iamshack

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 03:04 PM) Kenny Powers on Tim Tebow It's really funny if you read it in his voice. Hah, the paragraph about Jesus hooking Kenny and Tebow up is priceless.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) Have you ever signed an employment contract? Did it tell you exactly what you had to do everyday? Some do, some don't. When you reach a high executive level, they absolutely do list your title on them.

You two are something else. First of all, we both know Jerry is a tear up the contract and let's work this out like men kind of guy...so what it said in the contract doesn't mean crap unless it really favored whatever Jerry wanted, such as terminating KW's employment. Secondly, we both know Kenny knew Jerry wasn't going to ask him to be a scout until he (Jerry) sees how Kenny's team fares without a lunatic at the helm.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 01:25 PM) Apparently it probably isn't even enough to sign a Cuban to pitch for Kannapolis, but it would be significant I would think for KW, especially since he probably would have to accept a lesser role with another organization since GM jobs are really limited and he has made some questionable moves lately. KW knew as I know and you know and everyone else knows, if JR didn't want KW to be the GM, he wouldn't be the GM. So it was pretty obvious how he would respond to KW's offer. I agree with that. My guess is it was a gesture on the part of Kenny to reassure himself that he was still wanted by Jerry. I am sure he is a little ashamed at how this entire thing with OG has played out after the last 18 months or so.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) Yes I do. Its in his contract. And for the 3rd time, he didn't offer to resign. He offered to switch positions. If he offered to resign, and JR accepted, he'd be out some money. If he switched positions, he still gets paid, and if the White Sox fire him he gets one year severance, something he would also be out of if he resigned. Kenny's salary probably wouldn't play a big role in determining whether he was the guy you wanted to keep his job or not.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 01:30 PM) Pretty much what Jenks said. I'd DVR it. That is, unless you have a ton of other stuff you're trying to catch up on. Nah...I'll throw it on there...just have to find out when they are rebroadcasting the pilot episode again

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 11:00 AM) These comparisons to the draft are ridiculous. Strasburg & Harper weren't free agents, so comparing them to free agents makes zero sense. Strasberg easily would have gotten Darvish money if he were available to the highest bidder, but instead being subject to the draft limited him to $15 million. That in no way, shape, or form reflects his real value. So please stop comparing what guys on the open market cost relative to guys in a restricted market. What would you compare them to? MLB Free Agents? When you start talking numbers like $50-60 million for players that are coming out of leagues that are that equivalent of A or AA ball, that is just bats*** crazy. You raise a fair point in regards to the restricted market, but if the market is truly THAT devoid of talent that teams are willing to pay $50-75 million for top international talent, than one would expect to see vast increases in spending on the draft, as well as more positioning done in regards to acquiring draft picks (have a lot of the FA compensation rules been removed in the new CBA?).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 10:44 AM) I've been watching Ken Burns' National Parks docu and planning a trip to Yosemite lately, so this really struck a cord with me. Yosemite was seriously mismanaged by the state of California. edit: honestly, if they were trying to turn over the national parks to private ownership, I'd be right there with the rest of the protesters. Yeah, that is a great series. I have had it on my dvr for 2+ years now. I think I'd be right there with you protesting...I'm just saying the whole scenario would be a mess.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 11:31 AM) It would ostensibly be about decentralization of power like other states' rights arguments, but it would just so happen to benefit commercial interests at the expense of everyone else. And you know once the first state stuck their toe in this water and survived the PR hit the rest of them would eventually follow...then the protesters would arrive...oh, what a mess this would be... Sometimes people need to be saved from themselves...this would be one such instance.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 11:23 AM) Turn them over to the states who could do with them as they please. This could mean maintaining a state park or selling or leasing the land for development. The Grand Canyon was almost leased for mining rights several times, and many states have sold off state parks in recent years to combat budget deficits. And what would the upside of this be? Other than just decentralization of power?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 09:58 AM) Paul wants to eliminate federally held public land, which would include the entire national parks system. ugh What we do with them? Private sales?

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 10:33 AM) I just think you have to build with the draft. I think the load up with free agents and try and win one year stuff never works. Absolutely. But I don't think there is anything wrong with filling specific or overwhelming needs through FA. The Bears have been very good at managing the cap over the course of the last five years or so. If there is one area where I trust them, this is it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 09:22 AM) Not exactly ice caps and water levels but something demonstrating the accuracy of climate models. Very interesting. Thanks.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 10:11 AM) There are a couple different kinds of questions in your list though...a couple of them are economics questions, the bolded one is the science question. We've been putting out answers to that question for > a decade now, and the error bars have been getting narrower and narrower as data gets better and as alternative hyptheses are tested and understood. I can disagree with people who say that there are other solutions, that we should focus more on nuclear, etc., but that is a fundamentally different disagreement from me going after you and NSS, or SS going after the WSJ, for statements about how we don't know what all is involved. That is a question we have answered to within really good margins of error, and everything within the margin of error right now would be "Really bad for hundreds of millions of people". So where are the posts challenging any of you on this? When you or SS posts some global warming piece, very rarely, if ever, do I see anyone challenging the veracity of the GW or CC concept. I may pop in here to ask some questions because I legitimately do find the topic fascinating, and I don't really believe the ALARMIST! viewpoint is very fruitful, but it's not like the folks among us on the right are in here debating whether these concepts exist.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 10:08 AM) There's absolutely good discussion to be held over policy response to a major issue, but this is distinctly different from the complete denial of the simple existence of the issue. GOP politicians and pundits do not hesitate to call the entire concept of AGW a "hoax." The entire point of the WSJ and Daily Mail articles is to deny the very existence of a global warming problem. The WSJ seems to me, anyways, to be challenging just exactly what to do about the problem. Again, to me, this is a legitimate question.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 08:38 AM) He never offered to resign. He offered to take a lesser role, and I imagine the way his contract is set up, it doesn't mean taking a paycut. He knew JR would say no. He's a phony that way. He also said last year if his bump in payroll didn't result in more wins and higher attendance, his employment was on the line. All false, soundbite garbage that he knows isn't true. Just like you finally came around and realized Ozzie really wasn't the baseball God you assumed for years, you will realize someday that even Joe Cowley isn't totally wrong about KW. He's not objective or fair, but he's not totally wrong about this particular subject. There is a lot of phoniness with KW. A lot. You know, if you're just negative about everything, it's much easier, since you only have to admit you're wrong when things are going well. Must be nice. Additionally, I'd love to hear the s*** you'd say if you always had to comment to the press about things outside of your control. You'd be made to sound the fool or phony if I bothered to put together your greatest hits from soxtalk over the years as well.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 09:47 AM) The point is that there's no legitimate, good-faith debate over the issue. When I said ignorance before, I knew it could come across as a slight, but it really isn't meant to be. Each and every one of us is ignorant about a great many things and don't have time to study much of anything in great detail. That's precisely why such dishonesty on the part of denialists is dangerous--the general public isn't going to see much beyond the headline-type information, they're never going to see the detailed rebuttals. I'd like to note that this is, similar to creationism, uniquely an American problem. It's not just about the WSJ editorial but the ongoing battle against disinformation. Also boredom and a slow period at work. But there is a good faith debate over the issue. Yes, I believe that human behavior has an effect on the climate of the Earth. Beyond that, there are all kinds of things to debate. What should we do? What is the most cost-effective manner in which to act? How much of what humans are doing is causing the problem and how much are other factors involved? Can we actually cause a dramatic shift in human behavior? If we did, is it too late? What kinds of new businesses/industries would be created/enhanced? And on and on and on...

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 08:56 PM) I'm liking The River so far. Aww s***, I forgot since I don't watch much ABC...is it worth DVRing? I see one of the creators is Oren Peli, the guy who did Paranormal Activity. Not sure if I think that is good or bad, honestly.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 08:25 AM) Great. Now can you give me some evidence to back this up? What level of system can we understand well and what level of system complexity does our understanding/ability to isolate key variables fail? Have you been able to accurately predict the speed at which climate change or global warming or agw has affected the polar ice caps and rising water levels?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 06:16 AM) No, you continue to miss that there are not two co-equal sides worthy of presentation. The anti-agw side has no more to present on the actual scientific merits than creationism or geocentricism. This isn't people who "happen" to be on the denialist side, it is the core of denialism. I'm not saying that they don't have a first amendment right to be wrong and to publish it, or that no science potentially critical of agw should be performed, but that we need to recognize denialism for what it is-unsupported propaganda. Trying to have an uninformed public decide the "truth" when one side is largely scientists not concerned with PR and the other side is entirely PR is asking for failure. Here is the result of "let both sides present:" actual scientists accept AGW by an overwhelming majority while the general public does so only by a very slim majority. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97...ologists_ag.php edit: maybe we're talking past each other. I'm not referring to discussions of policy over what, if anything, should be done by the government. I'm referring to the base-level acceptance of the reality and the impact of AGW. You can't get to policy discussions when you can't get past step 1. AFAIK the GOP is the only major political party in the Western world that actively denies climate science and has many of its members refer to it as a "hoax" What does this matter? I keep seeing you refer to this? Since when do opposing sides of an argument require "co-equal sides worthy of presentation" in order for me to be able to discuss the issue? Secondly, what do you expect the general public to believe? You're comparing what scientists, who study this for a living, versus people who are focused on not getting their homes foreclosed on and keeping their jobs, and you're talking about rising water levels in the year 2050, what do you honestly expect them to put more of a priority on? I'm not saying it's right or fair, but it's what the general public does. They don't change until necessity whacks them in the jaw. You and Balta keep posting this stuff in here as if you're facing this massive resistance every day. You've been fighting this battle against the WSJ editorial pages for a week against no adversary. What is your point?

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 08:51 AM) So is Bowe. Drops too many passes and takes plays off. Also doesn't like going over the middle. He's a great talent, but he can also be frustrating. Yeah but with Bowe at least you get the big plays and touchdowns fairly regularly, whereas with Manningham, he's just not on that same level. Additionally, I'd love to see Bowe with a better qb...I can see why he would take some plays off over the last few years...

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 07:50 PM) I'm thinking you are correct. If Cespedes gets anything near $50 million, I'm thinking Soler gets around $30 million. Considering the Sox owe Rios $38.5 million, those prices are staggering IMO. Even if the Sox miss on both, I hope their figures are much smaller. Giving these guys all that money just gives guys like Boras more ammo. I refuse to believe these numbers are correct. If they are, teams are just stupid. The Red Sox are stupid for paying Matsuzaka what they did. The Rangers are stupid for paying Darvish what they did. If Cespedes gets $50 million as basically the equivalent of a #1 draft pick...think about that....Strasburg got $15.1 million...Harper got $9.9 million...and you're going to pay Cespedes $50 million and Soler $20-30 million? Come on...these numbers are outrageous. I still think Cespedes ends up in the $32-35 million range and Soler comes in around where Dayan's contract did.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 07:44 AM) There are some decent secondary names, although no guy who will score like the CB did last year. CB Brent Grimes – ATL Lardarius Webb – BAL ® Zackary Bowman – CHI Tim Jennings – CHI Rashean Mathis – JAC Brandon Carr – KC (the guy all the Bears fans are hoping they franchise) Randall Gay – NO Tracy Porter – NO Terrell Thomas – NYG Marcus Trufant – SEA Carlos Rogers – SF (indicated a willingness to stay in SF) Cortland Finnegan – TEN S Brandon Meriweather – CHI James Sanders – ATL Tom Zbikowski – BAL Tyvon Branch – OAK Dashon Goldson – SF Michael Griffin -TEN LaRon Landry – WAS Jordan Babineaux – TEN If the Cowboys have the money to spend, they could add some decent talent at those positions, and maybe even take a gamble on a guy like Meriweather who is coming off a really down year but who has been a pro-bowler in the past. I'd like to sign re-sign Jennings..what are expectations of Finnegan and Landry? Can't imagine the Skins letting Landry go...

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 10:38 PM) Good chance Bowe is available too. The Chiefs have to choose between him and Brandon Carr for the franchise tag. I want Bowe badly...he and Cutler will be every bit as good a tandem as Cutler and Marshall back in Denver. I don't have any desire whatsoever to sign Manningham...he's just too inconsistent.

So yesterday I went to a local butcher because I was picking up 40 pounds of chicken necks...when I went to pick him up, he told me about some other products they offer. They make something themselves they call "dog food," which is ground beef with beef organs such as hearts and livers, as well as bone meal, which is basically ground bone. They told me they would sell it to me in bulk for $1.39 lb, which I am absolutely stoked about. I can make this the base of my dog's diet at about 1/2 the price of what I am currently buying, and use the green tripe and other more expensive products I am currently buying to supplement this. Kyle, they also sold femur bones for $1.39 lb and marrow bones for $3.69 lb. Some of these femur bones and chicken and turkey necks could definitely do the trick on your bassets, at least in the future. This adds up to about $56 for 40 lbs of food, which is about half what I was paying to get shipped in to me. This morning I added some of the bone meal to their regular food and they absolutely loved it.