jackie hayes

That part of the post wasn't really directed at you, just that sort of reasoning. I asked you before about winners, I'll ask again: What is a "winner"? Not examples, I mean a 1-sentence definition so I'll know what you're talking about. Last time I think it was whittled down to 'Smallball style players who are clutch'. Is that right?

You're looking for Carlos to be Pete Rose or Roger Clemens. Well, that's not going to happen. I couldn't care less. I don't recall the rule that all baseball players must have one personality. As for the trades, yeah, obviously. If you get a great deal, fine. But 'Lee's value is high' is not a reason to trade him. It's high b/c he's been enormously, consistently productive, and he's at the age when players peak, on average. For $8 mil per for 2 years, that's definitely a reason to KEEP Carlos.

I don't get where this 'Carlos swings for the fences' thing comes from. It's not that easy to control where you hit the ball -- some do it better than others but even then it's hit-or-miss (giggle). How exactly do you know that he was trying to hit a hr in that particular swing? And if he's just up there swinging for the fences, why are his strikeout and walk numbers so good?

Oh, c'mon. Sorry he's not serious enough for your tastes. Carlos has been a solid citizen and a good, almost great, player, and he's worked hard at his fielding. That's all I know. You claim to have some special knowledge of his soul b/c he laughed when someone got pantsed. Are you kidding me with this? One more thing -- you don't trade a guy just b/c his value's high. Only if it's artificially high -- I don't think that's the case with Carlos at all. Btw, Addison, as ss said, team option.

Not really, Sox have an option on him in 2006 IIRC, at about the same salary.

Maybe, I don't know how the agreement works. If anyone here knows, please post. But I don't see anything unethical in running a practice like this -- when the Sox call and say they need some medical help, you go and fulfill the contract. But you don't refuse patients b/c you know them from other contexts, you treat them as you would any of your patients. I would imagine, if there are standard provisions against this sort of thing, that they're spelled out in the contract. So if Weil stepped over his bounds, I don't think he'll be the Sox team podiatrist much longer. Barring that, I see no reason not to believe him.

I've always liked Nomo, so I wouldn't mind giving it a whirl, but he's just a question mark for now. Plus he probably throws too many fb for the Cell.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the team doctors just spend part of their time with the team -- they have an outside practice as well, I think. Since they obviously know sports medicine fairly well, it doesn't seem strange that they would be asked for advice from other patients, or that they can reasonably separate team business from other business.

I'm a Dye fan, but this move worries me a bit. Last year, it's true, he really went on a tear early in the season, but he cooled off quite a bit. His overall numbers last year are really not that impressive. His obp was only so-so, and he struck out a lot (about once every 4 abs, k/bb about 2.5/1). He's a good fielder, I'll give you that. But overall, there could be some nontenders that might be better options. I hope at least the Sox really don't expect Dye to pick up for Magglio. At the plate, anyway, it would be good to mix in a lot of Carl Everett, for production and to help the both of them stay healthy.

Yeah, but IIRC that had all died down by the time the trade went down. At least I recall being surprised b/c I thought it was a lost cause.

I don't think it's his "intention" to use Grilli, but he's probably hedging his bets. I'd he's still looking for someone, though he may be gambling on Hudson or nothing. Or Zito, though I hope not.

Maybe a little I-just-got-to-the-World-Series-with-this-team advantage, too.

I wasn't criticizing -- I assumed you both posted at around the same time. Just kinda funny to me, that's all.

So to augment the team's value, MLB allows this guy to burden the Nationals with a boatload of bloated contracts, meanwhile surrendering draft picks. To INCREASE the team's value. I'm not arguing with you, I think you may be right, I just think that's one of the worst thought-through plans MLB's come up with. And I do remember the steroid testing plan.

This post compared to Jim's, that just spooks me. Someone should call jinx. Is Zaun returning to the Blue Jays a given at this point? Matheny seems possible, but then, didn't KW say he thought highly of Ben Davis?

Dunno, Bowden's already opened up a wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide lead.

I know, but since the WS wasn't around yet, I say close enough! Plus, being the inaugural champions of the AL is kind of cool in itself.

3 championships, don't throw out 1901. I take 'em where I can get 'em.

My goodness, do I love that picture. I'm so happy, I'd almost forgot about it. I actually got in the dog house with some friends for laughing at all the people crying in the stands after that last, wonderful game in 2003. Well, not "all the people" as a group, mind you. I laughed at each one individually -- it made the moment last longer. Anyways, that said, I don't have a problem with this thread. He's not attacking anyone, and even though I don't see the point of bringing it up, it does seem true that the Sox don't have the cache of Cubs/Yankees/Red Sox -- and to some extent, the Cards. I don't know why we'd care that we aren't national media darlings, but okay, if you care, so be it. This isn't as bad as all the 'Sox are too cheap to sign the All-Star team' threads.

Someone mentioned his BS, and I noticed that too while checking up on this. Seems like a bit of a waste unless you're pitching everyday. Hopefully he'll get a few more innings under Ozzie. (Some might hope he gets fewer, I gather...)

Don't think this has been posted yet, from Rotoworld, Boras is cancelling the workout he promised, b/c it's "no longer necessary" -- now THAT'S a lame argument:

Krugman believes that Republicans want to kill SS. Which is understandable, b/c a full privatization means just eliminating the whole thing and letting people spend that money as they please. But that hasn't been proposed yet (the Republican plan, after all, still involves forced saving), and there's no reason to argue about something that noone's proposing. The real question is, is SS too big? Are benefits more than we should expect the government to provide? It just hasn't looked sustainable, so I'd say yes. And the forces that made it unsustainable, lower population growth and longer-life, are not diminishing, meaning that we can't expect a one-time fix to save SS. Also, SS will inevitably play a big part ("participate") in the economy, through interest rates and savings behavior.

No, he doesn't. He shows that he simply doesn't understand Krugman's argument. For example, "Krugman's belief in non-existent Social Security Trust Fund assets is typical of the unrealistic way academic economists approach real-world problems". Krugman is very clear on the Trust Fund. If SS is on its own, then the assets are there, since a bond is a bond. If not, then it's hard to justify saying that there is a crisis in SS itself (only in the overall budget outlook). Yet the Bush administration holds both positions -- they say SS is in trouble b/c it can't pay for itself, meanwhile pointing to budget numbers that reflect the unified budget, not the ex-SS budget. That's simply not honest, and that's Krugman's main point. I don't want to keep SS unchanged, and I agree that it's gotten too big. But it's a joke to say that Krugman's all confused. If you want to argue with his priorities, okay. But his numbers and analysis are very sound. (Well, CBO projections are usually a little too optimistic, so I think 2052 is probably too far in the future. But they don't have any partisan bias, so it still is understandable why Krugman's using them. Anyway, 5-10 years either way doesn't affect the argument very much.)

Beats me. I hope he looks into Lieber and Perez first. Maybe Derek Lowe, see what he gets. On a lower tier, Paul Byrd wouldn't be bad. I used to think highly of Hideo Nomo, although the Sox would have to be confident he could recover. And even then, he walks a lot of people. That's just top of my head, and before we see who's nontendered. (I've been trying to find some speculation on this -- anyone seen an article with good educated guesses?) It would be great to get a middle of the rotation starter, but getting a boring bottom of the rotation guy, a pure innings-eater, at a low price would also solidify the team, and if the salaries really do explode, it wouldn't be a bad option.

Maybe at that price, I'm not sure. But then he wasn't really our best option (since he got more than that), so aren't you glad we didn't sign him?