bighurt574

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 21, 2009 -> 01:38 PM) Pitching wins, but to guarantee a $22 million option 4 years from now is insane. If he doesn't want to be here, let him go to play for the Cubbies, I'm already sick of it, although if Broadway is involved ....................................... $22 million 4 years from now is a lot (it's really $18 million, $4 million is already a sunk cost), but: (1) you're getting 3/4 year at $11 million prorated, which is way below market; and (2) you're getting 3 years at $16 million average, which is still likely below market, and not all that different from MB's contract. When you look at the overall contract, it's reasonable for a pitcher like Peavy, especially when you compare it to the contracts that other "aces" have received recently. If we have to overpay a bit for year 5, I'm ok with it. I imagine the Sox are comfortable with his elbow, or the trade wouldn't have gotten this far.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 21, 2009 -> 12:38 PM) Maybe they really are trying to get us to accept his option years. If I was Peavy and/or his agent, I'd certainly give it a shot. Why not? Anyone know, is it an all-or-nothing sort of deal on the option? Could the two sides compromise, and say, just agree to guarantee more of the money for that year or raise the buyout? I imagine the AL concerns are at least a bit of a negotiating tactic.

QUOTE (Sockin @ May 21, 2009 -> 12:29 PM) FWIW, Axelrod hasn't spoken to Peavy since yesterday afternoon. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/base...sox.trade.0200/ Does anyone really believe that? Please.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 21, 2009 -> 12:06 PM) Yeah, I have no idea where people think they saw the trade was dead. Peavy wants to pitch in the NL? No s***, that's all we heard for the entire offseason. Hell, he probably just woke up a few hours ago, as the Padres were home last night. His agent is saying he doesn't think Peavy will accept a deal to the AL, at least not now. I don't think his agent, or any agent, would just make casual statements to the media for no reason. The two have talked, let's not be naive. Peavy is either saying no, or his agent is trying to create some leverage -- either for the Sox to pick up the option year, or to get other teams involved. Either way, it doesn't sound like a deal is imminent.

Has this not been posted yet? It's been up for a bit. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4191562

QUOTE (La Marr Hoyt HOF @ May 21, 2009 -> 11:32 AM) The San Diego Padres have agreed to trade staff ace Jake Peavy to the Chicago White Sox and are waiting for Peavy to decide if he will waive his no-trade clause, sources tell ESPN. Apparently according to Gammons, all pitching, no Beckham involvement -Cubs suck Wow, thanks for breaking this.

This is strange. I know this guy broke the story last night, but all other media outlets have supposedly confirmed that a deal is already in place pending Peavy's approval. I wonder if Peavy is rejecting the deal, but to save face for the Sox, they'll try to say there was never a deal in the first place.

I think Obama needs to make a call to Peavy...

I assume Peavy would be asking the Sox to pick up his option year.

7/10 On the balk question, I could swear that the ump can register a "ball" in the count even if no one is on base?

No way Jenks was trying to hit Kinsler. It was the 9th inning of a one run game. It made perfect sense to throw one behind his back, both to send a message in response to Sox batters getting hit, and to unnerve a very good hitter during a key at bat.

A friend of mine is a really good amateur cyclist (always finishes near the top time for the cycling portions of any triathalon). He's always said that the reason he never considered professional cycling was because he didn't want to have to use the PEDs that are necessary to have a chance at competing at the highest level. With each new baseball "outing," I'm more and more convinced that the same is true in baseball, and probably in just about any other sport as well (that's not to say that no one is completely clean, but they are the rare exceptions).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 7, 2009 -> 07:56 AM) The docor excuse was authored by Scott Boras. Read Manny's apology and then listen to Manny speak and tell me they are from the same person. Its spin city. Why wouldn't Manny appeal which is his right? He has every reason to cheat. A big year can make him a ton of money as he is on a 1 year contract with an option. He also has been known not to have the greatest work ethic in the world. PED's provide a shortcut. Manny is getting older. I can easily see a player turning to PEDs to try to extend his career.

QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 02:46 PM) No need to apologize, I understand what you are saying. However, like I already said, a lot of people are running red lights/messing with their radio/speeding. Thats not what I do, and I know people have a hard time believing it because they all say "Well thats what every person who drives drunk says" but I have been in the car with other friends who driving drunk and it really isn't the same. I guess it is criminal but then again I do a lot of criminal things so I don't really think that matters much. And im not some alcoholic. If we ever were at the same ballgame you wouldn't need to worry because I wouldn't be drinking. The only time I ever drink ANYTHING is at the bar, other than that I don't touch alcohol. My one last attempt. Think Dante Stallworth. Even if the guy he killed was completely out of his mind by wandering into the street (I have no idea what actually happened), Stallworth is still in deep, deep trouble because he was legally intoxicated at the time of the accident. Good luck overcoming that fact in court. So, you might be the greatest driver in the world even when intoxicated, but if someone else does something stupid and causes an accident, the risk increases exponentially that you'll get some blame for it. And if someone is hurt and/or killed in the accident, I sure wouldn't want to be in that position.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 02:35 PM) And from the back of my printed ticket to a SOX game: You have the ticket, you have the fault. If I was the plaintiff's lawyer, I'd argue that injuries from throwing t-shirts into the stands isn't a "risk or danger incidental to the game." I think that's a pretty strong argument. The weird language in there is "any incidents or accidents associated with crowds of people." Not sure how that one would play out; that language is certainly vague, to say the least. This also all assumes the waiver is enforceable to begin with -- in some cases they're upheld, in others they're not.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 02:27 PM) Is it a real court in Hammond or just a bunch of boxes stacked up with the word "Judge" written on them? Like I said, they will probably have video evidence for the defense showing that the guy flinched when a 7 year old kid walked in front of him to grab a tshirt and he walked out of the stadium under his own power. Why didnt he file a complaint at the stadium if he was hurt so seriously? Why did it take him over a year and a half to file a suit if he was hurt so badly from that one incident? Did he continue working and assuming his daily activities for since JUNE of 2007? How soon did he visit the doctor? Was there other physical activity that took place after this game and before he was diagnosed? Does he have grandchildren or kids that he picked up? Does he do yard work or chores around the house? I think this will get tossed or settle for peanuts. I believe the statute of limitations for personal injury claims in Illinois is 2 years, so it's not unusual to see a lawsuit filed over a year later, and that fact alone doesn't really do anything to undercut the claim (i.e. he could have been negotiating with the Sox first, waiting to see how his health played out, etc.). Nothing wrong with the wait. I agree though, I doubt there's much merit to the suit.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 07:58 AM) Your point regarding overreaction to the commonplace on account of celebrity is well taken. With all due respect, your rationalization of your drunk driving is not. I'll venture to guess that the majority of drunk driving accidents involve drivers with attitudes similar to yours. I don't know you, and apologize for sounding so judgmental, but I highly doubt you're as different from the rest of us as you seem to imply. If I'm wrong, I apologize and congratulate you, but even if your conduct has and remains "victimless," your behavior is still unrepentently criminal. Please reconsider, if not for your sake, then for your family's (and, in case we ever attend the same ballgame, my own). Peace. Just about all drunk drivers think they can drive fine. That's the problem. If you rarely encounter other cars in your area, that's great. But if you do, and even if it's the other driver, not you, making the dumb move, your ability to respond accordingly to protect yourself is going to be diminished if you've been drinking. You're asking for trouble. If you ever get in an accident while you're drunk, even if it isn't otherwise your fault, you could be in a very difficult situation.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 10:55 AM) It would be like the Adenhart family suing the drunken driver and his insurance company (hopefully he had coverage) for $100 million, projecting that's how much money Nick would have earned for his family had he not been killed at age 22...although I am sure the insurance company involved is probably pretty nervous about just such a lawsuit. If it was just an accident, that's one thing, but the added elements of fleeing the scene and drunk driving push it into another category of actionable offense/cause. Insurance policies have limits, far short of $100M (Illinois, for example, requires drivers to have at least $40,000 in bodily injury coverage). Assuming the driver was insured, I imagine his insurer will quickly settle for their policy limit and get out of there. As for this, you'd have to look at the disclaimer on the back of the ticket to see if it covers this sort of thing. It obviously covers bats, balls, etc., that are inherent to the game of baseball, but I'm sure the plaintiff's lawyer here would argue that this is a different type of situation.

I'm jewish but don't keep kosher. Still, kosher hot dogs are the best, and Best's Kosher were the best of those. Hebrew National is ok but I've never been a big fan, they have a funny taste to me. Hopefully they go with Vienna Beef, but they still won't be the same.

I can't imagine Konerko would bring back much in trade. Maybe some low-level prospects or another bad contract. I doubt Konerko would get $12M/year if he was on the market today, so why would a team give up anything of value to get him? You're dreaming if you think the Angels would give up Weaver for him.

With 2 outs, Cox made the right call by sending Anderson. The odds of him scoring on that play are a lot better than the next guy up getting another hit to drive him in from third.

I imagine the Sox would have to give up a lot to get him. I've never seen him pitch, but he's obviously young, cheap, and thus far at least, has done really well. Why would Washington want to trade him unless they're getting a great return?

I'm baffled that Walker still has a job after a second year now of just dismal hitting up and down the lineup. He may even be a decent hitting coach but the team clearly needs a change.

Per ESPN now, Angels gave him 5 years, $90 million. Hunter has been one of my favorite players for a while now but that's absurd. I'm glad Kenny didn't try to match that. Move on to Rowand or other options. Maybe this turns up the heat on Kenny to land Cabrera, which could be a good thing in the end...

With Harrison included the Braves are giving up their top 3 prospects (per Baseball America), plus this other pitcher to be named. Nice haul for Texas.