southsider2k5

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 02:17 PM) The left needs to be more tolerant to the intolerant. Except that most of his list has nothing to do with that. Most of it is things he just doesn't agree with.

That's all of that tolerance we are always hearing about...

Has there been any kind of confirmation of $100 million being the ceiling?

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 12:54 PM) I would agree for 99% of the players out there. Dye has shown that money is not always his #1 concern. Likely it is, but in this case, possible not. He showed his word meant more than money. He hasn't agree in principal with anyone yet, so that kind of makes that situation moot.

I'm glad it is done for this year. The last thing we wanted is a hearing.

QUOTE (La Marr Hoyt HOF @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 12:38 PM) Juanny Damon, what's another $12 mil? Why, oh why, did we pick-up Rios again? Even if we threw money at Damon, it still would have left the same giant hole in CF we have had for years.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/...s-williams.html

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 12:21 PM) i think this is a tiered argument. Like cutting government spending/waste. In that situation, assuming that you cut an unnecessary job to balance a budget, you need to actually cut more to off-set the adjustment to tax revenue/income that is lost in that job cut in the first place. Actually you would get more economic growth from not collecting the tax in the first place, and creating the whole governmental circle of involvement and waste.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 12:14 PM) I ask this question because fundamental macro economics confuses me, but where does that "waste" go? If it is funds skimmed off the top or bloated prices, isn't that cash still out there circulating? Why are companies going to create jobs if there is no one in the lower quinttiles to purchase their goods or services? What guarantees that the upper quinttiles will actually spend and invest instead of hoarding cash, gold or goods/ things, likely overseas? In a governmental sense is becomes goods and services that are not able to be funded because they went to pay for other things. Think of something like the $400 hammer. The problem is you don't create nearly as much opportunity and efficiency with that money by wasting it all in one place, when the economic impact could have been felt all over the place. At the end of the day, there is nothing to guarantee anything, no matter what sort of stimulus is used. You can put money into a governmental program, but that doesn't mean people will utilize it. You can give people their own money back, but it doesn't mean they are going to spend it. At that point you are playing the statistics.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 12:02 PM) And a tax increase to pay for more government projects sends money back to the markets. Diverting those funds from an AMT tax cut (fwiw I personally disagree with the AMT and how its applied) to, say, energy infrastructure still results in money going back into the markets via spending and hopefully on something more beneficial than being parked in a money market or buying some luxury items. edit: expanding on what SS2k5 is saying, using that money for some sort of project instead of a tax cut ensures the money is spent on something instead of being hoarded. Actually the most effective stimulus from a true economic sense is cash (tax cuts) in the hands of the poorest quinttiles of the country. Because they have a negative savings rate, they spend everything. There isn't any waste, like there is in anything that involves governmental contracts (a factor usually estimated to eat up about 10% of funds involved), and there isn't any savings to diminish the multiplier. If you want actual job creation, the money has to go to the upper quinttiles who do all of the hiring in this country.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:36 AM) There's shooting for the moon and missing...and then there's that. It almost sounds like they are working on Major League Part IV, the Buffalo Bills.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 11:54 AM) For reference: Gavin Floyd signed his extension near the end of spring training last year; March 22nd. I am not privy to the numbers being kicked around by the camps, but it can't be a good thing that Danks is getting to the numbers exchange part of the arbitration process. If they were at all close, even just for one year, they wouldn't be here. The Sox just don't go to this point in the arbit process. Don't get me wrong, I hope this is just me reading too much into things, but between last years turning down of a long term deal, and this year with us getting to the salary exchange portion of arbit, I am not optimistic.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 10:39 AM) That which is not spent, is either invested, saved, or pays down debt. Only the last thing in that sentence is a vacuum economically. The rest have impact. Spent money has a much bigger impact, especially in a situation where banks aren't lending.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 11:42 AM) If we do, send D2 with him. I want them to stay together. We'd also have to be getting something pretty big to break up the Fab Four. At the end of the day, if it becomes evident that we are no where near each other in terms of John's long term viability in Chicago, the sooner he gets traded, the more Kenny can get for him. If John wants to stay here, great. But if he wants more money than we can afford, he needs to go while his price is still high. You can't lose a John Danks for a draft pick.

So in other words, the talks haven't gone very well if they are to this point. I would still not be surprised to see a Danks blockbuster deal happen in the next year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:35 AM) Only a matter of time. If they keep him for 5 more years, they most likely get his best years, and then one of those teams gives him a massive contract based on that. Hopefully if it does happen, he goes Carl Pavano on them.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 08:44 AM) Of course it did. Those people that are affected by the AMT are the biggest spenders in the economy. Putting cash in their hands means some of it will be spent, some of it invested. Both are good for the economy. I'm not going to get into the whole multiplier argument, because no one really knows how much of that would happen, but at the very least, it would do SOMETHING to help. It is not targeted, nor is it a direct job creator, so in that sense, its perhaps not the most efficient way to generate economic positives. But its false to say it "didn't have anything to do with economic stimulus". Be careful how you make that statement. In reality the further up the ladder you go, the less of a percentage of funds is spent at the respective tax brackets. Now job creation is a different story, because these ARE the classes that create jobs, because they are the ones who can afford to take the risk of starting a small business.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Jan 18, 2010 -> 06:19 PM) Yeah but that has always only been the Summer Olympics. The Winter Olympics the US is solid bot not dominant. To be fair, the Winter Olympics don't really matter...

QUOTE (danman31 @ Jan 18, 2010 -> 03:25 PM) K State is vastly overrated. Their best win is what? Dayton, Xavier, @ UNLV? Nothing top tier there. Losses to Ole Miss and at Missouri aren't great losses either. Yet K State is top 10 in the rankings, good thing rankings don't matter in basketball. Of course they host Texas tonight so this will be put to the test. ACC proved it's not in a good year after the Big Ten/ACC Challenge. Big 12 is probably a solid #2 in the conferences. Strike that one... It was a brutal game, but K State did it.

QUOTE (smalls2598 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 08:43 AM) "If the final parts of the negotiations continue as expected, Hernandez will sign a five-year, $80 million contract, sources told ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney." Awesome. Keep him in Seattle and out of NY or Boston.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 08:59 AM) Hey, since the Funniest Poster award has my name as a sub-title, does that mean I'm no longer eligible? Like Cy Young can't win the Cy Young Award, Lady Byng can't win the Lady Byng Trophy, and so on..... I'm just wondering, because aside from my dumb jokes I got nothing else to offer this site!!! Well both of them are dead so...

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:14 AM) apparently ahead of "get a DH that isn't awful" We have a set MLB time line to get these deals done.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:02 AM) But he's at best seemingly an average RF with the bat, with a sub-.800 OPS, and at worst a below average RF with the bat. You mean average with the glove, right?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 18, 2010 -> 11:59 PM) Yes but why sign a guy like Jones over Dye? Money? I think we could sign Dye on the relative cheap. Unless he'd be all upset and is bound and determined to play elsewhere. Dye turned down $3ish million from Texas. That means he is still looking for more money, and this is a month after the Sox signed Jones. How much is Dye looking for? $5 million? At that point you are talking about enough money that signed Jones, Putz, and Mark Kotsay. That's why they signed Jones. They had an entire bench essentially to build, plus a pen.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 18, 2010 -> 05:57 PM) Keep in mind also; the Sox are also on the hook for $6.25M worth of performance incentives in 2010 between Garcia, Jones and Putz. If we hit all of those, we win the division at least.