jackie hayes

McCarver: A walk's as bad as a hr. Doesn't the absurdity just floor you on a comment like that?

Not saying he shouldn't argue it (even if he knows it's bs), but that was too long an argument for a call that the Yankee dugout must have known to be right. Loaiza's warming. Bad news for the Red Sox, they give up a run. Good news though, they've gone past the best of that Yankee lineup.

Torre should just shut up, he's gonna look like a fool tomorrow.

No problem, I just thought since I was bringing up his 2nd half, etc.

I never did, never would suggest that we sign Koch. But the Marlins wanted him in the middle of the year -- why would you change your mind only after he played well? I thought he was signed through next year, w/ the Sox picking up most of it anyway. His walks and whip were bad, but not really worse than advertised.

I didn't know Koch's era was so low in his time with the Marlins -- I can't believe I'm asking this about Billy Koch , but why'd they let him go?

The praying, etc, doesn't bother me, as long as they remember that it applies to fans, too: There's no crying in baseball! And hell yes I'm jealous. That's an interesting question, actually -- Where were you when the Mariners booted us in 2000? When the Sox got eliminated, I was in a bar a few blocks from my job, my boss having let me leave a bit early, and I was nursing a Coors Lite, the cheapest admission ticket I could buy. I wasn't happy and content, but, at least I was already in a bar!

Am I the only one bothered by this a little bit? This fight went too far, no doubt, but as a general principle it seems difficult to take out a few posts and leave the thread of the argument intact. Of course, pure personal attacks could be removed (and there were some of those here), but there was often a nugget of argument in the ocean of bile. Now I certainly understand why Rex proposed this, and I'm not totally unsympathetic to the idea. I just worry about it becoming a general practice.

I thought the same thing, but I aimed a little lower. I didn't think it was possible, but I actually began to appreciate the time when Kordell Stewart was the starter. Or hell, Henry Burris. (Well, almost...) And yes, I was ashamed.

Why do you say Polanco's not as good with the bat as Vizquel? This last season, Vizquel's obp was only marginally higher (and abnormally high compared to the last few seasons), and Polanco had more power (slg and hr). Also, Berkman's not a free agent until after the 2005 season.

Supposing these were the players, why would you not have Polanco towards the top of the order? He doesn't k too often, he draws walks, he has a good obp, and I believe he's usually been a #2 hitter (in a pretty good lineup in Philly).

He played some short w/ St Louis (not much), but none since joining the Phils. He's basically a 2b who can play some 3b.

Even if he joins the Cubs? :fthecubs =offlimits...

A couple places have said that Berkman's not a fa until after 2005. One article on mlb.com. I don't know what the rules are, so perhaps this is a mistake (but I did see it on a couple other sites).

Wait -- how does trading for Lowell work at this point in the season? The World Series may not end until October 31st. Are teams that are out of contention free to make deals? Sorry for the basic question.

That's a pretty good thought. It would probably have to be a pretty good prospect, but Lowell at $8 mil is not a bad deal. If he hit lefthanded, it would be a great deal. (Though, as usual, my agreement stops as soon as you bring up Vizquel. )

I agree completely, that's why I put in the "reports were" and "ownership believes". Not me! I don't understand why they'd believe that. Maybe they're expecting too much out of Webb?

No chance -- by all accounts, the Diamondbacks weren't looking to get rid of RJ until he announced that he'd rather leave. He's a big draw for them, and the reports were that the ownership believes they can compete next year if they have Sexson. To let him go they'd have to get some premier prospects, at least, not Garland and Crede. Plus, RJ'd have to okay the trade, and it didn't sound as if he was interested in the Sox this past season. Edit: Btw, Hillenbrand was mostly a 1b last season, so they're hoping to replace him w/ Sexson.

Could be, but if you believe Boras's statement (big if, no doubt) that would only happen if Magglio refused to negotiate w/ the Sox before the arbitration deadline, which seems unlikely. (Everyone wants to make a show like they want to return to their old team.) It's not much of a statement, I agree, but it's a little bit of news. The most likely scenario is still the Sox don't resign him, don't offer arbitration. Which, at the asking price, is definitely the right decision.

I know, I just mean that Boras promised in his remarks that the Sox will have an opportunity to examine Maggs. (If Magglio has any interest in returning to the Sox -- and I think that he will at least feign interest.) If the Sox could examine him before the arbitration deadline, it would be useful in knowing how great a risk arbitration would be.

The only interesting news is that Boras said that the Sox will have the opportunity to have their doctors examine Magglio if they talk at all. Hopefully that's sooner rather than later, but at least it could give them some more information before offering arbitration.

Some responses -- The war and defense have NOT made up most of the change in the fiscal position. The tax cuts did. Bush has a plan, taking money out of SS -- a plan, any plan is not always better than no plan. He has not proposed benefits cuts, that's not in his plan, although he hints that they may be necessary (he only states that "near-retirees" won't have benefit cuts) -- so I don't think the Greenspan quote really describes his plan. (Anyway, Greenspan is not an expert on SS -- there's a new book by Kotlikoff and a coauthor, and Kotlikoff has spent a career studying these issues.) There's a reason Bush is avoiding the issue of benefits cuts in his plan -- consider that SS is already in bad shape and in need of benefits cuts (over 50% cuts, according to Kotlikoff), before privatization takes place. After that money (trillions of dollars over 10 years, estim of $2 trillion over the next 10 years) is taken out of the budget, the cuts needed for solvency will be that much larger. Bush's plan is to gut SS ("trimming" benefits won't cut it) -- has he presented that honestly? The average increase in nondefense discretionary spending over Bush's term is much higher, closer to 10% (don't recall the exact number). The small 2005 budget increase was due to this being an election year. The WSJ is biased, just look at their editorials (this is a well-known slant, Wall Street in general seems to support Republicans). But this isn't even the WSJ, this is a piece from the Director of the OMB. Here's a snippet of his bio from the OMB website: Are you going to tell me that this guy is an impartial analyst? The Midsession Review comes from the President, so why is this claim informative at all?

But the quote is an "estimate", not a "statistic", meaning that they made particular assumptions which may or may not be fair. (Or in this case, fair and balanced?) I don't see how Bush is more consistent. The Social Security partial privatization is by far the most expensive proposal of either candidate. There's very little chance that his proposals will be less expensive than Kerry's. Yet he claims that he will cut the deficit in half in 5 years. It's pure garbage.

First of all, why would you think quoting an AEI pub would convince anyone? AEI is a famously conservative think-tank. We knew before Kerry was even nominated who they would side w/. Also, of course Kerry's plans are unaffordable. So are Bush's -- except they're even less affordable. See this Washington Post article. A lot of that comes from extending the tax cuts (the sunset provision in them was fundamentally dishonest, anyway, another reason to not vote Bush), and even more from his plan to take money out of Social Security (in favor of private investment). Moreover, Bush continues to simply ignore the costs of Iraq. Personally, I don't trust much of what Kerry says, and I doubt much of it gets done. But I've known (we've all known) that much of what Bush is saying is just pure lying -- the sunset provision in the tax bill is a good example. They even canned the only honest cabinet member (O'Neill). No chance am I voting to give another term to someone so full of bs, just because his opponent has overextended himself (by less than the incumbent!).

And Bush's response was any better? He said that he will partially privatize it for the young, which takes money out of the system. How will he cover the shortfall? Ahh, our president said that the system will be made solvent by the "compounding rate of interest effect". If he really believes that social security can be saved by putting the money in a savings account, he's far more delusional than Kerry. In all fairness, Bush only promised it would be solvent for "our children and our grandchildren", not for the baby boomers. Frankly, no politician has the first clue how to save Social Security, because even the best plan will be painful, and will probably require benefits cuts. It's just flat-out wrong to act like Kerry is the only one avoiding the issue. Every politician in America is avoiding the issue.