Stock Market

Raskol · Post by **Raskol** » Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:28 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

Schwks, With regards to your signature, in four tries I have not had more than two of my top four picks work out so I reckon it is not that easy, at least not for me. It seems to always be a mid to late round flyer that tips the scale from contender to Champion. Last year: Lee, McClouth, Quentin.

Not sure how the fourth round is the back end of the draft, but football is different I guess...

Schwks · Post by **Schwks** » Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:51 am

Rask., There are 7 rds to NFL draft, so I guess 4th round qualifies as "back end" From the perspective a a Giant fan, he seems to know what he is doing.

When I looked at the teams that finsished well this year in main draw, common thread seemed to be getting closers who performed like top drawer guys in the mid rounds 10-14...guys like Lidge, B WIlson. Also FA pick ups...seemd like a lot of successful owners got on C Lee and Alexei Ramirez bandwagon. Even though Q, McLouth were two of bigger surprises, that was my impression.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:21 am

I do think that getting good players at the end is a very important skill. In fact that is why I've done well despite troubles at the beginning. But I do think you have to get all your ducks lined up, not just this or that. Also, I wasn't really arguing against your signature--just offering a thought.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:39 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

Schwks, With regards to your signature, in four tries I have not had more than two of my top four picks work out so I reckon it is not that easy, at least not for me. Any way you look at it, not a good comment from a GM. Sinorice Moss plays like a sixth rounder and other top picks will get thrown back in his face as well.

Brian, am I to infer that you will start going 'safe' in the first four rounds?

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:28 am

S&P500 hit my downside 780 target this morning, which takes it back to late 1996 prices ... could be a move higher from here.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:32 am

Hope your right Kevin. I bought some out of the money calls this morning, but not for a lot of cash. I can't take too much more pain.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:06 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

S&P500 hit my downside 780 target this morning, which takes it back to late 1996 prices ... could be a move higher from here. time to load up? i was waiting for a low of 7,200 b4 i invested the rest of my mad money.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:29 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

S&P500 hit my downside 780 target this morning, which takes it back to late 1996 prices ... could be a move higher from here. time to load up? i was waiting for a low of 7,200 b4 i invested the rest of my mad money. [/QUOTE]I'd be buying. Screw the DJIA GG, watch the SPX.

[ November 20, 2008, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

headhunters · Post by **headhunters** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:56 am

s&p with about a 5% gain since the duke posted.

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:33 am

Originally posted by headhunters:

s&p with about a 5% gain since the duke posted. Now down about 6% since your post. Thanks for the jinx.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:46 am

Originally posted by rucrew2:

quote:Originally posted by headhunters:

s&p with about a 5% gain since the duke posted. Now down about 6% since your post. Thanks for the jinx.

[/QUOTE]Very bad sign if the market doesn't hold near this level. A clean break and my next target would be around 500 on the S&P, down another 35%.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:01 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by bjoak:

Schwks, With regards to your signature, in four tries I have not had more than two of my top four picks work out so I reckon it is not that easy, at least not for me. Any way you look at it, not a good comment from a GM. Sinorice Moss plays like a sixth rounder and other top picks will get thrown back in his face as well.

Brian, am I to infer that you will start going 'safe' in the first four rounds? [/QUOTE]Depends on what you think of as safe, but yes, I've been trying. I felt that D.Lee, A. Gonzalez and Wright were safe this year. I did not think that about Byrnes at all and really didn't want him, but the beginning of my draft went horribly awry. Hopefully, I will do better on that score next year.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:14 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

S&P500 hit my downside 780 target this morning, which takes it back to late 1996 prices ... could be a move higher from here. Whether its a good day or bad day on the DOW, it seems as though from 6:30 to 12:00 PDT is sluggish and the last hour is like it takes a hit of meth. Why is the number at 12pm ususally doubled by 1pm?

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:21 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by bjoak:

Schwks, With regards to your signature, in four tries I have not had more than two of my top four picks work out so I reckon it is not that easy, at least not for me. Any way you look at it, not a good comment from a GM. Sinorice Moss plays like a sixth rounder and other top picks will get thrown back in his face as well.

Brian, am I to infer that you will start going 'safe' in the first four rounds? [/QUOTE]Depends on what you think of as safe, but yes, I've been trying. I felt that D.Lee, A. Gonzalez and Wright were safe this year. I did not think that about Byrnes at all and really didn't want him, but the beginning of my draft went horribly awry. Hopefully, I will do better on that score next year. [/QUOTE]Safe, would be players that have consistently played 150 games over at least the last three years. Also, a pitcher that hasn't had any major problems with his throwing arm or shown that he doesen't miss many starts.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:03 am

Agree 100% about the pitchers and I don't think I have ever taken a pitcher that would be deemed unsafe by those criteria in the first six rounds. With the hitters, that is why I said "depends". Other people might have different definitions and that is fine. For me, I am looking at a hitter's profile. Maybe not so much up and down stats in the minors/majors and a skill set that bodes well for continued success. Age is probably a bigger factor to me as I will avoid older players that might drop off. A rookie will be off limits, but a second year player who profiles well is fine to me, as was the case with A Gon last year.

To put it to work, Ryan Howard is someone I'd avoid and deem "unsafe." I think he'd meet your criteria, but to me, he has an old player's skill set at an age where he can suddenly fall off the cliff and his up/down batting average shows how temporamental his stats can be. I think he has a bigger upside than we've seen but I don't see him as safe.

It is fine to disagree. I am just saying what I am personally looking for (now as opposed to in the past).

[ November 20, 2008, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:32 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

Agree 100% about the pitchers and I don't think I have ever taken a pitcher that would be deemed unsafe by those criteria in the first six rounds. With the hitters, that is why I said "depends". Other people might have different definitions and that is fine. For me, I am looking at a hitter's profile. Maybe not so much up and down stats in the minors/majors and a skill set that bodes well for continued success. Age is probably a bigger factor to me as I will avoid older players that might drop off. A rookie will be off limits, but a second year player who profiles well is fine to me, as is the case with A Gon last year.

To put it to work, Ryan Howard is someone I'd avoid and deem "unsafe." I think he'd meet your criteria, but to me, he has an old player's skill set at an age where he can suddenly fall off the cliff and his up/down batting average shows how temporamental his stats can be. I think he has a bigger upside than we've seen ut I don't see him as safe.

It is fine to disagree. I am just sayoing what I am personally looking for (now as opposed to in the past). I have this theory that young sloths don't get hurt as much as young jaguars in fantasy baseball. Howard, Fielder, Adam Dunn, Greg Luzinski...you get the body type. They hardly move so there chances of getting hurt are minute. The jaguars that cover a lot of ground and steal bases have a much better chance of getting hurt simply because of the increased activity and tighter muscle groups resulting in hammys and strains. Just my theory.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:56 am

Yeah, I'd definitely agree that if all a player's value is wrapped up in his legs, it is really easy for him to go from hero to zero. You have to weigh that against your need to set up a balanced team from the getgo. Nobody said it was easy!

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:05 pm

The Yankees = The Fed

Steinbrenner = Bush

Cashman = Bernanke

$161,000,000 = $700,000,000,000

Sabathia, Boras = Any bank, loan, or auto company

We're improving our team = We're not bailing out companies, we'll get our money back.

Motto - Throw money at the problem, surely the problem will go away.

Result - If it doesen't work, repeat motto.

headhunters · Post by **headhunters** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:19 pm

can i opt to not buy a ticket to the gov't game and tell them doughboys said it is ok not to pay those taxes? i do agree- neither cares at all about the "fans"

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:13 pm

SWEET!

Seven pages of baseball talk...this will keep me busy for a while!

edited to add...I think I enjoyed the economic talk more than the baseball talk!

It was nice having something to read.

~Lance

[ December 10, 2008, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: sportsbettingman ]

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:53 am

Originally posted by headhunters:

can i opt to not buy a ticket to the gov't game and tell them doughboys said it is ok not to pay those taxes? i do agree- neither cares at all about the "fans" I should have added....

Rising Taxes = Rising Ticket Prices

Rising sales and property tax = Rising concessions and parking fees

Renewed hope, new regime = Renewed hope, new park

We Pay = We Pay

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:20 am

Originally posted by Vander:

quote: Mark I'm afraid your right about those that lived within their means will pay the price. The way I see it we will have a period of time when we have deflation. This will benefit those that have saved and have cash. Not that it will be a good time. It will be horrible. Many losing their jobs. Businesses going under. Very 1930's like. The likely outcome this time will be the fed throwing more and more cash at the problem till it's dead. Not sure how long this will take. (meanwhile the pols will do their best to make things worse, same as the 30's they will erect trade barriers, the real cause of the great depression and maybe raise taxes instead of stimulative lower taxes). Then after Ben gets his helicopters running over time and they get their buckets and fire hoses applying as much cash as possible to finally get enough cash into the system to delever/bailout everybody you'll get the opposite. Deflation will turn to inflation. Hyper inflation like Brazil in the 1990's or Zimbabwe now. prices change intra day. the savers and those with cash will be crushed as they see their cash turn worthless. That's the answer to how we get out of this and who will pay all these bills. Those that lived beyond their means and are underwater with debt, and that includes Uncle Sam, will be rewarded as they too get bailed out, by inflation, making their debts worthless. Could be wrong. Not Nostrodamus. Just how I see the likely out come of where this is going. [/QB][/QUOTE]Reading this thread again this morning almost three months after it was started was interesting. Some comments are wild and off the mark but the majority of the posts are thoughtful and prophetic.

I personally believe that the gov’t could stimulate the economy through spending, but that the spending would have to be targeted and for the general public good. I think they could easily spend a trillion dollars in cities like Chicago, NY, Boston and Phil just on infrastructure. Would that spending solve our problems? No. But what I’m saying is that they can spend it and some good will result. Good that I believe would outweigh the bad.

But, I’m not looking to re-start this thread.

What I do want to say is…. Thank You.

I have read these boards regularly (occasionally adding my 2 cents) for two+ years and even though I don’t know any of you personally, I find a vast majority to be intelligent and articulate writers with much to say. It should be obvious to all why the competition in this contest is so strong.

Keep up the good work …………….. And now back to baseball

Top Dawg · Post by **Top Dawg** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:22 am

The trillions that will be spent will help resolve the current problems. It's just a matter of time. However, they will bring inflation and that is a simple matter of economic fact.

I am not a borker, not a trader and not a genius. But I do have an MBA in finance and know you can't solve all these problems with money you don't have. Knowing inflation will return as a result of what is happening now, I suggest you all put part of your nest-egg in gold or gold funds. Not all of it, but surely a part of it. Gold will travel north of $1500 and likely north of $2000 within 18-36 months. Not sure what the S&P will do...

Pete

Gordon Gekko II · Post by **Gordon Gekko II** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:52 am

Originally posted by Top Dawg:

The trillions that will be spent will help resolve the current problems. what happened to letting bad businesses fail? these "trillions" of dollars are not free. someone has to repay them. just like the banks were overleveraged, the US government is overleveraged. the banks failed. is the US government next? serious stuff.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:10 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko II:

quote:Originally posted by Top Dawg:

The trillions that will be spent will help resolve the current problems. what happened to letting bad businesses fail? these "trillions" of dollars are not free. someone has to repay them. just like the banks were overleveraged, the US government is overleveraged. the banks failed. is the US government next? serious stuff. [/QUOTE]It's all the master plan to crush our constitution and introduce the AMERO as the new currency that unifies Canada/US/Mexico.

Can't keep our current constitution if we unify, now can we?

It sickens me.

~Lance