Ten years ago today, I quit smoking. Still the hardest thing I've ever done, and one of the best.
149 thoughts on “April 24, 2012: Anniversary”
bS, did you hear/feel anything re: the boloid Sunday morning? I assume you didn't since you didn't mention it.
Nope. Lots of coverage in the local teevee news, but too far away for us to notice it live.
Matt Capps once again showing last night why pitching Gray Matters.
last time i quit smoking (and so far the third time's been the charm), i arranged myself to run out of cigarettes on sunday, and then i was going to quit on monday. jane then informed me that she was pregnant on saturday. that kind of sealed it.
Even more reason to quit. (And congrats!)
The best reason of all - congrats!
congrats!
Congrats, man!
haha! whoops! i was wondering why i was getting so many congratulations. now i think i figured it out. the above passage should have been written like this:
last time i quit smoking (and so far the third time's been the charm), i arranged myself to run out of cigarettes on a sunday, and then i was going to quit on a monday. jane then informed me that she was pregnant on the saturday before. that kind of sealed it.
that was in october of 2010.
I thought that was the case, but didn't want to be that guy, just in case I was misreading it.
Come to think about it, it did seem like an odd way to make that announcement.
I HEREBY REVOKE MY CONGRATULATIONS.
That's how I read it in my head. I figured all the congrats were for the quitting.
the article mentions the Angels and other teams.
I can see where the teams are coming from, but I dont agree with them.
Yes, I too understand their argument and reject it. The teams want to control the resale of tickets by means of an artificial restraint. Usually, such restraints are put in place to discourage the resale of tickets at exorbitantly high prices, but to put a floor in place is just too delicious.
and tell me (with a straight face) that clubs aren't already selling tickets on the sly on Stubhub.
Sports franchises love to extract monopolistic rents subsidized by the taxpayer in multiple ways (stadium deals, tax deductibility of "entertainment expenses"). The last thing they want to do is to lower their face-value ticket prices, because they are reaping so much consumer surplus with their current schemes.
But the marginal cost of providing seats in non-sold out conditions is zero. They want those tickets sold to get people into the stadium to buy $8 hot dogs and $12 beers. They just don't want the majority of ticket buyers to start thinking they can get last-minute tickets at near-zero prices, because that might cause season ticket sales to non-corporate customers to collapse.
We know the Cubs were selling tickets through a broker near the stadium a while back and this was really frowned upon because they were collecting revenues and not paying taxes.
Yar, not reporting revenue is a bad idea. But I would not be shocked to learn that clubs were selling blocks of tix at discounted prices to dummy corporations (or rather, to obscurely-named corporate partners) that then re-sold those tix. Everybody reports said revenue, but the public doesn't really get to see the back-channel sales for what they are.
Your point below is a very good one. Forcing customers to buy tickets to games they don't want has to deter sales of season tickets or whatever other game blocks they are selling. The secondary market reduces that disincentive without forcing the clubs to lower prices for everyone.
At the same time, season ticket holders need an outlet to sell unused seats to recoup some of their investment or they might not buy them.
Wow. No end to their greed, eh? It seems like they're cutting off their nose to spite their face by alienating fans who would occupy the cheap seats and buy their concessions.
My guess is that this is coming from MBA land where you can't let the price of your product get too low, or people will start to think it's not very good. For instance, there are some Ivy League schools with such large endowments that they could literally not charge tuition and balance their budget. But they would never do that because there is a belief--backed by at least some data, I think--that if they were to lower tuition, then people would think the education there was not as valuable. From a strictly rational perspective, this is absurd, but from a psychological standpoint, I see how it works.
It's a bit like poser clubs that make sure there is a line out the door even if there is plenty of space inside. The line outside makes the club look popular and that can grab people's attention.
I think there's also a deflationary argument that says if tickets are available for a lower price, and consumers then expect that they can get that lower price, they won't buy until they force the price down to that level. Then you have to move prices lower and people expect lower and lower prices. I don't really buy that in this case because there's going to be enough demand for other games that overall prices aren't going to sink that much.
Anyway, what makes this silly to me is that selling tickets below face has been going on for the entire history of baseball. Even if they forced StubHub to not allow sales below face value, the real scalpers are going to find ways to sell their tickets, while ordinary season ticket holders will have more trouble selling tickets to games that they can't make.
Also, if the Yankees wanted the Orioles to be a bigger ticket draw, they should share more of their revenue with the Orioles so that maybe Baltimore could have been competitive for one or two years over the last twenty.
Also, if the Yankees wanted the Orioles to be a bigger ticket draw, they should share more of their revenue with the Orioles so that maybe Baltimore could have been competitive for one or two years over the last twenty.
Ubes, I liked your entire post but this last part was my favorite.
Ordinary season ticket holders will instead sell to scalpers at a lower price than they could get on Stub Hub, thereby ensuring that the all-important street corner ticket vendor market is protected.
I have to say, I didn't think of this angle, because I figured it'd just generally be a waste of time to go all the way to the stadium just to dump off tickets to scalpers. I figured season ticket holders would just settle for zero return on any tickets they couldn't get friends/co-workers to buy.
Ticket brokers and hawkers have found e-bay and craigslist...
clearly the market economics are incorrect.
Right, the tickets for crappy games are vastly overpriced.
By mid-May, 48 regional prep teams will have been scheduled to compete in 24 games at the Triple-A ballpark in West Sacramento. ... The River Cats do not charge high school teams to play at Raley. Teams are handed 500 vouchers, good for any of the River Cats' 72 home games at $5 less than face value. Programs can sell those vouchers at face value as a fundraiser.
Fans can attend the prep games for a can't-beat price – admission and parking are free. All told, you cannot beat the value of the venue.
"We love to help out the local schools," River Cats community relations director Tony Asaro said. "Some raffle off a suite to a game here at their team dinners. I had a parent come up to me after a high school game here, saying, 'I want to thank you. You spoke to our kids years ago, and here we are again.' We have some high school kids out here who ran these bases during a River Cats game as Little Leaguers. It's all about fun."
I think that's the right move. There aren't any obvious answers in the minors right now and the Twins still have reason to believe they can get something out of Liriano even if it is far below "ace" (or "elite" or whatever.)
Part of the city's long term planning involves running a streetcar down Nicollet about 2 blocks from my house. I'll believe it when I see it, but wow that'd be nice.
No one answered when I tried calling the StreetCar Information Desk.
They have trams* here in Prague, and they are fantastic for getting around the city. I can get almost anywhere in the city in 30 minutes.
*Not sure on the technical difference between tram - light rail - trolley - street car.
one difference is that street cars get names. You know, like "Desire"
I was in that. To date, it's the only show I've been in where I had to simulate an orgasm from offstage. It's a strange business, that one.
It's a strange business, that one.
Offstage orgasms???
so, basically, you are saying that you are more into the onstage ones?
also, funnier if you had accidentally typed "stimulate"
This would be a good time to bring up one of Spooky's stories from Psycho Suzi's but I think he prefers that that one stays out of print.
Ooh. Now I wonder which it was.
Email me...?
I was thinking the same thing yesterday (among many other days) about DC.
I'm going to avoid a long rant here, but big banks in general are evil, and right now TCF in particular is chaffing my ass.
I'm currently locking horns with a big bank over my daughter's checking account. I've been monitoring it for about a week now, checking it every day. There is a strange phenomenon in which charges to her account will show up when she makes a purchase and then disappear the next day, only to reappear a couple of days later. This has already caused her to overdraw her account once and she nearly did it again. Being the cynic I am, I believe that the bank is doing this deliberately in an attempt to maximize overdraft fees, so I'm trying to document it with screen captures and such. Any lawyer type citizens interested in a little class action action if it turns out I'm right?
Oh heck yes. I mean, I'd have to figure out how, given that my current firm wouldn't allow that type of thing, but I hate banks.
It is definitely happening. I used to bank through USBank, and once got hit with $200 (!!!!) in overdraft fees because of a situation like this. They overdrafted me based on my "authorization balance" and took $35 out of my account. Then they ordered my transactions from largest to smallest and, since they took out that $35, the last five charges (all of which were a couple of dollars each) were all overdrafted. The best part of this was that the authorizations that pushed me over were just temporary to make sure I had a valid card.
I was furious. It took me several angry phone calls in order to get things resolved, and they really didn't seem to understand why this was a problem. I very clearly walked through the math with them to show that all my charges were under my balance by over $20. About a week afterwards they fixed my account, but of course this meant I had a week where I didn't have access to even the meager $20 I had. Another fun thing I found out during this is that when I used my card in Winnipeg, they would authorize based on the exchange rate on the day I swiped the card, but they would post the charge using a different exchange rate. It was awesome since I couldn't ever know exactly how much money I was spending!
After this ordeal, I switched to a smaller bank and I've been happy ever since. You should be able to opt out of the "overdraft protection" on the debit card, I'd suggest doing that. The card will not authorize if the charge would overdraft the account. I think banks have recently been forced to allow consumers to opt out of this (hence a lot of banks getting higher fees, since overdraft charges are a huge source of revenue), so I'd do that if possible. They say it's to save you the "embarassment" of having your card declined. Well, I'd rather be embarassed than to give them money because of this crap.
Sorry, rant over.
Not to be the poison pill here, but I've never had a problem with overdrafting my account. Part of it is that I keep a totalitarian grip on my money and make sure I know how much I have in the bank. I check it usually once a week if not more often. And now my wife and I are doing a budget every two weeks. I also keep so many "pools" of money in my account that correspond with paying auto insurance (every 6 months) or real estate taxes (twice a year) so that even if I do go "over" on my discretionary spending, I have more then enough in there to cover.
Also, with some of my older accounts, I had to have a minimum balance, so that helps to avoid overdrafts as well.
If you are in the position where you are just barely making ends meet, don't have pools of money lying around, and a charge appears and then disappears, resulting in an overdraft, as Twayn is alleging, no amount of totalitarian grip is going to be useful.
This.
Yes, this.
Of course, I (a) charge everything that I can on the credit card, (b) pay off the card in full every month and (c) maintain a substantial balance in both checking and savings.
I am a strong advocate of maximizing the use of the credit card and paying the sucker off at the end of the month. This takes both cash flow and discipline, of course.
It sounds like you are pretty careful with your money. Wouldn't you prefer to bank somewhere where charges don't magically appear and disappear? Wouldn't this negatively impact your impression of how careful the bank is with your money?
Certainly... only I've never seen charges magically appear and disappear.
I'm very curious about the pattern here. Are you saying that charge X appears, disappears, and reappears again, giving the bank multiple shots at X being an overdraft? Has X ever appeared when there is an overdraft and then disappeared, eliminating the overdraft? Is there any pattern behind the type of transactions? Is it all charges? Has a charge that would typically do the disappearing/reappearing trick not done so if it was over-drafted the first time?
According to the daughter, charge X appears, disappears, then reappears a day or two later. Likewise the debit appears in the balance, then disappears, giving the illusion of more in the account than there actually is. Now, I have seen this happen on one purchase on my own checking account several months ago, but I haven't documented it on her account yet. Also, being a tech guy, I figured there could be an IT issue to blame initially. As far patterns go it seems pretty random, but so far it does only involve debits and not deposits (if those ever disappear there will be blood). So far she's only overdrawn her account once because of this. The last time she noticed a missing charge and bailed on her purchase so she wouldn't overdraw. I am getting more curious to find out if this is happening to other people, though. And if this is some sort of deliberate strategy by the bank, it's pretty sleazy.
I know that I had transactions disappear like this when I was with US Bank. Between being authorized & posted sometimes they'd disappear for a day. It caused me issues on a few occasions.
Twayn, this might be totally countercultural... but have you considered a cash budget? Meaning taking out the cash, and only using cash for any purchases throughout the week (bills excepted maybe). This way, she's not using the card for purchases and thus would not have the charges appearing or disappearing? Unless they're charges for something else?
Oh... and if it's Bank of America... get out right away. I refinanced my mortgage for no other reason than to not be their customer anymore (not really, I lowered my rate by 1%, but I certainly was happy to no longer have my mortgage in their system anymore)
Not a bad idea, but it will take cooperation from Daughter the Elder.
I'm in the process of moving to a local credit union. It's taking some time to move all of the auto-pay, direct deposit, and whatnot, but all I expect out of the big commercial banks at the moment is for them to increase their fees at the drop of a hat. And there are no interest rates out there at the moment which could make me justify paying anything more than minimal fees.
Deluxe has a new program that allows you to change all the automatic deposits/withdrawals easily when you switch to a new bank/credit union. They are marketing it to the banks/credit unions. I am guessing the small banks and credit unions will get priced out of it.
credit unions FTW
I agree with this. Been with my credit union for almost 7 years now, I think, and couldn't be happier. Got my car loan from there, too and the other loan from another credit union. I was at Associated Bank prior, and they somehow lost a paycheck deposit, which made me leave.
I'm planning to move all of our banking to a credit union this summer. I've been considering it for more than a year now, but the hassle of switching has always kept me from pulling the trigger. Not anymore.
FYI, I did hear on the radio the other day that the fee orgy the big banks have been on appears to be backfiring. They are apparently losing more revenue from departing customers than they are making from all the new and increased fees.
Good.
I had also been contemplating the move for a long time, with the hassle factor being the main thing holding me back from making the switch.
I doubt banks make anything off my account. In fact, I am guessing they lose money on most checking accounts.
with real interest rates at or near zero, I'm not surprised. People don't carry enough of a balance in their demand accounts for most banks to have all that much to lend back out anyway, but very low real interest rates have to be pretty tough on banks' bottom lines.
The Milkmaid quit her job at a bank a few years ago because it was turning into a retail business, and a very shady one at that. The more she was schooled in the tricks they were employing, the more she realized she was the tool of a corrupt corporation.
I quit my job at US Bank because of simple economics: new hires were making $3+ per hour more than I was, and the most I could hope for in a year was a 5% bump. I worked in the mortgage department, and I quit in 2006. I'd say I got out at the right time.
TJ Quinn with opening argument summary from Clemens trial. Now in recess until Monday(!) If Feds go down on this one, what an embarrassment.
It's funny how there were so many players who played really well while taking B12 shots, but you never hear about anyone getting B12 shots these days. Hmmm.
Stribbers: angry at the good player the Twins keep, angry at the Twins for letting Phillip Humber go
You haven't learned by now? Comments are nothing but a black hole of stupid.
Aha, so it's a clutch thing now? (I ascertain this from glancing at some comments.) Once fans think you can't come through in clutch situations, they will never change their minds. Hitters fail often enough that every failure will reinforce those fans in their belief that they were correct. (I am not terribly immune to this--I love it when I am right.)
So, recognizing that I am tilting against windmills here, a list sorted by OPS, descending:
AVG/OBP/SLG, OPS
.348/.499/.521, 1.020 -- Mauer, RISP, 2 outs
.339/.454/.500, .954 -- Mauer, RISP
.342/.437/.479, .916 -- Mauer, men on
.323/.403/.470, .873 -- Mauer, career
.300/.421/.448, .869 -- Mauer, late and close
.308/.374/.462, .836 -- Mauer, none on
If anything, this reinforces the idea that Mauer should hit third in the order so that he gets more PA with runners on base or better yet, in scoring position.
Last night, this morning, I got in a twitter brouhaha with Nick Nelson, who asserted that Mauer always wears down late in the season. I noted that he has had 3 .900+ OPS Sept/Oct seasons ('06, '08, and '09), career .847 in Sept/Oct. But, says Nick, his ISOp is only .120. Well, power has never been his thing, I says. He says, well, in 39 post season PAs, he has one XBH and 1 RBI. I says, if Cuzzi rules the ball fair, his post-season slugging rises .057, so in other words, small sample size. He says, well, he's looked tired in Oct, and the numbers bear that out. 39 PAs in three different seasons.
I point out that his second half OPS is only .008 lower than his first half, career.
Three things: One, Nick says a lot of things that should be immediately dismissed and this is one of them (he recently wrote about "troubling signs" about Mauer and Morneau after about six games or so). Two, I should refrain from Twitter spats. Three, there is a palpable thirst for Mauer blood around Twins Territory and a decent start to the 2012 season is not going to stop the rabble rousing.
Honestly, I think the poisoned waters re: Mauer here have spread around nationally. I know plenty of baseball fans period who are convinced he sucks now. Pretty stupid.
Nick says a lot of things that should be immediately dismissed
Indeed, I find Nelson to be basically an independent wing of MSM shill nowadays.
I have to admit, few things sound less manly than having a Twitter spat.
Does this mean if I don't order Miller Lite I'm in danger of losing my man card?
I guess I can't really comment on Nick Nelson these days, I haven't read anything he's written in years.
Once anyone--media or whoever--decides on a narrative, it is really easy to find facts to fit that narrative. It is harder to start from a blank slate and try to determine where the truth is. Many writers obviously feel the need to stir the pot and I think that is largely what drives the bloodletting. The only statistic many fans feel the need to know is 184,000,000. Screw the fact that a historically great catcher plays for your home team, we've got some nits to pick! At this point, Mauer's image is probably wrecked for good. It's not like A-Rod became well-liked in NY after they won a WS. Once a malingerer, always a malingerer. Once an unclutch choke artist, always an unclutch choke artist.
I've had biases against players in the past (and still do), so I understand that it happens, it's just so odd to me that fans would so eagerly buy into biases against their own players. I really disliked the Delmon trade, but even after it was clearly a disaster on basically all levels, I at least tried to find some humor in watching Delmon thrash about in the outfield, or tried to find some hope in his minor league numbers maybe leaving room for improvement (though obviously not MVP-dom) in the future.
Anyway, I'm sure whatever I say doesn't really matter. I'm clearly a Mauer apologist.
I'd like to know what has happened to sales of Mauer paraphernalia over the course of his career, particularly in Twins Territory. That's about as good a measure of his popularity with the general public as we can get.
He was top ten in jersey sales last year.
and second the year before.
Precipitous decline.
Very well said, ubes.
Also, if you want to show Nick a player who actually wears down at the end of the season, look no farther than Justin Morneau. His career tOPS+ in August and September is 79 and 74--ridiculously far below Mauer's 100 and 95.
For that matter, start checking out other catchers. The first two I thought of were Paul Lo Duca (because I remember someone pointed out he was great pre-ASB and not so much post-ASB) and Ivan Rodriguez (because I saw his appearance at the Rangers-Yankees game yesterday.) Lo Duca's Aug/Sep tOPS+ was 92 and 81. Pudge's Aug/Sep tOPS+ was 88 and 83.
I did, in fact, point to Morneau's numbers. Basically, he had no legs to stand on, which is ironic, because that was his argument about Mauer: that he has no legs to stand on by the end of the season.
Seeing Pudge throw the ceremonial first pitch from behind the plate to second base made me smile.
That was awesome.
also on the clutchiness...
.
.
2 out, runner on 2nd: .357/541/491
2 out, runners on 1/2: 371/463/543
2 out, runners on 1/3: 250/289/389
2 out, runners on 2/3: 321/587/571
2 out, runners on 123: 355/394/613
This is irrefutable proof that Mauer is Unclutch...with 2 out and runners at the corners.
Random thought for the day: Whatever happened to Boof Bonser?
he had Tommy John surgery last year, so might not have recovered from that yet.
That was great and then Chelsea scored right at half.
Oh I am, don't you worry.
I was about to come here and say what an unmitigated disaster that first half was for Chelsea. Cahill hurt in first 5 minutes, 2 Barca goals, John Terry Red Card. It was looking pretty grim and then a Chelsea goal in the 45th minute? Changes everything. Now Barca has to win by two. Not saying it won't happen, but will be a very interesting 2nd half.
Messi's got some in him yet, don't worry.
Ramires' goal definitely changed it into merely a mitigated disaster for Chelsea.
This 9-1 formation for Chelsea is working quite well. 12 minutes left! (Although Chelsea is infamous for allowing a goal in the 82-86 minute.)
Offside and a post in the last minute.
This is going to be an insane finish.
My heart's in my throat, for sure.
OMFG!!!!!!
WHA?
Guardian's MBM says that's the fourth time Barca have hit the post in the two legs.
Nuts.
My support is fully behind Bayern Munich tomorrow. I cannot stomach the idea of a Real Madrid - Chelsea CL final.
I'm right there with you.
That's fine but don't write Chelsea off altogether. Chelsea's down 1-2 in aggregate with barely more than 1/2 the game left, playing with 10 players and they win. Against Barcelona. At Camp Nou. The word is overused, but I would definitely describe that as epic. Haters gotta hate, but at least give a hat tip to the plucky Blue bastards.
I'm not writing off Chelsea at all. I gotta give them a nod for doing what needed to be done to win over their heavily favored opponents. But that doesn't mean I have to like it or wish them continued success.
Seriously, Munich better beat Madrid tonight. A Madrid-Chelsea final would be like having to pick between Creed and Nickelback.
Seriously, Munich better beat Madrid tonight. A Madrid-Chelsea final would be like having to pick between Creed and Nickelback.
Also, I wasn't asking you to root for Chelsea in the final, just to acknowledge what they accomplished yesterday -- which you did.
I'm mildly in favor of Chelsea winning simply because I have no real EPL allegiances and Chelsea is scheduled to come play the Sounders in a friendly this summer (also the MLS All-Stars). It's always nicer if you can bill the "big name" friendly team as the UCL winner.
Suck it Catalans!!!!!! (and their misguided supporters)
I guess it's Chelsea's reserve squad in the final.
Revere will be promoted to take Wheeling Ham's spot while his wife is having a baby (I guess they have paternity leave now for three days). More importantly, Parmelee in RF tonight instead of Trader Clete (Mauer at 1b, Doumit catching).
Was it worth sending Revere down if the product of some consensual porking was about to be born? Seems a bit pointless to jerk Revere around like that.
Revere has 6 games and 27 PA already in the minors. I think the point was really to get him more playing time rather than to send him a message about not being good enough or whatever.
We had to let Trader Clete play to see how many times he could strike out, I think. Once Revere is up with the Twins, does he go back down if he is playing well after the paternity leave?
Personally, I think you tell Revere that he's coming up for three games and there's nothing he can do in three games to keep himself up with the big club. (Although there are things he could do that would put him out of favor, like not giving 100% effort, etc.) If he's trying to win a spot on the club in three games, he'll probably play like crap. Revere's played 172 games AAA/MLB combined. He wasn't very impressive in the majors last year. It's not unreasonable to ask him to put together a couple of good months in AAA before coming back for good.
I was thinking more about the other starting outfielder options the Twins have available. A Dough/Parm semi-platoon in RF doesn't bother me too much, and I think Trader Clete has swung himself into a bench role, so Revere going back to AAA is probably best all around. It's got to be nice for him to know he's the first outfield call-up if there's an injury or other issue.
12 more and we can decide whether or not he can play!
I agree. The death knell for him would have been to have him sit on the bench and not play much. That's a good role for Trader Clete.
I'll be honest - I just wanted to say "consensual porking."
In a move that could raise new questions about food safety and result in economic setbacks to California's multi-billion-dollar agricultural industry, the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Tuesday confirmed that a case of mad cow disease has been found in a dairy cow in the Central Valley.
The incident is the first case of the disease ever found in California -- and the first detected in the United States since 2006.
Of course, dairy cows are by far the most likely to be found with Mad Cow in the U.S. because beef cows tend to be slaughtered at a young age. And thankfully, the feds banned the addition of slaughterhouse scraps to cattle feed back in 1997, so the odds of mad cow epidemics in the U.S. have plummeted. But still. Eww.
There are about 4,500 at the Oakland Coliseum. It seems like about 50 of them have vuvuzelas. ugh.
on the plus side, Hawk is throwing out some 'gadummit' because the A's have rallied in the 8th
bS, did you hear/feel anything re: the boloid Sunday morning? I assume you didn't since you didn't mention it.
Nope. Lots of coverage in the local teevee news, but too far away for us to notice it live.
Matt Capps once again showing last night why pitching Gray Matters.
last time i quit smoking (and so far the third time's been the charm), i arranged myself to run out of cigarettes on sunday, and then i was going to quit on monday. jane then informed me that she was pregnant on saturday. that kind of sealed it.
Even more reason to quit. (And congrats!)
The best reason of all - congrats!
congrats!
Congrats, man!
haha! whoops! i was wondering why i was getting so many congratulations. now i think i figured it out. the above passage should have been written like this:
that was in october of 2010.
I thought that was the case, but didn't want to be that guy, just in case I was misreading it.
Come to think about it, it did seem like an odd way to make that announcement.
I HEREBY REVOKE MY CONGRATULATIONS.
That's how I read it in my head. I figured all the congrats were for the quitting.
congratulations!
The Yankees want (more) money from ticket resales.
the article mentions the Angels and other teams.
I can see where the teams are coming from, but I dont agree with them.
Yes, I too understand their argument and reject it. The teams want to control the resale of tickets by means of an artificial restraint. Usually, such restraints are put in place to discourage the resale of tickets at exorbitantly high prices, but to put a floor in place is just too delicious.
and tell me (with a straight face) that clubs aren't already selling tickets on the sly on Stubhub.
Sports franchises love to extract monopolistic rents subsidized by the taxpayer in multiple ways (stadium deals, tax deductibility of "entertainment expenses"). The last thing they want to do is to lower their face-value ticket prices, because they are reaping so much consumer surplus with their current schemes.
But the marginal cost of providing seats in non-sold out conditions is zero. They want those tickets sold to get people into the stadium to buy $8 hot dogs and $12 beers. They just don't want the majority of ticket buyers to start thinking they can get last-minute tickets at near-zero prices, because that might cause season ticket sales to non-corporate customers to collapse.
We know the Cubs were selling tickets through a broker near the stadium a while back and this was really frowned upon because they were collecting revenues and not paying taxes.
Yar, not reporting revenue is a bad idea. But I would not be shocked to learn that clubs were selling blocks of tix at discounted prices to dummy corporations (or rather, to obscurely-named corporate partners) that then re-sold those tix. Everybody reports said revenue, but the public doesn't really get to see the back-channel sales for what they are.
Your point below is a very good one. Forcing customers to buy tickets to games they don't want has to deter sales of season tickets or whatever other game blocks they are selling. The secondary market reduces that disincentive without forcing the clubs to lower prices for everyone.
At the same time, season ticket holders need an outlet to sell unused seats to recoup some of their investment or they might not buy them.
Wow. No end to their greed, eh? It seems like they're cutting off their nose to spite their face by alienating fans who would occupy the cheap seats and buy their concessions.
My guess is that this is coming from MBA land where you can't let the price of your product get too low, or people will start to think it's not very good. For instance, there are some Ivy League schools with such large endowments that they could literally not charge tuition and balance their budget. But they would never do that because there is a belief--backed by at least some data, I think--that if they were to lower tuition, then people would think the education there was not as valuable. From a strictly rational perspective, this is absurd, but from a psychological standpoint, I see how it works.
It's a bit like poser clubs that make sure there is a line out the door even if there is plenty of space inside. The line outside makes the club look popular and that can grab people's attention.
I think there's also a deflationary argument that says if tickets are available for a lower price, and consumers then expect that they can get that lower price, they won't buy until they force the price down to that level. Then you have to move prices lower and people expect lower and lower prices. I don't really buy that in this case because there's going to be enough demand for other games that overall prices aren't going to sink that much.
Anyway, what makes this silly to me is that selling tickets below face has been going on for the entire history of baseball. Even if they forced StubHub to not allow sales below face value, the real scalpers are going to find ways to sell their tickets, while ordinary season ticket holders will have more trouble selling tickets to games that they can't make.
Also, if the Yankees wanted the Orioles to be a bigger ticket draw, they should share more of their revenue with the Orioles so that maybe Baltimore could have been competitive for one or two years over the last twenty.
Also, if the Yankees wanted the Orioles to be a bigger ticket draw, they should share more of their revenue with the Orioles so that maybe Baltimore could have been competitive for one or two years over the last twenty.
Ubes, I liked your entire post but this last part was my favorite.
Ordinary season ticket holders will instead sell to scalpers at a lower price than they could get on Stub Hub, thereby ensuring that the all-important street corner ticket vendor market is protected.
I have to say, I didn't think of this angle, because I figured it'd just generally be a waste of time to go all the way to the stadium just to dump off tickets to scalpers. I figured season ticket holders would just settle for zero return on any tickets they couldn't get friends/co-workers to buy.
Ticket brokers and hawkers have found e-bay and craigslist...
clearly the market economics are incorrect.
Right, the tickets for crappy games are vastly overpriced.
On the other end of the spectrum, the River Cats' Raley Field is made available for some high school games for free.
Is that awesome or what?
That is awesome, and it's also good public relations.
twins leap-frogging liriano.
I think that's the right move. There aren't any obvious answers in the minors right now and the Twins still have reason to believe they can get something out of Liriano even if it is far below "ace" (or "elite" or whatever.)
i always wondered how that thing got there...
Bringing back the streetcars.. It always bums me when I see how extensive the streetcar network was.
yeah, me too.
Part of the city's long term planning involves running a streetcar down Nicollet about 2 blocks from my house. I'll believe it when I see it, but wow that'd be nice.
No one answered when I tried calling the StreetCar Information Desk.
They have trams* here in Prague, and they are fantastic for getting around the city. I can get almost anywhere in the city in 30 minutes.
*Not sure on the technical difference between tram - light rail - trolley - street car.
The Repository has you covered.
one difference is that street cars get names. You know, like "Desire"
I was in that. To date, it's the only show I've been in where I had to simulate an orgasm from offstage. It's a strange business, that one.
Offstage orgasms???
so, basically, you are saying that you are more into the onstage ones?
also, funnier if you had accidentally typed "stimulate"
This would be a good time to bring up one of Spooky's stories from Psycho Suzi's but I think he prefers that that one stays out of print.
Ooh. Now I wonder which it was.
Email me...?
I was thinking the same thing yesterday (among many other days) about DC.
I'm going to avoid a long rant here, but big banks in general are evil, and right now TCF in particular is chaffing my ass.
I'm currently locking horns with a big bank over my daughter's checking account. I've been monitoring it for about a week now, checking it every day. There is a strange phenomenon in which charges to her account will show up when she makes a purchase and then disappear the next day, only to reappear a couple of days later. This has already caused her to overdraw her account once and she nearly did it again. Being the cynic I am, I believe that the bank is doing this deliberately in an attempt to maximize overdraft fees, so I'm trying to document it with screen captures and such. Any lawyer type citizens interested in a little class action action if it turns out I'm right?
Oh heck yes. I mean, I'd have to figure out how, given that my current firm wouldn't allow that type of thing, but I hate banks.
It is definitely happening. I used to bank through USBank, and once got hit with $200 (!!!!) in overdraft fees because of a situation like this. They overdrafted me based on my "authorization balance" and took $35 out of my account. Then they ordered my transactions from largest to smallest and, since they took out that $35, the last five charges (all of which were a couple of dollars each) were all overdrafted. The best part of this was that the authorizations that pushed me over were just temporary to make sure I had a valid card.
I was furious. It took me several angry phone calls in order to get things resolved, and they really didn't seem to understand why this was a problem. I very clearly walked through the math with them to show that all my charges were under my balance by over $20. About a week afterwards they fixed my account, but of course this meant I had a week where I didn't have access to even the meager $20 I had. Another fun thing I found out during this is that when I used my card in Winnipeg, they would authorize based on the exchange rate on the day I swiped the card, but they would post the charge using a different exchange rate. It was awesome since I couldn't ever know exactly how much money I was spending!
After this ordeal, I switched to a smaller bank and I've been happy ever since. You should be able to opt out of the "overdraft protection" on the debit card, I'd suggest doing that. The card will not authorize if the charge would overdraft the account. I think banks have recently been forced to allow consumers to opt out of this (hence a lot of banks getting higher fees, since overdraft charges are a huge source of revenue), so I'd do that if possible. They say it's to save you the "embarassment" of having your card declined. Well, I'd rather be embarassed than to give them money because of this crap.
Sorry, rant over.
Not to be the poison pill here, but I've never had a problem with overdrafting my account. Part of it is that I keep a totalitarian grip on my money and make sure I know how much I have in the bank. I check it usually once a week if not more often. And now my wife and I are doing a budget every two weeks. I also keep so many "pools" of money in my account that correspond with paying auto insurance (every 6 months) or real estate taxes (twice a year) so that even if I do go "over" on my discretionary spending, I have more then enough in there to cover.
Also, with some of my older accounts, I had to have a minimum balance, so that helps to avoid overdrafts as well.
If you are in the position where you are just barely making ends meet, don't have pools of money lying around, and a charge appears and then disappears, resulting in an overdraft, as Twayn is alleging, no amount of totalitarian grip is going to be useful.
This.
Yes, this.
Of course, I (a) charge everything that I can on the credit card, (b) pay off the card in full every month and (c) maintain a substantial balance in both checking and savings.
I am a strong advocate of maximizing the use of the credit card and paying the sucker off at the end of the month. This takes both cash flow and discipline, of course.
It sounds like you are pretty careful with your money. Wouldn't you prefer to bank somewhere where charges don't magically appear and disappear? Wouldn't this negatively impact your impression of how careful the bank is with your money?
Certainly... only I've never seen charges magically appear and disappear.
I'm very curious about the pattern here. Are you saying that charge X appears, disappears, and reappears again, giving the bank multiple shots at X being an overdraft? Has X ever appeared when there is an overdraft and then disappeared, eliminating the overdraft? Is there any pattern behind the type of transactions? Is it all charges? Has a charge that would typically do the disappearing/reappearing trick not done so if it was over-drafted the first time?
According to the daughter, charge X appears, disappears, then reappears a day or two later. Likewise the debit appears in the balance, then disappears, giving the illusion of more in the account than there actually is. Now, I have seen this happen on one purchase on my own checking account several months ago, but I haven't documented it on her account yet. Also, being a tech guy, I figured there could be an IT issue to blame initially. As far patterns go it seems pretty random, but so far it does only involve debits and not deposits (if those ever disappear there will be blood). So far she's only overdrawn her account once because of this. The last time she noticed a missing charge and bailed on her purchase so she wouldn't overdraw. I am getting more curious to find out if this is happening to other people, though. And if this is some sort of deliberate strategy by the bank, it's pretty sleazy.
I know that I had transactions disappear like this when I was with US Bank. Between being authorized & posted sometimes they'd disappear for a day. It caused me issues on a few occasions.
Twayn, this might be totally countercultural... but have you considered a cash budget? Meaning taking out the cash, and only using cash for any purchases throughout the week (bills excepted maybe). This way, she's not using the card for purchases and thus would not have the charges appearing or disappearing? Unless they're charges for something else?
Oh... and if it's Bank of America... get out right away. I refinanced my mortgage for no other reason than to not be their customer anymore (not really, I lowered my rate by 1%, but I certainly was happy to no longer have my mortgage in their system anymore)
Not a bad idea, but it will take cooperation from Daughter the Elder.
I'm in the process of moving to a local credit union. It's taking some time to move all of the auto-pay, direct deposit, and whatnot, but all I expect out of the big commercial banks at the moment is for them to increase their fees at the drop of a hat. And there are no interest rates out there at the moment which could make me justify paying anything more than minimal fees.
Deluxe has a new program that allows you to change all the automatic deposits/withdrawals easily when you switch to a new bank/credit union. They are marketing it to the banks/credit unions. I am guessing the small banks and credit unions will get priced out of it.
credit unions FTW
I agree with this. Been with my credit union for almost 7 years now, I think, and couldn't be happier. Got my car loan from there, too and the other loan from another credit union. I was at Associated Bank prior, and they somehow lost a paycheck deposit, which made me leave.
I'm planning to move all of our banking to a credit union this summer. I've been considering it for more than a year now, but the hassle of switching has always kept me from pulling the trigger. Not anymore.
FYI, I did hear on the radio the other day that the fee orgy the big banks have been on appears to be backfiring. They are apparently losing more revenue from departing customers than they are making from all the new and increased fees.
Good.
I had also been contemplating the move for a long time, with the hassle factor being the main thing holding me back from making the switch.
I doubt banks make anything off my account. In fact, I am guessing they lose money on most checking accounts.
with real interest rates at or near zero, I'm not surprised. People don't carry enough of a balance in their demand accounts for most banks to have all that much to lend back out anyway, but very low real interest rates have to be pretty tough on banks' bottom lines.
The Milkmaid quit her job at a bank a few years ago because it was turning into a retail business, and a very shady one at that. The more she was schooled in the tricks they were employing, the more she realized she was the tool of a corrupt corporation.
I quit my job at US Bank because of simple economics: new hires were making $3+ per hour more than I was, and the most I could hope for in a year was a 5% bump. I worked in the mortgage department, and I quit in 2006. I'd say I got out at the right time.
TJ Quinn with opening argument summary from Clemens trial. Now in recess until Monday(!) If Feds go down on this one, what an embarrassment.
It's funny how there were so many players who played really well while taking B12 shots, but you never hear about anyone getting B12 shots these days. Hmmm.
they are spraying it on these days.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I shouldn't have read the comments.
Stribbers: angry at the good player the Twins keep, angry at the Twins for letting Phillip Humber go
You haven't learned by now? Comments are nothing but a black hole of stupid.
Aha, so it's a clutch thing now? (I ascertain this from glancing at some comments.) Once fans think you can't come through in clutch situations, they will never change their minds. Hitters fail often enough that every failure will reinforce those fans in their belief that they were correct. (I am not terribly immune to this--I love it when I am right.)
So, recognizing that I am tilting against windmills here, a list sorted by OPS, descending:
AVG/OBP/SLG, OPS
.348/.499/.521, 1.020 -- Mauer, RISP, 2 outs
.339/.454/.500, .954 -- Mauer, RISP
.342/.437/.479, .916 -- Mauer, men on
.323/.403/.470, .873 -- Mauer, career
.300/.421/.448, .869 -- Mauer, late and close
.308/.374/.462, .836 -- Mauer, none on
If anything, this reinforces the idea that Mauer should hit third in the order so that he gets more PA with runners on base or better yet, in scoring position.
Last night, this morning, I got in a twitter brouhaha with Nick Nelson, who asserted that Mauer always wears down late in the season. I noted that he has had 3 .900+ OPS Sept/Oct seasons ('06, '08, and '09), career .847 in Sept/Oct. But, says Nick, his ISOp is only .120. Well, power has never been his thing, I says. He says, well, in 39 post season PAs, he has one XBH and 1 RBI. I says, if Cuzzi rules the ball fair, his post-season slugging rises .057, so in other words, small sample size. He says, well, he's looked tired in Oct, and the numbers bear that out. 39 PAs in three different seasons.
I point out that his second half OPS is only .008 lower than his first half, career.
Three things: One, Nick says a lot of things that should be immediately dismissed and this is one of them (he recently wrote about "troubling signs" about Mauer and Morneau after about six games or so). Two, I should refrain from Twitter spats. Three, there is a palpable thirst for Mauer blood around Twins Territory and a decent start to the 2012 season is not going to stop the rabble rousing.
Honestly, I think the poisoned waters re: Mauer here have spread around nationally. I know plenty of baseball fans period who are convinced he sucks now. Pretty stupid.
Nick says a lot of things that should be immediately dismissed
Indeed, I find Nelson to be basically an independent wing of MSM shill nowadays.
I have to admit, few things sound less manly than having a Twitter spat.
Does this mean if I don't order Miller Lite I'm in danger of losing my man card?
Well if you do order a Miller Lite, at least you can drink it faster.
I guess I can't really comment on Nick Nelson these days, I haven't read anything he's written in years.
Once anyone--media or whoever--decides on a narrative, it is really easy to find facts to fit that narrative. It is harder to start from a blank slate and try to determine where the truth is. Many writers obviously feel the need to stir the pot and I think that is largely what drives the bloodletting. The only statistic many fans feel the need to know is 184,000,000. Screw the fact that a historically great catcher plays for your home team, we've got some nits to pick! At this point, Mauer's image is probably wrecked for good. It's not like A-Rod became well-liked in NY after they won a WS. Once a malingerer, always a malingerer. Once an unclutch choke artist, always an unclutch choke artist.
I've had biases against players in the past (and still do), so I understand that it happens, it's just so odd to me that fans would so eagerly buy into biases against their own players. I really disliked the Delmon trade, but even after it was clearly a disaster on basically all levels, I at least tried to find some humor in watching Delmon thrash about in the outfield, or tried to find some hope in his minor league numbers maybe leaving room for improvement (though obviously not MVP-dom) in the future.
Anyway, I'm sure whatever I say doesn't really matter. I'm clearly a Mauer apologist.
I'd like to know what has happened to sales of Mauer paraphernalia over the course of his career, particularly in Twins Territory. That's about as good a measure of his popularity with the general public as we can get.
He was top ten in jersey sales last year.
and second the year before.
Precipitous decline.
Very well said, ubes.
Also, if you want to show Nick a player who actually wears down at the end of the season, look no farther than Justin Morneau. His career tOPS+ in August and September is 79 and 74--ridiculously far below Mauer's 100 and 95.
For that matter, start checking out other catchers. The first two I thought of were Paul Lo Duca (because I remember someone pointed out he was great pre-ASB and not so much post-ASB) and Ivan Rodriguez (because I saw his appearance at the Rangers-Yankees game yesterday.) Lo Duca's Aug/Sep tOPS+ was 92 and 81. Pudge's Aug/Sep tOPS+ was 88 and 83.
I did, in fact, point to Morneau's numbers. Basically, he had no legs to stand on, which is ironic, because that was his argument about Mauer: that he has no legs to stand on by the end of the season.
Seeing Pudge throw the ceremonial first pitch from behind the plate to second base made me smile.
That was awesome.
also on the clutchiness...
.
.
2 out, runner on 2nd: .357/541/491
2 out, runners on 1/2: 371/463/543
2 out, runners on 1/3: 250/289/389
2 out, runners on 2/3: 321/587/571
2 out, runners on 123: 355/394/613
This is irrefutable proof that Mauer is Unclutch...with 2 out and runners at the corners.
Random thought for the day: Whatever happened to Boof Bonser?
he had Tommy John surgery last year, so might not have recovered from that yet.
Not much
He's hanging out with Chad Allen, Glen Williams and Dustan Mohr no doubt.
It may be kind of tough to be a Twins fan right now, but remember, we could be Royals fans.
Aaaahhhh... that made my day. Can't wait for the Twins to play them Friday.
You know, you really aren't an AD for the Gophs until you have signed a coach to a questionable extension. C'mon, Norwood, git r' dun!
Best you keep August 2 open on your calendar.
The small sample size song.
John Terry, I could kill you right now.
(Laugh it up, Magoo...)
That was great and then Chelsea scored right at half.
Oh I am, don't you worry.
I was about to come here and say what an unmitigated disaster that first half was for Chelsea. Cahill hurt in first 5 minutes, 2 Barca goals, John Terry Red Card. It was looking pretty grim and then a Chelsea goal in the 45th minute? Changes everything. Now Barca has to win by two. Not saying it won't happen, but will be a very interesting 2nd half.
Messi's got some in him yet, don't worry.
Ramires' goal definitely changed it into merely a mitigated disaster for Chelsea.
This 9-1 formation for Chelsea is working quite well. 12 minutes left! (Although Chelsea is infamous for allowing a goal in the 82-86 minute.)
Offside and a post in the last minute.
This is going to be an insane finish.
My heart's in my throat, for sure.
OMFG!!!!!!
WHA?
Guardian's MBM says that's the fourth time Barca have hit the post in the two legs.
Nuts.
My support is fully behind Bayern Munich tomorrow. I cannot stomach the idea of a Real Madrid - Chelsea CL final.
I'm right there with you.
That's fine but don't write Chelsea off altogether. Chelsea's down 1-2 in aggregate with barely more than 1/2 the game left, playing with 10 players and they win. Against Barcelona. At Camp Nou. The word is overused, but I would definitely describe that as epic. Haters gotta hate, but at least give a hat tip to the plucky Blue bastards.
I'm not writing off Chelsea at all. I gotta give them a nod for doing what needed to be done to win over their heavily favored opponents. But that doesn't mean I have to like it or wish them continued success.
Seriously, Munich better beat Madrid tonight. A Madrid-Chelsea final would be like having to pick between Creed and Nickelback.
Seriously, Munich better beat Madrid tonight. A Madrid-Chelsea final would be like having to pick between Creed and Nickelback.
Sounds like someone has been reading SBGville's second most famous citizen.
Also, I wasn't asking you to root for Chelsea in the final, just to acknowledge what they accomplished yesterday -- which you did.
I'm mildly in favor of Chelsea winning simply because I have no real EPL allegiances and Chelsea is scheduled to come play the Sounders in a friendly this summer (also the MLS All-Stars). It's always nicer if you can bill the "big name" friendly team as the UCL winner.
Suck it Catalans!!!!!! (and their misguided supporters)
I guess it's Chelsea's reserve squad in the final.
i've got some bad news for you, new guy.
I am also very disappointed by this.
That's what happens when Scott Van Pelt starts mocking your tweets on his radio show, I guess.
sorry, everyone! false alarm!
thank goodness.
pleasebetruepleasebetruepleasebetruepleasebetrue
He's baaaaaack!
also, apparently the designated hitter rule is a moral issue.
I blame cable TV.
I blame Casilla.
Revere will be promoted to take Wheeling Ham's spot while his wife is having a baby (I guess they have paternity leave now for three days). More importantly, Parmelee in RF tonight instead of Trader Clete (Mauer at 1b, Doumit catching).
Was it worth sending Revere down if the product of some consensual porking was about to be born? Seems a bit pointless to jerk Revere around like that.
Revere has 6 games and 27 PA already in the minors. I think the point was really to get him more playing time rather than to send him a message about not being good enough or whatever.
We had to let Trader Clete play to see how many times he could strike out, I think. Once Revere is up with the Twins, does he go back down if he is playing well after the paternity leave?
Personally, I think you tell Revere that he's coming up for three games and there's nothing he can do in three games to keep himself up with the big club. (Although there are things he could do that would put him out of favor, like not giving 100% effort, etc.) If he's trying to win a spot on the club in three games, he'll probably play like crap. Revere's played 172 games AAA/MLB combined. He wasn't very impressive in the majors last year. It's not unreasonable to ask him to put together a couple of good months in AAA before coming back for good.
I was thinking more about the other starting outfielder options the Twins have available. A Dough/Parm semi-platoon in RF doesn't bother me too much, and I think Trader Clete has swung himself into a bench role, so Revere going back to AAA is probably best all around. It's got to be nice for him to know he's the first outfield call-up if there's an injury or other issue.
12 more and we can decide whether or not he can play!
I agree. The death knell for him would have been to have him sit on the bench and not play much. That's a good role for Trader Clete.
I'll be honest - I just wanted to say "consensual porking."
It is a great phrase, spoons.
Ruh roh.
Of course, dairy cows are by far the most likely to be found with Mad Cow in the U.S. because beef cows tend to be slaughtered at a young age. And thankfully, the feds banned the addition of slaughterhouse scraps to cattle feed back in 1997, so the odds of mad cow epidemics in the U.S. have plummeted. But still. Eww.
There are about 4,500 at the Oakland Coliseum. It seems like about 50 of them have vuvuzelas. ugh.
on the plus side, Hawk is throwing out some 'gadummit' because the A's have rallied in the 8th