Seen on a T-Shirt this afternoon: “There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who get binary and those who don’t.”

Being a geek, I just sort of assumed everyone had seen that shirt before. Clearly I need to get out more. My current favorite nerdy (of a different sort) shirt is this one, though I'd never actually wear it.

(I also find that Threadless site interesting. Apparently they're making loads of money, and I'd never even heard of them until last month. Makes me hopeful for my own endeavors.)

As for Krivsky, we all know he likes relievers.

Congratulations - just two trimesters to go!

Could Dunn be Vavranated? Get it so he's only striking out 30% of the time?

I like the Tigers and Cards. That's not a prediction. I can just tell that David Wright is Jeter 2.0, so I might as well be a charter member of the Wright-haters club while it's still an original position.

Whichever teams advance and barring three major injuries, my prediction is AL over NL in 5.

I was wondering, is it possible to get strength of schedule or strength of victory for the playoff clubs? I wonder if the Yankee's strengths and record were inflated by playing in the East, with teams like the DRays, Os, and BoSox in the division.

Quick solution: Average the teams' divisional records (and excluding interleague because that's harder to normalize to).

Huh. Not what I expected:
NYY .598
OAK .589
ANA .571
MIN .561
DET .538
CWS .528
TOR .527
TEX .507

My favorite part of the marginal payroll/win was seeing the Royals worst in the AL Central, despite the fact that they had the lowest payroll in the division.

If the Twins got Dunn, I could finally stop complaining about Cuddyer's strikeouts!

Seen on a T-Shirt this afternoon: “There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who get binary and those who don’t.”

Yep, a good one, but it's been around for quite a while.

First trimester is complete?! Can we expect a VORB report soon?

And regarding the payroll/wins ratio, will I get in trouble if I say that I admire Carl's payroll limits? Sure, he comes of as a tight-fisted skin flint, but if he has management that can do well within those limitations (he does), how can you fault that? He's certainly not to blame for escalating free agent $$$.

Apropos of the SF case, even that one is questionable.

Joel Ventresca headed up a citizens group called "Committee to Stop the Giveaway," which opposed public financing of a baseball stadium in San Francisco. He says residents are paying indirect costs -- for city services to the park, and the loss of land that could be used for housing or industry that would generate more tax dollars than baseball.

"For PR purposes they claim it's privately financed," said Ventresca. "In reality when you look at the hard numbers, the stadium in San Francisco is heavily subsidized by the local taxpayers. And that means tax dollars are going to support this sports team and their sports palace instead of those tax dollars going for public education, public parks or other types of high-need services that exist here in San Francisco."

It's a mistake, agrees Stanford University economist Roger Noll, to think of SBC Park as purely private. Noll, who studies sports economics, says the Giants' $175 million investment is paying off for now because the park is bringing in more than enough money to cover debts. But Noll sees signs the new-park honeymoon may be coming to an end. The Giants are having an off year on the field, and for the first time some games are not being sold out. Noll says trouble looms.

"Most likely, as one gets out past 10 years, the interest costs will in fact exceed the revenue enhancement," said Noll. "The reason teams have in fact asked for public subsidies is that these stadiums aren't worth it. They actually cost more than the incremental revenues they generate over their lifetimes. And that's why they go for public subsidies. It's not really a good business investment over the long run."

Noll says that means the Giants could come calling on taxpayers again when SBC Park turns from asset to financial burden. But as for the present, Noll says there's a lesson to be learned from San Francisco for cities struggling with stadium issues.

"If the political system refuses to provide a large subsidy, as happened in San Francisco when the Giants lost four consecutive ballot measures to get a subsidy, then it may be the case that the team will find alternative sources of financing to pay for most of the stadium," he said.

Roger is a highly respected economist with a long history of working in sports economics, among other things.

Here is a link to an interesting article comparing financing on several recent stadiums.

The city of SF donated the land for SBC/PacBell/AT&T Park, plus a $15 million "tax increment" (loan) that "must be repaid."

also has a bit of discussion of the new Yankee Stadium

Back to the point, though -- THIS deal is crappy for Hennepin County. Doesn't really matter what other teams' deals are. And Pohlad should get criticism for holding the team hostage (contraction threats) while dragging the thing out much longer than it needed to be.

Of course, the commissioners should get heavy criticism too. Unfortunately they are between a rock and a hard place, because the public at large wanted a deal done. But that doesn't really justify a crappy deal.

Well, sure, Moss. It is a crappy (financial) deal. That is often (almost always!) the case with publicly-financed capital projects other than roads and bridges. Supporters are only a minority (often a small minority) of tax payers in the constituency. But many people who don't care about baseball/football/whatever don't vote, even though they will be affected adversely by the debt retirement or tax financing schemes. Democracy in action.