Monday Bird Droppings
by duck on May 24, 2010 6:57 AM EDT
in Open Threads
Email
PrintRecaps of yesterday's Orioles extra-inning loss can be found at orioles.com, baltimoresun.com, and The Associated Press.
The two plays - MASNsports.com
So after saying he "just missed" the ball in center than scored three runs, Adam Jones added "(Kevin) Millwood battled his ass off, man. I'm not going to beat myself up over it." Maybe you ought to, Adam. Maybe you ought to. -duck
Baltimore Orioles manager Dave Trembley could get fired Monday - baltimoresun.com
Yes, Dave Trembley could get fired today. But did someone really pay Kevin Cowherd to write an entire column of one-sentence paragraphs which basically says, "Hey, it might happen."? -zk
Baseball: Jim Ingraham’s around the horn - Possible Trembley replacements
Former Indians bench coach Jeff Datz, now the bench coach in Baltimore, is considered the leading candidate to be named interim manager should the Orioles toss Dave Trembley from their nest. Other candidates are third-base coach Juan Samuel and Class AAA manager Gary Allenson. I don't know who Jim Ingraham is, but I hope he's wrong about Samuel. -zk
Britt's Bird Watch: Orioles playing catch up
"There's a little setback, a little bump in the road so to speak. It's been tough." So says Dave Trembley, in the understatement of the season. No, Dave, a blown tire is a setback. An unexpected dental bill is a setback. This is a disaster of biblical proportions. -duck
Baltimore Orioles closer Alfredo Simon doesn't expect strained hamstring to keep him out long - baltimoresun.com
Alfredo Simon expects to be ready "in a couple days, maybe just a week." Or maybe a couple of weeks. Or maybe a month. Or maybe he'll never pitch again. Maybe, just maybe, his whole leg will fall off, and he will live his life in pain and anguish, questioning his very existence and why God has abandoned him. But I'm guessing a week. -duck
Did Lugo kick dirt on Willingham? - D.C. Sports Bog
So, Dan Steinberg wonders if our backup second baseman (playing shortstop at the time), kicked dirt on the Nats' Josh Willingham as he rounded the bases after his game-winning home run. Screen grab goodness is involved. -duck
Uehara likely headed to DL - Carroll County Times
Koji Uehara looks headed to the disabled list. I know, I'm shocked, too. -duck
Orioles Insider: Does Koji's injury mean a Tillman/Arrieta promotion?
So, does Jake Arrieta or Chris Tillman come up to replace Koji Uehara on the roster once the Delicate Flower goes on the DL? Apparently, the club knows, but no one is spilling the beans. Either of those guys have a Facebook account? -duck
Could Jermaine Dye Cure What Ails the Baltimore Orioles? | Bleacher Report
Yet another reason to pretty much ignore anything that comes from Bleacher Report. I read this mess so you don't have to... -duck
IN THE MINORS
Orioles Insider: Minor league game recaps - May 23
Norfolk lost, Bowie won, Frederick lost and Delmarva lost. There were also a ton of roster moves, which Dean Jones, Jr. lists. -duck
Zach Britton Interivew | OriolesProspects.com
Orioles Prospects posted an interview with Zach Britton from this spring. -Stacey
220 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Are there any substantial rumblings that Trembley will be fired?
Or is it just a slow news day?
by perpetualstudent on May 24, 2010 7:24 AM EDT reply actions
I believe the latter is your answer
although Andy MacPhail is notoriously tight-lipped about any moves.
When you watch the Orioles every night, a beer after dinner turns into a six pack WAY too many times. Stacey
That's just Julio being Julio
When you watch the video it actually looks like he runs over just to kick dirt on Willingham. In the end I don’t really give a crap though. I mean is this something that is going to drastically change my perception of the guy? It wasn’t exactly great to begin with.
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
it's certainly not the most offensive thing he's ever done.
by Stacey on May 24, 2010 8:25 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
That last freeze frame
looks like he was looking to trip the guy, but whiffed.
"Ohhh it's baad" - E. Smith
Memo to Adam Jones:
Gold Glovers make that play
Make the world a better place; punch a Yankee fan in the face!
I really think
that if Pie comes back and is still pretty good, he needs to be our CF, and Jones should be bumped over to LF. I’m guessing the chances of that happening are something like 2%, though.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
I wonder if there is video of that quote by Adam Jones
Because it doesn’t really make sense to me. I don’t think he should beat himself up over it, necessarily, but coming right after a quote about Millwood pitching his ass off it just doesn’t seem right. If anything you’d think a person WOULD beat himself up over it BECAUSE Millwood was pitching his ass off (even if it wasn’t necessary).
Good god, there are some amazingly awful comments
On roch’s “two plays” article
by brek on May 24, 2010 8:55 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Seriously?
An article on the Sun’s website discusses who is the most overrated hitter in the majors. One writer (not for the Sun) says it’s Ichiro Suzuki. I don’t see how that argument is defensible to begin with, but he goes on to say that Ichiro is overrated because his teammates can’t drive him in reliably.
What!?
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
And just think, he votes for MVP and all that good stuff
Actually, maybe he doesn’t – if all Tribune Co. newspapers have the same rule that The Sun does (writers not allowed to vote on postseason awards). I’m not sure if that is the case or not.
I'm ready for a straight jacket. - Joe Angel, 4/17/10 (O's record: 1-11)
by Eat More Esskay on May 24, 2010 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Hey, if Samuel's the manager, he can't be 3B coach any more
So that might constitute an improvement, maybe. Although knowing the O’s they’ll manage to find someone with just as much “windmill” potential to take his place.
I'm ready for a straight jacket. - Joe Angel, 4/17/10 (O's record: 1-11)
by Eat More Esskay on May 24, 2010 9:39 AM EDT reply actions
He will just send the runner from the dugout
And bench anyone who doesn’t try to score from first on a single.
Insert something witty here.
by Knubles and Bits on May 24, 2010 11:28 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I need to complain about Baltimore for a second
I know the the city is poor and has all kinds of tough decisions to make and that there are bigger problems to solve than this or whatever, but I’m so annoyed that they’re doing away with bulk trash pickup after June 30th. One year ago they cut the budget by cutting back from two trash days per week to one, and the morons in my neighborhood were still putting out trash on the eliminated day for months. Now I’m gonna have to deal with them just leaving their couch on the curb because the city won’t come get it and they don’t have a truck to get it to the dump?
I hate this place sometimes.
Did the latest Birds Up, O's Down make you think of that?
Does it mean we have until June 30th to leave Garrett Atkins on the street or we’re stuck with him forever?
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
by Vuff on May 24, 2010 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Not to mention this proposed new beverage tax...
What’s next?!? Taxing the air we breathe?!?!? The ground we walk on?!??? When will government learn that it’s citizens are NOT ATMS!?!?!
In theory, a beverage tax has nothing to do with tax revenue
its about disincentivizing harmful behavior.
If you believe the theory,
then I have some swampland in Florida to sell you.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
by Vuff on May 24, 2010 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well i guess i see it as win-win in a way
I’m sure a decent percentage of people will in fact drink less soda as a result of the tax. If the rest choose to pay more for it rather than give it up? Great.
It's a tax you can easily avoid
If drinking soda is that important to you then it’ll still be worth the money. If it isn’t you save money and make a healthy lifestyle change. Good for you. If the city/state needs money we’re gonna get taxed one way or another. I rather have it be on something I can decide if I need or not (especially something i’d be better off without anyway).
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
Yeah
This is the argument behind all sin taxes. Of course, here’s the part they don’t tell you: if that part actually worked, then the whole tax would be pointless. The virtue of these taxes is that they shift the tax burden to the poor (who disproportionately consume soda for a variety of reasons) and to those who are unable to make sound planning decisions. These groups are the least able to obtain quality democratic representation and are politically convenient to shift burdens on to.
It is a tax on poor people. Which is why most people like us don’t mind it.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
If they're poor
and the difference of the tax on drinks is material, then they’ll buy cheaper things that don’t have the tax, no? Is there evidence that these taxes don’t work?
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
And the other point
was that if they don’t stop buying them then at least they’re contributing to the societal costs that their unhealthy choices lead to later on. Seems like a win-win as Dave said.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
Generally, no
Look for example at smokers. Over 75% of smokers are in the bottom 40% of income in the US; over half are below the poverty line. About 30% of smokers quit when cigarette taxes go up. So, for the majority of people engaging in the activity, the tax doesn’t change their behavior (which is the point, or the tax wouldn’t earn any income for the government).
Meanwhile, the “at least they are contributing to the societal costs” thing is a nice political line, but it isn’t true – just like with the lottery (which is also something almost everyone who participates in is poor) the money is supposed to go to schools, but only a small fraction of the money from the lottery actually goes to schools. Most of the money from the lottery goes elsewhere, and about a third of lottery profits nationwide go to promoting the lottery and hiring people to work for the lottery commission.
The net results from sin taxes on tobacco are mainly that poor people pay higher taxes, keeping them in a trap of poverty (which is supposed to be something we don’t want) and dependent on public services, the transfer of the tax burden away from more affluent people, and the continued lack of funding for health services for the people bearing the majority of the burden of the tax. They might be contributing to the societal costs if society was really serious about providing these people with real medical care. But they aren’t. The people paying the soda tax will pay more taxes, and still get shafted on health care. In other words, a win-win for the government officials making the budget. Remember, if the tax was going to be spent primarily on giving people care they need, then it wouldn’t be of any benefit to the government at all.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
by James F on May 24, 2010 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
But
isn’t 30% quitting due to the tax AWESOME? I imagine that 30% results in massive societal savings in terms of increased productivity (economic productivity as well as tax contributions) from people not dying/getting sick and continuing to work as well as a decreased drain of resources for medically treating people while they’re getting sick/dying. I think if a tax changes 30% of people’s behavior that’s incredibly effective.
As far as where the money goes, what difference does it make? You can make the exact same argument about the way government money is spent too. The tobacco tax doesn’t go into a “treating people with lung cancer who don’t have health insurance fund”, but the money spent on that doesn’t come out of a fund with that name either. It’s just money in and money out. So if a tax like the tobacco tax can increase the money coming in while decreasing the money going out it seems (again like Dave said) to be a win-win. Am I missing something? In your example of the lottery – 1/3 of the money going to support the program means that 2/3s of the money goes to something else – which seems fine to me. (Although the lottery has no societal benefits unlike the tobacco or drink tax.)
Do you really think the tax on tobacco is keeping people in poverty? From reading everything you wrote I think the net result from the sin tax is 30% less people smoking which is a massive societal improvement.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
Well, it depends on how you look at it
If the purpose of these taxes is primarily to change behavior, then yes, to a degree, they are pretty effective. That said, you can only get those kind of results once; Washington state tried a second round of tobacco tax hikes and got pretty pathetic results in terms of getting people to quit. But yes, you get somewhat decent results in changing behavior through massive tax increases on certain goods.
Of course, that comes with a downside too. Several states have ended up suing Native American tribes because of the differences in their tax laws. Black markets in tobacco are also a big and growing problem; here in NY and NJ we’ve had several cases of black market tobacco being used to help fund Hezbollah. The greater the tax, the greater the incentive to get around it, which is an opening for organized crime, which of course increases the cost of law enforcement. And finally, like I mentioned before, you end up stuck with an even poorer subclass of Americans, who will then be further trapped in poverty and in need of ever more public assistance.
As for where the money goes, sure, it is all fungible to a degree. But people aren’t paying their share of societal costs is my point; those costs are still largely uncovered. Public hospitals are going broke and closing; St. Vincents, which treated the victims of the World Trade Center here in downtown Manhattan, just closed. My objection is not particularly to how the government spends its money (although I strongly object to that), but to the falsehood in how these taxes are sold to voters – people think this money will help take care of people, particularly the people bearing the burden, and this is not true.
Do I really think the tobacco tax is keeping people in poverty? I don’t know how to answer that simply. The tobacco tax is part of a growing shift in how the tax burden in America is distributed; income taxes represent a lower percentage of the overall tax burden than at any time in history, but excise taxes generally make up a larger proportion of that burden than in our history. And since excise taxes are regressive generally, a more regressive overall tax burden I think definitely traps people in poverty. More fundamentally, I think that targeted taxation is one of the worst aspects of democracy – the ability of the majority to impose burdens on unpopular and/or disfavored minorities and shift them off themselves. But I think the increasing reliance on excise taxes to fund the state are deeply problematic in terms of how they affect social mobility and exacerbate the difficulties of poverty.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
As Dave said
the purpose of a tax like this is two fold – to incentivize healthier decisions and to raise funds to help cover the societal costs of the unhealthy decisions. What do you mean you can only get those results once? You could raise the tobacco tax indefinitely and one way or another you’re going to get societal benefits – either less people smoking or people paying a shitload of money to smoke. Either way it’s a win, no?
I buy the argument about black markets, so you’re right that they need to strike a balance between penalizing the behavior but not creating enough of an incentive to create a black market. That being said – I don’t think there’s going to be a black market for soda based on any of the proposed sugar or drink taxes around the country. I don’t buy the argument about creating a subclass as much.
I get your point about the breakdown of how money is raised and spent being very misleading, but does that mean that we shouldn’t raise money? I think your beef there is with the lack of transparency and communication, but not with the tax itself. The tax is just about raising money and disincentivizing behavior – not about divvying up government funds and determining what to spend them on.
I get that some of these taxes affect the poor more than the rich, but so does lung cancer and diabetes. So what’s the alternative? Continue the status quo of poor people having a fraction of a % more of the income in their pockets, but being pulled from whatever semblance of the work force they were in when they get a debilitating illness that the government then has to foot the bill for treating? At some point I don’t have a problem with the majority influencing the decisions of minorities if they better informed and positioned to make those decisions.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
Well, there have already been small black markets in soda and sweets
There have been several cases of public schools that ban sodas and candy and enterprising students smuggling in these things and selling them at a markup (those students are generally suspended or expelled, and a few have been arrested). That said, soda taxes that have been proposed are not like tobacco taxes in that they are generally pretty small, too small probably to create real opportunities for black markets.
Look, at the end of the day, you can get some dramatic results by using public policy to influence behavior. It all comes down to your feelings about the wisdom and justice of doing so, and you can do that on a case by case basis. What is the alternative? I think the alternative is to understand that people are going to make bad choices, and to by and large let them do so while trying our best to mitigate the overall harm on bystanders. I think that policy is generally a blunt instrument that leads to inefficiency and a general lack of accountability that should only be used when absolutely demanded by necessity. And I think that there is an inevitable corruption of purpose that occurs when government has an incentive to make sure that people continue to smoke and drink soda and gamble; remember, it is now in every state’s interest to make sure that people keep smoking.
But I don’t want to make anyone’s decision for them on this issue. I want people to make informed decisions. If you look honestly at the pros and cons of excise taxes and find yourself persuaded by the pros, fine. I just don’t want to see you or anyone persuaded by the fiction.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
I don’t know man – banning and taxing seem like entirely different things to me. You’re talking about kids smuggling in candy bars because they aren’t allowed to have them in school as opposed to people having to pay $0.20 more to get them. I don’t think that’s comparable.
I’m all for educating people and letting them make their own decisions, but when they show that’s not possible and the result of their unhealthy decision is that we as a society have to pick up the tab for their medical care and their unemployment/disability payments when they’re too sick to work, I think a different approach is appropriate. I also don’t think that things like this has to be viewed as final or permanent solutions. Why not try some things, see if they work, and if they don’t scrap them?
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
Again...
…we’re back at the rhetoric that this has something to do with paying for medical care and unemployment and disability payments. But that’s not true.
There simply aren’t loads of people who are getting government-provided medical care and disability payments because of diabetes or even lung cancer. And to the extent that such people do exist, their costs are not a very significant portion of the government’s budget. It is more like the national conversation about earmarks; it is a cost, but one that is less than 1% of the overall budget picture, a meaningless sum in the scope of how government spends its money.
Meanwhile, maybe we should “try” some taxes and scrap them if they don’t work like we want them to. But our system of government is very ill-suited to such processes. Things that don’t work are generally very very hard to get rid of for institutional reasons. How long has the War on Drugs gone on? How many trillions has it cost? And how successful has it been?
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
I'm confused.
Who’s paying for their disability/unemployment and medical treatment if not the government? Do you have some stats to back that up? From a real quick internet search it doesn’t really seem to be the case. Here’s an article from 2005 quoting 12% of all federal healthcare spending going towards diabetes http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/health/diabetes.asp.
Here’s a 2006 NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/health/policy/16diabetes.html) with this interesting tidbit:
From the viewpoint of pure economics, some health experts say it is hard to fathom why the federal government does not spend more on diabetes, which the American Diabetes Association has estimated costs the United States economy about $132 billion per year for treatment and lost productivity at work.
As far as whether that’s material or not seems pretty silly to even discuss – it’s obviously material.
I also think that comparing the War on Drugs to a simple beverage tax is not really productive. The War on Drugs is an incredibly complex equation that has given rise to entire industries that rely on it for their income (law enforcement and prison primarily) – a beverage tax would create no such economic reliance. Anybody that wants to legalize drugs or shift a good amount of the spending to treatment as opposed to enforcement has to battle dug-in interest groups who depend on the current situation for their livelihood. If the beverage tax didn’t work out and the government decided to scrap it, who exactly would be in favor of retaining it?
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
Well, that's a long academic paper
But on first glance, the math appears extremely fuzzy (which is often the case in these papers). First of all, 12% of Federal healthcare outlays going to diabetes doesn’t gibe with their own math; they claim that the expenditure is slightly less than $80 billion; that’s not even 10% of our over $300 billion Federal Medicare spending. But it also includes more outright fuzzy math such as the following:
The federal government spent about $3.9
billion in FY 2005 for disease prevention or health promotion activities likely to have some affect on diabetes. Very little of it (about $0.2 billion) was exclusively focused on diabetes.
Meanwhile, treatment and productivity costs are real, but aren’t costs to the government’s budget, and more importantly, are generally borne by the people engaging in the behavior. We’re creating externalities where none exist.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
But regardless
if those are costs of people, do you envision the government spending on treatment for those without healthcare, unemployment, and disability are some immaterial sum??
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
In the scheme of government spending, they are immaterial
Of course a billion here and a billion there adds up really fast. But this spending is hardly where governments are spending the really significant parts of their budgets.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
but it's not a billion here and a billion there
it’s tens or hundreds of billions.
And we’re not talking about areas where governments are spending the really significant portions of their budgets – we’re talking about a very targeted tax that will raise funds and create an incentive that should lessen future government spending.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
Tens of billions...
…in a $3.5 trillion dollar budget is my point here.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
So?
If much of the government spending is politically untouchable (medicare, social security, defense), why not do something about the portion that’s not?
This is like the ridiculous arguments against paying attention to tire pressure in the global warming debate – it’s too small so we shouldn’t bother doing it. Why not do all the small things?
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
I'm not sure a cigarette tax and a soda tax are equivalent either
Mostly due to the availability of substitutes and chemical addiction associated with tabacco (theres evidence that sugar is also addictive, but unlikely to the same degree).
They are similar
Not equivalent, certainly. But the model that argues for a soda tax is the same model, using the same assumptions about behavior patterns. Few people arguing for the soda tax even hope that it will result in the majority moving to substitutes; that undermines their objective of increasing revenue.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
Why does it have to result in a behavior change for the majority?
Why isn’t 30% a massive success?
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
It doesn't
What I’m talking about is the role of government in encouraging people to be stupid.
The lottery is a good example. It is perhaps the stupidest way to gamble, based on the odds. You’re better off playing the slots at any casino, which is the worst odds you can get in the casino as well. But our government spends billions each year trying to persuade people to play the lottery – encouraging people to make a poor decision on how to wager their money.
I think it is troubling to give government a financial interest in promoting vice.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
Also
I don’t see why one can’t be opposed to the lottery (which I am) and for a beverage tax?
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
Of course you can be
Why am I saying otherwise?
Meanwhile, all analogies fail at a certain point. The problem here is that this is where we have data; we’ve had two decades of public lotteries being widespread, as opposed to less than ten years of the recent tobacco taxes and no data on soda taxes at all.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
Right
but the data around lotteries seem not even remotely relevant to me. And the data on tobacco taxes (according to you) seem to show that 30% of people quit when there was a tax.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
When there were the taxes that were imposed
Obviously, changing the details of the taxes can change the results.
The argument I’m making is a moral hazard argument; giving government a financial interest in promoting harmful activities creates a hazard of the government promoting these activities. That said, you don’t have to be persuaded by moral hazard arguments.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
But this is the opposite of that
the government is creating a financial incentive to prevent harmful activities.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
No it isn't
The incentive for people is to not engage in the activity. The incentive for the government is for people to keep doing so, but with the government getting a cut.
In other words, the tax will never be so high as to get most people to quit smoking or drinking soda. The tax will be designed to be just enough more that most people don’t change their behavior. And if a tipping point is reached where revenue from these taxes diminishes, well, expect the government to act in a way that preserves its revenue stream.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
But that’s exactly why it’s win/win – if they abstain from drinking soda our societal costs (however small you think they are) go down and if they keep buying soda government revenues go up.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
I'm hesitant to get in on this,
but I think James’s point it that it creates a conflict of interest for the government. Once government is receiving funding because of the new tax, it wants (needs) to continue receiving that funding. So the theoretical intent of the program (reducing soda consumption) is opposed to the results of the program (government gets more money when people continue buying soda).
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
I get that
But who cares? What could they do to act on that incentive? How would they get people to keep buying soda or buy more soda while leveling a tax on it? I don’t really car about the intent of the program as long as the results are beneficial to society.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
The ethical problem:
1. A new tax on a product is introduced, which is nominally designed to help poor people who supposedly don’t know better. The tax burden falls disproportionally on the poor.
2. The government maintains an equilibrium where the tax will never go away, because that would decrease revenues.
3. The poor are perpetually taxed by a program which theoretically exists to help them.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
Right - I get it
but those that are dissuaded from buying the product ARE helped – even if it’s only 30% (as in the tobacco answer – and as has been stated there is not nearly the problem with addiction for soda as cigarettes). I guess the argument becomes how many people does it have to help to make the situation you describe above OK? And then you also have to compare the resulting situation described above to the status quo – which is poor people remaining poor people but getting diabetes, heart disease, and lung cancer at higher rates than everybody else.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
Actually, rereading, he clarified that pretty well above.
I think the point is that James is saying that government’s going to maintain the program in such a way that it can’t accomplish its supposed goal, which is ethically questionable, whereas you’re okay with that equilibrium being reached because, in a sense, it works out for everyone.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
Right
I’m fine with the program if it only creates an incentive that will result in 30% of people giving up soda, as long as the remaining 70% that continue to buy soda are helping to offset some of their societal costs.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
I don't consider simply..
….government revenues going up to be a win for anyone but the government. In circumstances like these, I see it as a loss.
Transfer of the tax burden to disfavored minorities is a net harm to society, not only because it places burdens on those minorities, but because it makes government oversight by democratic process more difficult. One of your only incentives to pay attention to the government is financial – the money the government wastes comes out of your pocket. The less that it comes from your pocket and the more that it comes from someone else, the less you care that it is being wasted, and the less aware you are of the actual burden of government.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
Yeah – I guess you and I just differ there. When we know that the government is spending x amount (whatever that x is – it’s surely a lot) to treat and care for people who make stupid decision – if they can take in some money from some of those people making stupid decisions, then the tax dollars of people not making stupid decisions can be spent on things that benefit the rest of society.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
I guess the question is,
if you don’t want the government to have to spend money on those people’s “free” medical care, why not just stop providing it?
I mean, if you really want to discourage potentially bad choices — and I’m not a huge fan of the government deciding whether people’s choices are good or bad — then why not make the consequences severe and save a ton of money, rather than just trying to recoup some of your losses (and growing government in the process)?
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
I understand the argument there, but it’s purely hypothetical. Much harder to talk about when having to actually look at people physically dying in the street.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
It just strikes me
as disingenuous to say “We want people to be responsible for their decisions… but not that responsible; we’ll bail them out in the end anyway.”
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
Agreed.
Not saying it’s a clear choice at all.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
Similar to the backlash against the bailouts – I love the idea of letting companies face the consequences of their absurdly risky behavior, but I don’t think many people would have been happy about the economic ramifications of letting many more massive banks fail.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
Yeah.
I just worry that we’re simply putting off the consequences of these things and making them worse — that it would actually be a lot better to rip off the bandaid rather than peel it off slowly.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
Definitely
well on the financial side I wish they were actually putting in some reforms that had a chance to prevent this kind of thing from happening again, but that seems unlikely.
Also the bandaid approach might be better for the long-term good, but try convincing somebody who has to run for election that it makes sense.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
Yep.
Too many things that may be good in reality are non-starters politically.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
It is a public choice problem
People want at the least to appear concerned about the health of poor people.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
If they just lowered taxes on actual sugar it would have huge health benefits
Sugar > High fructose corn syrup
If sugar was cheaper it would be in more sodas and therefore sodas would be healthier. Not healthy, but healthier.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on May 24, 2010 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
And it would taste better.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
It isn't taxes on sugar...
…it is tariffs on sugar imports as a price support for domestic sugar producers, combined with subsidies for corn growers.
But soda would probably be somewhat healthier if it used sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
Which is heavily subsidized by the government
HFCS that is. People in rural areas complain about welfare while they live off of their corn subsidies. But hey, at least they work for it, right?
Matt Wieters has a sustainably high BABIP
Well, yes...
…but we’re not really talking about people in rural areas, most of whom don’t own farms or produce corn. We are, primarily, talking about agribusiness.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
Which essentially runs most of rural America
Most farmers have to buy product from them, and sell their product back to them, at prices that agribusiness basically sets.
They are the ones ruining American beef with their corn feed lots, causing obesity with their HFCS in everything,
You’ll have to excuse me, I’m more than a little bitter about this whole oil spill situation
Matt Wieters has a sustainably high BABIP
The oil spill should make you bitter
That said, my point is that there just aren’t that many farmers in America anymore. According to the BLS, there are only 419,200 people working in farming, fishing and forestry occupations, with another 4,000 or so people in farming or agricultural executive occupations.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
your right, it is tariffs, i knew it was something like that
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on May 24, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
Paterson tried to pull the soda tax here in NY. In a rare intelligent move the state assembly shot it down.
If these taxes were about “public health” or any of that hog snot they should declare a “war on refined sugar”. Complete with SWAT teams, paramilitary units & any other form of enforcement that would make people take these laws seriously. Damn the budget! Full speed ahead!
But no, that’s not what Paterson was interested in. He was interested in squeezing money from those who could least afford to pay the tax, least afford to move out of the state to avoid the tax & had no political clout to fight the tax.
You can't fix stupid. Stupid is forever.
If these taxes were about "public health" or any of that hog snot they should declare a "war on refined sugar". Complete with SWAT teams, paramilitary units & any other form of enforcement that would make people take these laws seriously. Damn the budget! Full speed ahead!
Why, exactly, should they do that? And why can’t it be about both raising money and addressing public health concerns?
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
Eh
They should NOT do that. I was being facetious. I’m actually very much in the “free the herb” camp (the harder stuff I have to think about).
And my basic philosophy on taxes, to the extent that we do need them, is that they should be for revenue only, not for mad scientists on the right and the left to use the rest of us as lab animals in their bizarre social engineering experiments.
Finally, I object to the government, in attempts to gain said revenue, shaking down those least able to pay, which is essentially what sales taxes, all sales taxes, amount to.
You can't fix stupid. Stupid is forever.
I’m in the same boat about drugs – my dad thinks it should all be 100% legal, but I don’t see how that would work with crack/meth/heroin/etc.
I guess I don’t have an issue with mad scientists trying some things out as long as nobody gets substantially hurt. Whether we should trust the government to figure out ways to do that, maybe I’m too much of an optimist to think that they can get it done. I don’t know.
Agree that sales tax isn’t ideal – I just don’t know what palatable alternatives there are.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
Fair enough
One night Bill Maher, who I agree with far more often than not, was going on about how he favours a “fast food” tax. And he defended it by saying that the health care crisis in this country is due largely to the fact that Americans eat garbage, and that such a tax, to the extent that it forced people to eat better would save everyone money in the long run. Fine, as far as it goes BUT…
Poor parents who take their kids to fast food places 3, 4, 5 times a week for the most part KNOW that they’re feeding their kids garbage & that they don’t have a choice. So making that garbage more expensive (but still the least expensive option) doesn’t exactly solve the problem.
What I really want to hear from the pro-fat/sugar/salt/etc. tax crowd is their scheme to make a trip to Whole Foods as cheap as a trip to McDonalds.
You can't fix stupid. Stupid is forever.
Well the argument that I've heard
is that there ARE healthy alternatives for diets high in fruits and vegetables and low fat proteins and it’s just a matter of educating people. I forget where I saw the interview, but the main points were that canned fruits and vegetables could be staples of a cheap, but dramatically more healthy, alternative diet to fast food.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
i do it all the time :-)
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on May 24, 2010 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I suppose that's true
depending on the locality.
But someone at or close to the top thinks it’s a good idea keeping high fructose corn syrup at dirt-cheap prices through subsidies, while at the same time not offering those who produce healthier foods with such nice gift baskets. Probably the same ones who want tax the poor to good health.
sigh And so the feedback loop continues…
You can't fix stupid. Stupid is forever.
i dont necessarily agree with this notion that if you are poor you can only afford to eat McDonalds
I mean, sure, organic pesticide free produce and acai berries may be expensive, but there is a HUGE middle ground of foods that aren’t quite as “sexy” as what you buy at Whole Foods but also not nearly as unhealthy as McD’s. I spent a good chunk of my childhood — while my mom was single — eating pasta, ramen, homemade popcorn, and frozen vegetables. That’s also pretty much what I ate in college too. You know what? That is a ridiculously cheap way to eat!
Im sorry…if you are taking your kid to McD’s multiple times per week, you are not doing that because you have no other choice. You are just being a bad parent. Come on…. a box of pasta costs about $1 and feeds a family of four.
They're not even pretending that in Baltimore
They’re stone broke and trying to find ways to get money.
I'm all for this.
I think they should do a LOT more of that.
Rub some $100 bills on it, you sell-out. -duck
ahahhaha
I love commercials that use comments from random facebook users to try to prove a point. That proposal got voted down by city council anyway, but I hear now they want to raise the tax on cable television. This place.
I think i saw that commercial
I think there was a part about how Baltimore is the only place in the country trying to do something so outrageous, which i found hilarious since they’re doing the exact same thing in philly and its actually a fairly common proposal right now.
They're doing it up here too
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
Quoting Facebook in commercials?
Really? Next thing you know kids’ll be citing Wikipedia when writing papers.
Oh wait.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
Real estate's cheap out here in the country
We just slash services and don’t bother with raising taxes. My county is going to turn asphalts roads to gravel when they deteriorate too much next year because there’s no budget to fix them. Our BOE is forgoing Maintanence of Effort money from the state (almost $10 million) because the county can’t fund an increase necessary to qualify for the money. Our schools budget is actually DECREASING almost $7 million next year.
And no, that’s not a good thing.
When you watch the Orioles every night, a beer after dinner turns into a six pack WAY too many times. Stacey
wow.
sure am glad i live in los angeles, where EVERYTHING is concrete or asphalt. If a road is deteriorating, that’s ok. the earthquakes knock down the building next to the road, and they use the remnants of the building to fill in the potholes.
oh, also? we steal our water from a valley 233 miles away.
"I doubt he could reach [second base]...mostly cuz his fucking arm was in Aybar's nuts." – twistedlogic
Just saw something on the History Channel about that aquaduct
Wow, local government at work!
When you watch the Orioles every night, a beer after dinner turns into a six pack WAY too many times. Stacey
I gave up soda over 10 years ago
one of the better damn decisions I’ve ever made. Tax the fuck out of it for all i care!
Make the world a better place; punch a Yankee fan in the face!
by PBR me ASAP! on May 24, 2010 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
not to be an ass
but they need to cut stuff any way why should the city have to pick up your couch you dont want anymore and lose money. the city has a deficiet and is trying to fix it but everything they porpose people complain you can’t have it both way you can’t say don’t cut this to pay for school or cops and then not let them stop other ways of spending because ppl don’t want to pay other taxes.
my solution raise the alcohol tax md has the lowest out of md, de, pa and va, yea, the cost of beer will go up but i can deal with it. also stop take home cars for the city council and look at what they use on the city discetionary funds should we really have to pay for them to get hair done, and feed thir fsmily thats what they get a pay check for. lastly raise the state tax and the city needs to raise it’s sales tax to 8 percent currently we are at 6 percent which is plain stupid when others have 12 and 10 percent ppl might not like it but they will pay for your kids school and the cops you complain about to keep u safe dont like it well you should of stopped complaing about a bottle tax ppl you cant have it both ways this isnt aimed at nobody but i needed a vent aswell
chuck, I'm glad you post...
but we SERIOUSLY have to have a talk about punctuation and capitalization. Communication is impossible if the recipient can’t understand the message.
When you watch the Orioles every night, a beer after dinner turns into a six pack WAY too many times. Stacey
*But
It’s a joke, ok? IRONY.
"I doubt he could reach [second base]...mostly cuz his fucking arm was in Aybar's nuts." – twistedlogic
well frankly
I could only get through the first paragraph of that, but I don’t think that it’s unreasonable for me, a person who pays city taxes to have some kind of decent services rendered to me in return. Although I suppose if I felt strongly enough I’d just leave like everyone else who has the resources to do so.
Eh
Look, the numbers aren’t there. You can talk about take home cars and stuff like that but the reality is that Baltimore has had a 12% drop in income tax revenues since 2008 and has lost significant Federal funding over the years, which is increasing by $40 million and will still not compare to the level of Federal funding in the mid-90s. Meanwhile, hiking taxes is not going to bring jobs to Baltimore and it is jobs, and the income tax receipts that come with it, that will solve the budget gap.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
If trembley goes and crowley doesn't..
I might check out for the year. I know DT does plenty of bone-headed things, but idk what these ass coaches have to do to get fired. Clearly they are incompetent.
Also arrietta is still walking too many ppl.
by GeoffreyA on May 24, 2010 10:21 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
From Buster Olney on Twitter
Lots of speculation, but to be clear: It appears O’s Manager Dave Trembley is not being fired today.
I never thought he would be.
At this point, I'm just sick of talking about it
I kind of want him to get fired just so we can talk about something else.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
This
The story ain’t going away until the O’s start winning, and right now, that doesn’t look too imminent. Dave might not be the biggest problem with this team (but a problem nonetheless), and McPhail should shoulder a fair amount of the blame as well for what he has assembled, but Dave is a zombie-manager right now. Just get it the fuck over with already.
Make the world a better place; punch a Yankee fan in the face!
by PBR me ASAP! on May 24, 2010 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions
McPhail
Keith Law ranked our farm system #6 at the begining of this year (without Tillman and Wieters). Say what you will about how they are doing now but he did his job and added legitimate talent. Also, I think the horrible start has people a bit too down on our young players.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on May 24, 2010 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions
My criticism of McPhail
is a product of the MLB team. I think he has done a phenomenal job at restocking, at least the pitching portion, of our minor league system. But some of the signings for the O’s have been, well, abysmal. Gonzalez, Atkins, Lugo, Eaton last year, Koji has been great when on the mound but he’s rarely on the mound. So, McPhail does share some of the blame for what has transpired. Credit where due as well, he’s made some very good signings, Wiggy, Tejada, Izzy, Hendo.
My point is that some think all blame falls at Trembley’s feet. Others hold Crowley primarily responsible. I think the blame needs to be shouldered by all involved, McPhail included. Should McPhail be fired? No. But he does need to do a better job of player acquisition.
Make the world a better place; punch a Yankee fan in the face!
by PBR me ASAP! on May 24, 2010 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
All those names are stopgaps
And they have been crappy stopgaps, but I’ll refrain from judging McPhail for a few years.
We didn’t want to build through FA, and he is making a point not to. That being said, the Atkins signing was stupid, same with the Gonzalez one. Lugo and Eaton were for the minimum so who cares. But he did waste some $$ in FA this year which is unfortunate
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on May 24, 2010 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed in re they were all stopgaps, but
they are also a big reason why this team has been so putrid thus far. So, McPhail bears some culpability. Players have to perform in order to win games, but when you put players who are incapable of performing out on the field, well, we have seen the results.
Make the world a better place; punch a Yankee fan in the face!
by PBR me ASAP! on May 24, 2010 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
no,
the reason this team has been putrid has had much more to do with the regular players and not the FA signings. Atkins is the lone exception. The rest of the team, all holdovers from last year, have either underperformed what was expected or been injured. Neither is MacPhail’s fault.
"I doubt he could reach [second base]...mostly cuz his fucking arm was in Aybar's nuts." – twistedlogic
c'mon
You can’t dump Gonzalez on Andy. The guy pitched two games and was clearly hurt. Obviously, that was not known when he was signed.
If he sucks when he gets back, maybe.
"I doubt he could reach [second base]...mostly cuz his fucking arm was in Aybar's nuts." – twistedlogic
The bigger problem w/ the Gonzalez signing is that we lost the draft pick
Other players were available, and our farm system still has some glaring holes that that pick could have helped address. Maybe Gonzalez comes back 100% healthy and delivers 20+ saves this year and continues along that line next. That’d be great, but I’m not holding my breath.
Make the world a better place; punch a Yankee fan in the face!
by PBR me ASAP! on May 24, 2010 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions
My point is that some think all blame falls at Trembley’s feet.
I don’t think anyone thinks all the blame falls at Trembley’s feet.
What’s ridiculous is people who say, “lots of people are to blame”, so he can’t be fired. Of course he can be fired, even if he shares blame with others.
"I doubt he could reach [second base]...mostly cuz his fucking arm was in Aybar's nuts." – twistedlogic
here's my problem with yesterday
on the radio broadcast, they played an interview with trembley. this was from before the game, so the outcome of the day was still in doubt.
Trembley said (i’m paraphrasing), “well, we rain into a really hot ballclub in texas, they’re really hot right now. we lost a series in cleveland, but we got the split against KC, that was good. so hopefully we’ll take this series with a win in the rubber game today and keep the turnaround going”.
I wanted to throw something at the radio. DDT was talking as though it’s just a matter of adding up the Ws and the Ls and there’s not much to baseball beyond that. He ignored the fact that the last ten days (and much of the season) have seen the orioles playing horrendous baseball: baserunning mistakes galore, terrible ABs where batters don’t work the count or do the right thing in situational hitting, etc etc etc. This team with the exception of the starters sometimes, has looked like crap all year, and the last few weeks have been egregious. Yet DDT is looking over that time and thinking, “if we take two out of three from the Nats”, we’re doing pretty well.
The NATS? The FUCKING NATS? We got a SPLIT against KC? WHAT THE FUCK?
I’m sorry, but that’s not a guy who is ever going to get the best out of his players. I don’t care if they like him or not. I care that he coaches them well, and he motivates them. This year, neither of those things are happening.
"I doubt he could reach [second base]...mostly cuz his fucking arm was in Aybar's nuts." – twistedlogic
by zknower on May 24, 2010 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Unfortunately,
this is probably another bad consequence of the “wins and losses matter now” talk.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
teams seem to find a way of geting "hot" when they play the orioles
And this sloppy baseball has to go.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on May 24, 2010 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
It's like being a Caps fan
and saying “well, we ran into a hot goaltender” every April for 23 years.
At some point, you know, maybe it’s you.
When you watch the Orioles every night, a beer after dinner turns into a six pack WAY too many times. Stacey
Fleury wasn't hot last year.
He didn’t get hot until Game 6 vs. the Red Wings. Just my two cents.
Everyone thought Baltimore was three easy wins and we got our ass kicked three times. - Dustin Pedroia, After the Red Sox got swept by the Orioles.
by BaltimoreSportsFan on May 24, 2010 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Didn't stop Caps fans from saying it
That’s my point.
When you watch the Orioles every night, a beer after dinner turns into a six pack WAY too many times. Stacey
re: the potentially new shape of the rotation
okay, so NOW has dave hernandez proven sufficiently that he is not a starter? i’d say put im in the penand bring up tillman to take his place in the rotation.
"If they pitch to you, make them pay."
--Diamond Dave to the Phenom
I mentioned this in the game thread yesterday.
With Simon and Koji both being felled by injuries the ‘pen needs a fresh arm and an upgrade; Hernandez might just provide that. Tillman has proven himself in AAA, bring him up and let’s see if he can continue his success in the majors.
Make the world a better place; punch a Yankee fan in the face!
by PBR me ASAP! on May 24, 2010 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions
w/o looking too deeply...
i think that’s right and i also think one of albers or meredith should be axed, as well. if i’m REALLY putting together a wish list, i’d probably also endorse shutting down the alberto castillo express.
"If they pitch to you, make them pay."
--Diamond Dave to the Phenom
by j.q. higgins on May 24, 2010 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Castillo should go before Albers or Claw, imo
Not that the last 2 are any great shakes, but I just don’t see the point of Castillo (other than to give up highlight reel HRs)
Make the world a better place; punch a Yankee fan in the face!
by PBR me ASAP! on May 24, 2010 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Well Castillo is already gone
sooo, I don’t see what you mean?
Outs in baseball are like lives in Mario.
If I'm not mistaken he is still on the 40 man roster, just residing in the purgatory of AAA currently.
I would like to see him DFA’d and Arrieta elevated to the 40 man.
Make the world a better place; punch a Yankee fan in the face!
by PBR me ASAP! on May 24, 2010 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh I see
I can get behind that, though there are some other guys who probably deserve the pink-slip more than Castillo (Viola, anyone?)
Outs in baseball are like lives in Mario.
Got the name change, huh?
When you watch the Orioles every night, a beer after dinner turns into a six pack WAY too many times. Stacey
Heh
I wouldn’t have known it was you if Duck didn’t say anything.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
especially since he changed his little picture as well
I identify people on here as much by that as I do by their name at first glance. Once dave and someone else had the same Matt Wieters picture and I couldn’t figure out when he got a personality transplant.
I'm basically a brand new person
with brand new beliefs. I’m like the sideways-universe version of Andrew @ TLC, except not lame and stupid like the rest of the sideways-universe.
Outs in baseball are like lives in Mario.
brand new beliefs?
Does this mean you’re going to start bitching about how there aren’t enough hit-and-runs in baseball and the like? Start praising the brilliance of having someone as fast as Corey Patterson batting leadoff?
I was going to go the route
of the commenters on Roch’s blog , but I’m pretty sure that you can’t fake that kind of stupid.
Outs in baseball are like lives in Mario.
I know Roch doesn't write the most complex stuff out there
But I do feel bad for him having to wade through those dummies.
I don't feel that bad for him
There are lots worse ways to make a living.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
Oh I don't feel bad for him overall
He has pretty much the sweetest gig around. But having dealt with a few obnoxious people in my day here, I know the irritation factor of people like that.
I doubt it's that much of a living, actually.
"I doubt he could reach [second base]...mostly cuz his fucking arm was in Aybar's nuts." – twistedlogic
I would guess he does OK
but not “vacation in Bahamas” good. Maybe a nice state park instead.
When you watch the Orioles every night, a beer after dinner turns into a six pack WAY too many times. Stacey
Oh, I don't think he even travels.
"I doubt he could reach [second base]...mostly cuz his fucking arm was in Aybar's nuts." – twistedlogic
by zknower on May 25, 2010 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Heh
I never guessed the avatars meant so much. Guess I can’t change mine.
What happened to your sig by the way?
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
You can change it
It only takes a second to re-learn someone by their new picture. Are you the one who I told to get an avatar once? Sorry about that, I tend to be bossy sometimes. And I think I hadn’t decided yet if I liked you or not back then.
You’re talking about the blow jobs sig? The big wigs started this internal blog for site managers, just to discuss issues and admin stuff and ideas, and before I commented there I thought I might try to appear at least a little bit professional, so I deleted it.
There are bigger wigs than you?
My mind is blown.
I'm ready for a straight jacket. - Joe Angel, 4/17/10 (O's record: 1-11)
by Eat More Esskay on May 24, 2010 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions
The Acrhitect says we cannot speak of its existence
When you watch the Orioles every night, a beer after dinner turns into a six pack WAY too many times. Stacey
S'ok
I was posting a lot and didn’t have one so the star kept coming up. Anyway I like graffiti pictures, so I’m happy.
I was more curious why you had no sig at all than what happened to that particular one. And I must admit that I’m always impressed by how much time gets put in behind the scenes at a blog like this.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
Nothing strikes me as sig-worthy at the moment
Hopefully Felix Pie will be quoted saying something adorable soon and I can use that.
There was this, pretty recently:
“Every day, I look at what my team is doing,” he said. “They’re starting to play better. But sometimes it’s a little sad because I want to be there and help the team, and I can’t because I’m hurt.”
http://masnsports.com/school_of_roch/2010/05/pie-making-progress.html
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
I'm glad
it sounds like they’re playing it safe with him, and he’s not pushing it either. (Of course, it’s now that he’s really hurt; wish they’d been more cautious earlier.) I really hope he picks up where he left off once he gets back.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
I'm confused
Is this a blog about controversial taxes or the orioles? ;)
Everyone thought Baltimore was three easy wins and we got our ass kicked three times. - Dustin Pedroia, After the Red Sox got swept by the Orioles.
by BaltimoreSportsFan on May 24, 2010 3:23 PM EDT reply actions
rooting for the orioles can be pretty damn taxing, if you ask me
Outs in baseball are like lives in Mario.
Clever
Everyone thought Baltimore was three easy wins and we got our ass kicked three times. - Dustin Pedroia, After the Red Sox got swept by the Orioles.
by BaltimoreSportsFan on May 24, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
i see what you did there
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on May 24, 2010 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I, personally, have come to enjoy these little side-debates on here
The thread about WW2 and the foolishness of invading Russia was great.
Make the world a better place; punch a Yankee fan in the face!
by PBR me ASAP! on May 24, 2010 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
This
Make the world a better place; punch a Yankee fan in the face!
by PBR me ASAP! on May 24, 2010 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions
What is the point of saying of saying "This"
I’ve never figured it out.
Everyone thought Baltimore was three easy wins and we got our ass kicked three times. - Dustin Pedroia, After the Red Sox got swept by the Orioles.
by BaltimoreSportsFan on May 24, 2010 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I think SC was the first person I saw doing it.
I do it a lot, but I picked it up from him.
"I doubt he could reach [second base]...mostly cuz his fucking arm was in Aybar's nuts." – twistedlogic
I was gonna type this exact sentence
When you watch the Orioles every night, a beer after dinner turns into a six pack WAY too many times. Stacey
Its pretty common across the internet
I’m just not sure what site it started on; odds are it was 4chan. (note: any who doesnt know what 4chan is, dont investigate. you dont want to know.)
They are refreshing
It beats the hell outa fire DT because OMG hes so bad.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on May 24, 2010 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Glad you liked it
I did learn something from JonnyPops in the process
When you watch the Orioles every night, a beer after dinner turns into a six pack WAY too many times. Stacey
Wieters ranks 4th in the majors in % of team's innings caught
Interesting article over @ Fangraphs. What the hell is Jason Kendall eating?
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/how-many-innings-is-too-many-for-a-catcher/
Make the world a better place; punch a Yankee fan in the face!
Hey, so is anything going to happen today?
I never expected Trembley to get the axe today, but obviously some pitching move ought to happen today. How long does it take to figure out who you want to replace Koji/Simon? Eight hours?
How long does it take to figure out you want to replace Atkins? Three months?
Outs in baseball are like lives in Mario.
Keith Law's latest mock draft
Has Machado going to the Pirates and the O’s taking Taillon, although he also drops this tidbit:
There had been some word that Orioles GM Andy MacPhail wanted to take a college player after last year’s first-rounder, Matt Hobgood, took a while to sign and then showed up in less-than-perfect conditioning this spring. However, the scouting department’s ardor for Taillon’s electric arm seems to have won out.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
I don't recall Hobgood taking "a while" to sign
but I must be misremembering?
Outs in baseball are like lives in Mario.
Well, he signed well before the deadline
But I don’t remember exactly how long it took. Longer than Tony Sanchez did.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
The Sun archive says
he signed on June 28th, after the draft was on June 9th. 19 days doesn’t seem like that big of a deal to me, especially when most first rounders go all the way to the deadline nowadays. Interesting that MacPhail wasn’t happy about that.
Outs in baseball are like lives in Mario.
Sanchez, BTW, signed June 12th
I’m not sure that’s a realistic bar to set, though. Or maybe it is. I don’t know!
Outs in baseball are like lives in Mario.
Maybe
Law confused Hobgood with Givens re: the signing delay, but MacPhail still wasn’t thrilled with Hobgood’s conditioning?
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." -- Earl Weaver
Also, here's something I wonder...
….do you think that people like Homer Bailey and Mark Prior would have grounds for a lawsuit against Dusty Baker?
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
not really
I could maybe see Prior (not that I know if he’s the type to go this way) suing (but certainly not winning). but I don’t think Bailey has much argument against Baker. Pitchers get hurt, it’d be pretty impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Baker was responsible for either of these guys’ current conditions.
Outs in baseball are like lives in Mario.
I'm not a lawyer
I just think that it is kind of obvious they have been abused, everyone and their mom has written a column at this point about how they have been abused by Baker, and Prior has clearly lost millions while Bailey might too.
I suppose that one can say that they can’t be forced to stay in the game and that they voluntarily agreed to keep pitching, but at some point I’ve got to think that one of their relatives is going to kick Dusty in the balls if nothing else. If he did that to my kid, I’d break his legs.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
I just think it's hard to definitively show
that Homer Bailey wouldn’t have gotten hurt anyway, considering the relatively high percentage of pitchers who get hurt at some point in their career.
Outs in baseball are like lives in Mario.
I'm just wondering...
…what is the solution to the market failure here?
In theory, starters shouldn’t want to play for Cincy. Pitchers should refuse to be traded there if they can, amateurs and free agents should not sign or demand a premium to pitch there, and the market will return to equilibrium. But no, they get Chapman, and Mike Leake at essentially market price.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
oh god no
Beyond a reasonable doubt standard? Oh hell, I don’t know what kind of evidence you could gather that show beyond a reasonable doubt. You could make a reasonable case based on evidence using game logs and past studies on the effects of pitch counts, but nothing slam dunk which is what you’ll need for a law suit.
I came to camdenchat and all I got was this lousy avatar.
Beyond a reasonable doubt generally only applies to criminal cases
I’m not sure what exactly the charge would be (i’d have to think about it), but its most likely that they’d only have to prove that he more likely than not caused the alleged harm.
but its most likely that they’d only have to prove that he more likely than not caused the alleged harm.
If that’s the case, I’m still skeptical. In Prior’s case, his shoulders problems partially stem from sliding into 2B injury. I don’t think Dusty should be held accountable for that. His ridiculous pitch counts though are a red flag but I don’t know if that constitutes more likely than not.
I came to camdenchat and all I got was this lousy avatar.
I'm incredibly skeptical, i was just saying what the burden of proof would be
Presumably we’re talking about negligence here and not an intentional tort (I dont think anyone can claim Dusty is TRYING to hurt his pitchers). Any negligence claim has 4 basic elements you have to prove: duty, breach, causation, damages.
First, you would first have to prove that Baker had a duty to treat his pitchers in such a way to prevent them from being injured (cant see a court recognizing this) and that he did not fulfill this duty in a way that i reasonable person would have. This seems unlikely. Baker has duties that extend beyond keeping his starters healthy. He above everything else has to win games, has to manage the workload of every other pitcher on the team, etc. You can certainly argue that it would be smarter to better manage his pitchers, but can you say that a reasonable person in the same position would not make the same decision? I doubt it.
Causation is obviously also a big issue. Even if you can point to a clear overuse of his pitchers, it would be difficult to attribute the injury to the overuse and not just the stress of pitching. Its not a situation where the pitcher was forced to throw one more pitch than was reasonable, and the injury resulted from that one pitch. You’re trying to account for what are generally chronic injuries caused by a variety of stresses, and apportioning the harm to those stresses is unbelievably difficult (similar to toxic tort cases for example)
Even if you can get past both those hurdles, damages would also be tricky considering the volatility of salaries and duration of pitching career. This would be less of a concern though, since if they somehow managed to get this point they would likely at least receive something, even if it wasn’t as much as they could have had they never played for Baker.
Just read an article on whatifsports.com
About great players who are also really cheap, and I must say, it’s a crime that Nelson Cruz is making 440K, Ryan Braun is only making a little more then a million bucks, and Evan Longoria is making 950K. That’s almost criminal how under-payed they are.
Everyone thought Baltimore was three easy wins and we got our ass kicked three times. - Dustin Pedroia, After the Red Sox got swept by the Orioles.
by BaltimoreSportsFan on May 24, 2010 5:52 PM EDT reply actions
I disagree
They’ll all later in their careers likely be overpaid compared their performance. Baseball’s pay structure is just based on deferred compensation.
that sandwich has been around for a few years
They used to run this promotion like once a month where if you went up to the cashier and said “I can handle the heat,” they gave it to you for free.
Also I worked there from 1994 to 1998 and I remember when the club sandwich was introduced. It was a big to do.
by Stacey on May 24, 2010 6:44 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
You're blowing my mind here Stacey
I’m so disappointed about all the not spicy chick-fil-a meals i’ve had over the years
i hate you
i’ve got a craving for chick fil a now.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on May 24, 2010 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Hey, at least it's not Sunday.
Everyone thought Baltimore was three easy wins and we got our ass kicked three times. - Dustin Pedroia, After the Red Sox got swept by the Orioles.
by BaltimoreSportsFan on May 24, 2010 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions
yea but its far
the food talk here always makes me hungry.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on May 24, 2010 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Norfolk tonight:
Reimold: 0-4, K (now batting .088)
Bell: 2-4, 2B, 2K (now batting .267)
Tillman: 6 IP, 8 H, 1 ER, 1 BB, 7 K (era @ 3.12)
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
guess Nolan isn't going to make it back for his Bobblehead night. Shucks...
Make the world a better place; punch a Yankee fan in the face!
by PBR me ASAP! on May 24, 2010 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions
wow.
WTF with Nolan? Seriously! What is going on?
"I doubt he could reach [second base]...mostly cuz his fucking arm was in Aybar's nuts." – twistedlogic
It either that or mental
he’s just not this bad. There’s no way he’s not even good enough to hit AAA pitching. It’s almost better that he’s struggling this badly because you know something isn’t right. Maybe he’s injured, maybe he’s messed up in the head, but something is def. off.
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
Huh?
Why is nearly everyone of my Facebook friends all of the sudden a Flyers fan? Weird…
Make the world a better place; punch a Yankee fan in the face!
and VERY annoying...
Make the world a better place; punch a Yankee fan in the face!
by PBR me ASAP! on May 24, 2010 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions
not really
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on May 25, 2010 7:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Season ended almost a month ago for me
When you watch the Orioles every night, a beer after dinner turns into a six pack WAY too many times. Stacey
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Camden Chat
Related FanShots on Camden Chat
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Official Sponsor of Camden Chat GameThreads
