.

=== Plot Spoiler and Caveat Emptor ===

Here there be philosophy, ethics, and politics, as they relate to business and baseball.  If that's not your thing, you might wish to click on past this one.

Tacoma Rain axs,

.

Guys - hang in there with me on this, cuz' I'm really not trying to prove Bigfoot killed Oswald here....
The Mariners are always tight lipped about everything. Right? EVERYTHING. But the M's are ALWAYS - NO COMMENT - on any trades proposals, ESPECIALLY the ones that do not work. Jack has made it a point NEVER to include names.
Yet for THIS trade proposal, we know EVERY name.
Now at first we would say, yeah but the Diamondbacks are in volved too, so Towers is talking... BUT this story is on the Mariner's web site. This story is on Shannon's blog. This story has even had Jack himself talk about it. AND we know EVERY name. It's like the Mariner's are broadcasting this story... and the Mariners are fanning the flames too, by trying to keep people talking about this story.
Harold Reynolds is talking up the fact that UPTON does NOT want to come to Seattle EVER? Harold Reynolds, MLB TV Host.
What is going on?

...
The only thing that makes ANY sense to me is that Jack is doing this to get the attention of the MLB or the commissioner.
I am sure there are reasons to do this... like take pressure off the Marlins so they can make a trade, or get a first round draft pick next year, or ???
I am open to your suggestions and comments.

.

=== Talking Points ===

1.  Conspiracies do occur.

Some how, some way, at some date, the modern American press was able to stigmatize this phrase "conspiracy theory."  Just the mention of the phrase is enough to falsify any protest against a political agenda.

There is a rich, complex set of arguments -- on both sides -- available on the subject of gun control.  The NRA sincerely fears an agenda to completely disarm the American populace and in the NRA's view, this could lead to a totalitarian government riding herd over its citizens with impunity.

Most NRA members don't particularly feel like they need 30-round magazines for their rifles, but what they do feel like, is that some segments of American society are trying to incrementally work towards a situation in which no American legally owns a gun at all. 

Very often the logical retort against the NRA consists of --- > laughter, pointing, and "Look at the conspiracy theorists!"  And very often this retort is completely effective.

How many U.S. senators and representatives would like to see private gun ownership outlawed?  Of course there are some.  Why, then, respond to the NRA's protest with Conspiracy Theory Kook ridicule?  Why not simply make the case that citizens should not own guns?

It's not about right wing or left wing, as such.  The left wing might oppose prayers at school assemblies not because a 30-second prayer is so repugnant, but because of its fear of an underlying agenda -- that the right wing, if left unopposed, would saturate the K-12 system with Bible education.  And that's a concern well founded.  Many on the right actually would do this, if it were possible.  

Why then ridicule the left over its concerns that an agenda exists?  An agenda does exist.  Those who deny the existence of the agenda are being dishonest, but they're being effectively dishonest.  The "Conspiracy Theory" accusation wields tremendous power in our society.  Too much power.

I know nobody asked me, but if anybody did, I'm completely opposed to the debate tactic of mockery.  And the increasing American tendency to win arguments through ridicule is at its worst in this terrain, the Conspiracy Theory terrain. 

Notice, for example, Tacoma Rain putting his hands into defensive position before the fact, since he's going to be venturing into "Conspiracy Theory" territory.

..............

Why?  What, exactly, is so preposterous about the suggestion that somebody might have an agenda?  And that they might keep this agenda close to the vest?

I have agendas -- many of them, even with respect to SSI, some of which I don't tell you about.  Doesn't everybody have agendas?  And how often do you make it a point to provide full disclosure for your own agendas?

If a politician, or a powerful business executive, did NOT have agendas, what use would he be?

It's not preposterous to suggest that the Mariners are managing their P.R., nor that the Justin Upton situation was chiefly a ploy to represent themselves as aggressively trying to win.  Geoff Baker suggested precisely this with respect to the Josh Hamilton contract offer.  And the Mariners have always been exceptionally concerned with public perception.

.

2.  "Conspiracy" usually implies that you're plotting to do something illegal, or at least immoral.  That's the emotional tone attached.

Let's say the Mariners had been doing this -- making lukewarm efforts to improve their team, assuming the efforts won't be enough, and figuring "Well, if Hamilton accepts our mediocre offer, so much the better.  But at least we'll be able to advertise our efforts."

What would be illegal or immoral about that?  Nothing.

On the other hand, their decade-long policy of treating 85 wins like a pennant, their Committee belief that all we owe to Soccer Mom is an evening of Major League Baseball (TM) under the open air, I could argue that there are things unethical about that.  But this winter, nada, not in a vacuum.

.

3.  Based on my own (limited) experience with business executives at Zduriencik's and Towers' level, would I say that it's feasible that maybe the Mariners and DBacks went through this whole thing, not really wanting to make a deal?

No way in the world.

For one thing, you don't jerk people around like that, people outside your own company.  A necessary evil, like the M's jumping off Montero to Smoak in the Cliff Lee deal, that is part of the rough-and-tumble of big bidness.  But to sit down with a fellow power broker, and take up his time based on a sham negotiation that was a fraud from day one?  That's not the cloth they are cut from.  

Execs who make $500,000 a year are about getting from point A to point B, whatever the bloodshed might be along the way.  They're just not interested enough in your opinion, to spend that kind of time and energy on appearances.  They've got stuff to do, man.  There are a lot of things you might call Jack Zduriencik, but small-minded is not one of them.

.

4.  That last sentence does not apply, in my opinion, to Harold Reynolds.  

I think he's just being catty about a former org that has offended him in the past.  Some of those ex-ballplayers are extremely focused on the petty aspects of the situation and if Reynolds got a chance to take a swipe at the M's, I'm sure he'd take it.

.

5.  Upton's agent was indeed quoted, last year, specifically opening the door to teams on Upton's no-trade list.  Guess here is that the agent and the player weren't on the same page, which is nothing unusual. 

Kelly Gaffney hit this one spot on, we think.  Upton probably has some specific trade in mind, much like Griffey did back in '99*, and we're guessing that's the dynamic here.

How to overcome it?  Back channel, you'd need to convince him that his preferred destination(s) really aren't possible, because Upton's trying to twist your arm to take 75 cents on the dollar to send him there.  Undoubtedly he thinks that if he pushes hard enough, if he plays chicken with enough determination, you (Towers) will throw your hands in the air and say "Oh, all right."

All things considered, it would probably take a whale of a recruiting effort by Zduriencik to get Upton here.  Maybe that's what's going on now.

.

6.  If Zduriencik is willing to give up this kind of jack to make a deal happen, you would think he'd be able to Git R Done sometime this winter.  I mean, two 10K major league relievers, together with the top-100 prospects bundle, that's serious coin.  If I'm a rival GM shopping my All-Star, I want to know what all else Zduriencik is willing to cough up.

BABVA,

Dr D

              Since the development of nuclear bombs in the 1940s, suggestions have been made for possible civilian peaceful uses of these powerful explosives. The United States explored some of these possibilities in Operation Plowshare and the Soviet Union worked on them in their Nuclear Explosives for the National Economy program. The primary use was for large scale earth moving but there were other uses such as seismic exploration and sealing major leaks in gas fields that were considered. Despite the hostility between these two nations during the Cold War, there were several bilateral conferences where scientists from the two nations compare notes on their experiments. After over one hundred explosions were triggered during the tests, in the end, both of these projects were cancelled due to technical problems, environmental pollutions and public opposition. Since the Soviet ended its program in 1989, there have been no other serious explorations of peaceful use of nuclear explosions.

             Another plan for peaceful use of nuclear explosions that never got beyond the study and planning stage called for the use of nuclear explosions to generate electricity. The idea had been around since 1957 when it was suggested that megaton fusion bombs be exploded in a cavity dug out of solid granite to heat steam. As part of Operation Plowshare, Los Alamos National Laboratories researched the concept under the name Project PACER during the 1970s. They considered the use of thermonuclear fusion bombs but later decided that atomic fission bombs would be a better choice.

             The basic idea was create an underground chamber where nuclear devices could be exploded to heat steam for power generation. An early design called for a one thousand foot diameter dug five thousand feet underground in a salt dome. It would be filled with water. Fifty kiloton bombs would be dropped in at about the rate of two a day. The resulting steam would be run through a heat exchanger and the secondary steam would power a generator. Estimates were made that two gigawatt of energy could be generated in this way

              A later design called for kiloton nuclear bombs to be detonated every forty five minutes. The heat of their explosion would be captured by molten salts running down the side of the chamber. The molten salts would enter a heat exchanger where the heat would be used to generate steam. The steam could then drive a turbine to create electricity.

              After the cancellation of Operation Plowshare, additional studies and designs have been explored. One of these later designs was based on a steel cylinder one hundred feet in diameter and three hundred feet tall with walls that were four feet thick. The cylinder would be embedded in concrete in a hole in the ground. The cylinder would be half full of molten salts which would be continuously pumped to the top and allowed to flow down. In this rain of molten salt, a one kiloton fission bomb would be detonated every forty five minutes. A heat exchanger would generate steam from the molten salt to drive a turbine and generate electricity.

               One of the problems with these bomb generator is that they would require a steady supply of small nuclear bombs which would make the economic feasibility of such a system less attractive. The cost of fueling a PACER style system was estimated in one study to be about ten times the cost of fueling a conventional light water reactor.

Los Alamos.PNG

Body Bags Vol 2 TP- I’ve always been a fan of Jason Pearson’s art and especially the original Body Bags series, so it’s nice to finally get this second collection of short stories from various anthologies or one-shots. You really should start at the first volume for all the background though, and if you like quasi-futuristic gangster stories with vicious bounty hunters, then this is right up your alley. What’s really interesting to me is that there are four distinctly different art styles to be found in here revealing how Pearson has changed and experimented over time. Some of it is in the coloring as well and I believe there was a hefty chunk of time between some of these stories, so you can;t really expect someone to maintain the same exact style. I like all of it, but I think my favorite is when he tightens his lines a bit and exaggerates on his forms a little less. The odd thing about this collection is that it’s a bit out of order, which is fine since they are all short self-contained stories. The third chapter though happens pretty much immediately after the first volume and does make reference to previous material, so it’s sort of weird that it’s not at the front of the book. Regardless, this is still a lot of violent fun for the $12.99 price tag. A-

2797984-prv14742_cov_super.jpg

Cable and X-Force #3- This is probably the most I’ve cared about a Cable comic in over a decade, so that’s saying something right there. Still interested in seeing where they can take this, just wish they would drop the price a bit. B+

IMG120647.jpg

The Legend of Luther Strode #2- Sorta worth it just for the Yale Stewart cartoon in the back, so then you get an entire awesome comic on top of that and you win. Hooray for violence! A-

Fantastic_Four_Vol_4_3.jpg

Fantastic Four #3- You can love or hate Mark Bagley, but he’s a solid draftsman and I think he’s the perfect fit for this story. There’s just something spot on about the tone of this arc so far, and I’m enjoy every issue they’ve handed to us. A

EARTH2_Cv8.jpg

Earth 2 #8- I think I still enjoy this title because it’s essentially an Elseworlds tale. Granted, most of the New 52 is like a horribly long vacation on an assbackwards Elseworlds universe, but considering this one is sort of like a vacation from the vacation it’s a bit more enjoyable. B

Q.  Paxton*, Franklin, Furbush and Pryor?

A.  The DBacks should be DDEEEEEEE-LIGHTED with that return.  Man, if I were dealing a problem attitude for a rebuild ... two big time ML-ready blue chippers, one arm and one bat, AND two 10-strikeout ML relievers.  KA-CHING baby!

Furbush and Pryor is one thumb to each eye, but can you hold up your blockbuster over middle relievers, when you've got pitchers coming out your ears?  

Super impressed if that's what the DBacks did, squeeze the sponge to get those two middle relievers that the M's can't afford to argue about.

.

Q.  Earlier you called Franklin your fave trade chip.

A.  Nick Franklin has become the single trade chip who was most superfluous, since according to Geoffy the Mariners have Brad Miller pencilled in at SS.   He is both (1) hyper-talented and (2) crowded out in Seattle.

And giving up one of the Big Three ... Big Four now, right, with Erasmo?   We talk all the time about this:  only 25 men go on a roster at once.  You have GOT to take into account that players 26-150 are wasted horsepower.  

This part of it would be sweet like ice cream, dealing players #25, #26 and #27 for your franchise right fielder. It would be different if you were coughing up Seager and didn't know who was playing 3B, or coughing up Montero and afraid you were losing Pujols.

.

Q.  You still don't want to throw out talent.

A.  We don't say that you stop worrying about talent if you've got three players all doing the same thing.  But you certainly do want to include this variable in your equation.  If the talent going out were NOT redundant, then what?  It could be that Felix Hernandez' net performance value, going forward and adjusted for salary, is lower than that of [Paxton Franklin Furbush Pryor].  But none of Felix' value is redundant against anybody's.

Acquiring Justin Upton would not be "throwing out" talent, and let's keep in mind that ML-ready prospects have seen their value tumble this offseason.  Paxton, Franklin, Furbush, Pryor, that's a whale of a lot of talent, but if you get the guy you want you have not created one hole to fill another.  

The point is, this one isn't as simple as "we get 15 WAR and they get 22 WAR."  Some of the 22 WAR that the M's give up is redundant performance.  It's a complex variable to take into account -- how would player #21 overlap against player #23.  The M's give up tons of WAR, but then again, much of that WAR is occurring in places where you wouldn't be able to use it anyway.

.

Q.  Bottom line?

A.  I'd give the DBacks a golfclap for realizing they had me over a barrel on the relievers.  But I guess if I were bullish on Upton, then yeah.  

There's the kid I want to build around, and I didn't really hit my 25-man roster to get him.  In the big picture, that was my goal.

BABVA,

Dr D