jackie hayes

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 6, 2008 -> 03:38 PM) We should all go meet up at a Sox game after you serve your time and buy you a beer.....as long as you don't drive home. Not too soon on the beer. He'll want to give those new tats time to heal.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 6, 2008 -> 02:29 PM) IMO, I'd bet the issue's going to wind up not being the Bulls paying D'Antoni the money, but it's going to be getting him out of his contract with Phoenix and what that team wants in exchange for letting him out. What are you basing that on? I'm not trying to be combative, I just haven't seen anything like that in the reports about D'Antoni. It sounds like neither side is too happy with the other, and the Shaq trade suggests that they aren't happy with his coaching style. I was under the impression that they'd probably let him go pretty easy.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 6, 2008 -> 12:46 PM) Well, that report says it's imminent, but on the radio they say the Bulls contract offer was such a lowball that D'Antoni very well could be headed to the Knicks. Right, I saw that just after I posted this. Supposedly that report came from a Phoenix radio station. And the Bulls have said that a contract has not been offered yet. So a lot of uncertainty, but I still think it's interesting that the Bulls would be looking at D'Antoni.

Rotoworld is saying that a Bulls D'Antoni hiring is "imminent", referring to an ESPN piece. I expected changes, but I was thinking more along the lines of personnel. I wasn't thinking they'd do a complete 180 in terms of the team philosophy. I have a hard time seeing how this will work with the Bulls roster, but it will be interesting, anyway.

God, that was depressing. Ending it that way...

I've never felt so guilty about my orange juice.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 5, 2008 -> 02:34 PM) The trouble is of course...a valid estimate after the fact of how much was done by the tax cuts to the budget is essentially impossible, because the system itself is so complex. You can of course calculate how much would have been taken in had there not been tax cuts and had the economy done exactly the same thing, but that number is basically useless because the economy wouldn't do the same thing. The tax cuts in 01 probably did serve to stimulate the economy, but I don't think I trust really anyone's numbers on exactly how much. Conversely, keeping the tax cuts in place and borrowing money from overseas like it's going out of style has played right in to the inflation pressures pushing the dollar down and the price of oil higher like we're seeing now, and so it might well have the effect of weakening the same economy under one set of conditions that it might have strengthened under another. I don't agree with that. The projections are done on the same system, all the complexities are still there. After-the-fact estimates would use the same methodology, but instead of using projections of fundamental shocks to the system, you can use the actual shocks as identified by the model. CBO projections do take into account the stimulus effects of a tax cut. Of course you can argue with the model, but then the same arguments would apply to the projections. Ex post estimates really won't be any worse.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 5, 2008 -> 01:06 PM) Without worrying about the other factors and just going to the raw "How much are we expecting to cut taxes by" numbers, the 2001 tax cut was supposed to cut taxes by $1.3 trillion over 10 years, the 2002 tax cut was supposed to be roughly an additional $100 billion, and in 2003 they cut Capital Gains and Dividend taxes on a scale that was supposed to but $300 billion in taxes by 2008. Yeah, I looked at the CBO projections, and the 2001 law was projected to have a net effect of $160 bil in 2008. I can't tell if that includes additional interest payments -- it doesn't seem to, but I didn't look close enough to be certain. The 2002 law projection had a revenue increase by 2008 of $16, the 2003 law projection was an additional $16 bil in the red for 2008, so those roughly cancel. But it would be nice to get ex post estimates of the effect. And there are also problems with those projections -- they are loaded with sunset provisions, and none considered the effect of the AMT fix that happens every year.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 4, 2008 -> 11:24 PM) Since day 1 of her campaign, HRC has been consistently speaking to the public as if they are all 12-year olds. Its one of the many, many things I can't stand about her. So it should be no surprise she's willing to throw anyone in the know under the bus. It also explains a lot about her strong spot - uneducated and undereducated people. You know, I have spoken to a lot of women about her candidacy - friends, family alike. They all say almost the same thing... some variety of "I really wanted to like her, I tried, but I just can't. She's just the most dishonest/fake/pandering candidate of the bunch." What angers me is not so much that she's pandering. Politics is politics, it involves some of that, and I can't say I find her much more disingenuous than the rest. What angers me is that she's endangering some of the most fundamental reforms that make me want a Democrat in the WH. You can't say things that will be thrown back in your face if you become president. Krugman's made this point against Obama, saying that his rejection of health care mandates, his particular arguments against them, will undermine his ability to enact a strong health care plan. I agree with that criticism (although most in this thread probably won't). But rejecting expert opinion en masse, and casting it as elitist and anti-American, strikes me as a much more grievous example. So many Democratic policies are based on the fact that expert opinion is virtually unanimous on certain issues -- unsustainability of the current budget, global warming, evolution. Now you throw expert opinion under the bus completely, and ALL your moral authority on those issues goes with it. It's not that I feel pandered to, it's that I feel stabbed in the back. I can excuse personal ambition in a politician, but your glory comes AFTER MY CONCERNS. If you risk your ability to affect those, I'm done listening. (Again, this is not to say that the gas tax thing isn't pandering. It obviously is.)

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 4, 2008 -> 11:20 PM) I don't think the tax cuts were $300B a year. Maybe they are though - I could be wrong. I believe they are approaching that level. When you add in interest on the extra debt (which will be in the tens of billions) and the Medicare drug benefit (modest cost now -- just glanced at some articles earlier, seems estimates for current costs are something like $40 to $60 bil -- projections are much worse), I'm sure it's in the ballpark, though I can't say for sure it's more than that.

QUOTE (knightni @ May 4, 2008 -> 08:28 PM) Not necessarily. I've been to see Spamalot in Chicago (off Broadway) and folks were a lot like the movie crowd. If they had an over 21 area of the theater and charged a cover charge, they could get a "better" crowd. Yeah, I'd say that's really off Broadway...

QUOTE (Rooftop Shots @ May 4, 2008 -> 09:44 PM) Question about Dos equis! At the end of the commercial, the old codger says "Stay thirsty my friends!" Well if one of the reasons that you drink liquids is to quench your thirst, is this in fact a subliminal message saying "Don't buy our beer?" If you bought it, it would quench your thirst..........but he is saying "Stay thirsty!!" OK then, I'll stay thirsty! I won't buy your beer. I'll eat a box of crackers if it will make him happy! Reminds me of this thread.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 4, 2008 -> 09:06 PM) Sorry, I am having a hard time understanding what you mean by that. Probably because it's been a long weekend for me and I am bit tired. I am assuming you mean you are disappointed because she basically said it doesnt matter what the "educated" people think, it's what the politicians and political polls think what matters? Sort of. I mean I am disappointed by her comment that equates expert opinion to 'elitism'. She was asked to name one economist who agreed with her argument that a gas tax suspension would be a boon for consumers. She basically said in reply that it doesn't matter what economists say -- they are part of "this incredible pushback" against something that would "give relief to the vast majority of Americans". She lumps this in with "elite opinion [which] is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans". So, basically, economists are just elitists working to disadvantage Americans. Even when there's an academic CONSENSUS, it's just "elite opinion" that noone really should pay any mind to. So Pres Clinton goes before Congress and argues that virtually all science supports global warming, and we need to start sacrificing now before the problem gets worse. But Mrs President, aren't those just elitists working to disadvantage Americans, like you said? Republicans argue that failing to extend the tax cuts will actually reduce revenue. Well, sure, every serious economist agrees that the idea is a joke, but remember, Mrs President, those are just elitists trying to f*** us over. It's a terrible precedent, it's bulls***, and it shoots her own agenda in the foot. I've been more or less on the Obama-Clinton fence, and today is maybe the first time I've actually been angry at Clinton.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 4, 2008 -> 06:09 PM) Economists are stunned at Hillary's Comments I am really disappointed by that comment. It gives credibility to all the global warming deniers, tax-cuts-increase-revenue charlatans, and on and on. It was just awful.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 4, 2008 -> 10:11 AM) OK, what the heck is the bolded about? And the budget could have been balanced by now if not for Iraq. I'd have to check, but I doubt that's true after the tax cuts, and maybe the Medicare drug benefit.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 4, 2008 -> 02:11 PM) I dont believe in saying "I'd love to see that person dead". That is why i wanted to clarify. Saying we need to kill someone who has not committed a crime is against what i believe in. I didnt want it to be interpreted in saying that. However, if I were to ever think about it, Hillary is about as close as it gets. I'm sorry, but anyone who took that to mean that Hilldog will literally break her ankles and have to be euthanized on the convention floor right before the keynote should simply be ignored. It would be like taking Obama's statement that Wright and his grandmother are a part of him to mean that he got a kidney from each of them. The meaning was crystal clear. Noone who can use a computer is so incapable of understanding figurative speech.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 4, 2008 -> 01:05 PM) I also want to clarify. The "killed" commend is not about the person. It's about the Clinton influence. If Obama winds the nomination, then the presidency, the Clintons, as we know them, are dead. Oh, come on, stop apologizing and clarifying etc etc etc. It was FUNNY. All of it. I'm split between Obama and Clinton, and I literally lol'd.

I don't think he'd go for that, and it doesn't help my main problem, which is having too few innings from reliable starters. Lackey's really the guy I wanted in this.

I have a dilemma. I have a good trade offer in terms of value, but I'm not sure I won't be shooting myself in the foot if I take it. I need innings in a roto league, so I've been shopping surplus outfielders for starters. I received an offer of Lackey + CYoung (of) for Markakis and Sherrill. Now, I love this in terms of value. I think Markakis and Lackey are close (although I prefer Markakis), and Young is a big upgrade from Sherrill, but I'm struggling in terms of rbi and avg, and Young would be a big step down in both cats. Any advice? The other problem is that Markakis is a favorite of mine, and, dammit, I just like playing with guys I believe in.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 2, 2008 -> 03:07 PM) I've thought that the Cubs were slightly overrated but were the best team in the Central all along. The Brewers had a shot if they stayed healthy, but when I made that disclaimer, I was speaking of Sheets and not Gallardo. The Cards have a shot, but I wouldn't count on them. Regardless of all of that, I don't think the Cubs have the pitching to make it out of the NLCS...not at this point anyways. Hopefully. (Well, I hope so, anyway.) But remember that the Rockies got into the WS partially on the magic arm of Josh Fogg, so anything's possible.

QUOTE (shipps @ May 2, 2008 -> 02:13 PM) So he did.Didnt he still pitch after the injury? Yes, 1 more inning, I think. Supposedly the Brewers' doctor said it couldn't have done any more damage. Basically said torn is torn, you're not gonna hurt it more.

Yovani Gallardo has a torn ACL. I think I'm going to cry.

Isn't that what Andrew Bynum had this year?

I managed to land Scherzer in one of my leagues with the #9 ww spot. It's not an inactive league, either. I don't know if everyone's just waiting for Kershaw, or what. Once Cuetoed, twice shy, maybe.

Liriano struggles in first AAA start after his demotion, only lasts 4.1 innings: http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/18408089.html