jackie hayes

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Nov 30, 2005 -> 01:19 AM) One bad season doesn't make a player suck. Go check out Konerko's 2003 numbers. Pierre was spectacular before that? He got on base okay for a couple years, but nothing eye-popping, he's almost always had next to nothing in terms of pop, and his defense has long been considered just adequate. He steals bases -- I guess. Even there, at his best he's around 75%, so it's not that big of a help. We powered our way through the playoffs. Who still thinks that sb are more important than obp AND slg AND hr?

It looks like one team is doing most of the whacking though. Looks like Ricciardi's discovered that long-term, big money deals are undervalued by the market.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Nov 30, 2005 -> 01:08 AM) id be fine with 3 home runs from the 1 - 2 combo if it meant that they would get on base 40% of the time... That'd be dynamite, if they were capable of it. Neither one has ever had an obp above .380, and Pierre's was .326 last year. Barf. Then on top of it, you want them to average 75 steals between them, when neither's touched 75 steals. If you want to see a really crappy season, don't look at 2005 Marte, look at 2005 Pierre. Pierre's would be a weak hitting, bad fielding, waste of $3 mil. Or $4 mil, $5 mil, whatever he's getting paid.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Nov 30, 2005 -> 01:00 AM) Why do people even want Pierre.... We are going to have a total of 3 HR's from our 1-2 hitters..... ...until the playoffs. Then the green beast emerges! KW knew it all along.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 29, 2005 -> 11:35 PM) Both the "best scenario" and whether or not we'd be better without Marte depend a ton on what we can get in a trade involving Marte. That's really the key to this whole discussion. Sure, granted. But all these ideas being floated about Marte and a prospect for Juan Pierre don't inspire much confidence.

It seemed that Frank's good showing in st of Ozzie's first year won him quite a bit of goodwill w/ the fans. Whoever's at fault, it doesn't look like the Sox and Marte will have that same olive branch between them. So even though I think Marte is a much better pitcher than Myers, I think the 'change of scenery' argument is a pretty strong one. But we'll see. Best scenario would still be one where Damaso's back.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 29, 2005 -> 04:28 PM) Maybe the question was meant to be ... What's the next letter of the Greek alphabet? No, I meant what alphabet would come after the Greek. Just for s***s and giggles. We could talk about the dangers of Hurricane Gimel, or we could laugh for hours and hours as the CNN anchors talked about the damage tropical storm (pick a kanji, any kanji) might do to New Orleans. Imagine the possibilities! It's a dull morning.

Just in theory, what alphabet would be up next?

This type of problem affects all statistics. Population is a bad statistic, b/c more people become homeless during a recession, and the homeless are not measured well, so what use is population? Illegal immigrants are not counted accurately, and they occupy jobs, and perhaps there are more during an expansion. Etc, so your measure is clearly useless... I understand the problems with the statistics. But if I want to know how many people are available for work but not looking for it, I will look at the BLS published "Number of people available for work but not actively searching", not blame a number which doesn't claim to measure anything about such people.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 06:28 PM) The US Government classifies people who have not looked for work within a month in a different category...they're known as "Discouraged" and do not get included in that number...from the BLS's own October numbers; I'll also give a block of detail on another point...the "Disabled" issue...this comes from the LA Times in December of 2003 (Use Lexis to find the article if you have it available to yourself and want the full text - its behind a subscription wall) Yeah, but that's a lot different than not counting long term unemployed. The statements were wrong. If the person's looking for work, they're counted as unemployed, and that's that. Look, I understand that the unemployment rate is not the end-all, be-all statistic of economic health. But the BLS does collect data on discouraged and marginally attached workers. If you want to say, Indicator X is better, I'll listen. But this scorched earth idea that unemployment numbers are worthless is just silly. Ceteris paribus, a lower unemployment rate is better. Other things matter, but if you want to make a case around them, cite those numbers, don't just inveigh against the unemp rate.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 05:47 PM) Our unemployment numbers are bogus indicators to begin with. Unemployed workers are only considered unemployed for six months. Other countries don't make that distinction. So 11% unemployment in Germany for example, would be more like 6.5-7% here. Still high, but not drastic. I think you're wrong. If someone has been out of work for a long time, but is still looking for work, I'm pretty sure they're counted as unemployed. Documentation? Edit: Numbers for October (in thousands) -- 2695 unemp less than 5 weeks, 2040 unemp 5-14 weeks, 960 unemp 15-26 weeks, 1386 unemp 27 or more weeks. Which add up exactly to the total, 6964 unemp (all the numbers are in thousands). So the long term unemployed are included.

I'm not trying to throw cold water on the trade. The thing is, I'm not worried about Thome's health, but many commentators seem to be. I just want to get the other side and some expert analysis. Just to know why everyone seems so down on Thome. It doesn't make sense to me, but obviously it does to others. Someone scare me please.

QUOTE(FlaCWS @ Nov 24, 2005 -> 03:13 AM) Absolutely not. But Thome is on the downside of his career and strikes out way too much for my taste. On top of that he is below-average defensively. If this was 3-4 years ago, maybe. Also, how does this affect payroll? I'd rather see them spend money to keep Konerko or wrap up Buehrle or Garland long-term. If those things don't happen because we spent money on Thome, that will suck. He is on the downside of his career, but it's the career of one of the best hitters of this era, which (and I'm a big Rowand fan) is something Crash will never be. He does strike out a lot, but so does Aaron -- 116 times in 2005. But Thome will walk 100+ times in a season, Aaron maybe 30-40. Last season, which was just abysmal, he managed to outwalk Crash by 13 bbs, in 400 fewer plate appearances. His obp exceeded Pods' obp despite hitting .207, 60 or 70 points lower than what we should expect when he doesn't have bad tendinitis in his elbow. He's not the Thome of 5 years ago, but the guy can still flat out hit. If anything, it helps our payroll. It's a huge bat cheap.

There seems to be a lot of concern about Thome's health. The national analysis seems to be that Thome's not likely to ever recover his old form (and some writer from Philly echoed that last night on ESPN radio). Thome has had elbow and back problems. Most of the discussion (that I've heard) has focused on his back. But I was under the impression that these are the same problems he's been dealing with almost his entire career. Is there any reason to believe that the problem will get much worse now? Noone seems to be mentioning the elbow much -- presumably because it should recover after the surgery. And I believe that was the cause of most of his missed time last season, not his back. How big of a concern is the elbow? Is the recovery pretty straightforward? It just seems odd -- people point to last season, then talk about his back. He's reportedly in great condition, so why should the back be any more a problem than before? Anyone with medical/training/physical therapy knowledge want to chip in, let the rest of us know how much we should worry? How these conditions usually progress, etc. Just looking for enlightenment here. Thanks.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 11:41 PM) I'm sure this has been posted in this 32 page thread but I don't think I have enough time to read all of it. So can somebody please give me a recap. Who's the other player going with Rowand to Philadelphia? Does this mean either Konerko or Thomas won't be back next season? Thanks in advance. The one thing that does affect PK especially is that the Phils pay half of Thome's remaining contract, so it leaves room for the Sox to resign him.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 11:32 PM) They started testing for those things 2 years ago and just upped the suspensions.

QUOTE(WinninUgly @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 11:21 PM) Gio has more upside and is probably a year away from coming up. I don't know how that will translate to the NL though. More than a year, I thought. He hasn't pitched beyond A-ball -- right???

QUOTE(FlaCWS @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 10:57 PM) I'm not sure how this is a good trade at all. After winning the World Series because of PITCHING and DEFENSE we give up an above average centerfielder for a full-time DH? Did the Carlos Lee trade teach us nothing? Plus, does this mean Konerko is definitely gone? If so, we now have zero defense at 1B and a guy who strikes out a billion times. He hits a ton of HRs? So what, so did Carlos and Mags, and guess where that got us. This deal makes no sense to me after what Kenny did with this team last year. None. When Carlos and Maggs were here we didn't have the pitching. We had a black hole that sucked the life out of our White Sox, and it was scheduled every fifth day. KW hasn't sacrificed our rotation, and the bullpen will stay mostly intact. He accepted a defensive downgrade at one position to improve the offense. And if it's Anderson, our defense will still be good, just perhaps a bit diminished. Are you really arguing that we don't need offense, that pitching and defense are enough? How many games are we gonna win if we play only that side of the game? And whatever one might think about Konerko, or whatever 'promising signs' are being reported, there's no guarantee whatsoever that he'll return to the Sox. We had an abysmally weak offense last season (at least, for many stretches in that season -- loooong stretches), and we're looking at losing by far our best hitter. And we shouldn't consider trading some defense for a player who has long been one of the best hitters in the majors?

Crash!!!!! Gotta call ya by yr proper name. I think I just broke my dad's heart when I told him Aaron'd been traded. Thanks for all the years of incredible cf play, and for the Series run.

My first reaction is that I like the trade. If Gio's in it, and it sounds likely, then I'm a little less happy, but I still support it. Delgado's gone, and Giles looks set to stay on the West Coast. I don't know if it was absolutely the best move, but somehow, someway we NEED some big offensive threat for next year to have any hope of repeating. Thome's a risk, but you just have to hope that the physical catches anything. QUOTE(chisoxfan14 @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 10:28 PM) i absolutly hate it! A-row was our guy! What about his defense!! oh my aaron rowand..how could kenny do this! Never change.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 10:33 PM) Reports have the trade as Jim Thome for Aaron Rowand, Haigwood, and a PTBNL. There are no reports of Gio outside of Bruce Levine--a man known for his non-sensical conjecturing. That is all. Is it nonsense? The Phils are paying a LOT of the contract, by all accounts. It doesn't seem too far-fetched that they wouldn't do that w/o getting Gio. But you're right, it is just Levine.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 04:48 PM) But the top 1% control at least 85% of the nation's wealth!!! None of the numbers you cited back this up. Yeah, if you throw out housing + real estate wealth, the story changes quite a bit. But there's no obvious reason to do that, and supposing that you do simply exclude that wealth from taxation, you'll see the rich shift from financial instruments into real estate, so it's unclear how exactly you implement your 85, 95% taxes from the rich idea. Btw, Bush did make a couple very good appointments. It's just unfortunate that neither O'Neill nor Powell stuck around.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 04:46 PM) I believe that the 95% figure is accurate, but that's beside the point. The point is, if you control 50% of the country's wealth, you should be responsible for 50% of it's tax burden, if you control 80%, be responsible for 80%...get it? Where'd you get the number then? I'm looking at an article in the Journal of Political Economy that tells me that the top 5% control 54% of the wealth. What you're advocating sounds like a flat tax on wealth, and you do NOT want to advocate that. Since housing wealth is a much larger percentage of the total assets of the poor, that will hit the poor very hard. (Fewer liquid assets out of which to pay the tax.)

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 04:30 PM) Maybe I don't, but, I know we don't have a flat tax rate. In a perfect world, the wealthiest 5% of the population (who control >95% of the country's wealth), should be responsible for >95% of the tax burden. I'm pretty sure that 95% number is wrong. I believe it's close to 50%, maybe a little more. Exaggeration doesn't help. The tax cuts blew, and without them the deficits would definitely be smaller, but that doesn't mean we should tax the hell out of anyone. And Kyoto is pretty controversial -- a lot of early studies concluded that, yes, it really was just a f***-the-US deal, and not very efficient, either.

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Nov 19, 2005 -> 04:48 PM) Where'd you here this? It would make sense though. We only played 12 playoff games. The ALCS and World Series games for the Red Sox amounted to 11. All they'd have to do is add 1 more game to the package to include all 3 series. Anyways, if this is true, this thing will be in my hands the day it comes out. We only played 11 playoff games. I should know. Edit: I'm a dumbass. Been wanting to link that for a while, a little overeager.