NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 02:39 PM) I could have swore we claimed him as a minor leaguer or something like that. You may be right, I don't know. But again, if that's the case, he's already signed... do we need to protect him on the 40? I'm a little hazy on this case.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 02:38 PM) Which is a decrease if you ask any politician... I never said it was a decrease. That wasn't my point. My point was, this deal is not "nothing". It clearly has positive effect.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 02:38 PM) There's very little reason for De Aza to make this team out of ST unless someone gets hurt. He ought to start in Charlotte anyway, see if he can stay healthy and get everyday at bats in a league that he should be better than. In which case, just drop him from the 40 now, since he's unprotected anyway (we claimed him, and I believe we have to put him on the 25 to protect him, yes?).

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 02:37 PM) No, I'm saying EITHER WAY OUR TAXES ARE GOING UP...and that's the problem. Going up less, I'd suppose, in this case.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 02:34 PM) Dropping De Aza after already claiming him would be quite silly. But he has to make the 25 I believe, and assuming we sign a DH, he won't. I think he was insurance, maybe they remove him from the 40 and offer him a minor league deal.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 02:34 PM) 7 relief pitchers = 12 man pitching staff, 9 regulars including 1 DH, leaving 4 bench spots. If Jones is the full time DH, that leaves: Castro Vizquel Kotsay and 1 open bench spot. Jones is the 4th, and we sign a DH, I'd bet. I'm guessing we don't have a 5th bench guy, which means an OF like De Aza is the odd man out.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 02:29 PM) Only problem is...if you want to sign a DH as well, you need an extra 40 man slot for him as well. I personally would drop De Aza or Lillibridge, if they are allowed to, but I doubt they will. The trade may involve a different 40 man slot too, though. Currently on the 40 man, not guaranteed to make the 25: Dolsi Hynick Gartrell Armstrong* Marquez De Aza* Harrell Hudson (does not have to be on the 25 if he's in AAA, I believe) Luis* Nunez Santeliz Torres Williams Flowers (same as Hudson, not sure if he needs to stay on the 40 in this case) Viciedo Lillibridge* I starred the ones I think are mostly likely for DFA.

Makes sense. Allows Flowers more time to work on catching (more important even than getting at bats for him, IMO). Also allows KW to trade Flowers if necessary (but that won't happen unless its a blockbuster). $1M is cheap. I'd guess Armstrong is DFA'd, not Marquez, because KW liked Marquez so much. I'd bet they want to give him a chance to show his stuff in AAA when healthy, before giving up.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 01:54 PM) I would agree with you 100% if we got anything out of it, but we didn't. Our taxes will NOT go down, despite our burden being less, and now the meters will cost us more, on top of the same taxes we are going to continue to pay. This is reality. The only thing the City did was plug a hole they created themselves via poor management of assets and funds. We pay for it. And will continue to pay for it. I repeat one final time...our taxes will NOT be going down, DESPITE our burden having gone down. How much would you like to bet our taxes won't fall no matter how much of these things they sell off? Nothing? Didn't think so. And furthermore...our taxes will continue to increase just as fast as they are now...since I know this will be the attempted counter argument. It holds no water. As a matter of fact, property taxes just had one of their biggest increases EVER, and this coming AFTER they sold this asset. Property taxes are mostly county, not city. And you really think that a billion dollars and a 75 year projected revenue haul is nothing? You really think that if we hadn't done this, the taxes would not have gone up? If so, there isn't really much left to discuss.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 01:38 PM) But you're right, basic business decisions to sell an asset at 50% off are...well, basic! I can't wait for you to sell your house for 50% off, let me know when you put it up for sale, I'll buy it, since selling it at such a steep discount is so...basic! House is an asset, not revenue generator. Its not a business. Your example only works for the hard assets they sold off that were previously used to maintain the system.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 01:44 PM) So how many businesses get sold for their estimated 75 year earnings expectations? Most mergers and acquisitions I see around Wall Street are for a fraction of that number. Keep in mind, that would mean the City of Chicago would essentially get a 75 P-E value for their business of parking. I love to call the Daley Administration for the mat for what they do, but getting essentially a 40 P-E for an asset is pretty damned impressive. Thank you. I hate defending city gov't, usually I don't, but in this case, they got it right.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 01:37 PM) Actually I did some research. The city's governmental watchdog, the inspector general, has just wrapped up a five-month long investigation into the parking meter lease deal. And like most of the folks who park their cars in Chicago, he doesn't like what he found. Not at all. The big money lease of the city's parking meters to private operators has not only been a source of anger and more anger for city drivers, it's also turned out to be a very bad financial deal for the Daley administration. That's the gist of a 43-page report by Chicago's inspector general. "The city failed to make a calculation of what the value of the parking meter system was to the city," Inspector General David Hoffman said. Charts and graphs in Hoffman's report say the city, eager to balance the budget, unloaded its meter revenues for $974 million less than they were actually worth over the life of the 75-year deal. That's just shy of $1 billion. You mean the study that looks at projected revenues assuming increases in fee rates? Again, you have to look at the full math. Currently, the city makes no money on the meters. If they raised fees like the lessee is doing, then obiously they start to make money. That's not the issue, though. The question becomes... do you do that, or do you have someone more efficient do it, and split the difference? That's what was done here. Furthermore, this dismisses the fact that if the city itself raised meter rates like this, as bas as this private company has been at implementation, how much worse do you figure it would have been if the gov't did it? Oh and, if people don't pay the meters, the city still gets the ticket revenue, which I didn't see mentioned in that report either. And that quote is garbage, because if you look at his report, he specifically states what value the system had to the city WAS calculated by the city, and he even uses those numbers as a comparison! The margin difference that is at stake here is, the difference in increased revenue versus efficiency. Assuming the gov't would be less efficient in implementation and maintenance - and I think we can assume that - then how much of that marginal difference goes to the city? That is where the real difference lies, in how good a deal this was. That report, which I saw before, doesn't see things that way. They see only the lost revenue. Its not a great analysis, from my perspective. Now that all said, the city might not have gotten a great return on this when compared to future cash flows ASSUMING the rate increases (which, again, would likely not have been possible had the city run the meters). There could be some variance there. And the report does work with a reasonable discount rate to make that accounting, which is good. But this is also the reality of giving gov't work to private businesses - they want a profit. You can't have it both ways. What would you have suggested doing, by the way? Continued the same path, having the gov't continue its inefficient ways, and not get anything? Raise meter rates themselves (which I guarantee would be stopped by the city council)? What are the REALISTIC alternatives to this that are better? I am no great supporter of city government, but I'm also not just going to blindly dismiss all actions of an agency or party because they sometimes make bad decisions.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 01:34 PM) The hard part will be finding a place that isn't contingent upon the seller doing something, thus taking up a lot of time. In this market (which I am currently a seller/buyer in), contingency offers are much more rare, and almost always on the buyer side (so they can sell their own previous place). The seller isn't often going to make contingencies.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 01:30 PM) It is bordering crazy how much you seem to trust government math. Yes, they were making 0 dollars, that's why it was worth a billion. The lease is for 70 years, so no, it won't be up by then, or anytime in your lifetime. 70 Its bordering on crazy that some of you aren't able to make a decision on this issue, versus saying all things must by nature be bad if they came from government. And ironically, you are even attacking how bad the government is, when it is trying to remove government from the equation. Bizarre. Go do some research on this if you want to know more, everything I've stated is out there. The reason they got a billion for it is that the company holding the lease will raise revenues, and do it at a lower cost than the city could do it. Not that complicated, really, its a basic business decision. One entity can maintain a business more efficiently than another, so they buy it, and do just that, benefiting both.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 01:14 PM) What's a realistic time table? We have until 4/30 to sign the contract, and 6/30 to close to get the $8k credit. I figure 3-4 months is pretty reasonable so long as we are active about it. Since you are just buying, not selling, that timeframe should be easy to meet. Just do your research - and you'll need some hours to do that - and see a lot of houses. Pick the one you like. That shouldn't take until April if you start now.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 01:19 PM) Here's the real answer: it depends. If your local government is bleeding that bad and needs a cash infusion to just run basic things, then, yea, I guess you do it. There's a whole lot more cost benefit analysis that should be done - and not just accounting benefit, economic benefit as well. In the future, how much money is this going to cost you for a short term cash infusion? Actually there was an article by a local writer down here just this Sunday and he brought up some interesting points. The big kick (as in and around Chicago) is privatizing highways so that they can get cash now to build more roads. All of these new roads are going to be tolled, of course, but the main point this guy was trying to make is if we would have just bit the bullet and paid a ten cent increase in taxes, the money recieved would be way over the amount that they are getting in short term cash infusions now to build these roads. He made a pretty good argument that no matter when it's done, a tax increase on gas should be/should have been done rather then privatizing all this and turning over that revenue stream to a "for profit" company. I can't wait for all these @$^@#$^ road projects - they are getting ready to spend $1billion right around the north side of the airport... that will be a nightmare. In this case, the city was making nearly zero money on parking meters. So the period to generate a billion dollars would be basically infinate. Selling the asset generated a billion in the short term, which they wouldn't get until decades and decades down the line. And the lease is up well before then anyway. So its hard to see how it isn't a financial move that makes sense. So the future cost is miniscule, against a large cash infusion. I don't defend the way the city spends money. But in this case, this was clearly the smart move.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 12:55 PM) I'll say it now -- regardless of how many assets the City of Chicago sheds/sells/no longer holds obligations to uphold, our taxes, be it real estate, sales, income, etc...will *NOT* be going down. Less assets and less obligation should mean they go down, but they will NOT go down. Watch. Tax increases will be less, and in some cases, taxes will go down. Regardless of how you phrase it, the reality is that if the government (any government) has substantially more money to use, then taxes will be less than if they didn't have that money. So, again, the privitization is a plus for taxpayers in that regard.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 12:57 PM) You have Kotsay on the bench for tough righties. Plus I'd rather have a good hitter than a not so good hitter, regardless of having a few too many righties. You consider Thome a "not so good hitter"?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 12:45 PM) Dye at 3M would look perfect on the southside, imo. I'd agree 90%, but I have some concern about the lineup being so RH heavy. Perhaps someone can talk me out of that concern. I think I'd prefer Thome at that money, but I wouldn't be upset about Dye, who I think is likely to rebound.

Eyre has retired.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 12:38 PM) Pain In The Ass. Thanks.

QUOTE (SouthsideDon48 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 12:29 PM) But lets be honest here, public transportation is a PITA. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who hates to wait at a bus stop/train station, hates how buses/trains makes a bunch of stops along the way, hates how buses drive slower than the pace of traffic, hates how the buses/trains always seem a little germy, and hates how after you get off the bus/train you gotta walk a block or 2 to get to wherever you gotta go. Such a PITA. At least with a car, you don't have to rely on anyone else, and you can just get in your car and go instead of waiting for a bus/train that might be running late. Also, another thing I hate about public transit is that if I want to go someplace on a whim, I have to wait till the next stop and walk alllllll the way to the place I wanted to go to, then walk alllll the way back to the bus/train stop. Such a PITA. Also, it's a PITA to go grocery shopping while taking public transit. WTF is a PITA? Now, as far as mass transit goes, if you really want to argue the inconveniences, then you need to look at your car's much higher costs, and longer commute times, and parking charges at public OR private garages as well. Let's be fair here. But regardless of that, no one is stopping you from driving and parking. All that stopped is the government artificially keeping the price of parking down, with, by the way, YOUR TAX MONEY. QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 12:33 PM) Wow. Just wow. This is the problem with you and people like you. Government doesn't have to be this way, yet, we've made them this way. It's EXPECTED that our government grows and grows and grows, thus by default, taking away from the private sector. So you are in favor these privitization efforts, I assume.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 12:11 PM) It can be a good thing, for them. For the taxpayers/consumers, it's a bad thing. Our taxes will not go down from this, and the fees/costs of the now private industries will rise with no control. Of course its a good thing for us. Taxes will go down by nature, because obligations go down. Without this money, we would have seen higher taxes. You are right about the fees going up, but that's part of the idea - raising meter fees to be closer equivalent to private parking charges. I'm not sure why anyone would have wanted the government to continue doing meters at prices below the cost it takes to maintain them, that makes no sense.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 12:06 PM) Not only that, but being that they're selling stuff off, their assets are decreasing right there. Their assets and their obligations. Which is a good thing.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 11:11 AM) I find it funny that Canseco got so much crap and he turns out to be right about everything. Canseco gets crap because he is a raging asshole. Also, though, he was right about this stuff.