hawksfan61

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Feb 2, 2009 -> 09:16 PM) Angelo thrives in the second round and on. It's usually where he does very, very well. (though the past couple seasons there have been more misses than hit) Other than Olsen (which was an obvious pick) and of course Urlacher, etc.. our first round picks are usually... ill be nice... not good/or bust. Urlacher was a Mark Hatley pick

That's not bad for a guy that can play 3 IF positions fairly well and has a little pop in his bat. I am a little shocked he couldn't at least get a guaranteed contract somewhere.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 05:25 AM) I think some people missed my point about the USPS. First, for SOME of its business, it is absolutely a monopoly. Obviously, if you are talking about shipping packages of some significant size, or express services, they have competition. For letter mail, there is zero real competition. And for BOTH those scenarios, it makes no sense for the USPS to advertise, or to run up budget shortfalls. None. In the letter mail (and junk mail - its biggest business) categories, if the costs doesn't cover their costs, then you raise the cost. That simple. In the express or package areas, since there are multiple private competitors, there is no reason for USPS to even exist in that space. So either way, them spending money on advertising, and running up budget holes, is just a waste of money. And by the way, I didn't say (I don't think) that the USPS was bloated. In fact, I specifically didn't get into the efficiency issue, as I know nothing about that at USPS. I said that their pricing should be set to match up with its operating costs, and that its operating costs should not include advertising. I stand by my sentiment here. The USPS advertising budget is 100% waste, their pricing needs to match operational costs per task, and they need to get away from the mentality of competing in multi-private entity spaces. Kapkomet may have more insight to this seeing as he has worked on the business side, but the impression I have been given is that the package aspect of their business is what makes them money, not letters. Bulk/Junk mail accounts for a significant source or their revenue, but that and letters alone will not allow them to ever turn a profit. They will forever be suckling at the teat of the federal government that way. I don't disagree that perhaps their advertising budget is excessive, but the point is up until recently they made money, even with that advertising budget. Of course with the economy the way it is now perhaps it is time for them to explore getting rid of some of that advertising, but I highly doubt you will ever see the post office get out of the package business.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 12:05 AM) The USPS is not feasible, thats why the government funds it the way they do. It's really no different than Amtrak. The USPS is nothing like Amtrak. Amtrak has never been able to operate without being subsidized by the government. Up until very recently, the post office turned a profit every year, despite being mandated to be revenue neutral.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 08:12 PM) I need to choose my words carefully about this subject. They aren't THAT bloated, but there's some places where it's pretty fat. They are kind of a government agency, although technically they have been de-coupled from government legally for a little while now, a certain amount of bloating is assumed

QUOTE (whitesoxbrian @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 08:44 PM) Speaking of FA, I'd be willing to, with around $14 million in cap room, to give Havlat a 1 year deal worth about $3 and go hard after Hossa, maybe a 5 year $40 million deal like Malkin got. Be prepared to lose Kane or Toews if you are going to throw 8 million per for multiple years at Hossa. As it stands now the Hawks are carrying one bloated contract into the future with Campbell, and that will cost us Keith. You can't hand out another one to Hossa and expect to keep Toews and Kane, its pretty much impossible to carry 4 huge contracts and still have a competitive team.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 06:58 PM) I've also worked extensively for the USPS and done some heavy contract analysis for business done with them (especially Christmas, called CNET) HASP, WNET, etc. It's not as bloated as you would think. I'll leave it at that. I don't doubt for a second they aren't that bloated. They have tons of employees and thousands of facilites, but its because they handle an enourmous volume of mail. I had a negative view of the post office before I got a look behind the scenes.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 04:09 PM) I'm actually of the same opinion that Tressel is and that is if a player is going to get first round money, you should support them and recommend they leave. Agree 100%, especially in football. Mark Sanchez could blow out his knee against Oregon next year and never play football again, which amounts to losing tens of millions of dollars. But hey, at least then Pete Carroll would approve of his decision to come back for that all important 5th year!

I have done a lot of work for the post office, more on the technical side, but its pretty interesting to get a glimpse into their operations. The post office has generally turned a profit, outside of the last year or two with the explosion of fuel costs which has greatly impacted their operations. They make their hay off of bulk mail and packages, on that Christmas card to Grandma I can almost guarantee their losing. I have been in a lot of USPS facilities, and I don't think most people realize how big an agency it really is and how many people they employ. They are one of the few "government" institutions that I don't think could be beat by private enterprise in the cost effectiveness and quality of their service. UPS may be great at delivering my stuff from Amazon, but something tells me they could be a lot less efficient at delivering my Aunt's birthday card.

QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 02:50 PM) Well Pete Carroll knows a little thing about football and he has gotten plenty of kids to the NFL, so thats who he is to criticize. Also most scouts believe that Sanchez would benefit greatly by spending another year in college too. Carroll is still a douche for pulling what he did. A guy spends four years at your school/program, gives you a year of very good play, and decides he wants to go pro and your response is to act like a baby and s*** all over his news conference? Pete is just upset because he is not used to seeing his QBs leave early, and this puts a big dent in their plans for next year because they have no one on the roster with any real playing experience at the QB position. He can doubt Sanchez's decision all he wants, but he should do it behind closed doors and not in front of the media at the press conference Sanchez called to announce he is going pro.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 07:30 PM) No it's not. Look at the Hall Of Fame. There's plenty of mediocrity in there. Jeff Kent is a Hall Of Famer. I hate this line of thinking when it comes to the hall of fame. Just because Bill Mazeroski is in the hall of fame doesn't mean every good player that comes up automatically gets in. Mistakes made in the past shouldn't continue to be compounded by letting weak candidates like Jeff Kent in.

QUOTE (bschmaranz @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 08:47 PM) He's not a first ballot guy but he'll get in. One of the best offensive 2B to ever play the game. Kent is not a hall of famer in my mind, but I can see a case for him being made and I think his candidacy will be very interesting. He put up some nice offensive numbers, but was a brutal defensive player. He was not the best player at his position for a 7-10 year period, he has one underserved MVP award, no championships, 5 all star appearances, not to mention a massive tool. Roberto Alomar was the second baseman of his generation, and in my mind Kent doesn't even come close to him.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 04:55 PM) He controls who gets to run for office, so it is stretch to call it a democracy IMO. He just disqualifies anyone who doesn't trumpet what he wants to hear. This. The Ayatollah controls the military, the media, appoints all relevant members of the judicial branch, and chooses who gets to be on the council that decides who can run for office. He is a dictator in everything but name. Ahmadinejad is simply a puppet of the Supreme Leader. Bear in mind all this is controlled by a complete religious fanatic. If that doesn't scream democracy I don't know what does.......

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 03:44 PM) Iran attacking the US in a state-on-state conflict is not what we're worried about though. I suspect that he isn't worried about them attacking Israel in a state-on-state conflict either, but judging by Iran's unrelenting support of Hamas and Hezbollah it probably is something that a lot of people are a little worried about. Calling Iran a democracy is a bit of a stretch as well. Somehow I doubt the Ayatollah was put into power through free and transparent elections.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 03:07 PM) Can you show me a link that compares the two programs? I would've love to skip being FORCED to take a non-western and a western class. I wish I would've been forced to do an internship as an undergrad instead of taking humanities classes. Now as a professional I see how much more an internship benefits the young professional, and like to work with recent grads in fitting in. Today I was asked to help out an intern from Germany next March. I didn't do a summer intership or co-op a semester while in college and kinda regret it. Completely agree. I was able to opt out of most humanities/liberal arts courses because I had the credit going in due to AP's, but the ones I did take I would have gladly traded for an internship. Engineering course work, unless you are going in to some sort of research, does not prepare you that well for work in the design/construction industry. Now I certainly don't think liberal arts courses are worthless, but my writing/communications skills were developed in high school and by labs/discussions in college, not by writing a ten page paper on constitutional law.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 01:57 PM) I've seen that before, except in a toilet. Hilarity ensued. I know more than one person who has pulled this one off without even having anything in them. The lesson is, don't talk on the phone while your dropping some friends off at the pool.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 02:29 PM) Moose pointed some fingers and burned a bridge or two when he left no doubt, but I honestly saw him as the only real leadership presence on the offensive side of the ball. He just looked completely washed up in '07 though and he obviously wasn't. Running your mouth to the press does not make you a leader. Moose is a me-first assclown, for some reason its a quality that a lot of receivers seem to have. Like Kyle said right above me, there was a lot of talk about Moose leading a revolt in the locker room. Overall his time here was very disappointing, because I was very excited when he was brought in. The Bears had finally attempted to bring in our first real playmaker since M-Rob, and he stunk the joint up. What makes it worse is that some of it seemed to be due to a lack of effort on his part, not just an erosion of skills.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 10:41 AM) Mark Bradley fell into that category. Also I want to add Muhsin Muhammad to this list. When he was here, in '07, fans were talking about how he was washed up etc. and it looked like it because he was never getting open, or anything. But then he goes back to Carolina and viola, he has a year as good as or better than any year he's ever had here. It's been a consistent pattern. The only WR that ever did anything in Chicago was Berrian. Some of this is due to the QB situation, but it's a problem even when there's relative stability at the position. I won't hang Moose on the team. A lot of guys look good with Steve Smith lining up on the other side of the field. Moose is a loudmouth who I don't think really wanted to be here. I don't think he ever really wanted to leave Carolina to be honest with you, but he saw that big contract and took the money and ran. He is kind of the Bears Ben Wallace, although with a far less destructive impact on the team than Ben had.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 09:07 AM) Why do people still say "the Bears are cheap" as if this was the 80s? Since Ted Phillips has been running the team there has been virtually no evidence whatsoever to support this statement. Is it because they don't blow salary cap money on the top free agents the fans want every year? Is it because they take a position in negotiations and carry them out instead of giving more money to every player that asks for it? Why? I remember people saying the Bears were too cheap to give Lovie an extension a couple of years ago (even though the contract he was given at the time for a HC with no experience was fair market value). But obviously that wasn't true. I challenge someone to find a single time in the last 5 years or so that Phillips/Angelo/Stein have needed to make a move that cost money, and didn't do it solely for that reason even though it was available. You can't do it, because it's never happened. BTW, this should be completely independent of bad management decisions because these things are unrelated. I admit the Bears are not cheap when it comes to players. They have given out a lot of money, some of it poorly in hindsight, to a lot of players, whether they be our own (Harris, Urlacher, Briggs, etc.) or free agents (Tait, Moose, etc.). The Bears, however, are not the Redskins or the Cowboys. The fact of the matter is the McCaskey family business is the Bears, they don't have some other money source from which they can just pump money into the team. What goes out, must come in, so I have a hard time believing they would axe Lovie and his 5 million dollar salary, plus whatever his assistants are making, to bring in a new coach. Even if this new coach was on the cheap side, they are probably forking over 2 million a year for him, not including his staff. If you want someone good and established its going to cost 5 million or more. I wouldn't want the Russ Grimm's of the world coaching our team on the cheap, and I don't see the Bears tying up 12-14 million bucks in coaches to bring in a more established guy like Shanahan or Cowher. I just don't think the McCaskey's could afford to do it. Fact of the matter is I don't think Lovie should lose his job. I think they should keep him away from having personnel input, but overall he is one of the better coaches we have had, certainly better than John Shoop's sugardaddy or "the pieces are in place!". I think everyone's biggest problem with Smith is that he has run some coaches out of town and brought his pals in to take their place, and the net result is the team has gotten worse.

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 12:48 AM) Absolutely. If the team doesn't make the playoffs, he's out. Especially since he is keeping his "boy" Babich around. I understand Lovie will be more involved running the defense, but any other good coach would have fired Babich long ago. I can't stand the amount of "loyalty" Lovie is showing to the guy just b/c he's one of his best friends. Honestly, it's so frustrating. Don't bet on Lovie going anywhere until that contract of his is up. The Bears aren't going to pay a guy $5 million to sit at home, they are far too cheap for that kind of thing. Babich is being effectively neutralized at this point. He is keeping the title and salary but I think its fairly obvious that Marinelli and Lovie are going to be running the defense from now on. This Lovie/Babich things feels like a bad flashback to the Jauron/Shoop days.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Dec 12, 2008 -> 02:31 PM) if asked to pick right now, i wonder who the prognosticators would pick to win the AL CENTRAL in '09. My guess is that it will be CLE again. Sizemore and company, Lee, now Wood. A healthy Hafner (maybe). The only way they're getting the old Hafner back is if he hooks back up with his HGH dealer.

One Barr vote in California here. Got to the polls about 20 minutes before it opened, was out by about 7:20. The California ballot is actually fairly simple, I have trouble seeing how someone could be confused by it. Voted no on all the props except the children's hospital and and veterans housing, but voted yes on the county sales tax increase.

Agreed

You should see some of the commercials out here for the vote yes side, they are so over the top ridiculous I have to laugh every time I see them. The sad thing is these stupid ads are working, last I saw this morning it was tied. I think it is going to pass unfortunately, and if that gets put into law out here, gay rights have a long way to go across the rest of the country for sure.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 8, 2008 -> 09:21 PM) I still haven't heard a logical reason as to why the Angels would trade Figgins other than "oh they need a first baseman, they'll assuredly want Paul Konerko because they had interest in him one time in 2005-06 when they had a different GM" The rumor out here is that Figgins is not a well-liked guy in the clubhouse and the Angels want to get rid of him. This could all be nonsense, but it has been reported out here more than once. Either way I would be shocked if the Angels don't make some big changes this offseason. That's a team that has crapped the bed several years in a row in the playoffs, and were a quick out this year even after finally adding a big bat that they have needed for years.