jackie hayes

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 10:15 PM) TIFWIW, but the NY Post is reporting that Spitzer has been visiting prostitutes for at least 10 years. It also says he is a millionaire, so, I don't think he's spending that $80,000 from tax money. Sounds like he is independently wealthy. He was in private practice for a while, and (from Wikipedia) that was after he made his bones on the Gambinos, so he presumably got some coin for that. Add in family wealth, and I'm sure he can spare $5k here and there.

No, like Ozzie said, 2006 was all BMac's fault...

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 07:07 PM) Or you could compare a veteran to a second year player who came up and played about a half of baseball, that makes sense. I mean, why wouldnt it? No, it's not reliable, and neither is yours. That was the whole point.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 06:57 PM) Oh, im sorry, I didnt know we were comparing apples to oranges. Maybe compare two prospects like Ramirez and Richar, then you will be more on track. Oh, I see. We're limiting discussion to those who only have a handful of at bats and are barely different and both suck in that small time and of course those are the only numbers that are allowed in the discussion. Okay, as long as you're relying on such reliable numbers, I guess I have no counterargument.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 06:43 PM) Owens has hit better at the MLB level than Brian has, so what makes you think Brian is a better option? Uribe's hit better than Richar. You think he's the better option, then?

Boy, everything went right for Wall Street today. Wonder where the hookers are heading right about now...

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Mar 11, 2008 -> 12:45 PM) I wonder if Rove did his little hip hop dance. That's MC Rove, punk.

I actually do believe that the estimate is reasonable, considering the CBO estimate is (iirc) $1.2-1.7 trillion, and they typically use rather conservative rules for their projections. (Conservative meaning "cautious", here, not politically conservative.) Just think, these estimates only extend to 2017 -- what'll they be like if we're there for 100 years?

QUOTE(SoxWS05 @ Mar 10, 2008 -> 03:27 PM) I've touched on each one of those in previous posts in this thread. Like I said, If healthy, offer a contract and if he signs, trade Fields. In that order. I'll take inconsistent offense over un-proven offense and brutal defense. "If healthy" -- looking and being healthy now does NOT mean he will stay healthy, not with the type of problem he has. Unless Joe's willing to give the Sox one hell of a discount, I would never sign him for 4 years. I mean, a huge discount.

About the rules: A couple years ago, there was some anger over someone constantly dropping/adding ("streaming") pitchers. The rule about the total number of transactions was changed to only allow 100 for the season. While that prevents someone from streaming the entire season, someone could potentially stream towards the end of the season, if he's saved his transactions until then. Basically, I just want to avoid any hard feelings about this and state my position upfront. I'm not going to change the rules midseason if someone starts doing this. If we want to rule out streaming completely, we need to make the changes now, before the draft. There are a couple ways to do this. The most extreme would be to change to weekly transactions. That would mean that transactions are only allowed at the end of the week -- after that, your choices for the week are set, so streaming would not be possible. It would also level the field as far as injury pickups. Right now, if a closer goes down, the first person to see the news can grab the setup guy immediately. Those who get the news 20 minutes later are out of luck. With weekly transactions, it will just depend on who has the higher waiver priority. Another way would be to limit the number of weekly transactions. Pickups would still be first-come, first-served, but noone would be allowed to switch more than a handful of players each week. Although, I'm not sure what the 'right' limit would be. As a minor thing, I was also thinking about changing the time on waivers to one day (from two). That seems enough, but it's not a big deal either way. I haven't changed any of the rules yet, and unless there's strong support for a particular change, I'll leave things as they are. Let me know your thoughts, thanks.

Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes write an op-ed on the war's costs (direct and indirect) in yesterday's WaPost: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8030702846.html Their headline estimate is $3 trillion, minimum $1.5 trillion, and as high as $5 trillion. They just released a book that details the estimate. Which I'd like to read, but not enough to pay the hardcover price. Some discussion: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories Anyway, food for thought.

Why he played this long, I'll never understand. I respect the competitiveness and all, but a healthy Wade is just so good. The payoff of getting healthy NOW is so much bigger than the pride of hobbling through this season.

I mentioned that the far right is unlikely to work for McCain. Here's an editorial (by Brent Bozell, liberal media grumble grumble) in yesterday's WaPost that explicitly threatens that: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8030702845.html His list of demands is, predictably, extreme and silly.

So, fattyguy78, is White Sox Stompers your team? I just want to make sure that you are the one who signed up. Okay, some times opened up the next week, so I changed the time to Thursday, March 20, at 9:30 pm Chicago time. Looking over the responses, it seems most people could at least make a weeknight time, as long as it's late enough, and enough had trouble with a Sunday morning to make the change worthwhile. So it looks like we're almost set. One more thing -- I wanted to ask about some possible rule changes, to see how people feel. I'll probably type up what I was thinking about tomorrow or Tuesday.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 9, 2008 -> 06:43 PM) And the reason for your highlighting job? Is today Rhetorical Question Day?

True, but on the other hand, most puppets work for free.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 02:35 PM) Same with CaliSoxFan's post in a different thread. In a post where the real point was... Let's not be quick to judge and watch it play out, cause it's fun to watch the competition; He mentioned "Quentin seems to be a guy who crowds the plate and gets hurt because of it" That turned into smart ass post #1 from witesoxfan "How do you hurt your shoulder so badly that it needs surgery by crowding the plate?" Which in turn Cali had to respond to and say he never said that. Then smart ass post #2 santo_dorf has to come in and write "Who said that? :unsure:" with CaliSoxFan's quote....which hilariously enough, still doesn't say anything about Quentins shoulder, but CaliSoxFan has to respond to that...then come's smart ass post #3 by Kalapse "He tweaked his hamstring rounding first base last season. Perhaps that was brought on by a HBP. :huh" So you can see why some people just feel it's not worth it to post some things. It's not that they can't handle the BS, it's just many feel...why bother. Yeah CaliSoxFan said Quentin gets hurt from crowding the plate. No he doesn't have exact dates of the injuries or what they were, or if they even truly existed, but is it such a stretch to believe?? Someone who set a minor-league record by getting hit by a pitch 43 times in 2004? I think it's ok for him to assume for his arguements sake, that Quentin most likely missed some time here and there. So as not to get a "smart ass" label, let me be perfectly direct. I think you are completely wrong about this exchange. First, wite's reply isn't "smart ass", at all. He knew that Quentin's only missed significant time with the shoulder injury and asked as plainly as possible how that could be linked to crowding the plate. If Cali only meant that he probably missed a day or two here and there, but wasn't sure, he could have said that in reply, and that would have been the end of it. Second, no, I don't think it's okay to assume something just because it's plausible. I mean, I can imagine that someone might miss time from being often hit by a pitch, but once the statement's been made about someone in particular, it seems reasonable and interesting to ask whether or not it's true.

GP, I generally agree about these geographical divisions. But I think you underestimate a couple things. (And most of this is just 'by feel' -- I can't back this up with poll data.) First, I think Obama's support will be stronger in the midwest than you might figure by past results. Not only because he is a midwestern candidate (although that's part of it), but also because I think there is a deeper mistrust of Bush's Iraq war there than in other places. In large part, I glean this off my relatives. Some who are very conservative, and live in very conservative (rural) areas, have a deep animus against Bush because of the war. (When I first heard the comments I was very surprised.) McCain is completely in bed with Bush on this issue, inescapably. Clinton's voting past makes it more difficult for her to bludgeon him with it, of course, so I really only give Obama a significant edge in that area. Second, I think you underestimate the anger the far right has against McCain. I'm not saying they will be so disaffected with McCain as to jump to the Dems -- but they won't be eager to work on his campaign, either. While Bill Clinton certainly was an appealing candidate in some ways, personable, smooth, etc, there was also a huge conservative disgust with Bush I after he broke his tax pledge. That sort of mutinous indifference could be crucial in close races. The far right wants an ultra-conservative who can look pleasant enough for a general election -- something they got in Bush II. They don't have that in McCain, they don't even like the guy, and I don't think they'll work as hard for him as they would for their guy.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Mar 6, 2008 -> 06:57 PM) How about next Thursday at 8 PM? I'm gonna need at least a week to prepare. I mean, I already know that I'm drafting Tim Lincecum, but I'm gonna have to come up with a list of guys who'll be able to mesh well with Tim for team chemistry purposes. And Pedro, right? Get back on the horse, hh. I can't guarantee any specific time. I just saw that some evening times were available.

I'm going to rule out Fridays and Saturdays and weekdays before 7 pm. Weekday nights are available March 11-13 (Tuesday to Thursday of next week), and Sunday mornings on March 16 and 23. Limiting the choices to those, what say ye? I'd like for everyone to comment on this (unrealistic, but it's good to have goals), especially those who haven't said anything yet. Still waiting on fattyguy78 to join. I pm'd him earlier today.

Personally, I'd love to do it Sunday. But, the only available times are in the morning. (10:45 am Chicago time is the LATEST available time.) Would that be doable for most people? Edit: I changed the draft time to Sunday morning, 10:45 am Chicago time. We can still discuss this, and the time might change, but I just wanted to grab that slot now.

Bud Selig makes $15 mil as commissioner? Wtf? Good article, knightni. Thanks for the link.

QUOTE(MHizzle85 @ Mar 3, 2008 -> 07:08 PM) I'm in as my username, could we move it from a Friday night...I couldn't guarantee i'd be able to make it. Oh...like there's anything more fun to do on a Friday night...pfft...riiiiight... Iirc, I initially looked at the day before, but I could only pick afternoon times. But now it seems to have later times available. Say we look at Tuesday March 18 - Sunday March 23. What days would WORK? (Not be optimal, work. And as always, I can't promise everyone will be happy.)

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 11:19 PM) What's up, fellas. As far as a draft date is concerned, how about March 25th? It's on a Tuesday. Anywhere from 7 to 9 PM works for me. No good, that's opening day (the A's-Sawks game in Tokyo). It's gotta be before that. Actually, just checking the league settings...Yahoo is only letting me look at times on the 23rd and before. So the 23rd is the latest it could be.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 03:36 PM) Totally agreed, but still. You shouldn't "justify" discrimination based on how limited it's effect is. It's not a justification, it's a, Why the f*** would anyone b**** so much about something so inconsequential? Major universities want to ensure that all students feel welcome, regardless of religion. Making this unbelievably minor scheduling change allows more Muslim women to feel welcome at Harvard. That strikes me as an admirable goal, and thus I think Harvard's move here was great. For those who don't agree, including any whiny Harvard wasps who knew when they enrolled that Harvard could make choices like this as it saw fit, go suck an egg.