NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 16, 2008 -> 08:00 AM) The simple answer is exactly where they should be... clueless. The Congress has no business worrying about banking, finance, trading, or any of the other things like this that they oversee. Our financial system is way to complex for these politicians to understand. It really needs to be under the arm of the federal reserve bank to regulate these sectors, not Congress. We don't need a committee for each of these and a regulating body to match. It is a waste of manpower, and all you have to do is look at recent history showing this regulating bodies asleep on the job to understand this. There is way too much partisian interest here for these groups to be managed correctly. Look no further than an idiot like Chuck Schumer not understanding that it isn't a good idea to talk about a specific bank failling. In the 11 days after he opened his yap, depositors took $1.3 billion out of IndyMac. Don't tell me he didn't have an effect on them going under. That is the reason guys like Greenspan, Paulsen, Bernanke and company measure their words and talk in general terms! They know that their words move markets. Congressmen are too busy worrying about the 30 second soundbyte to care about the effects of what they say. Congress needs to be stripped of all of their responsibility and oversight for our entire financial sector, as they just can't handle it. Well, I don't think its practical, or a good idea, to strip Congress' oversight of the financial industry. They need to have a looking glass. And frankly, its the FRB and regulatory agencies that deserve more blame here than Congress anyway - they are the ones responsible for raising red flags, and suggesting paths to fix problems. Congress should just be monitoring things, and acting to fix problems per their recommendations. But of course, part of the issue here is funding. I don't know about the FRB or the SEC, but I know for a fact that the CFTC has been getting tighter and tighter budgets. This while derivatives trading of all kinds has skyrocketed.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 05:58 PM) Gotcha. Jackass.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 05:56 PM) We have spoiler tags. That's all fine. It was just more of a reminder for people to use them, and use them a lot.

OK, I am going to make this request of my fellow SoxTalkers now... for those of us who may not get to see Batman on Opening Night.... please, please, please try to avoid anything even resembling spoilers in here.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 03:21 PM) Another question, where was Schumer and the Senate banking committee when this problem was developing? Asleep at the wheel, as usual. And this is the government we are going to trust with covering all these companies? greeaaat While I think the whole idea of Schumer somehow causing the collapse is laughable... I do agree with you that he and others responsible for oversight (not just in Congress, but in the responsible agencies as well) should be embarrassed, and some of them should be out of their jobs or committees.

QUOTE (Maxwell @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 03:04 PM) First of all, I didn't make any assumptions. I just posted what I believe will happen, based on the current oil market and my experiences in futures markets. No one can say they know for sure what will happen or how the market will interpret news, so I don't know what you are basing all of your information on, if anything, other than supply and demand, which is only part of the reason oil is currently so high in price. Mathematical predictions don't work on futures markets, period. Unfortunately that seems to be the basis for most of what you say. Experts can write as many articles as they want, I could find just as many people, perhaps more, that support an opposite position on ANWR and the price of oil. So where does that leave us? Something long term must be done, no doubt, but that really isn't Bush's job at this point in his presidential career. You make an obvious point, and one that is irrelevant to what I have said. My position is that obama's plan sucks, long term and short. Especially short. Obama will actually help drive the price of oil higher if people use their energy checks for energy. That is completely retarded. Long term the plan is just plain lackluster to me and I have no faith that the dollars he proposes to be used for development of alternative energy will end up anywhere but in the hands of some bureaucratic bulls*** organization(s). 1. You keep hitting on Obama's rebate check thing. I don't agree with that either, but you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Much of the rest of his plan is far better than what McCain has to offer. 2. I said nothing about futures markets (which by the way, I have worked in or around for the past 10 years). And frankly, this problem is way, way, way beyond what the futures market may do to oil prices, since they aren't going to plummet in any case because they can't. 3. What mathematical formulae are you referring to? I used no such things. 4. Why on earth would it not be Bush's job to help secure the future? In fact, if you look at history, its the last year in which Presidents (having lost political capital) usually try to stretch out and try to leave their mark in some useful way. 5. There are certain realities involved in offshore drilling and ANWR, that will limit the amount of oil that can be added to the system. That's why they won't have a significant effect on the price. 6. Finally, if you are experienced in the futures markets, I'd like to hear your theory on what the main factors on oil prices are. Because as far as I can see, they are fundamentals (supply and demand), geo-regional conflict and risk, and the weak dollar. There are other factors too, but they are all minor. Are you suggesting that the dollar will suddenly gain a whole ton of new strength? Or that oil producing regions will suddenly calm down? Or that the increase in oil from offshore and ANWR is so much as to significantly change the foreign/domestic balance of our oil?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 03:38 PM) If you're looking purely long term I'd agree on that. Long term in the 20-30 year window. But for the next several years, I think things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. I think its a good move in true short term (

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 03:33 PM) So I see the Dow appears to be closing below 11000 today? Yes. Buy. Buy now.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 03:30 PM) The point I was making was about the final cost of the bailout. When the money will be recouped (in this case, only partially), the cost is less than the financing. We are not saying, Here's a trillion dollars, Fannie and Freddie, have fun! We're saying, here's a trillion dollars (say) cash. We expect it back, except for the amount that you lose on the mortgage. So if we loan $1 trillion to the pair, and the default rate is 10% (phenomenally high for prime mortgages) and the rate of recouping defaulted mortgages is 30% (phenomenally low), then the cost will be $1 trillion * .1 * .7 = $70 bil. This is just the fundamental notion that an outstanding loan is an asset. Which you certainly understand, but you're trying to obfuscate the real question. As for not having the money to spend once it's out, first, that has nothing to do with what I was saying about the actual cost of the bailout. And second, of course you can. The government is certainly capable of borrowing money now, and a $70 bil change in its net position, while it's certainly a lot of money, is not going to change that. Additional interest costs should be considered, then, but you're still nowhere even remotely close to a $1 trillion cost. The Iraq war, on the other hand, will cost in the trillions. And that's money that's not coming back. Good post, but I will take it further. And actually, we wouldn't be loaning them $1T anyway. Why lend them or give them money on the 90 to 95% of mortgages that are in good standing? No reason to. The outlay would only be in the 10's or 100's of billions (which is still BIG money, but not on the scale that some of the fear-mongers in the press are trying to protray). Furthermore, you some of that outlay for the bad loans can be recouped when the collateral assets (homes) are sold, over time. The US government is not going to have to lay out a trillion dollars. Not even close.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 02:23 PM) The surge is one factor of about 3 or 4 major factors that have contributed to the reduction in violence. In and of itself, it didn't do anything, I guess you can call it a catalyst. I really wish media coverage of the war is more thorough though, back in the first couple of years they would actually talk big picture, but it's been reduced to useless talking points since nobody really likes talking about it anymore. If you want more thorough coverage, find newspapers (NOT TV news) that have people on the ground. The Post, The Chicago Tribune, NYT, probably others. They will give you the best, most complete picture.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 02:13 PM) Well, Beckham is already an MLB-talent, so there is one. My best guess is that Silverio or Escobar become the other one from this group, not sure which, but I am gonna guess only one. But at least with Beckham, you know you have a MLB-caliber player right now. Watch him have a very easy transition to the pro game because he was very good in the Cape Cod League last year with a wood bat. Of all the draft picks this year, he has one of the lowest floors, and a pretty good ceiling. At worst, I see him as a .270, 15 HR, 20 SB type middle infielder with the potential to be a .300, 30 HR, 30 SB guy from a middle infielder which would be simply amazing, but he has the talent, work ethic and baseball IQ to become that. I tend not to see anyone in any system as 100% or 0%. I think sometimes people boil it down to that for certain players, and I think its not accurate. Beckham is well over 90%, to be sure. But there is no such thing as a sure-bet prospect. On the other side, Paiml may be 5%, and Miranda 10%, but they aren't zero. Know what I mean?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 02:57 PM) Kalapse and NS, who are the two guys you are talking about? I'm guessing one is Moose, but who is the other. On a sidenote, I still believe for guys throwing in this generation, 250 may be the new 300 or something close to that. Moose may just miss out on that though because he hasn't had any dominate post-season runs or anything like that. Mark clearly would have to have a run of 18-20 game seasons or at least a few post-season runs, imo. However, I think he has a chance, which in itself says at least something about his career. Albeit, its a slim chance because its hard to project how he'll throw for the next 9-10 years. Mussina and Blyleven.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 01:16 PM) I've thought about this many times. First thing would be to hire a lawyer and possibly a financial advisor. Next would be a bigger house. My kids could finally all have a room of their own. As for my current house, I'd have to make a decision. I could just pay it off and try to sell it as is for whatever I could get for it., I could fix it up and sell it for a bit higher price. I could fix it up and rent it out. Or I could just bulldoze the thing and build a new one and then either sell it or rent it. I'd get a bigger trailer and a newer gas-guzzling SUV to pull it. Or possibly just get a permenant site at the campgrounds we always go to. Then I could get a big RV and travel around the country when the kids aren't in school. I'd probably give some money to my parents and my in-laws. I could finally afford to catch up technology-wise and get DVR and HDTV and a better computer, etc... I want a corvette, my wife wants a camaro. After all that, I'd probably invest the rest. Why get a permanent site at some crowded campground, when you could buy a few hundred acres to have to yourself? Plus its an investment.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 02:00 PM) Large plants are needed for one specific thing that normal cells can not provide though...energy storage. The normal energy usage curve during a day is phase-shifted by a few hours from the sun intensity curve...power usage rises in the morning at a time after the sun goes up, peaks usually in the afternoon I think, and then drops off slowly through the evening. Solar peaks at mid day and declines until sunset. A large plant can develop things like thermal technologies that allow energy storage to meet nighttime demand, something that can't be done with simple photovoltaics. Ah and also, note my earlier comment about Net Use. Power plants already have energy storage capacity, to an extent. Thsi can be leveraged, so that homes themselves don't need to bear the cost of extra storage (batteries). This can be reduced, if again, utilities are willing to go to net use billing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 02:00 PM) Large plants are needed for one specific thing that normal cells can not provide though...energy storage. The normal energy usage curve during a day is phase-shifted by a few hours from the sun intensity curve...power usage rises in the morning at a time after the sun goes up, peaks usually in the afternoon I think, and then drops off slowly through the evening. Solar peaks at mid day and declines until sunset. A large plant can develop things like thermal technologies that allow energy storage to meet nighttime demand, something that can't be done with simple photovoltaics. What you are describing isn't a limitation of solar cells - its a storage issue. So to say that simple PV's can't do it, is I think, not really accurate. Its a question of the cost of batteries to store the energy. And by the way, I am not saying that they shouldn't ALSO pursue large plants. I'm saying that we shouldn't wait for that. A significant increase in solar panel use in homes and businesses could dramatically drop the overall energy demands on the power grid.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 12:54 PM) Actually, that decision was un-done after public outcry (See one of the energy threads, I posted that before I took off but I don't really remember where). But there is still a big backlog of applications for solar plant development that the BLM is well behind on taking care of (a backlog which would be fixed by hiring more people I believe) so there's still an issue slowing down that development in the government. Encouraging a distributed system via tax incentives, research and development grants, and mandating net use power grids in a certain timeframe, would be a better solution than waiting for the BLM to get its act together. Not only is it a government agency, but its way understaffed (I actually have some specific knowledge on this), and developing large plants takes significant time. If you make solar cells effectively cheaper now, for businesses and homeowners, the market will push solar power along for you. And meanwhile, you add some new jobs to the private sector.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 01:35 PM) It should be noted, once upon a time ago (really not that long ago), the Sox had Tim Hummel/Ruddy Yan/Andy Gonzalez/Robert Valido/Pedro Lopez. Now I know none of them screamed all star potential but at one point people thought highly of these individuals for various reasons. Yan was ridiculously fast and had the slap hitting ability of say a Luis Castillo (or at least that was his upside) Hummel projected to be a Mark Grudz type of offensive 2Bman (not great defense, but raked for a large stint of his minor league career and was eventually traded to Cinncy) Gonzalez was once ridiculously hyped. Great defensive tools, good raw power Valido very hyped and had great defensive talents Lopez was slick fielding and actually hit decently in the minors (despite not projecting to be a great hitter) and had a nice skill-set. That's a very good point. Of all the shortstops we are discussing - Beckham, Escobar, Silverio, Miranda, Paiml... odds are, only one or two at most will be major league talent. And the most hyped ones aren't always the ones that make it. So you never know.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 01:12 PM) Can he top 261-150, 57 CG, 23 SHO, 2731 K to only 770 BB, 3.70 ERA, 1.19 WHIP, 5 time AS, 6 times finishing in the top 5 of CY voting but no wins and 6 gold gloves? Because this guy probably isn't getting in and I'd say they're going to have fairly similar careers. I'd say Mark has a less than 1% chance of becoming a hall of fame caliber starter. Also, this guy is having a hard time getting in: 287-250, 242 CG, 60 SHO, 3701 K to 1322 BB, 1.20 WHIP, 3 times in Top 4 for Cy Young, 3 time AS, and pitched 4970 innings.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 12:54 PM) Seems unusual to be thinking "what are we going to do with all these middle infielders?", doesn't it? I like that kind of problem. Big change from a year ago. The 2007 draft, the 2008 draft, plus the latin market acquisitions of Silverio and Escobar, have changed the SS situation in the system from awful to talent-crowded. Definitely a good problem to have.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 11:47 AM) I should point out, odds are you are exactly correct with your assumptions. However, Silverio could change things with a strong short-season and impressive performances in winter league. Yeah, obviously all the players we are discussing here could surprise us, good or bad. Any one of them having really bad, or really good, seasons, could change the whole stack.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 11:41 AM) Depending on how Silverio progresses, I think you'll see him start the year at Kanny. That is because the Sox are likely to fast track him and having him in Kanny means he gets a full year of experience as opposed to a short season of experience. This of course depends heavily on how he does now and how he handles summer league play (I'm sure he'll be playing somewhere). This of course means you'll have Escobar/Beckham in tough spots. Escobar is clearly pretty highly thought of as is Beckham (most highly touted). Beckham probably starts the year in Winston Salem which means if Silverio is playing in Kanny Escobar is without a spot (however, I think they'll juggle Silverio in a sense and have him play some 3B which is where some project he'll eventually end up). So essentially I think Silverio and Escobar will both be in Kanny to open the year with Escobar going up to Winston Salem if all goes well upon Beckham's promotion to Bham. Thing is though, Silverio is (supposedly) 16. Even if he does one year at each level - Bristol, GF, Kanny, W-S, B-Ham and Charlotte - he'll only be 21 at Charlotte. So he's basically fast track by nature. I get the impression that they won't rush him. Regier has been quoted as saying they don't want to rush the younger players too much (like they did with Valido).

If he can put up his more-or-less typical seasons - winning record, ERA in the 3's, etc. - and play healthy until he's 40... then he has a shot. A small one. If he can put up 1 or 2 Cy Young caliber seasons sometime soon, then its slightly more than a small shot. Overall, I'd say 5% chance, or less.

Well, since obviously I don't make the decisions on these players, I'll also add my prediction of what the Sox are likely to do... I think you'll see Miranda starting at 2B in W-S next year, across from Beckham at SS. Paiml will start at B-Ham. As the year goes on, Beckham moves to B-Ham, Escobar to W-S, with Silverio to Kanny (having started at GF). V-Merc will be the 2B in Charlotte, with Getz and Richar gone to wherever. Paiml may also move to 2B, and stay in B-Ham, when Beckham arrives.

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 11:45 AM) Miranda needs to start hitting or else he'll become a lower level version of Robert Valido. He's hitting .306. The org may be not so high on Miranda, but I still think he's got the goods. His 2007 was pretty amazing, for a lower round draft pick... drafted as a 20-year old, absolutely raked in Great Falls (.464/.516/.643/1.159), then promoted to Kanny where his average went up every month (finished at .282/.384/.349/.732). He started 2008 at W-S at age 21, and struggled badly at the plate, so they demoted him back to Kanny (which made sense). Now, he's hitting over .300. I'm not ready to call Miranda an org guy yet. His record so far just doesn't say that to me - he walks as often, or more, than he strikes out. I think he's got more potential than Paiml (W-S), who turns 23 in a few weeks and has a .616 OPS at W-S. I do think that Beckham (obviously), Escobar and possibly Silverio are higher ceiling than Miranda. Therefore, if it were up to me, I'd be promoting Miranda to W-S as soon as Beckham signs. Valido is worthless, so Paiml can move up to AA, which is more his age level anyway. One more interesting note on Miranda. He's been playing all over - 2B, 3B, SS, DH... so he may also be looked at as a future utility infielder. I think it has more to do with letting Escobar play and havign Sergio work on his hitting, but, we'll see.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 10:45 AM) Perhaps it just comes from watching a ton of baseball but you often see thirdbaseman make diving stops to either side as Joe Crede has done well this season. These same 3B are also capable of adjusting to the tough hop something Crede has failed to do time and time again this year. It seems like if the ball is only an inch higher or lower than Crede expects it to be he's going to boot it, he really should have at least 20 errors already but he gets the benefit of the doubt on any ball that catches him in between. Hell Hawk and DJ talked about it after he misplayed a ball in Texas, Michael Young was given a basehit on a ball Crede should have had with ease. When you have the reputation that Crede does for being one of the best in the game you need to make the tough plays hit right at you look easy, you can't just live off diving stops. He's booted a few grounders, but actually, I don't think that's his problem area. I think he'll do that about 10 times a year anyway, as will most thirdbasemen. What Joe has consistently struggled with, and is hard to watch, is his throws. Any time he gets a play that isn't bang-bang, he seems lost - his feet, his body angle, his throwing motion all look awkward. And then me make a sidearm throw that sails off target. I really think that's a technique thing - he isn't just throwing instinctively anymore, he's thinking too much. That's something he'll probably get past pretty quickly.