SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: altair19 who wrote (182271)12/9/2009 10:39:39 AM
From: T L Comiskey  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361973
 
A 19..

good to 'see'
someone here

I was beginning to feel
like this guy

en.wikipedia.org



To: altair19 who wrote (182271)12/9/2009 1:52:04 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361973
 
A19: It was clearly a great move by the Yankees and they don't mind giving up young talent to get All Stars...Granderson is a fantastic player -- but he's also a high character player who represents a team really well off the field...I was surprised the Tigers traded Curtis Granderson as he was their most popular player by a long shot...and Granderson is from the Midwest and had started a very successful "GrandKids" foundation that works with kids in inner city schools in Detroit and in other parts of Michigan. The Tigers got a young Centerfield prospect from the Yankees but it's all potential...Austin Jackson has had too many strikeouts so far in the minors. Less power than Granderson, better average in the minors. Not as good a fielder, average arm.

If the Tigers GM really wanted to do "a salary dump" they should have carefully traded the most expensive player on the team: Miguel Cabrera...The Tigers can't afford to keep Cabrera but instead they trade Granderson and the outstanding young pitcher Edwin Jackson...Hmmm...doesn't make too much sense to me...and I will predict that the Tigers have a very tough time competing with the White Sox in the AL Central in 2010 (and maybe even again in 2011).

-s2@IHopeImWrong.com



To: altair19 who wrote (182271)12/9/2009 2:31:29 PM
From: SiouxPal  Respond to of 361973
 
Please use your karma to fast forward us through basketball season.
Thank you.



To: altair19 who wrote (182271)12/9/2009 2:36:27 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361973
 
Curtis Granderson Trade All About the Detroit Tigers’ Bottom Line

baseballnewsshare.com



To: altair19 who wrote (182271)12/9/2009 5:09:18 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361973
 
Goldman Taking ‘Hard Look’ at Pay, Board Member Says (Update1)

By Erik Schatzker and Michael J. Moore

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the most profitable firm in Wall Street history, is taking a “very hard look” at whether to pay people less because of public outrage over bonuses, board member William George said.

Goldman Sachs set aside 47 percent of revenue for compensation and benefits through the third quarter, enough to pay each employee more than $500,000 for nine month’s work. George, a professor at Harvard Business School who sits on the New York-based bank’s compensation committee, said the board may lower the percentage this year and in the future.

“I think that’s up to the compensation committee to decide, but I think they are going to take a very hard look at it,” George said in an interview today on Bloomberg Television. “There is so much anger out there and I’m not quite sure how to ameliorate that, other than to moderate things and to recognize that Goldman and every other firm benefited from the actions of the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Department.”

Goldman Sachs’s pay policies came under scrutiny by lawmakers and regulators after the firm received $10 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program and issued debt guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to help it weather the financial crisis. The firm repaid the $10 billon with interest in June.

‘Irresponsibly High’

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner last week disputed claims by Goldman Sachs executives that the firm could have survived without help from the government and called for an end to “irresponsibly high bonuses” on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein favors a “pay for performance” culture, and a posting on the firm’s Web site says that approach “incentivizes employees to create long-term value for shareholders.”

George, who was CEO of Medtronic Inc., the medical-devices maker, from 1991 to 2001, said Goldman Sachs “isn’t tuning it out” when criticisms are made about compensation.

“There will clearly be bonuses paid this year, but I think one has to look at it in relation to the profits,” said George, who joined Goldman Sachs’s board in 2002. “Wall Street historically has paid out a high percentage of its pre- compensation profits, but I think that’s being closely looked at right now.”

In 2007, when Goldman paid employees a record $20.1 billion, the firm set aside 43.9 percent of revenue for compensation and benefits. Last year, the so-called comp ratio rose to 48 percent. The percentage typically drops in the fourth quarter.

Compensation Ratios

Goldman Sachs’s chief financial officer, David Viniar, told analysts on a conference call in March 2008 that “compensation is two-thirds of our expenses and year-end bonuses are two- thirds of our compensation.”

George, 67, said Goldman can’t handle pay the way non- financial companies such as Medtronic do because of competition from private-equity firms and hedge funds.

The answer, he said, is to tie compensation to long-term performance. The practice of paying out large cash bonuses “has got to move on,” he said, adding that incentive payments should be made in restricted stock with a vesting period, or maturity, of five years or more.

“It’s clearly a sensitive matter, and I think the amount is a sensitive matter,” he said. “I don’t think at any level the public can feel satisfied with it.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Michael J. Moore in New York at mmoore55@bloomberg.net; Erik Schatzker in New York at eschatzker@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: December 9, 2009 09:57 EST



To: altair19 who wrote (182271)12/9/2009 5:34:36 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361973
 
Dave Cameron from fangraphs on the big trade...

fangraphs.com

Curtis Granderson Hitting in the Bronx

fangraphs.com



To: altair19 who wrote (182271)12/9/2009 10:01:11 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361973
 
Leyland on Granderson: ‘He’s the Total Package’

bats.blogs.nytimes.com

INDIANAPOLIS — For several minutes Wednesday, Detroit Tigers Manager Jim Leyland sat at a table in a hotel ballroom and talked about Placido Polanco and Curtis Granderson. Polanco signed with the Phillies last week, and the Yankees traded for Granderson on Tuesday.

“I’m a little frustrated right now,” Leyland confessed, “because you guys are asking about players I used to have and not about anybody I’ve got.”

And to think, nobody had yet asked about another departing All-Star, Edwin Jackson, who is going to Arizona in the Granderson deal.

These are hard times for the cost-cutting Tigers, who intend to use the rookie Scott Sizemore to replace Polanco at second base and another rookie, Austin Jackson, to replace Granderson in center. Neither has played in the majors.

Granderson has, of course, and pending the review of medical records, he will be the Yankees’ center fielder in 2010 and beyond. Leyland was extremely complimentary of Granderson.

“In my opinion, Curtis Granderson is one of the things that’s all good about baseball and today’s baseball world,” Leyland said. “He is one heck of a player. He has a great face. He’s very bright. He’s very articulate. He’s everything that’s good about baseball. Not to mention a guy that did something that nobody in the history of the game did a couple of years ago — nobody, ever — and hit 30 home runs last year. He’s the total package.”

Leyland was referring to Granderson’s 2007 season, when he became the first player (dating to 1901) with at least 23 doubles, triples and homers in the same season. The triples were something of an anomaly; he has hit 21 in the last two seasons combined, and played in a home park conducive to triples. But the larger point is that Granderson is very good.

I asked Leyland about Granderson’s drop-off in 2009, when he hit .249 and just .183 against left-handers. Leyland quickly pointed out that Granderson’s home run production rose, while acknowledging the struggles against lefties.

“There was some real good left-hand pitching that surfaced in the American League last year, and he got thrown to the wolves because there was a stretch where that’s all we saw, was left-hand pitching, and it was real good left-hand pitching,” Leyland said. “That’s his last hurdle, and he will hurdle that.”

Asked to assess Granderson as a fielder, Leyland said Comerica Park is one of the toughest center fields to play, explaining his reputation for sometimes not taking the best route to balls.

“It’s sometimes confusing, balls right at you or over your head,” he said. “I think side to side is not an issue, but if you look at a lot of center fielders at Comerica Park, they had trouble with certain balls. And I think he’s a very good fielder, to answer your question. And he’s a good thrower — not a great thrower, but a very good thrower. He’s the total package.”

Leyland also said Granderson would fit easily into New York, which is not surprising considering his reputation as one of the most thoughtful players in the game.

“He’s got a lot going for him,” Leyland said, and the Yankees would surely agree.



To: altair19 who wrote (182271)12/10/2009 6:25:06 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361973
 
Tiger Woods Lays Low as Derek Jeter Loves Life:

Commentary by Scott Soshnick

Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) -- In a promotional video hawking The Cliffs at High Carolina, the first American golf course designed by Tiger Woods, The Man himself gets personal on matters that, according to him, should remain private.

“With a wife and two kids, your perspective in life changes,” says Woods, whose personal life has become tabloid fodder. “I want to have my kids experience something like this. I want to be able to bring them up here and feel safe, feel secure, and enjoy running the trails and being a part of nature. Your priorities start changing and evolving once you have a family.”

Listening to Woods prattle on about changing perspectives and priorities illuminates why Derek Jeter, who at age 35 is closer to retirement than rookie, is single. Still.

Baseball is Jeter’s priority. Pinstripes are his perspective. He’s aware of the changes that come with commitment and he isn’t prepared to make them. Not yet, anyway.

The very best athletes are different from their teammates and opponents. More is expected. More is required.

Anyone who has ever worn a wedding ring knows that things do, indeed, change. Add kids and they change even more. That’s true for everyone, including iconic athletes like Woods and his fellow Nike Inc. endorser Roger Federer, who said as much after the birth of his twin girls.

Some thought that getting married and having kids might derail Woods, the golfer. It didn’t.

True Values

Woods, the family man, however, has apologized for transgressions and for letting his family down. Says he hasn’t been true to his values. Woods in a statement on his Web site admitted to being far short of perfect, even if his golf game is pretty darn close.

Before the Woods imbroglio broke, Jeter, who also covets his privacy, found himself on the cover of the New York Post. Someone snapped a picture of the New York Yankees captain and his latest gal pal, the actress Minka Kelly, frolicking in the sun, sand and surf of some exotic locale.

Kelly is the latest in a long line of famous faces with romantic ties to Jeter, who recently led the Yankees to their 27th World Series championship.

Jeter’s girlfriends have included a former Miss Universe, Lara Dutta, Mariah Carey, Jordana Brewster, Adriana Lima, Vanessa Minnillo and the Jessicas -- Alba and Biel. Just to name a few.

And yet, the adjective most often attached to Jeter isn’t womanizer, but winner. Women want to be with Jeter. Men want to be him.

Adored, Respected

Jeter is adored and respected by all, teammates and opponents alike. Never a disparaging word is heard about the baseball star who guards his personal life with a Tiger-like ferocity.

As of now, Woods’s endorsers are sticking by their main man. They’re counting on a familiar refrain in sports: winning as cure-all. But it will be a while before Woods returns to golf and every day, it seems, there’s a new twist to this tale.

His standing with consumers is plummeting.

Woods’s ranking on a list of celebrity endorsers fell to 24th from sixth, according to the David Brown Index, which marketers and advertising agencies use to gauge the ability of personalities to influence consumer behavior. There hasn’t been a prime-time commercial featuring Woods since Nov. 29.

While you haven’t seen Woods pitching products, you’ve probably seen the widely circulated e-mail that purports to show the Woods family Christmas card. There’s Woods, battered and bruised, wife Elin by his side and smiling, with a golf club in her hand.

Punch Line

Woods, the ultimate pitchman, is now Woods, the punch line. Saturday Night Live. Jay Leno. Even late-night TV host David Letterman, who knows something about becoming tabloid fodder, is taking shots at the world’s most recognizable athlete.

Back in February I wrote a column titled “Tiger Woods, Sports Needs You like Never Before,” in which I took issue with Alex Rodriguez’s argument that pressure made him use performance-enhancing drugs.

Laughable, is the word I used, especially when you consider that Woods carries more of a burden each time out than any baseball player. A-Rod has teammates like Jeter who can pick him up, help him out, I noted. Tiger Woods stood alone.

Woods, at his best, had the power to inspire and awe. Some of those casual sports fans who tuned in each Sunday afternoon to see Woods win might never return. They believed in the golfer. They believed in the man. History shows it’s a risky proposition.

Surely we can believe and trust in Jeter, who less than two weeks ago was named Sportsman of the Year by Sports Illustrated. Then again, Woods is the only person to have won the award twice.

As Woods knows, perspectives change.

(Scott Soshnick is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Scott Soshnick in New York at ssoshnick@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: December 9, 2009 21:00 EST



To: altair19 who wrote (182271)12/10/2009 9:15:34 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361973
 
Tiger Woods learns high cost of lying low

guardian.co.uk



To: altair19 who wrote (182271)12/10/2009 11:51:10 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 361973
 
Red Sox May Trade Lowell to Rangers
_______________________________________________________________

By JACK CURRY
The New York Times
December 11, 2009

INDIANAPOLIS — Mike Lowell has been an instrumental player for the Boston Red Sox and was named the most valuable player when they won the World Series in 2007. But Lowell’s production has eroded in the last two seasons, and the Red Sox are close to paying most of his salary for him to play elsewhere in 2010.

As the winter meetings ended here Thursday, the Red Sox were nearing a trade to send Lowell to the Texas Rangers for the minor league catcher Max Ramirez. If the agreement is completed, the Red Sox are expected to pay $9 million of Lowell’s $12 million salary next season.

Jon Daniels, the Rangers’ general manager, said reports that the deal was done were overstated. Because Lowell had hip surgery after the 2008 season and was limited at third base and on the bases last year, the Rangers will want to study his medical records closely. In addition, the exchange of so much cash in the deal would require the approval of the commissioner’s office.

“I think there are always different layers to these things, but both clubs are kind of evaluating,” Daniels told reporters. “I think the general parameters are understood, but both clubs need to decide whether it’s the right fit.”

After the Red Sox lost in the first round of the postseason to the Los Angeles Angels, they decided that they needed to improve their defense and to get better offensive production away from cozy Fenway Park. Both conclusions did not bode well for Lowell.

The 35-year-old Lowell is a former Gold Glove winner at third, but his repaired hip reduced his mobility last season. He batted .290 with 17 home runs and 75 runs batted in, but he was a stronger hitter at home (.307, 12 homers, 45 R.B.I. in 246 at-bats) than on the road (.276, 5 homers, 30 R.B.I. in 199 at-bats).

To replace Lowell, the Red Sox could pursue Adrian Beltre, the most attractive third baseman on the free-agent market. Beltre hit 48 home runs with the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2004, then signed a five-year, $64 million contract with the Seattle Mariners. But he never duplicated that season with the Mariners; the most home runs he hit in any season in Seattle was 26. He hit only eight home runs in 2009, and batted .265.

Beltre, like Lowell, is a Gold Glove winner, but he is also five years younger. Five years ago Beltre’s agent, Scott Boras, marketed him as a power hitter and secured a huge deal. Now Boras is shrewd enough to shift gears and understand that Beltre’s defense may be his best selling point.

“I don’t think anyone in baseball will not tell you Adrian Beltre is far and above the best defensive third baseman in the game,” Boras said.

Before the trade discussions with the Rangers intensified, Red Sox Manager Terry Francona said that he was against the notion of flip-flopping Lowell and first baseman Kevin Youkilis in 2010 and having Youkilis play third. But that was because he did not want to move Lowell.

Still, with Lowell probably headed out of Boston, Youkilis’s versatility will give the Red Sox options as they decide how to align their infield next season.

For instance, if Beltre proves too expensive to sign, the Red Sox could indeed put Youkilis at third and perhaps sign Nick Johnson, a free agent first baseman who could intrigue the Red Sox because he has a career .402 on-base percentage. The Red Sox have previously been wary of Johnson because he has had a spate of injuries, but he played in 133 games last season and hit .291.

Boras mentioned some of Beltre’s and Jason Bay’s recent road statistics in suggesting that the two were comparable hitters. Bay, who belted 36 homers last season and is a more productive hitter, is another player who could join the Red Sox for 2010. The Mets have made an offer to Bay, who turned down a four-year, $60 million proposal from the Red Sox during the season.

Because the Rangers have Michael Young at third and because Lowell is no longer an above-average defensive player, the Rangers would probably use Lowell as a designated hitter and a part-time first baseman.

Daniels said that he and Theo Epstein, the Red Sox’ general manager, would continue to talk about cementing a deal. There were indications that the trade would happen and that the popular and affable Lowell, who turned down a better offer from the Philadelphia Phillies to stay with the Red Sox after the 2007 World Series, was now leaving Boston two years later.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company



To: altair19 who wrote (182271)12/11/2009 12:24:54 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361973
 
Afghanistan Ambassador Speaks Out On U.S. Troop Surge

huffingtonpost.com

By Robert Guttman
Director, Center on Politics and Foreign Relations (CPFR), Johns Hopkins University
Posted: December 10, 2009

The surge of troops is needed to provide us with time and space to further build our own security forces," stated the Ambassador of Afghanistan to the U.S. Said T. Jawad at my Center on Politics & Foreign Relations at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies last week in Washington, D.C.

Speaking to a crowd of 100 guests in a speech that was carried live on C-SPAN, the Ambassador pointed out that American troops are in his country "to have safe streets in the United States and Europe" and that it is "mutually beneficial for the U.S. and Afghans." He went on to say that "not being in Afghanistan is equally dangerous."

It is easy to understand and remember the original reason and rationale for going into Afghanistan. We were responding to the vicious and unprovoked attacks on us on 9/11. We overthrew the repressive Taliban government and attacked the Al Qaeda training camps and tried to wipe out the Al Qaeda leadership. The U.S. intervention was overwhelmingly supported by the American public and by most of our allies around the world. We all assumed it was a successful operation so why eight years later are we sending a "surge" of troops back to this country to defeat an enemy we supposedly defeated years ago? Why is the Taliban resurfacing? Why hasn't Al Qaeda been destroyed? Why is it on the day the President of the United States receives the Nobel Peace Prize that the first of the American troops are getting ready to deploy to Afghanistan? There are many inconsistencies in the whole affair that will soon see more than 100,000 U.S. troops in this mountainous nation.

Ambassador Jawad makes our surge seem plausible when he states: "The mission is clear. This is America's war to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat Al Qaeda; and NATO's battle for regional and global security, as well as Afghanistan's struggle for survival. You are in Afghanistan primarily because of 9/11 and to prevent terrorist attacks on U.S. and European soil. You are in the mountains of Afghanistan to defend the streets of the United States and Europe, to protect humanity from terror and tyranny and assist us in the process."

President Obama, in his speech at West Point presenting the "surge" of American forces to Afghanistan was quick to point out that U.S. troops would start to come home only eighteen months after being sent. The president who pointed out how important it was to be in Afghanistan also pointed out how important it was to start leaving that country. The Presidents' speech was full of contradictions that have been well discussed.

From former President George W. Bush to General McChrystal testifying before Congress this week. The U.S. goal has been to "bring justice to Osama bin Laden or bring Osama bin Laden to justice." We have been looking for the mastermind of the most terrible terrorist attack in our history and cannot find him. We don't even know what country he is in.

When I asked the Ambassador where Osama bin Laden was he replied, "If Osama bi Laden were in Afghanistan he would have been found. He is not in a cave. He is mostly in Pakistan."

So the question I would ask is if the terrorist we are trying to capture is not even in the country where we will soon have over 100,000 troops why not send them to where we think Osama is actually living. While the ambassador spoke of improving relations with Pakistan when he stated " We are deepening our relationship with this government" I am not confident that American policy towards Pakistan makes much sense these days. Why all this concentration on Afghanistan if Al Qaeda and Taliban forces just cross the border into Pakistan to escape capture.

And, as was also brought up in the question and answer period if Al Qaeda is more a movement and ideology than boots on the ground then why are we sending a "surge" of troops to Afghanistan. Al Qaeda could pick up and move to other chaotic parts of the world like Somalia and plan attacks from that location. As was also pointed out many of the 9/11 attackers worked in the U.S. and Europe when planning the horrendous attack.

Ambassador Jawad feels "We pushed the Taliban into Pakistan and into the countryside and we didn't stay focused on Afghanistan. If we had stayed focused we would not now need U.S. troops again."

When Obama says our troops will be out very quickly Ambassador Jawad and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of Stae are indicating that the presidents' views will be guided more by conditions on the ground in Afghanistan in 2011. As Ambassador Jawad commented at our conference "In five years we should be able to take responsibility for protecting Afghanistan." Five years is much longer than eighteen months. Obviously there are some contradictions between what the President of the United States wants and what the Afghanistan government wants.

Ambassador Jawad talked about how we can "further Afghanize security and development". I was reminded of Vietnamizing a previous war by a former American president.

Ambassador Jawad was forthright and appreciative of American and NATO support of his war torn nation in his talk at Johns Hopkins. He spoke eloquently by saying "It is time for all of us to act with perseverance and patience, and to stand together as partners for our just cause."

The cause may seem just but the "surge" seems flawed. And if the enemy continues to have safe havens next door in Pakistan what good will extra troops do in Afghanistan? Will Americans be in Afghanistan for eighteen months, five years or longer training the Afghans.

What is success in Afghanistan for the United States? Ambassador Jawad defines success for Afghanistan as: "Success is to prevent the return of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and to have successful Afghan institutions."

How does President Obama define success for America in Afghanistan? So far, we all seem very confused by the new "surge" and what will be a success for the United States. The Obama administration needs to do a better job of defining our overall goal and mission in Afghanistan and explaining exactly why Americans are being asked to fight and die in this far away country.
_________

Follow Robert Guttman on Twitter: twitter.com