NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 09:26 AM) If that's the case, Shingo should never have lost his job. He was 19-20 in save opportunities in 2004 and 8-9 in 2005 when he lost the job. I don't think there's a person around who thinks Shingo shouldn't have lost his job as the closer. I also don't think anyone is arguing Jenks' effectiveness to this point. The question is how long will it last? I didn't say saves/opps was the ONLY measure. Shingo had a 5.97 ERA, a 1.61 WHIP, a couple losses early on, and did poorly when not in save situations. Also note that he came in to close out games often, started to give up hits/runs, and was pulled for someone else who would close it for him. Inherited runners scored is useless as a measure for closers, unless you also use them as middle relievers. That's the point I was making.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 08:40 AM) Not much new, except that the Angels appear to want Fuentes. Says the Angels won't go after Peavy, as the Padres demands for young pitching is too high; that the OF is set with Rivera re-signed. With few free agents at 1b, Konerko has to look decent to them, as 1b is one of the only spots for the Angels to upgrade. Not sure if there are other 1bmen out there available via trade for them to target. The Angels have to make some moves that would make them better [or get near to their 2008 team]. Even if they sign Fuentes, Krod and Texiera leaving makes them worse for 2009. http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb...story?track=rss As I said in another thread, I think the chances of a Konerko to LAA trade are increasing by the day. I see the Sox probably doing two or three things this offseason that they haven't done yet, from this list: --Trade PK to LAA for Figgins and/or pitching --Trade Dye, possibly to CIN, for pitching --Sign Mark Kotsay to play CF --Acquiring a relatively cheap pitcher with some question marks to compete for the rotation

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 08:37 AM) No it wouldnt. Throwing an object at someone and making a gesture are not the same thing. Spitting at someone is an insult. Throwing your shoes at someone is an insult in Arab countries. Who cares what it is the equivalent of? If throwing gum at someone in Iraq was the equivalent of punching someone in the face here should they be judged the same way too? So? I'd be willing to bet assault is assault in pretty much every country around the world and that assault is not just a US law. Furthermore, when has Bush demanded that that Iraqi citizen be jailed? I havent seen that or heard that anywhere. From what I remember, didnt GWB say it wasnt a big deal? Indeed, assault is a common law thing, and with some fringey exceptions, is pretty similar from country to country. GWB had to say it was no big deal, for lots of reasons. Even if it was a big deal.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 08:18 AM) Are we talking about economies of scale? That certainly plays a factor, yes. New product goes to market doesn't get those economies at first (or, as many of them, in any case), but they would generally come to fruition as production levels increase. I wouldn't call that factor #1 though.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 08:09 AM) I might only have a couple of college econ courses, but doesn't rising demand (without a simultaneous rise in supply) raise prices? Costs will come down, but cars aren't exactly like DVD players or TV's. Hybrids still command a significant premium over non-hybrid versions. Rising demand for a product increases prices becuase of its relationship with supply, in a perfect theoretical universe (which doesn't exist). However, when you are talking about new product entry, you have the very large offset of decreasing costs of production. That's why new technologies break that basic economic rule. No, hybrids are not DVD's. But, there are a lot of similarities there. Costs of production will decrease, and increased production will yield further efficiencies. Also, as new competitors enter the market (which they are doing now), that competition also depresses prices. So there you have the rule breaker - new technologies entering the market do not tend to follow the basic economic principle you mentioned.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 08:04 AM) They actually push the demand curve out and keep prices higher because more people can demand the products. Its no coincidence that the products that are the most heavily subsidized by the government are the some of the most ridiculously expensive when it comes to the face values. I understand that theory, I just have seen it not come to fruition in practice. Now, again, I am not talking about services, particularly health care which is just such a strange beast. I am talking about hard products to market. For those cases, your theory doesn't hold true. I mean, you can even look narrowly at hybrid vehicles. Despite the increased demand, and the increasing sales, the car companies haven't raised prices on hybrid cars relatively (relative, meaning, relative to non-hybrids - the differential cost only). In fact, prices have been pretty stable. As the companies sell more, and the technologies are refined, they eventually break even then make money at them. Look at what Tesla is doing - its classic hard product marketing. Their first car is aimed specifically at early adopters. They knew it would be very pricey to make all-electric cars at first, so they went high end and put out a sports car for $100k. In 2009, its a lucury sedan for $60k. In 2010, its a small sedan for $35k.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2008 -> 05:22 PM) There's been 1 time since I've been here that it actually frosted over during the night, but then again I'm up about 900 feet above sea level and tucked in between 2 mountain ranges.. Typically though the Pacific wind patterns will perch temperatures here (and for that matter, in San Francisco, where I was last week) at about 35-40 degrees and up. Which is particularly interesting when you consider that the high country of the Olympics and Ranier and what not get hundreds of inches of snow a year, and have glaciers - and are, what, 30 miles from Seattle? Altitude, wind, oceanic effects, geology all conspiring in weirdness. That's why I love the mountains of the American west. You can get such a wide variety of weather, plant and and animal life, etc. in such a short distance.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 07:55 AM) Tax incentives do nothing to bring actual prices down. In fact they keep list prices artificially high. See things like health care and education. tax incentives to the consumer, as exist for hybrid and alt-energy vehicles, increase demand, which lowers prices. Tax incentives for the cars themselves to the manufacturer increase production (potentially), also decreasing prices (though here the relationship is fuzzier). I don't see how tax incentives as they relate to hard products (NOT services) would increase prices. They will decrease them.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 07:05 AM) Are you ready to fork over as much as $40k for a mid-sized non-luxury car? Its just like any new technology. Prices start high, the early adopters jump in, production increases, tax incentives might kick in for both sides, prices fall.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2008 -> 05:19 PM) There's a number of things we all wish would have been done with the TARP program. Virtually all of which would have made it work better. The thing that it all boils down to, IMO, is that the TARP program is right now doing exactly what it was designed to do; dump money in to banks with no accountability and no changes. It wasn't designed to unfreeze the credit markets, improve the economy, or stave off a depression. It was designed to do exactly what it is doing. That's a little ridiculous. It may have been poorly executed (seems to be definite), and may not work at all. But it was quite clear that it was indeed an attempt to do all those things you mentioned.

Happy B-Day! Special shout out to my fellow Trevian, maggsmaggs.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2008 -> 02:17 PM) The AP has spent some time doing some digging in to where the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on bailouts so far has gone. Their answer? Aside from some chunk going in to $1.6 billion in executive bonuses, no one seems to have a clue or is willing to say. I really wish that the TARP funding would have required that this money be specifically tracked for its use, to see how it made them any different than they were pre-funding.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Dec 22, 2008 -> 02:21 PM) I don't think that is necessarily true. If you look in a historical context, Democrats were very harsh towards the Soviet Union as well. JFK is a good example; he played hardball with the same veracity as Reagan towards the soviets. Reagan actually did a lot of negotiating with the Soviet Union, even though he did like to give big anti-communist speeches. Both of which I approve of Fair enough. It was really an aside anyway, and I didn't describe it well.

With the Angels seemingly out of the Tex running, I am thinking they may end up making a move for Konerko. LAA is probably one of the few teams that PK allows a trade to, and it just makes sense. The Sox would probably get Figgins or a different OF out of the deal, is my guess. Or maybe pitching.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 22, 2008 -> 12:17 PM) moderates voted for him, but the people who worked and volunteered for him were more to the left. I don't know why people believe that governing from the middle automatically means you will be a great leader. There such a thing as the extreme-middle. Governing from the middle doesn't make a great President. But it makes it easier to do be effective.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 22, 2008 -> 11:56 AM) I don't think Reagan got anywhere close to the middle. Clinton and Bush Sr. went more to the middle. I would say that for the time FDR went more to the left and it worked out ok. Reagan talked a big rightist game, but look at what he really did. It wasn't far right at all, with the exception of policy towards the Soviets.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 22, 2008 -> 11:43 AM) Democrats always run to the right after elections. No... all Presidents who have had any real success in either party try to govern from closer to the center than they ran as during the election. Its the only way to be successful. To wit... --Bush and Carter actually went further to party extreme, and they were both terrible Presidents. --Clinton and Reagan, who were more successful, governed from closer to the middle.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Dec 22, 2008 -> 10:30 AM) Haha, yeah. Or Van Damme doing a roundhouse kick in slow motion while yelling AAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh. Christian Bale is probably the one who can match Arnold. Especially if the new Terminator movie is any good. I think the best equivalency for Will Smith is Bruce Willis... --Both started in comedy TV --Both have become, mostly, summer blockbuster headliners --But both have also shown serious acting chops at times

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 21, 2008 -> 08:17 PM) High of -2 today. Tonight: Mostly clear, with a low around -10. Wind chill values as low as -29. West wind between 6 and 14 mph. Monday: Sunny and cold, with a high near 4. Wind chill values as low as -22. West wind at 7 mph becoming south. Monday Night: Snow, mainly after midnight. Low around 3. Wind chill values as low as -16. South wind between 8 and 15 mph. Chance of precipitation is 80%. New snow accumulation of 2 to 4 inches possible. Tuesday: Snow likely. Cloudy, with a high near 21. Wind chill values as low as -12. South wind between 13 and 20 mph, with gusts as high as 28 mph. Chance of precipitation is 70%. New snow accumulation of 1 to 2 inches possible. Gotta love Iowa. I was living in Ames in the early 90's when they had the worst winter cold snap on record. I don't remember which year, but, Des Moines and Ames went over a WEEK without the temperature getting above zero. Either Ames or DSM set their all time record low that week, or maybe both I don't recall - something like -32. That ws the air temperature, not the wind chill.

Well, I will probably get ripped for this one, due to the author and the time period covered, but... Beyond the Sixth Game, by Peter Gammons

QUOTE (Kid Gleason @ Dec 20, 2008 -> 11:22 PM) So...Time Magazine placed Iron Man in the Top 10 of 2008. The Dark Knight was NOT on the list. heh...heh...take that DC. That's just laughable.

Which aspect of your game are you most proud of? Which OF position is your strongest, and which would you most like to play going forward? What's the weirdest thing you've ever seen a fan do? Do you have any pre-game rituals? What music do you like to listen to, to get psyched up for a game (if any)?

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Dec 20, 2008 -> 04:36 PM) Has the luxury cap kept the Yankees from overspending each year? Are the small markets using that payback money to make a better life for themselves? Of course not. Why would we expect large companies to change their business model or methods if it's profitable and its a drop in the bucket for costs? What about the argument that 97% of all CO2 emitted each year is by natural causes? Volcanos are a much large source of emitting CO2. How do we collect money from those environmental hating volcanos? 3% (or 4%) is actually quite a lot. Also, you are ignoring the scrubbing factor, and the human-caused dramatic decrease in those green materials necessary.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Dec 20, 2008 -> 04:24 PM) I have no faith in a carbon selling/buying system. It believe it will be wasteful, corrupt, and have far too many politically fraudulent aspects. I would much rather see resources placed into direct funding for advanced engineering; a much better solution in my opinion. It could definitely go wrong, no doubt. And I agree its less useful than funding the tech itself. But I do think the system could provide a benefit.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Dec 20, 2008 -> 04:13 PM) I don't care if people want to buy 'carbon credits' to make themselves feel better. I do not want a national carbon credit scam which is run by some scammer like Al Gore in which it is mandatory to buy in. Screw that. These scams do nothing for advancing energy technology. Well, I could care less if Al Gore is involved or not. What I am saying is, if done right, a carbon trading system would definitely help reduce pollution and encourage further spending on technologies that pollute less. And you don't have to force buy-in - you tie it to the laws regarding pollution output. The laws should be made more stringent, such that the limits on output for carbon oxides or other pollutants should be just a little above the typical use level. If companies meet the number, they meet the law - just like now. If they WANT to go significantly below the number, and sell their credits, then great - go ahead. If other companies go over, they have to buy the credits, or face massive fines and regulatory investigation (again, like now). The system can be implemented such that it would work. And this is not meant to be some complete solution, BTW. I'm just pointing out one way it could be done.