Tee Ball Bunt Machine

I guess a lot of people in the circle-jerk here don't mind losing the 3 million jobs connected directly or indirectly to the Big Three, not to mention what would happen to the remainder of the steel industry, the glass industry, microprocessor industry, etc. If Detroit fails, what do you THINK is going to happen? Because that alone will cause the unemployment rate to jump 1%, maybe more through the connected industries. #1 - Some jobs need to be lost. Perhaps we haven't beaten this dead horse enough on this board, but the same way that so many .com businesses from the 90s had to fail, that the jobs of most milkmen and ice cutters became obsolete, there are simply jobs that will not survive. Now I might think it reasonable to spend money to help auto-workers train for new jobs if we at least had the money (and we don't). We could never have saved those jobs, but even if we could - at what cost would it be to the rest of us? #2 - Detroit is already failing. This notion that giving these guys another few Billion with which to fuel up their private jets will save any jobs is naive. Government cannot save the Detroit Autoindustry. Only the Detroit Autoindustry can save itself.

You aren't seriously suggesting that the American auto-industry has been run responsibly, are you? All of you who want to trust the jet-set CEOs to responsibly use your money to save their industry, please, pass a collection tray around and pay for it. Nobody wants any industry to collapse. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. And plenty of Republicans support this nonsense, and plenty of non-Republicans oppose it. Those of us who do oppose the bailout do so for a few reasons: #1 - We do not believe that it will save the industry. It won't correct their problems. #2 - We do not trust the people in charge of those companies with our money. #3 - Creating inflation (or taxing more) to give these companies this money, to many of us, amounts to robbing people and businesses who have been responsible and productive to give to businesses that have been irresponsible and unproductive. #4 - It doesn't solve the problems that these companies have. I find it silly when I hear "conservatives" also saying that we need to get both sides to the table (management and the unions) and work something out. Why do "we", the people, need to spend our money to get two entities to do something that is already in their best interest? It's like that whole moronic situation of us interjecting between the Palestinians and the Israelis - why in the world would either side need us to come up with an agreement that will give both sides peace? As dumb as any of the other aformentioned parties may be - I think one thing we've learned in the last 8 years is that our government really isn't so smart that we should believe it can solve all these problems any better. I thought I'd add in a clip of one of those Republicans supporting this bailout. His rationale for justifying spending this money to "save" these businesses? First off, if you had RTFA, you would have seen that labor HAS BEEN doing something about it. Health-care costs are being moved to a UAW-run trust, thus taking one of the biggest liabilities off the hands of GM. Second, did I say anything about the bailout? No. I'm trying to say that the "it's all the union's fault" meme is BS. If you want to compare apples to apples (as many in the conservobot circle-jerk here don't want to do), then you need to tell me what the average wage of a Toyota, Honda, or VW worker is when you add in pension benefits and health care. If the health-care contribution of the foreign automakers is $0, well, that explains a bit, but it's also downright disgusting. And no, I'm not saying that GM is being run well. Heck, I find Rick Wagoner to be a huge boil on the face of Duke University. I didn't like that Duke invited him to speak at the 2007 commencement, and I am even more adamant about it now. The next good idea he has about producing cars will be his first. It's a shame GM decided DeLorean (pre-drug bust) wouldn't make a good CEO, because if he were, he would have never been involved in that drug bust and would have actually stimulated innovation at GM. Instead, GM decided on Roger Smith, and it's been downhill ever since. You're missing my point - I don't care if it's 90% the union's fault and 10% management or vice versa. It is 0% the fault of the rest of us who will have to pay the bill for this, and paying for this won't solve anything. You're focused on something that is irrelevant, which is external perceptions. These problems need to be solved INTERNALLY, and as politicians profess that they are "too big to fail" they take away the only motivation that the company(both management and labor) have to correct their problems, whatever they may be. And I morally reject the notion that somehow these industries are more important than any other American business, beyond the point where we simply feel a need to keep them in business, but to where we are willing to take money away from successful and viable businesses and give it to the automakers whose management we have so much faith in. I don't know how much each hour of work should cost the car companies and niether does Washington.

You aren't seriously suggesting that the American auto-industry has been run responsibly, are you? All of you who want to trust the jet-set CEOs to responsibly use your money to save their industry, please, pass a collection tray around and pay for it. Nobody wants any industry to collapse. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. And plenty of Republicans support this nonsense, and plenty of non-Republicans oppose it. Those of us who do oppose the bailout do so for a few reasons: #1 - We do not believe that it will save the industry. It won't correct their problems. #2 - We do not trust the people in charge of those companies with our money. #3 - Creating inflation (or taxing more) to give these companies this money, to many of us, amounts to robbing people and businesses who have been responsible and productive to give to businesses that have been irresponsible and unproductive. #4 - It doesn't solve the problems that these companies have. I find it silly when I hear "conservatives" also saying that we need to get both sides to the table (management and the unions) and work something out. Why do "we", the people, need to spend our money to get two entities to do something that is already in their best interest? It's like that whole moronic situation of us interjecting between the Palestinians and the Israelis - why in the world would either side need us to come up with an agreement that will give both sides peace? As dumb as any of the other aformentioned parties may be - I think one thing we've learned in the last 8 years is that our government really isn't so smart that we should believe it can solve all these problems any better. I thought I'd add in a clip of one of those Republicans supporting this bailout. His rationale for justifying spending this money to "save" these businesses?

I would normally be in favor of letting unprofitable companies go bankrupt (regardless of size), but in this case I support a bailout because we risk a great depression if we fail to do so. I don't know what to think anymore...this is one of those things that 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' Pretty much. I do think, however, that the current proposed legislation has been generally misinterpreted as a bailout, when in reality it was going to be a more traditional loan with strings attached. Regardless, it looks like it's not going to happen anyway. Even if you actually believed this is a loan with all these conditions, riddle me this: The whole point of taking this action is the belief that we cannot allow the "big three" to go out of business, so what happens IF the car companies either violate the terms of the loan or simply fail to pay it back because there business is still not viable? Do we let them fail at that point, after we've already stolen $25 Billion from the people, or do we throw more money at the problem?

Look at about the recent pilgrimage of auto CEOs to Washington to beg for your money. The really relevant part is about 1 minute in. Now those of you who say we need this bailout because of how many jobs are involved, I want you to keep in mind that these are the people who would be in control of this money. And I want to know - does anyone trust these guys with $25 Billion in tax payer money?

Precisely. People who think that letting these companies fail would result in a depression are completely ignorant. This is only paving the way for stagflation and the creation of more devastating moral hazards. It's foolish to believe that a government raid on our treasury would bring about long term benefits. It's important to remember that there is no treasury, no money there. We have a 10 Trillion dollar debt. The only thing government can do is literally steal from every person who has money in US dollars by creating more inflation to pay for this stuff, and it is simply immoral.

It's amazing that people actually think we need to move to the left, and think that we have actually had a conservative in the White House for the last 8 years. Reality is startling.

I would normally be in favor of letting unprofitable companies go bankrupt (regardless of size), but in this case I support a bailout because we risk a great depression if we fail to do so. One of the things I try to explain to people when saying why this is a bad idea is that this isn't a choice between saving these companies or not - no amount of money given to these companies will correct them. It is an arrogant notion among politicians that they have the power to save an industry and save jobs. In reality, all they can do is take money away from people who have been responsible and have made good business decisions and give it to people who haven't. And that doesn't solve the problem. These companies are going down, its just a question of if the rest of us are going down with it.

Anyone think that had this been going on during the GOP primaries, he'd be saying the same thing? not sure...but he did say he wouldn't support government help for auto makers during the primaries and I believe he won Michigan. I think he said he'd help the automakers to win Michigan. How did he say he would help them? With a bailout or by addressing the governemt's mileage requirement standards? I'm not a Mitt Romney fan by any stretch, but I don't think he has waffled on this position. I never heard him suggest that simply giving money to automakers was any sort of a solution, though I never heard him speak on the subject so as to have to reject it either. That said, he did state during the primaries that his policy would be to "invest" those said billions in R&D on newer technologies for fuel efficiency, which is something I still disagree vehemently with. But his description of it here at least distinguishes it from a bailout moreso than did the stuff I heard him say in the debates.

The other side of this coin, for what it's worth: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/19...ref=mpstoryview

He had me until he got into the whole government should be spending on "research" part of it. Developing viable products is not the role of government either, but he is right about the bailout.

I think Rabelo kinda had a bad shake here since they decided to use him primarily as a LHB rather than really letting him be a switch hitter. And while the disparity isn't that huge, the numbers do say he hits better from the right side, so if no one picks him up I do hope he gets a shot at backing up Baker. We could certainly do worse at that backup position.

On the other hand, "right to work" states give companies free rein to crush unionization movements. Point? What exactly do you mean by "crush unionization movements"? You mean having the ability to fire employees who create a union? This may sound crazy, but I would imagine that an employer has the right to decide who they employ and who they don't, especially on the basis of someone working towards creating a situation which would negatively impact the company's earnings (like a strike).

Why is this irrelevant? He plays half of all his games at home and has never had a consistent season in the majors. We can argue back and forth about potential all day but it really doesn't matter. We've wasted these 3 years in which he should've been in the minors and now its time to make a decision: is he worth arbitration money and the team's confidence in a year in which we are supposed to contend? Yes, he could certainly turn into some great hitter, I odn't think teams generally call up talents they think are hopeless for long spans of time. But he could also just do what he did last year and OPS below 750. The real question is do you have confidence and faith in him, adn want him at the plate when the game is on the line? I don't. I would rather try someone untested than pay more for someone with a history of dissapointing who tops it off with lazy defense. And I really could care less if he turns into Manny Ramirez while playing for someone else 3 years from now. We are trying to contend in 2009, and Hermida isn't ready for it. Because players at this age struggle, and past bumps in the road don't completely negate future potential. We haven't wasted 3 years. He hasn't been hopeless. You are clueless to player development if you truly believe that. No one is making excuses for him, but at the same time he's shown plenty of potential to be a plus hitter in this league and it's foolish to cut these players loose. Especially when they are cheap, and a 1st year arbitration Hermida is very cheap in baseball terms. Any FA that could get close to his hitting potential for 2009 would cost just as much, or more. This isn't a near 30 year old like Willingham and Jacobs who "are who they are." Hermida can absolutely be a corner OF on a contending team and he's not making or breaking our contending situation regardless. Our SP will take us as far as they want too. Your last sentence is frightening. I never said it negates future potential, but if you're simply gonna ignore his track record where it's bad and harp on and on about where it's great then you're just deceiving yourself. It has been a waste, especially if you believe that Hermida really is that good, because we've wasted his 3 years on a span of time where for 2? of those seasons he held an OPS below 750. That's not what I call productive, and it also leads us to this current dilemma. I would think it easy to say "hang onto him" if he were not up for arbitration, but that's not the situation, because the team thought he was ready these last 3 years, and with the exception of a very good second half in 2007, Hermida has proven them wrong. Now you've got 3 options obviously - one is to keep Hermida, and you can think what you like, but I think expecting an OPS of over 750 out of him given his track record isn't being realistic. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying I don't expect it. Second option would be to replace him with a FA, and though that would probably cost us more, it would probably also bring us someone a bit more reliable IMO, who could probably also play better defense. Third is obviously to call someone up, and while that is cheaper but much less reliable, I still think the odds of someone else showing up are better than those of Hermida. You don't even need to look very far to find guys who weren't so highly regarded in the minors but have hit very well since coming up - look at Uggla or even Baker this year. Not to say that I'm banking on something like that to happen again, but I am saying that I feel no reason to commit to Hermida after 2? seasons of sub-750 OPS production and lazy defense. And why is that so frightening? There are plenty of superstars and amazing hitters in Baseball, and there will always be the majority of them on other teams, even if they played here before. It's not the end of the world to lose a player and then see them become great. Hell, it has happened plenty with this organization. Last offseason we traded away Miguel Cabrera (who is 1000x the hitter Hermida is and not even a whole year older) and the team got better, so it would hardly be the end of the world if we traded away Hermida, even if he ever managed to live up to his hype.

Trading Hermida may be a great idea. Every year he doesn't live up to potential he loses some value. He's still young and we may be able to get some value for him if we trade him now. It's like trading D-Train. If a good deal comes along we should definitely trade him. We gave away Hammer for free, which granted he had back problems, but when healthy I would have taken him as a hitter any day over Hermida. And replace him in the outfield with who? We currently have 3 MLB outfielders in our organization (Ross, Maybin, Hermida), a couple of 5th outfielders (Amezaga, potentially Bonifacio or Andino), and then a flurry of AAA prospects (Raynor, De Aza, Carroll) and AA prospects (Morrison, Cousins, Petersen) who are not ready yet. We also are still the Marlins, and don't commit money to free agents. Who are we going to get on a 1 year deal to replace this production? That is left handed. And won't cost us draft picks. (I just ruled out everyone). We also totally need to commit money to a corner outfielder based on the aforementioned players too. That would be awesome roadblocking one of the deepest areas, if not the deepest, of our farm system. Getting rid of him is idiotic right now based on depth, let alone anything else. However there is more! It's also idiotic based on potential. You people are ridiculous. Last year he had a .870 OPS, which is insane. This year his road OPS was .851, he just somehow hit an abysmal .584 at home. He's also 24 frigging years old. I swear to god you people don't have a clue about player development. Hermida is younger than Gaby Sanchez. It doesn't matter that Hermida struggled as a 22 year old as a rookie, or that he hit pathetic at home at 24 years old. This is still a good young baseball player that is 2-3 years away from his prime and could overnight turn the light on and start hitting to his immediate .280/.360/.475+ potential. You people have to have more than a 'what have you done for me lately' attitude. This isn't a marginal prospect that showed something then stopped hitting. This is a top of the line prospect who showed something, and then had a setback. This happens all the time. It's ok, it's called player development. The last thing we need is for us to trade him and for him to go Carlos Quentin, Brandon Phillips, or Jeremy Guthrie on our asses. It's absolutely in our best interest to see what happens in 2009 then make a decision based on 2 full seasons after his breakout 2007. At this point we will have a flurry of potential OF to internally replace him. If he doesn't hit again, no problem. He was worth the risk based on his upside and all we have invested in him. If he hits? Fantastic, now we see if it's worth keeping him compared to how awesome Raynor, Cousins, Petersen, and to a lesser extent Morrison, did in 2009. I can't wait for these posts to stop. Why is this irrelevant? He plays half of all his games at home and has never had a consistent season in the majors. We can argue back and forth about potential all day but it really doesn't matter. We've wasted these 3 years in which he should've been in the minors and now its time to make a decision: is he worth arbitration money and the team's confidence in a year in which we are supposed to contend? Yes, he could certainly turn into some great hitter, I odn't think teams generally call up talents they think are hopeless for long spans of time. But he could also just do what he did last year and OPS below 750. The real question is do you have confidence and faith in him, adn want him at the plate when the game is on the line? I don't. I would rather try someone untested than pay more for someone with a history of dissapointing who tops it off with lazy defense. And I really could care less if he turns into Manny Ramirez while playing for someone else 3 years from now. We are trying to contend in 2009, and Hermida isn't ready for it.

Also the adversarial relationship many union employees have towards their employers obviously leads to unproductivity. I disagree. I think unions play an important role. It's freedom of contract at its best. No one is saying unions in general are bad, only that the environment as it relates to the unions in the auto industry is so polarized that it's difficult for those of us outside the business to imagine union member/employees that get along well with their employers and actually wish them success. I think Poloa does. Employees in unions may very well be less productive and efficient (I would be skeptical of this statement and would only believe it if I were to be shown some empirical evidence), but the point is that I believe in people's right to contract. If me and a bunch of my co-workers want to organize and negotiate together I should be able to do that. If my union negotiates a contract with an employer (who obviously agrees to the contract), then that contract should be honored. I find it ironic how many of these "free marketers" pick and choose which parts of the free market to choose from. (I'm not referring to you). I'm not quite sure what the last statement is supposed to mean, but I'm not sure anyone is saying that contracts should be violated or that any of us agree with the idea of government getting in the middle and altering contracts. If both parties involved choose to honor this contract, then they have to take it to its logical conclusion, which is the failure of the company, which is bad for both sides. I don't really care that it takes until then for them to come to their senses. All that any of us are saying is that overall the impact of these particular union deals has been negative for that industry. And these companies, along with their respective unions, need to make things work or go out of business. The rest of America, which isn't a party to this contract, shouldn't be forced to bear the burden of the costs that these contracts have led to.

You need to get the politicians and news cameras out of the country and let the military win this war. Unless you put at least two battalions of Marines in each province, there is zero hope for any sort of legitimate military or political victory in Afghanistan. I'm only curious, what exactly would victory mean in this case? Let me be clear: I don't really care about democracy in Afghanistan. After 9/11, we demanded the Taliban turn over the Al-Qaeda leadership we believed were responsible, like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and Osama Bin Laden. It was Mullah Omar's refusal to do so (not their style of government) that justified our invasion (IMO). So we went in and toppled the Taliban and still haven't gotten all our guys. There really still should only be one goal in Afghanistan, and that one being the apprehension or death of those luminaries on our list. And and all resources we commit there should only be set towards that goal, rather than fighting a bunch of Taliban who have basically nothing to do with 9/11. And once we scratch off the names on our list, we should be gone. If the Taliban want to keep their country in the 13th Century, they will be the worse off for it.

1. No 2. The only way I'll accept such a move is if we get a solid prospect in the deal...and then sign Barry Bonds, as his (Hermida's) replacement in 2009. 1. It's not up to you, it's up to the Marlins front office. 2. Why would you even consider Barry Bonds? Out of baseball for a year, lousy defense, and his bat is not even for certain anymore, pitchers are going to have a field day striking him out, Barry - steroids= done. Are you serious? I know Barry Bonds is unpopular, but seriously, the guy had a 480 OBP in 07. I'm not even gonna get into the guy's slugging cause you know how that is. Unless those steroids have been doing damage to his eyes in the past year, I'm pretty sure he'd be fine to play 100-120 games in a year. Yes, his defense would suck, but that isn't exactly a feature that distinguishes him from Jeremy Hermida. Like Manny Ramirez, Barry Bonds has some of the best eyes in baseball and the OBP numbers year after year to prove it. Unlike Manny Ramirez, he also hold the records for all time HRs and single season HRs. Oh yeah, and he could conceivably come a lot cheaper. It might even be worth it to him if he believes he'll have a shot a ring here. As to the general subject of trading Hermida, all I can say is - finally. If we're serious about contending next year then we need to move the guys who've been too fragile and unreliable and hopefully make way for people we can have more confidence in.

I'll probably be the only person here to say that I don't think Bonifacio actually starting in RF would be the worst thing in the world. Yes, he would obviously be an offensive downgrade with the bat unless he made some huge strides, but he also could potentially also give us much better defense. And while of course it is nice to have big bats at every position on the field, considering that we already have 2 great hitters in the middle of our IF, will likely also have very good hitters at the IF's corners, a good hitting C and a good hitting CF, we could conceivably take the hit offensively if it sures things up defensively. Again, I'm not saying I want it to go down exactly this way, but it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. You can't have (and don't need) a silver slugger at every position.

Oooh, Zeitgeist...I must admit to having difficulty taking something seriously when other parts of it argue that Jesus never existed.

It's unfortunate for the Iraqi cabinet (and us) that their resolutions have no binding effect on US troops. If they honestly think they'll get rid of the US troops and their 14 bases then they should call someone like Tariq Aziz from the old Iraqi government and find out how much value the US government puts on the positions of Iraqi leaders. All of the Obama folks on here: Seriously, call me when he actually removes all those bases and that ridiculous embassy before we call anything a withdrawl from Iraq.

Also the adversarial relationship many union employees have towards their employers obviously leads to unproductivity. I disagree. I think unions play an important role. It's freedom of contract at its best. No one is saying unions in general are bad, only that the environment as it relates to the unions in the auto industry is so polarized that it's difficult for those of us outside the business to imagine union member/employees that get along well with their employers and actually wish them success.

I think it would be worthwhile to get Manny if a reasonable deal could be worked out. Not because I think he would have a significant long term impact on regular season attendance, but because I think he would put us over the top and send us to the playoffs and potentially a third ring, and at least get us some postseason attendance. Really, it's entirely up to Manny. He could play for any team in baseball for a fortune so long as he is semi-reasonable about his terms.

Oh geez, here we go with the "blame it on the labor contracts" BS again. If they were so onerous, how come Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, VW, etc. aren't having as many problems? Do they not have similar labor contracts, even in their home countries of Japan, South Korea, and Germany? Or maybe they don't, because they have governments that offer some of the benefits that automakers in this country have to offer themselves, namely HEALTH CARE!!! Somebody seriously needs to tell me what the differences are between labor contracts with domestic companies and labor contracts with the foreign companies, because I smell a lot of BS. The Number 1 reason why the Big Three are failing is and has always been a complete lack of innovation. While I agree 100% that they are lacking in innovation, I have a few points: #1 - I think you are being naive to think the labor contracts don't make a difference, and a number of the foreign automakers you mentioned have factories here in the US that do not have the ridiculous labor contract issues of the "big three". #2 - You cannot force a company or a person to be innovative. They have to come up with the ideas and be motivated to make something work. A business that knows that it won't be allowed to fail has no motivation to innovate, or make any real changes to increase productivity. You're correct. For example the average hourly cost of a GM, Ford and Chrysler employee is over 50% higher than that of an American Toyota employee. Interesting. Are there any differences in productivity? I don't think the article I read discussed differences in productivity but I would bet the non-union American Toyota worker is more productive than the union big three worker. Probably on account of the fact that they have less of their job security written into their contracts as opposed to being dependent on their performance.

Not to bust the balls of the guys who run this great site, but does anyone else find it funny that Hanley wins the Silver Slugger award and they put up a picture of him fielding on the homepage?