Shelby III, Mitchell and Marrero will all start in B'ham. If Viciedo is playing first base mostly this year, he'd be better suited to spend at least half the year in AA, that way any struggles at the plate that he could have in AAA won't negatively effect his positional transistion. Heads used to do this every spring, I'd talk to him, he's got a template.

QUOTE (scenario @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 11:06 AM) Then again, it could just be speculation by Merkin on where Mitchell will end up. He said "will start", not "probably", which makes me think he knows something.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 10:28 AM) Looks like Jared Mitchell will be playing in Birmingham this year. Article "OF Jared Mitchell: This talented leadoff hitter will work alongside Pierre as a non-roster invite during Spring Training, in preparation for Mitchell to assume this top-of-the-order role in a couple of years. The 21-year-old top pick for the White Sox in the 2009 First-Year Player Draft will start 2010 for Double-A Birmingham, and could be the fastest player in the White Sox system." Wow, I have to say I'm surprised. I was pretty sure Danks would be in AAA, but I thought Mitchell would be in A+.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 10:29 AM) I'm not an expert on these matters but here's what I dug up from some comments in a similar article: Oh, this is a show of hands vote then? I think I know now what they are saying. As long as they have a certain number of Senators present (not sure if its 50, or 60, or 67, or what), they can do a quick vote and pass anything if it goes unanimously. Forgot about that.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 10:17 AM) Emphasis mine... LINK I must be missing something here. Why do they need unanimous consent? Why not just pass it 99-1, point out to everyone what an asshole this guy is being, and move on?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 09:51 AM) Because they based the CDS rates on the assumption that the housing market wouldn't go down and that Lehman would never go under. Basically, your argument is that no one would be crazy enough to under-estimate the risk of a Greek default and thus no one would ever sell off ridiculous values of CDS insurance contracts at rates that were low enough for some firm to play this game. Except...we already know that AIG was doing exactly that. So you're basically arguing that no other bank would make the same silly mistake that AIG made. Except...because of the pay structure that incentivizes short term gains with no penalty for long term losses, if I was working for a company with a AAA rating selling these CDS contracts, I could make a killing by doing exactly that, planting additional CDS bombs and leaving someone else to foot the bill if one of them goes off. You keep applying arguments to me that I have never, ever said. I did not say, and would not say, that no one is crazy enough to underestimate risk in Greece, or anyone else. I am in fact quite sure that would happen, and will continue to happen. I was, for one thing, saying your scenario of buying up 10x protection on debt on a junky instrument is going to be rare - and it is. Also, I've been saying, the problem isn't about CDS's existence, or risk-taking. Its about capitalization, valuation, clearing and regulation. Here is what I mean. If AIG had been required to value swaps in a more accurate way... if they were required to keep capital segregated for losses on their swaps at a reasonable level... and if the clearing bodies and regulatory agencies had addressed the swaps problem when it was clearly an issue a decade ago... that this whole mess wouldn't have occurred. And that CDS's could still be used, and used properly.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 08:57 AM) Um, we really won't know s*** about whether the Iraq war was won or lost until the March 7th elections or even until we leave. Who said it was won or lost?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 08:36 AM) I made those numbers up fully at random just to make the point. I think you're missing the one key point of those swaps, at least as how they ran in the U.S. market. It didn't matter how much actual debt there was, you could keep taking them out; that's the gambling aspect, and that's where I came up with the 200%. So, if someone (say Lehman or Greece) has x amount of dollars out in debt, you could cheaply take out insurance that would pay off 10x the amount of debt that you'd actually insured. You take out CDS insurance 10x on $1 billion in Lehman debt, and if Lehman goes under, AIG the Federal government pays out $10 billion. Thus, if the person signing the other side of the CDS contract bases the cost of that CDS deal on the risk of default but doesn't take into account the fact that the person buying the contract suddenly has a large incentive to see that the debt does go into default, there's a possibility for a large profit by causing that default. (Note, I'm also not saying this is certainly happening, although its been suggested for the other companies. But with the ability to take out CDS contracts for several times the value of the debt, the possibility is there). Seriously Balta, you can assume I know the basics here. Yes, I realize that swaps do not have to have ownership ties to the underlying instrument. But its simply not true to say they can "cheaply" take out a 10x payment. Because the nature of the swaps is such that you have to PAY for protection - usually some number of basis points that is a significant chunk of the return. For example, if a bond pays 7%, you make pay 2% to insure it. You do that 10 times, and you are now paying 20% on that debt, just to hope that it collapses. Now, you may ask, if a debt is about to fail, why not jam in some buy-portection swaps at the last minute to cash in? Well sure, but this is a contract between two parties. Someone would have to be stupid enough to insure that debt. And if the debt instrument is so weak that companies are trying to pile up returns that way, no one in their right mind is going to take the sell protection side. AIG collapsed in great part due to CDS's, but its not for the reasons you seem to think. No one bullied AIG into a corner.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 08:23 AM) There have been arguments that what you say here is impossible is exactly what happened in the case of the runs on indymac, Bear, and Lehman. They got themselves into high-debt positions, but it was also set up through the CDS market that their principle lenders could make a large amount of money if they went under and defaulted on their debt, so those people who held the debt of those companies had incentive to basically freeze their lending to the in-debt firms and then use their research arms to question their stability, making sure that no one else would lend them short-term dollars and pushing them under. If I can make a 20% profit on them paying off their debt, but I can make a 200% profit by buying up CDS insurance contracts that will pay the full value several times over if the debtor defaults, that's why they would want (fill in the blank) to fail. (Then of course, you've also sold off the debt to others but held the CDS contracts, so you don't lose money if they go under but you make money if the CDS contracts pay off...that's the AIG game) What? I didn't say anything was impossible. I don't understand where you are getting this. And you have some whacked out numbers there. No one makes 20% off corporate debt - that's like payday loan type rates. But secondly, I think you misunderstand what a swap is. Its not a lottery ticket. You don't get a 200% profit. If you call the debt, you get the face value of the debt, and no further cash flows (if you were getting any to begin with) from the debt instrument (if you even held it).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 08:11 AM) It's not the greatest list ever (They have a lot of guys who are gone still listed as Sox, trades don't seem to have registered with them), but come on, you know you want to look at the top 2000 prospects for 2010 Just for fun... the lowest ranked prospect that is in the Sox system is Kevin Dubler (catcher), who is ranked #2008 out of 2029 total.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 08:07 AM) So, more seriously, I think the whole key to that article is this concept... Do you dispute that? If so, I'd like to hear why, it's not clear to me from your initial response. Of course I do. First of all, most of the CDS swaps written out there, are made involving the holder of the debt. So its not all thrid party like they portray it. Though I admit I don't know the exact ratios. Second, This is NO DIFFERENT than the rest of the debt market, in the sense of how reputation is effected. When a corporation or country or anyone issues debt, and shows indications of struggling with it, their ratings go down, debt gets more exepnsive and harder to get. This also happens to individuals via their credit rating. So the idea that this creates some sort of unusual spiral effect is simply false. Third, the idea that an incentive is created for debt failures is stupid on its face. How is GS going to "burn down the house" here? If Greece makes its obligations, there is nothing to be done. Further, WHY would GS want Greece to fail so miserably? They don't, by the way. They are playing at the volatility, and insuring themselves, because Greece is a customer of theirs. That is the real story here.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 07:51 AM) Especially for a party that is running a trillion and a half deficit, plus looking to add much more. What the heck does what I said have to do with a political party?

QUOTE (scenario @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 08:33 PM) Looks like our AAA rotation could be: Hudson Harrell Torres Cabrera Hynick If so, should be a good season for Charlotte. I get the impression that Cabrera is going to be a reliever with the Sox, if he's anything. That slot will be Marquez or Shirek. And I wouldn't be surprised to see one of Harrell, Torres or Hynick traded away in a minor deal to a team desperate for an arm during Spring Training.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 04:12 AM) In terms of a broad strategy the approach in Afghanistan and Iraq has been nearly identical. Instead of reacting to insurgent flare-ups weve started to fight an offense war, which plays a lot more to our strengths. The people I've spoken with who have been on the ground in Iraq, their descriptions just don't at all jive with what is going on in Afghanistan. I suppose in an extremely broad sense - that the US shifted their tactics locally - sure, they're alike. But the actual execution - the tactics being used - are nothing alike at all. Afghanistan and Iraq just don't have the same problems (or same politics or same religious situation or same educations or same economy...), other than having the US military there.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 07:35 PM) I read another article about this and I found out he actually had another lien on his house for like $365k so it wasn't as simple as just declaring bankruptcy or letting them foreclose. Oh, so he owed more than the house was worth? In that case, at least he wasn't destroying his own assets. But he was apparently destroying a bank's assets, which will likely land him in court.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 09:29 PM) Yay! Credit Default Swaps! I can't imagine anything bad ever happening because of more of those! Another article written by someone who doesn't know what this market really is. Markit is a major player in that space. And having CDS contracts on the market actually helps PROTECT debtors, not make things worse. The issue isn't about swaps - its about how swaps are settled and cleared, and the capital requirements (and valuation) that should be associated with them. If the market is cleared and regulated properly, it can be a very positive thing for the overal global debt markets. Ugh. I'm not defending the particular situation the Greeks got themselves into, nor am I saying that swaps are great. But there is this bizarre idea out there that anything called a "derivative" is somehow an evil plot to destroy the world. Its just stupid.

NEXT offseason? We're still basically in THIS offseason.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 03:27 PM) I'll go along with this because it makes me hopeful. Maybe we'll be able to unload Kotsay then. I don't see us trading Kotsay, unless or until its for a bigger impact that Overbay (as someone else mentioned). And it may just be a release then as well, or who knows what.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 03:12 PM) $1.5M for a light-hitting 1B/corner OF backup in this economy is a bad contract. That's what Thome got IIRC, and probably about what Dye will get. That's also more than Carrasco got despite coming off of two very good years, and it's only $500K less than what Branyan got. I know you are upset about the DH situation, so am I, but its comical to believe that $1.5M for Kotsay is a bad contract. He's a role player, he can give you good D at 1B and the corners, play CF in a pinch, a lot of experience, and a better than average bat FOR A BENCH PLAYER. That's worth $1.5M nowadays. Ross Gload, who is basically the same guy right now except worse OF defense but more speed, got $2.6M/2, which is virtually the same money. That's market value for that player. The problem isn't the contract - the problem is he's going to be shoved into a basically starting role.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 03:04 PM) Everything I've read/heard/gathered/watched says they ditched the law enforcement strategy in Iraq in favor of individually clearing out towns and cities of insurgents, bringing in and training Iraqi police forces to keep them clear then moving on to the next place. Afghanistan is pretty similar except were trying to get civilians out of the areas were fighting in. edit- by "everything I've read/heared/gathered/watched" I mean Petraeus actually saying it. They whole idea was the buy time for the crazy ethnofederalist government we set up there to actually get rooted. Not really. I did misspeak when I said "policing" though, I meant the biggest shift they made was to get out of the centralized military compounds, and get down to the community level. That, in addition to the fortunate outcomes in working with certain religious factions and organizations, allowed them to root out the remaining trouble-makers. There was very little of getting civilians out of areas, in fact, they wanted them to stay in their communities, to provide information locally. Afghanistan's "surge" is not like that. Don't take it from me though. Talk to your buddy LF. Or, do what I did, and talk to some people who spent time on the ground during that period in Iraq - military or journalist or whatever.