southsider2k5

I think Brandon will still have a very good major league career, but in the long run the combination of both Massett and Danks is better than McCarthy. If Danks has turned the corner on pitch count, Danks versus BMac could be a wash, with Massett being the gravy.

It sounds like Sheffield and Granderson (obviously) will be out for the series, and Cabrera for at least the first game... this is a good help!

Then why is this thread full of polls?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 3, 2008 -> 04:35 PM) I guess I don't see the Clintons' claim that he is not as electable. More money, more delegates, more states, and more votes. Sounds like a losing combination. Technically the polls support her http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/polit...ain_unique.html

QUOTE(scenario @ Apr 3, 2008 -> 06:13 PM) Absolutely. These are players that are likely to start hitting fans radar screens this year. I'd keep an eye on Brandon Allen too. He's still young and he took big developmental steps last year. Last year, Great Falls and Kannapolis (in that order) were my favorite teams in the system. This year, I'm guessing it will be Winston-Salem 1st, and then Kanny 2nd. Brandon Allen is right out of the Josh Fields/Adam Dunn mold, but he HAS to cut down on strikeouts to really start to move up.

QUOTE(almagest @ Apr 3, 2008 -> 02:30 PM) Yep. It's a little worrisome to me that he's tiring after 80 pitches, but he's still pretty young and it's only his second MLB season. I think it's going to be really important to try to keep him around 90 pitches or so a game this year, so he can build up stamina gradually, and to keep his confidence high. It's also really obvious that he's going to have to have very good control to keep his pitch count low, otherwise he'll be gone after 5 almost every game. It doesn't bother me in April. Most of these guys are at 100 pitches tops, and Danks is a guy who hasn't been at 180 IP in a season yet. He isn't going to be like MB who can go 120 if he needs to.

QUOTE(almagest @ Apr 3, 2008 -> 02:05 PM) Stone said Danks looked tired, and was starting to leave the ball up. It was a good idea to get him outta there. Yeah, you definately wanted to make sure the kid didn't lose that game. You had to build his confidence and leave him on as high of a note as possible.

John f***ing Danks I love the new efficient Danks!

I haven't seen the game, but based off gameday Danks must be looking really nice. 45 pitches through 4 IP, means he must really be listening to Buehrle on the bench.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Apr 3, 2008 -> 08:45 AM) Is there any doubt that Alexei should be the one to go to AAA? He's not ready. Both Quentin and BA should be in the lineup today I said in spring training that this kid was going to end up being one of the most hated people on the team. Forget "Cuban Missile", they need to start calling him Cerrano. He needs some time in the minors flailing at junk.

We need John-boy to really step up today...

Welcome to the workplace old man, and happy birthday!

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 04:25 PM) The laws should be changed. Here is an example - if you so thoroughly screw up your company, as a C-level executive, that the government has to step in and spend money, then guess what? All compensation you receive after that point is subject to seizure by the government to cover the costs of your mistakes. You also would be subject to lawsuits by employees and shareholders effected by your decisions (which is already partially true). Any stocks, options or phantom shares you hold are subject to same. Now, that doesn't cover everything, but its a start. You could also lace this in with bankruptcies. Backruptcy law should put executive compensation beyond existing pure-salary levels at the very bottom of the pay-of pile if a company enters bankruptcy. Two things. I would like to see that law done to cover strictly illegal acts. If mistakes are made in good faith, I have a hard time taking away compensation. Second, if you remove compensation for companies in bankruptcy, they will never come out. Ask Kap how hard it is to entice execs to work at a company in bankruptcy, he knows. You have to pay A LOT more because of the condition of the company. Its kinda like trying to attract a free agent to play for a bad baseball team. You have to overpay. You would be sealing companies to a fate of liquidation with that law.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 10:43 AM) <!--quoteo(post=1599641:date=Apr 2, 2008 -> 07:15 AM:name=NorthSideSox72)-->QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 07:15 AM) <!--quotec-->I think you guys have to seperate the executives who run the firms and the firms themselves as entities. The firms employ thousands not to mention provide liquidity and stability to the markets - they need to have a safety net. The executives who leapt off the buildings, on the other hand, need to be held accountable. Steven nails it. Your house is going in to foreclosure and the government won't bail you out? Go buy a house worth about $10 billion, so that if your house goes under, the fed will have to bail you out because its so big that it provides a major impact on the economy. We are quoting comedians now for economic policy? I can't wait to throw in some George Carlin in the envoirnment thread! Anyways, the even implication that some how the private person is out on their own when it comes to buying a house is freaking laughable. The government is involved in so many steps along the way to hold people's hand, it isn't even funny. Starting with the most obvious, HUD, who has programs for everything from being spoonfed the information in your mortgage, to grants for your first house, to getting a subisidized HUD house in your area, to how to sell your house. Then there is all of the government mandates closing steps, which turns closing on a house into a day long event with each page of paperwork explained to you ad nasuem, which still doesn't seem to help most people (wait my ADJUSTABLE rate mortgage can go up???). After that there are the tax deductions for your interest paid on your mortgage, and the property tax credit for your main residence. The sad thing is that I KNOW I am forgetting stuff here... But the main point is that there are TONS of safety nets that have existed for a long time here in the US. We hold people's hands along every step of the homeownership process, and still people don't get it. I don't know if we need to get a governmental agency in charge of smacking people's hands and yelling "no" like my mom used to when I tried grabbing stuff I didn't need in the store as a kid, but there is so much stuff out there now, I don't see the need for more. If you really want to stay out of trouble, you can do it, pretty much unless you are too lazy to seek out help.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 09:30 PM) Lyke OMGZ Tyrus tHoMaS for MVPPPPP!!!!1 He needs to learn to be a starting pitcher, that was he can show up once a week like he has been all season long...

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 04:25 PM) Huckabee doesn't really help McCain much IMO. The base will be fired up enough to vote against Obama. FOX news (and I suspect talk radio) has been non-stop Obama bashing for weeks now, and I don't see them stopping anytime soon. FOX and talk radio are pretty much what convinced neo-cons that they were the true conservatives and that they shouldn't support McCain. Now that Hannity and such are supporting McCain I would expect the true conservatives to be all for McCain. McCain should take a VP that is strong on the economy. Or someone that is totally rich and can buy tons of TV ads. I think McCain might go with Romney. The Sneed rumor in the ST today is that Rove really wants Romney on the ticket. Yuck.

Crist would also seem to be a favorite.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 02:43 PM) Quick thoughts: Who will McCain pick for VP? Mike Huckabee is my guess if Obama is the pick for the Dems. They need a real southern conservative righty to balance out the ticket.

I like the article a lot, except he does't really make the point that hasn't been made, and that is McCain never said we would be AT WAR for 100 years. He even sited examples like Korea and Germany, where there hasn't been a shot fired for over a half century. That still doesn't get the quote not used as something that was never said. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ope...0,4349671.story

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 01:46 PM) In your opinion, is more government regulation the way to go here? Not more, smarter. Currently we have a governmental agency for pretty much each piece of the financial sector, and they do not work with each other at all. The reality of the 21st century is that pretty much all of these things are intermingaled. Instead of having regulating bodies for stocks, another for options, another for futures, another for banking, another for mortgages etc, there needs to be one central agency to oversee all of this, and be nimble enough to manage the whole system. In my opinion it is something that probably should be a tool of the Federal Reserve Bank, as they are pretty much the overseers of the economy now anyway.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 08:56 AM) I think you guys have to seperate the executives who run the firms and the firms themselves as entities. The firms employ thousands not to mention provide liquidity and stability to the markets - they need to have a safety net. The executives who leapt off the buildings, on the other hand, need to be held accountable. Bingo. You can't think of the macro and micro in the same frame of mind. In the micro sense, there are banks and companies that need to go under. In the macro sense you HAVE to protect the banking system. Look no further than the Great Depression to understand why. The banking sector dried up, and all loaning completely stopped. There was no liquidity in the system, and it literally took the government spending, not of the publics works projects, but of WWII to really get things going again.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 09:13 PM) Wouldn't it be entertaining to find out? I'll give the standard, boiler plate, communist democrat answer on this one for now. If these financial institutions and investment banks are going to be bailed out by the taxpayer like banks, then they ought to be regulated like banks, have similar disclosure requirements to banks, be required to provide some measure of funding for insurance like banks, etc. Being very familiar with this stuff, it is coming. There is a real push to get ALL financial institiutions regulated by one government sector. The system we have now is from the 1930's and obvious doesn't work. Its a real mess.

Can we change this thread title to the Obama Cheerleading thread? There isn't even a hint of objectivity left here...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 04:34 PM) According to CNBC, the Treasury Secretary told the NY Fed Chair that the Treasury Department would in essence take care of any losses that the Federal Reserve took on the Bear Sterns bailout package. So there you have it. When you take out a bad mortgage and lose your house, I'm sorry, there's nothing we can do. When you run a company in to the ground, don't worry, the taxpayers will take care of it, feel free to move on and run a couple other companies in to the ground. As long as you sell your stock when the price is high, you're set. Would you rather see the banking sector go under?

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 04:24 PM) Greatly appreciated. Thanks much. No prob... Anyone else still check their change for things like wheat pennies or new quarters? I was excited I got my first 2008 coins today.