Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Baseball Predictions
Hey everyone, hope you are as excited as I am about the beginning of the MLB season.
Predictions:
AL East
Yankees - 95 wins
Red Sox - 93 wins
Rays - 92 wins
Blue Jays - 80 wins
Orioles - 71 wins
Its a shame only 2 out of the Yankees, Red Sox, Rays threesome can make the playoffs because they are IMO the best 3 teams in the league (although some people would argue the cubs belong there). However, the cubs get to beat up on the crappy NL central while a team like the Blue Jays, which is actually talented and would do well in several other divisions, is the 4th best team in this one. Easily the toughest division. The Yankees are spent a ton of money on free agents this winter, and while these contracts will be burdens in 5 years, right now they have several very talented players in their prime.
AL Central
Indians - 85 wins
Twins - 82 wins
Tigers - 80 wins
White Sox - 77 wins
Royals - 75 wins
This is one of the aforementioned less talented divisions. It will be close as every team has significant flaws. The Indians and Tigers have significant starting pitching issues to go with good offenses. The Twins and Royals can't hit and the White Sox are old. You could make a believable case that any of the top 4 teams could win the division.
AL West
A's - 84 wins - A's win tiebreaker game
Angels - 84 wins
Mariners - 75 wins
Rangers - 72 wins
I know, I know, cop-out of the century predicting a tie. But these teams are very evenly matched although in very different situations. The A's have a bunch of up and coming pitchers and a newly added star offensive player in Matt Holliday. The Angels are trying to hang on to success while their core ages and the deal with significant injuries to the pitching staff. Ultimately, it will be the injury stories that determine who wins this division. The Angels two best starting pitchers are going to miss the beginning of the season with injuries while Eric Chavez of the A's is likely to re-injure his shoulder if he sneezes to hard. If Erving Santana and John Lackey of the Angels don't miss too much time, they will probably take the division. If the A's rookies in the starting rotation hold up well and perform better than expected of rookie pitchers, they will probably take the division. This one will probably go down to the wire.
National League
NL East
Mets - 91 wins
Braves - 87 wins
Phillies - 86 wins
Marlins - 74 wins
Nationals - 73 wins
The Mets are the class of this division after re-tooling the bullpen. Either the Braves or Phillies will win the wild card and after adding Derek Lowe, Javier Vazquez, and Kenshin Kawakami; the Braves pitching is what seals the deal and leaves last year's world series winner out of the playoffs.
NL Central
Cubs - 94
Brewers - 82
Cardinals - 81
Reds - 78
Astros - 73
Pirates - 69
This division is the Cubs and 5 teams ranging from, at best, average to worst team in baseball. The Cardinals have one ridiculously good player (Pujols), 2 decent starting pitchers (though one is always hurt), and a team of scrubs (with Khalil Greene being king of the scrubs). The Brewers have some young talented position players but lost their 2 best pitchers to free agency and will only have one starting pitcher that is safely above league average (Yovani Gallardo). The Pirates bring up the rear in the division and I predict they will have the worst record in the majors when its all said and done.
NL West
Dodgers - 91 wins
D'Backs - 85 wins
Giants - 80 wins
Rockies - 71 wins
Padres - 70 wins
The Dodgers will safely win this division as it boasts one of the best top-bottom lineups in baseball. The Rockies lost their best pitcher to injury for the season and traded their best hitter for nothing that will be very useful in the major leagues next season. They will be fighting off the Padres to avoid the cellar in the NL West. The Diamondbacks have a young core of position players ready to take the next step to stardom and have 2 of the best starting pitchers in the game. They will fight the Phillies and the Braves for the NL wildcard.
First Round Playoff Scenarios
Yankees > A's
Red Sox > Indians
Cubs > Braves
Dodgers > Mets
Second Round Playoff Scenarios
Yankees > Red Sox
Dodgers > Cubs (98 more years)
World Series
Yankees > Dodgers
Enjoy the season everyone!
Predictions:
AL East
Yankees - 95 wins
Red Sox - 93 wins
Rays - 92 wins
Blue Jays - 80 wins
Orioles - 71 wins
Its a shame only 2 out of the Yankees, Red Sox, Rays threesome can make the playoffs because they are IMO the best 3 teams in the league (although some people would argue the cubs belong there). However, the cubs get to beat up on the crappy NL central while a team like the Blue Jays, which is actually talented and would do well in several other divisions, is the 4th best team in this one. Easily the toughest division. The Yankees are spent a ton of money on free agents this winter, and while these contracts will be burdens in 5 years, right now they have several very talented players in their prime.
AL Central
Indians - 85 wins
Twins - 82 wins
Tigers - 80 wins
White Sox - 77 wins
Royals - 75 wins
This is one of the aforementioned less talented divisions. It will be close as every team has significant flaws. The Indians and Tigers have significant starting pitching issues to go with good offenses. The Twins and Royals can't hit and the White Sox are old. You could make a believable case that any of the top 4 teams could win the division.
AL West
A's - 84 wins - A's win tiebreaker game
Angels - 84 wins
Mariners - 75 wins
Rangers - 72 wins
I know, I know, cop-out of the century predicting a tie. But these teams are very evenly matched although in very different situations. The A's have a bunch of up and coming pitchers and a newly added star offensive player in Matt Holliday. The Angels are trying to hang on to success while their core ages and the deal with significant injuries to the pitching staff. Ultimately, it will be the injury stories that determine who wins this division. The Angels two best starting pitchers are going to miss the beginning of the season with injuries while Eric Chavez of the A's is likely to re-injure his shoulder if he sneezes to hard. If Erving Santana and John Lackey of the Angels don't miss too much time, they will probably take the division. If the A's rookies in the starting rotation hold up well and perform better than expected of rookie pitchers, they will probably take the division. This one will probably go down to the wire.
National League
NL East
Mets - 91 wins
Braves - 87 wins
Phillies - 86 wins
Marlins - 74 wins
Nationals - 73 wins
The Mets are the class of this division after re-tooling the bullpen. Either the Braves or Phillies will win the wild card and after adding Derek Lowe, Javier Vazquez, and Kenshin Kawakami; the Braves pitching is what seals the deal and leaves last year's world series winner out of the playoffs.
NL Central
Cubs - 94
Brewers - 82
Cardinals - 81
Reds - 78
Astros - 73
Pirates - 69
This division is the Cubs and 5 teams ranging from, at best, average to worst team in baseball. The Cardinals have one ridiculously good player (Pujols), 2 decent starting pitchers (though one is always hurt), and a team of scrubs (with Khalil Greene being king of the scrubs). The Brewers have some young talented position players but lost their 2 best pitchers to free agency and will only have one starting pitcher that is safely above league average (Yovani Gallardo). The Pirates bring up the rear in the division and I predict they will have the worst record in the majors when its all said and done.
NL West
Dodgers - 91 wins
D'Backs - 85 wins
Giants - 80 wins
Rockies - 71 wins
Padres - 70 wins
The Dodgers will safely win this division as it boasts one of the best top-bottom lineups in baseball. The Rockies lost their best pitcher to injury for the season and traded their best hitter for nothing that will be very useful in the major leagues next season. They will be fighting off the Padres to avoid the cellar in the NL West. The Diamondbacks have a young core of position players ready to take the next step to stardom and have 2 of the best starting pitchers in the game. They will fight the Phillies and the Braves for the NL wildcard.
First Round Playoff Scenarios
Yankees > A's
Red Sox > Indians
Cubs > Braves
Dodgers > Mets
Second Round Playoff Scenarios
Yankees > Red Sox
Dodgers > Cubs (98 more years)
World Series
Yankees > Dodgers
Enjoy the season everyone!
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
War on Drugs
Good article today from a columnist who gets it. He is arguing for the legalization of drugs for budgetary reasons. He writes,
"How many police officers and sheriff's deputies are involved in investigating and solving crimes involving illegal drugs? And arresting and transporting and interrogating and jailing the suspects?
How many prosecutors and their staffs spend time prosecuting drug cases? How many defense lawyers spend their time defending drug suspects?
How many hours of courtroom time are devoted to drug trials? How many judges, bailiffs, courtroom security officers, stenographers, etc., spend their time on drug trials?
How many prison cells are filled with drug offenders? And how many corrections officers does it take to guard them? How much food do these convicts consume?
And when they get out, how many parole and probation officers does it take to supervise their release?"
A Harvard economist estimates that the war on drugs costs 44 billion while potential tax revenue is 33 billion. Essentially the war on drugs costs us 77 billion dollars a year.
Now, there are 303 million people in the US and according to the IRS, 140 million people paid taxes in 07 (and presumably a similar number in 08). This means that the cost of the war on drugs is $254.13 per person and $550 per taxpayer. Violence in Mexico and the US would decrease if drugs were sold in liquor stores and not in back alleys street corners to be fought over. The temptation for public officials to accept bribes and aid in the drug trade in Mexico, the US, or anywhere else is gone.
We've been reading about what lousy shape our economy is in and how no one has any money, wouldn't it be nice if everyone had an extra $254.13 in their pockets?
Its time to cut our losses in the war on drugs. No one wins.
"How many police officers and sheriff's deputies are involved in investigating and solving crimes involving illegal drugs? And arresting and transporting and interrogating and jailing the suspects?
How many prosecutors and their staffs spend time prosecuting drug cases? How many defense lawyers spend their time defending drug suspects?
How many hours of courtroom time are devoted to drug trials? How many judges, bailiffs, courtroom security officers, stenographers, etc., spend their time on drug trials?
How many prison cells are filled with drug offenders? And how many corrections officers does it take to guard them? How much food do these convicts consume?
And when they get out, how many parole and probation officers does it take to supervise their release?"
A Harvard economist estimates that the war on drugs costs 44 billion while potential tax revenue is 33 billion. Essentially the war on drugs costs us 77 billion dollars a year.
Now, there are 303 million people in the US and according to the IRS, 140 million people paid taxes in 07 (and presumably a similar number in 08). This means that the cost of the war on drugs is $254.13 per person and $550 per taxpayer. Violence in Mexico and the US would decrease if drugs were sold in liquor stores and not in back alleys street corners to be fought over. The temptation for public officials to accept bribes and aid in the drug trade in Mexico, the US, or anywhere else is gone.
We've been reading about what lousy shape our economy is in and how no one has any money, wouldn't it be nice if everyone had an extra $254.13 in their pockets?
Its time to cut our losses in the war on drugs. No one wins.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Bank Bailout
Big news out of the Obama administration yesterday. The Treasury announced the bank bailout details. I've always had mixed feeling on bailing out banks. Its important that banks don't seal themselves in and protect against more losses by not lending, a fluid credit market is super important.
This is the plan. Banks will offer the assets (risky home loans) they don't want up for auction. Assume that the loans were worth a million dollars if there was no risk. The collection of assets will go to auction where asset management companies can bid on them.
The banks only want to clear the riskiest assets so the assets will be worth considerably less than the million dollars because of the high risk of default. Let say the bidding reaches $100,000. The government will pay over 90% the whole cost of the loan while the private company assumes only minimal risk.
Now I don't know all the details, but I assume the asset management company would be allowed to renegotiate the terms of the loans the acquire.
Now if the assets turn out well and they end up collecting 200,000 on the loans. The government and private company split the 200,000 evenly. Everyone goes home happy especially the asset managers, they invested less than 10,000 of their money and were able to collect 100,000. If the assets fall in value, the government (taxpayers) takes a pretty big hit.
Now the plan is obviously very controversial. Here are the positives: It takes the bad assets off the banks balance sheets and hopefully frees them up to loan more money. It leaves the asset management to professionals and keeps open the possibility the government can make a profit.
The cons: If the plan fails, it falls hard and the taxpayers bite the bullet yet again. The government is buying the riskiest assets and though auctions are usually the best way to accurately price something, the fact that the government is footing the bill will inflate prices because the companies know they are assuming minimal risk.
I'm still very so-so on the plan. The banks with the bad assets have an incentive to work directly with the lendees to work out a plan without the need for government intervention. However, if your number one priority is to get banks lending, the plan will accomplish that.
This is another arm of the Obama's overall strategy for the economy, we'll all have to see together if it works.
Another opinion
This is the plan. Banks will offer the assets (risky home loans) they don't want up for auction. Assume that the loans were worth a million dollars if there was no risk. The collection of assets will go to auction where asset management companies can bid on them.
The banks only want to clear the riskiest assets so the assets will be worth considerably less than the million dollars because of the high risk of default. Let say the bidding reaches $100,000. The government will pay over 90% the whole cost of the loan while the private company assumes only minimal risk.
Now I don't know all the details, but I assume the asset management company would be allowed to renegotiate the terms of the loans the acquire.
Now if the assets turn out well and they end up collecting 200,000 on the loans. The government and private company split the 200,000 evenly. Everyone goes home happy especially the asset managers, they invested less than 10,000 of their money and were able to collect 100,000. If the assets fall in value, the government (taxpayers) takes a pretty big hit.
Now the plan is obviously very controversial. Here are the positives: It takes the bad assets off the banks balance sheets and hopefully frees them up to loan more money. It leaves the asset management to professionals and keeps open the possibility the government can make a profit.
The cons: If the plan fails, it falls hard and the taxpayers bite the bullet yet again. The government is buying the riskiest assets and though auctions are usually the best way to accurately price something, the fact that the government is footing the bill will inflate prices because the companies know they are assuming minimal risk.
I'm still very so-so on the plan. The banks with the bad assets have an incentive to work directly with the lendees to work out a plan without the need for government intervention. However, if your number one priority is to get banks lending, the plan will accomplish that.
This is another arm of the Obama's overall strategy for the economy, we'll all have to see together if it works.
Another opinion
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Crazy Religous People
WOW
I don't know what Oklahoma is trying to prove here. State legislators wasting time and money with crap like this. I want to tear my hair out.
I don't know what Oklahoma is trying to prove here. State legislators wasting time and money with crap like this. I want to tear my hair out.
Friday, March 6, 2009
I may have changed my mind
As important as it is for people to have a voice in governing themselves. The pro prop 8 groups are fucking retarded.
"I believe if you travel down this path you will open Pandora's Box," said Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, who said same-sex marriage would create a strong legal argument for polygamy.
FUUUUUUUCK YOOUUUU. I've also heard people say this opens the door to beastiality as well. You people make me furious. You feel this strongly about the bible that you are going to resort to saying that allowing same sex marriage would also open the door for polygamy Ironically, mormon (I'm not going to capitalize the "m," they don't deserve it) groups were some of the strongest supporters and bankrollers of prop 8.
"I don't see this as a fundamental rights issue but redefining the definition of marriage," said Sen. Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar (Los Angeles County).
Technically he's right, dictionary.com's definition of marriage all include "man" and "woman"
The initiative "does not erode any of the bundle of rights that this state has very generously provided," he said, but merely "restores the traditional definition of marriage."
"Very gererously provided?" Who the fuck are you (it was Ken Starr again btw). Hes basically saying, "damn, you gays don't stop asking for stuff, we already let you outside in the daytime, what more do you want?"
The sacrifices I make for blogging. I read articles like these and comment on them for you even though it will put me in a bad mood for hours.
"I believe if you travel down this path you will open Pandora's Box," said Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, who said same-sex marriage would create a strong legal argument for polygamy.
FUUUUUUUCK YOOUUUU. I've also heard people say this opens the door to beastiality as well. You people make me furious. You feel this strongly about the bible that you are going to resort to saying that allowing same sex marriage would also open the door for polygamy Ironically, mormon (I'm not going to capitalize the "m," they don't deserve it) groups were some of the strongest supporters and bankrollers of prop 8.
"I don't see this as a fundamental rights issue but redefining the definition of marriage," said Sen. Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar (Los Angeles County).
Technically he's right, dictionary.com's definition of marriage all include "man" and "woman"
The initiative "does not erode any of the bundle of rights that this state has very generously provided," he said, but merely "restores the traditional definition of marriage."
"Very gererously provided?" Who the fuck are you (it was Ken Starr again btw). Hes basically saying, "damn, you gays don't stop asking for stuff, we already let you outside in the daytime, what more do you want?"
The sacrifices I make for blogging. I read articles like these and comment on them for you even though it will put me in a bad mood for hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)