text:
Draft-pick compensation makes for tough decisions
When Dustin Pedroia arrived at Coors Field for Game 3 of the 2007 World Series, security officers would not let him in. He didn't have his ID and he didn't look old enough or big enough to be a ballplayer.
Pedroia, who was then 24, announced his presence loudly, according to legend.
When Dustin Pedroia arrived at Coors Field for Game 3 of the 2007 World Series, security officers would not let him in. He didn't have his ID and he didn't look old enough or big enough to be a ballplayer.
Pedroia, who was then 24, announced his presence loudly, according to legend.
"Go ask Jeff Francis who I am," Pedroia said. "I'm the guy who leads off the World Series hitting a homer!"
Pedroia was referencing his here-we-go home run in the World Series opener, which started the Red Sox rolling toward a sweep over the Colorado Rockies. It was a moment that jump-started the career of a guy who few had projected to develop into one of the most dangerous hitters in baseball.
Here's a snippet from a scouting report when Pedroia was a junior at Arizona State: "Pedroia's tools are below-average across the board, but people have learned not to sell him short. ... He compares to Angels shortstop David Eckstein, though Eckstein is a better runner. On tools, Pedroia is not a high-round pick but he's a perfect fit for a performance-based organization like the Athletics, who have four of the first 40 picks."
Boston landed Pedroia in the second round of the 2004 First-Year Player Draft, with the 65th pick overall. Five other players taken in that round have had long big league careers, including Hunter Pence, Yovani Gallardo and Jason Vargas.
This is worth revisiting as six free agents who require compensation (Shin-Soo Choo, Nelson Cruz, Stephen Drew, Ubaldo Jimenez, Ervin Santana and Kendrys Morales) remain unsigned, as Kyle Lohse did until being picked up by the Brewers last spring. That signing didn't come until March 25, with agent Scott Boras essentially running a separate Spring Training program for Lohse as he continued shopping him, and you wonder if anyone will be stuck in limbo that long this time around.
Let's hope not. These are all players who can help contenders; otherwise they would not have been given the qualifying offers they turned down, which would have allowed them to return to their teams for one season at $14.1 million.
But the Draft-pick compensation subsequently attached to them is a serious thing, whether the signing team is one of 20 that would lose its first-round pick or one of the 10 whose first-round pick at the top of the Draft is protected. Those teams -- the Astros, Marlins, White Sox, Cubs, Twins, Mariners, Phillies, Rockies, Blue Jays (who actually have a second protected pick because they did not sign the 10th overall pick last June) and Mets -- will lose a second-rounder if they sign Choo or one of the others.
Choo, 31, is the most attractive guy on this list. One report says he turned down a seven-year, $140 million offer from the Yankees before that need was filled with Carlos Beltran instead, and if Boras is shooting that high with him, it could be a long time before he signs.
This could turn out just fine for Choo, as it would allow teams like the Rangers, Mariners and maybe even the Cubs to bid for Masahiro Tanaka before turning their attention back to Choo if someone else lands the Rakuten Golden Eagles' ace. Remember that Boras got Prince Fielder his nine-year deal with the Tigers in late January two years ago.
Because of his age, Choo could be a fit for a rebuilding team like the Astros or Cubs as easily as a contender desperate to win. I never thought it made sense for the Cubs to chase free agents like Albert Pujols, Fielder or Josh Hamilton. But Choo would be a huge asset in helping manager Rick Renteria and hitting coach Bill Mueller construct the lineup of smart, willing-to-walk hitters that Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer envision.
He would be a terrific role model for the outfielders who are coming, including 23-year-old Junior Lake, Cuban Jorge Soler and 2012 first-round pick Albert Almora, and -- assuming he could be signed without no-trade rights -- would make it easier down the road to trade for young pitching.
The Cubs currently have only about $77 million committed to payroll for 2014, and that includes their final $14 million owed Alfonso Soriano. They have only $31 million on the books for '15. And the Astros have done an even better job of clearing the decks.
Owner Jim Crane has said this year's payroll will be at least $50 million, and after signing Scott Feldman to a three-year, $30 million contract, the Astros still have almost $20 million in payroll flexibility. You could do worse than rebuilding around an outfield of Choo, Dexter Fowler and prospect George Springer, who had 37 homers and 45 stolen bases in the high Minors last season.
But for the Astros and Cubs, there's a catch. These organizations prioritize scouting and player development. They value their picks. Plus losing a second-round pick also means losing the slot money that goes with that pick, and that could impact the first round.
North Carolina State lefty Carlos Rodon heads toward the spring as a strong favorite for the first overall pick. He looked big league ready as a freshman and has continued to profile as a high-ceiling, low-risk option. The price tag for him could extend beyond the slot value (which was $7.79 million in 2013, when Mark Appel signed for $6.35 million), and the second-round slot value could be critical to getting a deal done that keeps Rodon from returning for his senior season (as Appel did for his at Stanford when he slid in the 2012 Draft).
Teams do eventually swallow and sacrifice Draft picks to get instant contributors. The Yankees (Jacoby Ellsbury, Brian McCann and Carlos Beltran), Mariners (Robinson Cano) and Mets (Curtis Granderson) have already given up Draft picks to sign compensation free agents. But lasting success is more often found with shrewd Draft choices, like the one the Red Sox made when they took Pedroia.
Phil Rogers is a columnist for MLB.com.


text:
bka0664 Is this forum dead? Brian
bka0664 Hey people.... I'm getting sent to Houma Louisianna for the next month for work, I'm totally new to the south and would like to get some tips on good food in the area... I'll have a car and will be mobile... all ideas will be appreciated.
MiamiDon He started another thread titled Houma, Louisianna. Perhaps your reply would be more useful there, instead of in the pittsburgh bbq thread.
MiamiDon My bad. I mistakenly thought you might be actually trying to help the guy out.
MiamiDon Well, since you didn't find the thread that Brian started until three hours later, you obviously missed the new thread that he started, so I was hoping you would re-post over there.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Action Shot of me straight Killing it... early works.
PaperMarbles Project
- Maynerd
- I am Maynerd... apparently the artist formerly known as PaperMarbleS... The reason this whole blog started up so long ago was for the PaperMarbleS project, which I never really motivated enough to actually make it come to light... Well, It's back. The First edition of the PMSProject should be ready to roll in late 2011, and there are some sweet ideas rolling for it. The content of the actual blog may shift a bit, as I won't be showing so much of the process of the art, but more of what it is that influences the end results... Also Show recaps and other random tidbits of Awesome... Heads up Stand up.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
No comments:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
'No Photos From The Sky' Bill Trimmed Back, But Still Could Create Felons Out Of Kids Playing With Toy Drones
from the silly-law deptA few weeks back, we wrote about an absolutely ridiculous bill that was proposed in New Hampshire that would have made it illegal to do any aerial photography, if the images showed any "residential dwelling." As we noted, this would make things like various mapping services illegal. Given the criticism, it appears that the bill's sponsor, Rep. Neal Kurt, decided to rewrite it, limiting it to just "drones," after admitting that the whole idea for the bill came after he saw a toy drone for sale in the mall. Kurt appears to have an overactive imagination when it comes to those toy drones, because he's worried about them firing lasers, if the text of the bill (HB 619-FN) is any indication:
II. "Drone" means an unmanned flying machine that is capable of:Unfortunately, the bill is still way too broad. While mapping programs may be legal, any use of a drone to photograph a person or people becomes a felony. Also if you photograph the inside of a building. From the sky. Maybe that's via the lasers. The only way around this law is to get "prior, written consent" from the person photographed.(a) Capturing images or sounds of objects or people on the ground, in or about buildings or structures, or in the air;
(b) Intercepting communications on the ground, in or about buildings and structures, or in the air; or
(c) Firing a bullet, LASER-type ray, other projectile or any kind of lethal or non-lethal weapon.
This is the kind of bill you get when you have a politician with an overactive imagination, who sees a toy drone and can only think "bad things will happen with this," and refuses to consider the many cool things that can be done with drones today. Chris Anderson built a whole company after being inspired to build drones with his kids. If this bill passes, and he's in New Hampshire with his kids, having fun, teaching them things about building things, physics, aerodynamics and more, they could all become felons if their drone takes a photo of someone without "prior, written consent." That's just silly.
Thankfully, it sounds like most of the people who went to a hearing on the bill spoke out against it -- including a Brigadier General from the US Army who pointed out that the federal government has "exclusive sovereignty" over airspace, and the State of New Hampshire does not.
First to testify was a Brigadier General from the US Army. He began by firmly reminding the committee that the airspace above New Hampshire was not owned by New Hampshire, but by the United States of America, and therefore controlled by the FAA. One of the committee members challenged him as to where that authority came from. The General was kind enough to quote chapter and verse. There were no more questions.It's a bit disappointing to see that the ACLU is pledging "strong support" for the bill. Yes, I understand the concerns and worries about domestic drone use by governments for surveillance purposes -- and I support efforts by various groups to build transparency and clear rules around such usage -- but this bill goes way beyond that.
Filed Under: airspace, drones, new hampshire, photographs, privacy
Companies: aclu


text:
This post was inspired by a letter that I read in the Observer a couple of weeks ago (just so you I managed to track down the author of the letter and obtained his permission to publish it. I'm sure you don't care but I wanted to impress you with my cyber stalking abilities!).
Well, how convenient for neoclassical economics: upward mobility and socioeconomic status are not "good for you" ("Why being stuck in the same job is bad for you", News , last week)? Promotion, higher income and status are already feted as the essential motivators to economic growth, hence justifying vast and increasing income and wealth differentials in the UK. Now those who fail this race also stand accused of being the hapless architects of their own ill health…
…If we perceive ourselves in a race, or feel compelled to join one, then, while winning might save us, we might also die in the process. A society that aspires to promote emotional wellbeing and less ill health needs to off subtle solutions, such as flatter income and status hierarchies, and cultures that genuinely value the contributions of all.
Adrian Barritt
Lancing, West Sussex
Mr Barritt also mentions his father, who died at 46 after moving his family for idyllic Cornwall chasing promotion. This post is a difficult one for me to write actually. I am the type of person who constantly wants more, who regularly feels like there is a better life to be had, and who measures my value in terms of success, not necessarily material success, but certainly career and status. It is a constant source of stress to me that I am the only one of my friends who does not own their own house. And therein lies the rub: would homeownership, or my lack of it, be such a source of stress to me if none of my peers owned their own homes. Highly unlikely. It's an often quoted fact that despite the trappings of 21st Century life, iPods, laptops, mobile phones etc. we are no happier now than we were 60 years old. I think that the impact of these gadgets, designed to improve our lives, is lessened further by their ubiquity.
It is hard to escape the reality that we measure ourselves and our success against those around us. Things like massive HD TVs, fancy clothes, flashy jewellery make us feel happy and special until everyone around us has the same thing. Even those who think they aren't affected by what others think, or how they compare against others still do to some extent. Did you have a shower this morning? Put on some make up or shave? Do you think you would still do that if you were on a deserted island with no one else around? We do these things because that's what society dictates, and not following those norms leaves us feeling like outsiders. I've been party to discussions on Mumsnet about things like whether one should shower every day. There are some people who are content to bath or shower every few days, and some who think it is nothing less than disgusting if you don't shower each day. And others for whom a twice daily shower is regulation. But 100 years ago no-one would have been arguing about this. Even 50 years ago, weekly baths and a quick wipe with a flannel every day satisfied most people's hygiene desires. Yet as we and technology evolve so do our collective standards. What was acceptable 50 years ago will make you a social pariah today.
Trying to keep up with society's norms is hard work. Trying to keep up with society's extremes is even harder. Yet people still want to have the looks and lives of celebrities and other successful people. When we focus on what we haven't got that someone else has we are always going to be unhappy, there will always be something we don't have, unless of course Bill Gates is reading my blog. I heard he does you know.
It's not just about material possessions, that is just a symptom of the wider malaise. Another such symptom, which the letter above references, is the constant aspiration for better jobs, more successful positions. Books like Screw Work Let's Play, and other motivational tomes are all about shaking off the shackles of banality and living the life we deserve. But for some people run of the mill jobs are all they can or want to aspire to. We should applaud that, revere it. Why is it that rock stars, Hollywood actors, or footballers get to make millions by doing something they love, surely the fact that they get to spend life doing what they enjoy is reward enough. It's not like they work harder than nurses, or factory workers. It's not like they are necessarily more intelligent than a supermarket cashier; you only have to listen to what comes out of the mouths of certain footballers or pop stars to realise that. And they are not necessarily morally superior either. Yet they have money, status, and power. They are glorified and celebrated.
What about the checkout person who is still smiling and polite after 8 hours of bleeping groceries through the checkout? What about the family who live in an overcrowded council house on minimum wage yet manage to bring up happy well rounded kids? What about the person going into their minimum wage job each day, their whole lives, working so as not to be a burden on anyone else? These people, who are satisfied and happy with their lives, should be celebrated, and their jobs should be valued and not demonised. I'd like to see a book released called "Stop wasting your time trying to be another entrepreneur and get a real job helping someone".
Chiumento, a "talent management agency", recently conducted some research into what motivated staff. Using their results they grouped workers into 5 categories based on what motivated them in their work, with factors ranging from organisational culture to company reputation. The full paper can be found here but there are some pertinent facts relating to this post. 41.3% of staff surveyed were categorised as Socialisers. For them the important factors in their jobs are a warm friendly environment, stability and a good work-life balance. Pay was is one of the least motivating factors for this group, as long as they feel they are being treated fairly. 19% are classed as Protectionists; they crave security and certainty, and while they want to be rewarded, they are willing to make sacrifices to get the security they need. Their career path and development are relatively low in importance. For the last three groups, Achievers, Materialists and True Believers, motivation is more likely to be drawn from the status of the company, the rewards and the need for personal development and advancement. It is both telling and gratifying to see that for about 60% of people just having a job that treats them well is enough. All these books trying to encourage people to chase riches are unnecessary for this 60%, they are happy already, thank you very much.
But despite these interesting figures, I feel we still need to change our society to value more than wealth and the trappings that come with it. Why should we feel a constant need to strive for more, a better job, more money, more stuff. We should be striving for more happiness, more creativity, more compassion. But not more than our neighbour, I'm not talking about swapping one race for another. I'm talking about getting out of the race and using all the free time we have when we aren't stressing over our position in society.
I blame the Olympics. And Euro 2012, the Oscars and all these other competitions that glamorise winning, with no consolation prize for the runners up and the also rans. It may be that winning the race is a positive experience, and the sense of achievement good for your health, but what are the prospects for the majority of 'losers'? I don't doubt that being in a rubbish job is soul destroying and bad for your health, but maybe some of that is just a response to the way society views such jobs. We need to measure success in different ways, both in ourselves and in others.
I mentioned that this post is hard for me to write. I am a naturally ambitious and aspirational person, and put a great store in my own personal success. Unfortunately my dilettante ways and difficulty in seeing projects through to the end means that I rarely meet my own goals. In one of the books that I read on personality it said that people of my personality type often go through life never feeling completely satisfied. Before I would have thought that was a good thing, that it showed ambition and drive. Increasingly I'm finding the feeling rather sad and exhausting. With the finish line nowhere in sight I think it is time for me to think about getting out of the race.