NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 10, 2010 -> 07:50 AM) First, updated magnitude = 3.8. So that ought to give those who felt it an idea of the power we're talking about when we start getting to magnitude 5/6; that's 100x or 1000x more powerful. The reason for noting that first is...it doesn't take a major fault to create a magnitude 3.8 event. Most of the world goes through events this scale every few hundred years because of settling/compaction; as you pile stuff on top of rocks, or you take stuff off (i.e. melt a large ice sheet) you slightly change the stress field. It only takes a small bit of re-adjustment and cracking, probably only of a few tens to hundreds of meters of rock, to give you an event of this size. If you dug down to the exact epicenter, you probably wouldn't even notice anything you'd call a fault line. I do know there is a fault further SW of there, around Dixon, that occasionally produces 4+ quakes. But that's at least 50 miles away.

Epicenter was basically underneath the very small town of Virgil. My parents live about 5 miles east of there, north of Elburn. They thought there had been an explosion. I live in the city, and I remember waking up at 4am, and wondering why I was awake. I thought I heard something strange, but then it was gone, and I drifted back off.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 01:10 PM) Hopefully you can also add normal Rios replaces Sucky Rios plus Wise plus Anderson plus Pods plus whoever else we threw out there in CF last year. QUOTE (35thstreetswarm @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 03:09 PM) I don't think it requires that much hope to suggest that Rios will become "normal" Rios again - it actually seems the most likely outcome. I really have a hard time thinking of 27-28 year old two time all-stars who have just suddenly become terrible for no apparent reason (i.e. without injury or steroids being clear factors). As to the original "replacement" analysis, don't forget that we also have a full season of Beckham, whereas last year we had a couple months of the disastrous Josh Fields experiment to start out the year. I edited my long-winded analysis to reflect these two things.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 01:13 PM) That's a hell of a lot of hope to have. We have no guarantees on this team. No one to unequivocally count on, on the offensive end but A.J. That's a problem. I hope that Beckham will take off this year, i hope Rios will produce and Q will stay healthy. All i know is that it would inspire me with a lot more confidence to have an offensive force in between the maybes. This argument again? The one that applies to every single team in baseball? You cannot argue how good or bad a team is saying there are no guarantees, when that applies to all teams. Just the same way you cannot argue any team is guaranteed good. Its about likelihoods. See my earlier post. Show me, down the line, how the likely scenarios show this team to be worse for 2010 than they were in 2009. Because as far as I can see, there are a lot more likely positive changes than likely negative ones.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 01:01 PM) No, but I find that different than "betting" on an Iranian revolution and likely bloodshed to make yourself wealthier while providing no value to the actual situation. edit: I should have said morally wrong, not ethically. I do not believe it is an unethical or dishonest action. I thought you were responding to me about the housing markets thing - my bad. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 01:07 PM) Didn't the banks keep trying to ban short selling on bank stocks in late 2008? There was indeed a ban on shorts in certain financial stocks, for a few weeks, in 2008. That was a temporary move to help prevent the situation from getting worse. Do you seriously think that was a bad idea?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 12:44 PM) I find something ethically wrong with trying to make a buck on a situation like that. So... you think people should only be allowed to make bets on markets going up? Doesn't really work as a model.

The Sox have improved, no doubt: Offensively (small improvement overall): --Teahen replaces Getz (significant improvement) --Pierre replaces Pods (probably break even, but less health risk) --Quentin, if healthy, replaces Dye (if he's healthy, probably TCQ out-hits Dye in 2010) --Kotsay/Jones replaces Thome (NOT an improvement, at all, in fact a serious downgrade) --Rios replaces Rios-sub-200 (you cannot tell me he's likely to be that bad again) --Beckham replaces Beckham/Fields (obvious upgrade) Defensively (noticeable improvement): --Teahen replaces Fields/Beckham-as-rookie (probably a small improvement overall, big one over Fields) --Beckham replaces Getz (slight improvement) --Rios replaces Pods/Rios (I know, looks weird, but that's what it is - and an improvement) --Pierre replaces TCQ (probably break even - TCQ has a better arm, but Pierre is otherwise the better fielder) --TCQ replaces Dye (big improvement) Pitching (major improvement): --Peavy/MB/Floyd/Danks/Garcia > 2009's rotation (big improvement) --Putz replaces Linebrink/Dotel as setup (probably a big improvement, assuming Putz is truly ready to go) --Linebrink replaces a middle reliever (hard to say) --Williams or Threets replaces Williams (probably break even, but who knows?) --Then there are the last pieces, which are always the last pieces, and are unpredictable Bench (call it break even, but maybe better): --Vizquel at MI is a big improvement defensively, Backup C is the same, Kotsay is the same, then ???? for last spot Those are the changes the Sox have made. The team is better overall. They improved in a lot of areas as listed above, but did fall back a lot at DH. Here is the real reason I think the extreme pessimists are off their rocker about the Sox: trends. Look at the guys who are staying: AJP and Konerko are the only hitters who look to me like they are likely to regress. On the other hand, you have Rios, TCQ, Ramirez are all guys who look likely to improve in 2010 based on sub-normal performances in 2009. Beckham is a guy who seems on the verge of improving, and playing the whole year. So that's, on balance, an offense likely to improve. And as for pitchers... the only pitcher who seemed to be significantly better than his norm last year was Thornton. Everyone else was around, or below, what you'd expect them to do. So again, there seems a strong likelihood that the staff overall will improve even with the people who are holdovers. This shows me a picture of a team that is likely to be 5 to 10 games better next year than last, assuming static competition. Looking at the ALC, the Twins look maybe a little better, though not a TON better - and I still think the change of stadium will screw them up a bit. But the other three teams look pretty bad to me. I see the Twins and Sox being in close competition this year, but in the high 80's in wins, most likely. Flame away.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 11:41 AM) Thanks for all the input guys! I'm bookmarking this thread and keeping a list. NSS--I like those examples, but I definitely wouldn't feel comfortable doing a native american/old west type thing up here. It's a very charged topic--especially to our Native students. There is some interesting history up in your area, with regards to AmerInd tribes, the US, the Europeans, the Canadians, etc. I've spent some time in Quetico and the BWCAW, and learned a bit about local Ojibway (and Sioux) history. Fascinating stuff. Off topic, though, sorry.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 12:21 PM) As my last comment, I'd like to note that the NYT article gives a strong impression that this is not the case, and also cites a number of sources on this. Here's some selections. Note, that article answered the question I posed earlier but I missed it...yes, the GS/AIG contracts did have clauses allowing for outside arbitration, but GS refused it. Read more carefully. First, there was no third party arbitration on payments - those would be established in the contract. The quote specifically talks about 3rd party VALUATION. This is part and parcel of the industry-wide lack of knowledge and conservatism with regards to swaps I mentioned. The bond ratings issue is one of the fuzzy areas I mentioned - whose bond ratings would establish default or junking? If those ratings were tanking, I'd expect GS to do what they did, and AIG to be on the hook for any inability to cover. Second, the fact that GS' valuation of the bonds was on the low side actually shows they were smarter than some other folks, who valued them higher than their risks dictated. Third, their motivation was to make money. Not sure why some professor would have any question about that. Fourth, the dispute between then was not the tip of the iceberg. It was AIG's ridiculous daisy chain swap winding, and to lesser degrees those of many other firms (including GS), that caused the situation. Fifth, I see a general theme here from the writer - he is pointing us towards wanting to not like that GS believed the market was going down. Funny, since you yourself, and many others, saw that coming. If your job was to make money in the markets, isn't that exactly what you would do? How is that bad?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 09:21 AM) There are a number of issues that you're not addressing there. First is the valuation issue. G.S. was pushing AIG for higher payments, as it should for its shareholders. Without knowing their contracts, it's difficult to evaluate the propriety of everything they did, but it seems astonishing that the contracts would be set up in such a way that G.S. was allowed on their own to decide how much those contracts were worth with no independent evaluation possible. If AIG wrote and accepted contracts that way then they're obviously idiots...but why should the U.S. taxpayer then be paying out 100% on idiotically written contracts that allow GS to determine the valuation? You are misunderstanding how these payments work. GS bought protection - they made periodic cash flow payments to AIG, in exchange for insuring against default risk. The swap contracts would have specified what AIG had to pay - whether it was full principal or partial for securitized debt segments or tranches, and the time period for payment. The only arguments would be about when the debt(s) were actually in default. AIG was stalling and trying to not deliver full payment, because they couldn't make said payments. That is 100% on AIG. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 09:21 AM) Secondly, there's the hostage-taking version here...by being able to write reports that publicly effect the value of AIG's stock, GS is able to manipulate any price negotiations in a way that can benefit itself. They basically set things up where if AIG didn't give in to GS's demands, GS could produce the equivalent of a modern day bank run by suggesting the company was unsound and driving all of AIG's other creditors to demand payment simultaneously. That's a hell of a negotiating tactic...pay what we're demanding or we can destroy your company through the other arms of our business. There's been behind-the-scenes but never really investigated accusations that similar runs have played important roles in the other big failures we've seen, Bearsterns, Lehman, Indymac, etc. It would make no sense for GS to want AIG to fail. None. It doesn't benefit GS. The scenario they wanted, quite obviously, is for AIG to pay what they were supposed to pay. When they couldn't, GS did the only smart thing - apply pressure to make sure they were as close as possible to the top of the pile for what few payments AIG could make. GS did not WANT the toxic unwind, they just wanted what they were contractually obligated to receive. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 09:21 AM) AIG was definitely a mess and I'm not trying to excuse them, I'm trying to note several of the behaviors of GS which are legal but which destabilize the entire system by their legality, and to note how badly Paulson ripped off the US taxpayer. The whole toxic unwind thing was not desired by any players here, at all. AIG got hammered the worst because they were the riskiest firm in terms of how they valued swaps, and set aside capital against the risks associated with them. As for the US taxpayer and the bill they had to foot, I agree that it was a rip-off. But I think you place the blame incorrectly here. The whole industry, GS included, needs a lot of blame - they put far too much capital into a market where counterparty risk was rife, valuation and risk were fuzzy, and regulation was thin. So yes, GS, and the whole industry, deserve some blame. But so does the US government, who not only did nothing to regulate and force clearing into the space until it was too late, but also who refused to see the realities of the market. And if you want to drill down and blame specific firms, then blame the ones who took the biggest risks - AIG being #1 on that list. If AIG and a few others had been more conservative with their capital (and some firms WERE more conservative), this would not have been nearly as big a debacle as it was.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 08:09 AM) I reread the article again, and my synopsis sure sounds like reality to me. GS buys coverage on those MBS contracts, already being bearish on the housing market. GS starts demanding payment on those contracts GS demands higher payments than AIG thinks is appropriate GS refuses to negotiate, starts writing down the value of their assets and of the assets of other companies that have insured things with AIG, bringing in more creditors GS publishes report asking things like if AIG “is not in a position of weakness, why would it accept anything less than the full amount of protection for which it had paid?” AIG's stock tanks AIG's other creditors swoop in The government seizes AIG and pays the full amount that GS is asking for The value of those securities begins to recover once the fed buys up $4 trillion in mortgage backed securities, and GS profits both on the way down and on the way up. Doesn't excuse AIG, but the case of how GS worked to bring this whole mess to the forefront looks quite strong. Most of those individual line items are correct - but your interperetation that GS was to blame is ludicrous. GS bought protection on debt instruments, expecting the counterparty to make their obligations. When some of the securities failed, the debts were "called", and AIG couldn't cover because AIG didn't properly value or capitalize those obligations. Then of course there was a whole dasy chain thing going on, where AIG was compunded into multiple obligations on the same instruments, giving them absurdly large losses. Basically, AIG was the biggest culprit in this. GS and other firms tried to get their money, and would do anything they could - as they should. Now, the industry as a whole, was heavily exposed to counterparty risk in the swap and debt markets. In that sense, GS and everyone else in those markets are partially to blame. No one had a solid idea of how to value swap positions and obligations, or what the proper capital protection levels were for those instruments. Without a clearing house in between, the smart thing would have been to be highly conservative in capital requirements - this was not done properly, at varying levels, and AIG was clearly the worst offender. With now two swaps clearing houses up and running (CME/Citadel in Chicago, ISE in NY), and gov't rules changing to in essence force the markets onto them, this counterpary risk scenario is being mitigated. Its one of the areas where we are truly going in the right direction. But the idea that GS was the bad guy in the relationship with AIG is absurd.

Its hard to write, and therefore hard to find, the characters that are truly right on the razor's edge. Most of the ones that might come to mind are actually pretty clearly good or evil as the story wears on. The challenge is finding one that stays on that edge throughout, which you rarely see. Of those suggested so far, I like Snape, Roark, and any of the cops in LA Confidential. Others from film: Avner in Munich (based on reality), John Cusack's character in Gross Point Blank Others from literature: Tom Bombadil from LOTR (character didn't make it into the film), Llewelyn Moss in NCFOM (more ambiguous in the book than the film) And just to throw in a twist... characters from reality, who were often made into good or evil in the extreme, but were really neither. This was a particularly strong theme in the winning of the West in American history - Geronimo, for example, or Kit Carson.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2010 -> 05:26 PM) The NY times this weekend ran a nice piece on the inner workings of how Goldman played its role perfectly in bringing down AIG and then played the federal government for suckers to the tune of billions of dollars. The summary version is: Goldman buys up lots of mortgage-backed securities they think will lose value, then insures them through AIG. They start to lose value, and Goldman demands large payments from AIG. Furthermore, Goldman claims the securities they owned were worth less than AIG claimed they were worth, and refused to let AIG or any outside group audit them to determine how much they were actually worth. Then, the real fun begins. Goldman then releases press statements saying that AIG is struggling to meet its obligations and its creditors are refusing to negotiate. Goldman pushes other AIG creditors to demand the same thing. The main creditor that was refusing to negotiate, of course, was Goldman. AIG's stock tanks, panic sets in, and the government winds up seizing AIG. (that, of course, may well have happened without any Shenanigoats from G.S., but that has been disputed before Congress in public testimony) Then, former Goldman CEO Paulson steps in and says that the government will cover AIG's creditors to avoid a panic...and pays Goldman the value on their assets that Goldman insisted they were worth, not a negotiated intermediate value, nor the value that AIG said they were worth, 100% on the dollar based on the G.S. estimates of their worth. G.S. makes a killing. The price of those securities then rebounds after the Fed starts buying them up, creating a market for the paper that already had insurance paid on it. Goldman can then make money by selling those securities at elevated rates to the Fed, even after they already had been paid the insurance on their decreased values. (Basically, they got a 100% payment on a burned down house from their insurer, then they sold the house to the Fed at 75% of its pre-burned-down value) Nice gig if you can get it. I have not yet read the linked article, but I can tell you right now that your synopsis is not particularly close to reality. The whole MBS and swap debacle just didn't happen in that way. I'd say 75% of what you typed is not reality.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 8, 2010 -> 12:59 PM) What happens at the specialist level of exchanges that makes major market moves in reaction to a Presidential speech long before any policy comes to fruition rational? its not truly rational, but since the markets (especially in the short run) are not 100% rational, then the specialists and MM's pretty much have to work within that, now don't they?

Pretty sure that Laumann has indicated the Sox will be looking heavily at pitching in this year's draft. I'll be surprised if they don't draft a pitcher first.

QUOTE (kev211 @ Feb 8, 2010 -> 11:26 AM) Not cool, I don't care is Aparicio so it was fine. I have no idea what this sentence means.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 8, 2010 -> 08:28 AM) Except that the speeches that have been reacted to the worst are the ones where he actually does things like talking about taxing banks and punishing the financial sector in general. You know actually things that could change the worth of a business? If the bank penalties are truly just pay controls for TARP bank executives, and are only done to those banks with the government bailed out, I don't have a lot of issue with it. They took government money to stay afloat, and if they can't keep themselves honest, and are still owing the gov't money, then its just a smart business move. But if the tax or penalty or whatever it ends up being extends beyond companies who still owe the gov't money, or beyond TARP entities, then that's not doing anything other than using anger as a way of filling the government till.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 7, 2010 -> 03:26 PM) Seriously? I don't see why you guys try to have this charade of being independents. Do you not read the financial thread? Aside from one policy (pay control for TARP firm executives), you'll find I am critical of Obama's and the Dems' policies more often than not. Further, you'll find I am distinctly to the right of center on any number of other topics, including 2A, 10A, affirmative action, business policy generally, protection of religious speech and the whole PC thing, Afghanistan, a whole swath of foreign policy (right of center but more Bush I than Bush II), the drive away from income-based taxes to more use-based taxes, the federal budget and deficits, health care (though I really prefer neither's policies at the moment), some education policy, public safety and the role of law enforcement, and the power of targeted tax cuts. I could go on with others, but you get the point. And until about 2001, I voted for far more Republicans for office than Democrats. It wasn't until the GOP decided to abandon financial restraint and the protection of individual freedoms - once the cornerstones of that party - that I was forced to vote more often for Dems. Its not because I liek the Dems, its because they are currently the lesser evil.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 7, 2010 -> 03:25 PM) I am not talking about Tancredo. Reread the quotes (quotes of your posts, which I am citing) your entire argument has been that these crowds are composed of 'racist haters'. I am going by what you have posted. You want one example of you saying anything of the sort? Reread the post you just submitted. There are 2 instances in that post alone. yes, your dems. which other Democrat party would fit into this context? Basically it seems like you just don't like anything that is outside of the Democrat party lately. There are a few loons in any political movement, which you have decided to lock in on. Then the accusations of 'hate' and 'bigotry' fly as you attempt to use that super broad brush to paint everyone. Again with the accusations of 'serious hate' in the crowd. Sorry, but not everyone likes 15 trillion in debt and out of control spending. of course, that makes them racist. lol. The main thing they b**** about is government spending and debt. Ugh. There's obviously not going to be a good end to this, so I'll just throw in two more items... 1. Not once in the post you responded to, or any other post you will find from me, ever, did I say anything about "racist haters" or anything involving some party or movement being more racist than another. You MIGHT find me citing a specific person's words or actions as racists - but not once will you finding me making blanket statements about some entire group of people being racist. 2. Strangesox probably said it better than I did - instead of using the word "hateful", he used "angry". I'll change my statement to that.

This was already posted in the SoxFest thread, as I recall. Or is this like the 2006 Opening Day jumbotron video, where its priceless for ever and ever?

Cohen publically calls on his ex to speak about the truth of the incident. She does - and says he's not fit for public office. LOL, IL state politics, particularly the governor's mansion, has gone to absolute s*** since Edgar left.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 7, 2010 -> 08:16 AM) Because as I have said before the huge rally was due to the gov't forcing people to chase yield and the only place they were going to get paid was the stock mkt. They forced people to take risk. That is not a good thing. and guess what the end result of bumping the dividend tax from 15% to 39% will be? Riskier, lower and non-yield stocks will come into greater favor, and value picks tank. We reward risker firms - which is the opposite of what ObamaCo has said they wanted to do. Stupid.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Feb 7, 2010 -> 01:39 PM) Sarah Palin scares the ever loving s*** out of me. Seriously. It's like she escaped from my nightmares. So f***ing scary. That's all. She's like a Subaru. She has a cult-like following, but fortunately, won't ever build up major market position. Too much plastic.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 6, 2010 -> 08:27 PM) Well, your talking points about dissent seem to parrot MSNBC. The majority of people whom disapprove of Obama's policies are just racist haters! and yes, I'm sure some people are just Obama haters for that reason, but it's a small minority. so do your Dems. These current protesters, 'tea party' or whatever, are not all that radical compared to the Democrat protesters I've seen the past 10 years. My talking points? Dissing Tom Tancredo is a talking point? I don't think I've even mentioned the guy since the 2008 primaries. You're really reaching here. And LOL at even bringing race into it - find me one example of me ever saying anything of he sort. My Dems? The Dems have their own problems. But bringing hate, bigotry, talk of secession and armed conflict... that's something that I have to say has been far more common among GOP leaders them DEM leaders since the emergence of the controlling Religious Right in the past 15 years. And the tea party movement, while founded generally in something I'd agree with (government has grown too much and is spending too much), is quite obviously (as lf has pointed out) been co-opted by the GOP to be a parrot for the far right wing agenda in total. So yeah, there's some serious hate in that crowd, and much more than I see from the lefties.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 6, 2010 -> 05:05 PM) What I said, and quite on purpose, has nothing to do with "Republican" or "Democrat". Well good then - you see what many don't. Intruding on people's lives no longer has a "party".