jackie hayes

Hey, Rivas is 3 years straight now. He must be fantastic! And that's the first team we've got to be concerned with anyway. You might get an argument about Pokey Reese, but what an awful hitter, I'd throw him in too. But for the real icing, pull out the Enrique Wilson. (He started over 1/3 of the Yankees games this season, yeesh.)

I think I agree w/ everything here. I'd just add that they'll have a place in the lineup for Cuddyer one way or another, especially this year, w/ Kubel out. And they'd obviously prefer to resign Radke, but if it's not looking good for them (and I haven't heard anything suggesting it is), they might make a push for Koskie, so that they aren't 0-for-3 in resigning their own players.

I believe your numbers, I wasn't challenging those. But just b/c no formal offers have been submitted yet doesn't mean very much. If I'm Koskie, I know they're coming (heck, look at what Vinny Castilla got). So if the Sox come in with a third year at the same rate, I think he'll just sit on it a while.

Why are you so sure that Minny "can't" go to 3 years? (Meant as a legitimate question, not a challenge.) I'm sure they'd like to limit it to 2 years, but I don't see why they'd make that a dealbreaker. Anyways, I'm sure he'll get more than $3.5 mil per for 2 years from someone, so I don't think that offer should be the benchmark.

How do you know there are no other offers? I've heard that teams are interested, and Addison mentioned something about the Blue Jays making a push. I hope you're right, but I doubt it.

I like Koskie, but let's see what he's going to get. I think $3.5-4 is what people are thinking, but it sounds like a lot of teams are interested (off the top of my head, I've heard about the Blue Jays, Tigers, and Mariners, along w/ the Twins of course). It's the same situation as Polanco -- they're great at that initial price, but everyone's noticing that at the same time. I'd be happy with him though.

Still no mentions of Corey Koskie on this page, only 1 on the second page, and now we have posters accusing other posters of being off-topic b/c they're not talking about whether or not Willie sucks...

I think the key phrase is "multiyear" -- I think the Red Sox have him under contract for next year, but they're looking into extending his contract a couple years. Edit -- Maybe I'm wrong on this, I can't tell. He's listed as a fa on some sites (including the "Resource" thread here), but not others, and he's not on the mlb.com "Free Agent Tracker" -- can someone who knows what they're talking about clarify Bellhorn's situation?

In one of the most tense Sox games in my lifetime, 2003 against Minny, when PK tied the game in the throes of his big slump, Frank won that game in extra innings. And after all the speculation, he came into spring training and quickly defused all the 'Frank pissed about Ozzie' reports. He's never going to be Ray Lewis, okay, but don't believe we'll do as well w/o him.

I still disagree. Bush made the long term debt much worse than it should be, but it wasn't zero before he was inaugurated. (IIRC, the CBO projections still had the US falling into unsustainable debt at the end of the Clinton administration -- it was just delayed a couple decades. And the CBO projections are always too optimistic b/c of their assumptions on government spending increasses.) The Republicans strongly influenced spending, but you didn't see enormous increases before Bush was inaugurated. And suggesting that the US government will always be able to pay off the debt b/c they literally makes money is wrong if you think the Fed will continue to be independant, or inviting hyperinflation otherwise. Hyperinflation would be considered a de facto default on the debt -- the economic result would be no better than a regular default.

Not really a fair criticism, there was a long-term discrepancy even before Bush came to office (although it wasn't nearly as bad). Not to mention, SS benefits are inflation indexed, and the Fed is independant, so it's very problematic if you're suggesting we could bully it into inflating away any debt.

It's a little disgusting that this is even being debated. For the neocons, we have higher standards than the worst of the terrorists; that's what we're fighting for, right? Humanitarian behavior? You can't pop a defenseless, wounded fighter and then claim humanitarianism. This deserves a very thorough investigation, and full consequences. If you resort to this 'Well, they do worse...' reasoning, hell, what's the advantage of democratic rule if we automatically lower ourselves to the lowest common denominator? For liberals who take this to be any evidence on the war in general, get a clue. It only got attention b/c it was unusually disgusting. If it proves to be the worst, it's a war crime, not evidence one way or another on the war in Iraq. It should be a court martial if there is no dramatic change in the evidence, and then end of story. This says zero one way or the other about the war in Iraq.

Well, not quite -- Kerry said he's appoint a commitee to investigate possible solutions. Not much, but still a legitimate, honest answer I think. Kerry made it a big issue, too, he just didn't have a definite proposal -- he made the mistake of saying this upfront. I'll wait to see what Bush says, but no way he has the "stones" to propose the necessary cuts. Even w/o PSAs we'll need to cut benefits, but the PSAs will diminish revenues by at least $1 trillion over 10 years (probably more -- making the cuts needed for solvency that much greater). If Bush makes any strong proposals, I'll be impressed. And probably too shocked to type.

I'm scared to make any further jokes... ss's been around a long time, and Jason's updating the board once more, I don't want my identity to get erased a second time...

Lol, Jim. And qwerty, you're hard to please... I'm not totally confident in WH, but I don't see how he's proven to be Lenny Harris all of a sudden. Wait and see -- but I'm pretty happy with his 2004 season.

Willie had last season a decent average and a very good obp, w/ no big defensive lapses. I'm not expecting Juan Pierre. As for hitting lhp, how do we know he can't? Are you judging on the basis of 70-some abs last season? Until he's given a long trial, or until I see some negative minor league splits, I'm not convinced. (I'm not saying he can, either -- I just don't see why it is accepted fact that WH cannot hit lefties.) Even if he can't, considering how many more rhp there are than lhp, Willie is pretty valuable if he hits righties as he did last season.

Wait -- I did not say that I have a plan, I don't. I only said that Bush has been avoiding the issue. And he has -- every time the issue arose in debates, he said that he had this great plan that would allow young workers to take part of their SS taxes and invest it for themselves. That would increase the SS deficit, so what else is he going to do? Silence... Frankly, if he wants to let me choose my own retirement plan, he'd announce that he's going to cut SS taxes and also eliminate my benefits. Then I can invest as much as I please. But he hasn't done that, and mark my words, he won't say anything of the sort. Bush wants to cut taxes, and also doesn't dare cut benefits (the near-retirees would vote out 2/3 of the Republicans in office today). SS is not fiscally solvent, and Bush has not proposed ANYTHING that would make it so. I agree that SS is broken, but this administration has steadfastly refused to even float painful, necessary measures in the press. It's just not honest. I am convinced that the Bush administration is willing to pile on the debt until a crisis comes. (They've certainly done nothing to suggest o/w -- spending has exploded, including nondefense spending, and taxes have dropped, with the debt projection reversing dramatically.) Surely, Republicans won't be in power for the next 3 decades. So naturally it'll be the fault of those big-spending Democrats... I voted for Kerry b/c he at least was honest -- he said he didn't really know what he'd do. Bush never showed a bit of indecision. Personal savings accounts would save us. I accept uncertainty, especially when even the best experts (Larry Kotlikoff, eg) are uncertain what should be done -- but to profess confidence in a path that does NOTHING to close the massive fiscal gap, that's purely dishonest.

Bush's only SS proposal is diverting money from SS taxes to private accounts. That's cutting taxes. His idea, certainly not mine. You're avoiding the issue. ("The solution to SS is to reform the system" -- good detail there.) Taxes and SS are NOT separate issues, since taxes pay for SS. This is obvious, but thanks for the rhetoric. I'd be glad to debate this further, but not in this thread. If you think Bush has a solid plan for SS (or even a clue), post something concrete in a different thread.

Huh? You said Bush is taking on the problem of SS -- let's see, the problem is that expenditures vastly outweigh receipts for the next, oh, century or so. So Bush proposes -- let's cut receipts! Great proposal. As for tax revenues increasing, there is no reputable economic models that predict it will happen. Just demagoguery by the Republicans. If you have such a model, great, produce it. Otherwise, don't claim that Bush is fixing the problem when he's just making it worse. I'm not a tax-and-spend liberal. We will HAVE to cut benefits to some extent, tax hikes won't cut it. But anyone who says they're going to fix the problem by reducing taxes is just plain lying.

This is getting a bit off-topic, but... C'mon, Bush has only said that he's reducing taxes further. That only makes the SS deficit worse. He's got zero stones. Let him tell the baby boomers and their votes that he's going to cut their benefits, then I'll believe he's anything but a coward on this issue.

Not all splashy moves are bad, and there are some (RJ, Kendall) that would really improve the team, but I hope KW's not thinking about SoxFest when he makes decisions. Personally, I'm not concerned about how big the signing is -- say KW signed Jon Lieber or Odalis Perez and a low-salary middle infielder, and traded Konerko for a reliever and prospects. That's a pretty low-key offseason, but it addresses the main issue the Sox had this season (pitching), and we'd have a good chance at winning the division. That's what I'm really looking for from KW. (Even though my ideal offseason involves Polanco and RJ and Kendall and Mota...haven't quite figured out how to fit all those together yet, though... ) As for Uribe + Boras, maybe, but I doubt it. The Sox control his rights through 2006, I think, and I think w/ young players you get what you can and cross that bridge when you come to it.

He wouldn't be a backup, he'd start at either 2b or 3b.

The Sox haven't done anything stupid, like sign an okay shortstop for 3 yr, $15 mil, or a bad shortstop for 4 yr, $18 mil. Far from striking out, the Sox have done well by not signing bad contracts. I've been impressed that KW has been able to let go when sensible limits are crossed. The Sox should make smart moves, not just big splashy moves.

No problem.

Yes he is. (Unless he just signed -- ???)