southsider2k5

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 04:50 AM) That price range in that area won't get you much. ^^ That is the honest to god truth. It is so expensive to eat downtown anymore. You are pretty much into casual dining and just above fastfood dining at that price range anymore. You might want to try the Lettuce entertain you restaraunts. http://www.leye.com/restaurants/search?zip...1&submit=Go

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 05:31 AM) Majewski and Biddle also had their moments in the sun. You can also include Aaron Myette, Josh Rupe, Kevin Beirne, Lorenzo Barcelo, Jason Stumm, Danny Wright, Jason Dellaero (well, he's going back a bit further)....then the failures of Honel and Corwin Malone and the bad drafts, Royce Ring comes to mind. All told, the biggest loss might be that of Frank Francisco (the chair thrower who went through a major surgery as well), who we got from the Red Sox for Howry and then traded as part of one of the Everett deals. More guys with major pitching arm injuries.

QUOTE (winninguglyin83 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 04:50 PM) jon Rauch wasn't worthy of being named the best prospect in the country and BAmerica's minor league player of the year. But he's become a decent relief pitcher. He'd look nice in our pen. in fact, other than Buehrle or Garland, he's had a better career than all the other young guys from that era -- Ginter, Parque, Wells, Purvis, Fogg and the rest of those scrappers. If Rauch doesn't hurt his shoulder, I don't think we are talking about him in the same vein.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 07:22 AM) I'm amazed at home much detailed bashing there is of a proposed program that's not even in its infancy stages. There are virtually no details in place for this yet so many in here are acting as if they have the entire blue print of what will be rolled out. Didn't we do this one already about 10 pages ago?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 03:53 PM) The right way to do this is to treat it like any other signing out of a latin american country. Give him a good sized signing bonus based on what you think his performance is, then put him in your system and try to develop him from there. That way, you still get the arbitration years on him and you still get 2 picks if an when he becomes good and walks as a FA. You don't think his agent will want a major league contract with a waiver similar to what the Japanese players usually get that allows them out of that process? His agent isn't going to allow him to be under the control of a team for 6 years.

For an incentive based deal with a small based salary, I would have no problems bringing Colon back, as long as his arm passed a physical.

How much do you think the Dow would go to at this point? http://www.cnbc.com/id/27641538

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 01:05 PM) There's an important thing to understand that's different with the early new deal though. The Early new deal wasn't financed in a Keynesian stimulus type way. They actually paid for all those public works programs through tax increases and other maneuvers like switching from the gold standard. A massive program to build wind and solar energy plants though, might be a wonderful public works investment. Good qualifier there. The problem is because of the shortsighted permanent status of these programs we are STILL paying for it today 75 years later.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 12:41 PM) Barney Frank says the White House will sign a $25 billion dollar auto aid package. (Bloomberg) Next up will be the steel and auto parts companies. To everyone who didn't want to buy a US car, you pretty much just did, except you aren't getting the car out of it.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 11:42 AM) I just had a 16 Oz prime rib last saturday. Im convinced that a man doesnt need silly plants in his diet Just remember, plants are what the meat eats.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 12:09 PM) Perhaps the crux of the debate becomes, if we have to spend that money to keep the economy on track, does it matter what we spend it on. For example, if we buy 3,000,000 uniforms for Troops, helping the textile industry, does it matter if they get worn or not? I keep hearing how the government has to keep spending, in fact they need to increase spending while cutting taxes, but unlike early in the New Deal, I don't see massive public works packages, or something that at least looks like an investment. We also don't have 25% unemployment. Well, not yet anyway.

QUOTE (juddling @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 11:30 AM) Funniest Obama headline ever......too funny ummm....Earth to CBS News.......he did that a LONG time ago....... What's left? A reacharound?

QUOTE (That funky motion @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 09:38 AM) Marte signs with the Yanks. 3 years 12 mil. That isn't going to end well...

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 11:57 AM) Anyone else getting tired of the kissing of the fans asses in the post game speech to the crowd after announcing the three stars of the game. Somehow the marketing of this team is getting to me a little. I am not sure if it is because I just think we are being treated like everyone is or what. The red carpet night and tributes to ex-players and all of the stuff. Even the skating around after the game and intermission coverage from the concourse with the doopy people in the background. The team itself is looking really good no need for the rest of that crap. Not at all. Too many pro athletes forget who is paying their salary.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 07:45 PM) Versteeg could win the Calder Trophy. He is in the top two of rookies in points and he seems to be a tremendous playmaker. What a stud out of nowhere! Skating with Kane and Toews sure helps. I'd almost be curious to see how he did on another line.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 10:49 AM) Outgoing head of CFTC is saying that the new administration would be best served by scrapping the existing CFTC, SEC and bank regluation agencies. He prefers a functional model (as opposed to the current instrument-segregated model) for regulation, creating three new agencies to replace all the current ones. Interesting read. I think I agree with him. I tell you people read Soxtalk, because I have been saying this for a long time. This is the only common sense way to regulate the financial sector.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) Actually, I'm not sure this is true. One of those additional 400 pages or whatever that they added to the 3 page document that Paulson originally requested was actually in there because there were quite a few economists out there who said "Paulson's plan isn't going to solve the problem, what you really need to do is recapitalize the banks by buying shares in them". So, based on this, in the final bill there was a clause inserted that said Paulson had the authority to do exactly this if he wanted to, because enough people were saying Paulson's original plan was stupid and this would work better. And now, a couple weeks later, Paulson himself is realizing his original plan was stupid and is doing it the right way, and Congress left him a door to do that if he wanted to. Paulson isn't stupid. My guess is that they knew this all along, but didn't have the votes to get it done if they did it this way orignially. That's why the door was left there in the first place.

"stupid day Job" Wally Pleasant.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 09:40 AM) With my admittedly limited economic knowledge here I would guess that Greenspan had a s***-ton more leverage in situations like that than Clinton ever did, no? I mean, unless Clinton pushes some major initiative I don't see what he could do, the market is still going to do what it wants. Same as Bush. Greenspan had the tools of the federal reserve bank in front of him, which are very limited when it comes to the stock market. Most of that falls under the SEC, which is under the Presidents realm of control. This housing/banking crisis the Fed bank had a lot more control over. In either case the President could actually have done something. The dangers were visable on the horizon if you knew what you were looking for.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 09:35 AM) my point here, is that everyone (recently conservatives) want to blame Clinton for everything that went wrong with the economy. Following their logic, the 1991 recession would either have to be GHW Bush's fault or Reagan's fault... both options, which would be unacceptable to them because it had to be a Democrat's fault. it's just a harsh way of logic/reasoning. personally, I agree with some of the other posters in this. The President themselves have a minor impact on all of this. If its anyone in governments fault (which we can certainly debate) its the legislative branches. The 1991 recession IS Bush's fault, as the 2001 recession IS Clinton's fault, as this recession is GW Bush's fault. You really should leave the partisian stuff out of it, because it isn't that complex on an economic level.

I got to thinking about this a bit, and maybe an example of something would help people understand why the bailout is going the way that is it is going. The first thing to put out there is the reserve ratios. The Federal Reserve sets down a percentage of deposits that a bank is allowed to lend. A long, long time ago, when I was in college this was 80%. So for every $100 in deposits or reserves a bank has, they can lend out $80, and they have to keep $20 as a reserve to ensure their liquidity. The second big thing at play here is mark to market accounting. The Sarbanes Oxley legislation to prevent another Enron scenario dictates that at any moment a company be able to quantify its assets valuations. Most of the time this is easy, but in some cases where there is no liquid marketplace for assets to give a comperable valuation, it gets sketchy. These two things are simple enough on the surface and by themselves. What makes things interesting is when you take these two simple things and start to apply them to real world situations, and even combine the two rules as banks have to follow. The first thing is a bank run. Take the IndyMac/Chuck Shumer situation. Shumer went out and questioned the ability of IndyMac to be able to exist. After this point customers afraid for their deposits safety, go to their local banks and take their money out. Keep in mind the bank already has a set amount of loans out to the public. Now if their amount of deposits falls below that acceptable ratio, this bank is deemed to be insolvent and is closed for business and taken over the federal reserve bank. Usually they find another bank to "take it over", and there is a seemless transition into another bank owning the failed company. The next one that gets interesting is when SOX and the reserve requirements meet each other. Say a bank has a billion dollars in deposits, and with an 80% reserve requirement has made $750 million in loans. So they are sitting with a 75% reserve, or 5%/$50million over minimum requirements. SOX comes in where the valuations of those loans comes into play. Take this housing crisis where the value of houses has fallen steeply in many places. For examples sake, say that this banks loan portfolio which was valued at $750 million drops in value 40% to $450 million. That drop has to be covered by assets in the bank. Now instead of a $50 million cushion, the bank is deemed to only have reserves of $700 million (the $250 in cash still, plus the $450 million valuation of the loan portfolio. This bank is now considered insolvent by the reserve requirements, as it now only has 70% in reserves and it has failed. This is why you see the TARP money going to shore up capital ratios first, before lending is being done. They have to shore up their reserves to make up for the drop in value of their loan portfolio. Another interesting thing at play here is the stock prices of these companies. Stock prices are a direct statement what the market feels is the future value of the earnings a company is going to take in. If a banks stock price starts to fall into the "penny stock" (under $5 per share), or even worse into delisting territory (Under $1) a share, companies and individuals are NOT going to do business with this bank, as the market is pretty directly saying that they feel this company is headed towards a potential bankruptcy. Not only does this start to affect the levels of deposits on hand, (people will withdraw money from a bank they feel is about to fail) but it also has a large effect on the costs of doing business for this bank. Their credit rating starts to slide because people aren't going to lend at prime rates to a bankruptcy candidate. The increase in interest costs is a direct bleed of cash out of the banks, which is why companies are doing things like stock buybacks and paying dividends out of this TARP money. The stock prices are ultra-important to their future existance. Hopefully this helps to clear up some of the common misconceptions about what is going on here. It isn't as simple as many of the pundits are making it out to be. I know I sound like a shill for bad business and government at times, but there are very good reasons for what you see taking place here. Maybe a little fundimental knowledge will help to clear up what you are seeing here. Let me know if this makes sense or there are any questions.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 12:22 AM) There were numerous people discussing that Viciedo could start at 3rd, or at least compete for the job. Cheat posted quite the interesting list over at SSS. Are you really confident Viciedo can be added to this list? Really? Without any of us having ever seen the kid play, there is no way of answering that. Really he has to be brought to Spring Training by a team and checked to see what he can do. That is the only way we can know for sure.

If Poreda gives us what Jeff Samardzija did the Cubs last year, I will be thrilled. That is potential closer material.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 06:30 PM) That would qualify both Bush and Clinton then, but Clinton's was pretty mild and I don't even know how he could've stopped it really. I was too young to know about Reagan and Bush 41 and what caused it. And Bush didn't really have the authority to stop the housing bubble either. Alan Greenspan tried his damnedest to try to stop the stock market bubble, both publicly and privately. Clinton didn't do anything. This recession is absolutely blamed on Bush as much as it can be, just like the 2001 recession is blamed on Clinton. The samething basically happened in the housing market as did the stock market. Bush could have moved to do somethings, but didn't want to be viewed as the one who killed the golden goose, just like Clinton with the stock market. There is also Congressional blame of varying degrees in both situations, but we can go into that in another thread. I know it doesn't jive with everyone's hyperpartisian rationale for blaming the others, but I don't see things in that same light. I see them economically.