jackie hayes

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 08:23 PM) I think the problem with everybody's thoughts here is the idea that Kenny actually has a plan. You know, I actually dislike the idea of having a definite plan. Something's always going to go awry, and if later moves are contingent on the one that goes bad, you're stuck. I'd prefer a gm who doesn't have a specific plan, who just tries to collect as much value and talent as he possibly can in one-off deals. Not really here nor there, just something that's always bothered me.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 10:34 AM) Didn't Rincon go to Tampa in the Young deal? No. Jose Eduardo Morlan was swapped instead.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 01:42 PM) And I think there are at least two definitions of "worth it". One is a guy whose stats fall favorably with the middle of the salaries for that position. Sox fans never want to have the highest paid player in that stat range. The second is the player whose popularity transends his stats and sells tickets. The front office and sales departments are drooling, the manager is fuming. That's fine, there are different sources of value. But if someone asks, Does this player by himself contribute value (of whatever kind) equal to his salary?, I think the answer is obviously no. Teams get a lot of surplus value from young players playing for the minimum, part of which can be captured by older players during bargaining. That creates a disconnect -- people say, He can't be worth that much money, and they're right in a sense. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that system, just that it's important to remember that this is a special sort of market which can create a wedge between true individual value and salary. So the amazement people have about player salaries -- it isn't wholly unjustified, anyway.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 01:10 PM) No player mentioned is worth the money that other teams are willing to pay them?! Who could possibly imagine being able to pay a baseball player over one million dollars a year? Soxtalk 1979 learning Nolan Ryan signed a new contract with the Astros Who could possibly imagine being able to pay a baseball player over three million dollars a year? Soxtalk 1981 Learning Dave Winfield signed a new contract with the Yankees Who could possibly imagine being able to pay a baseball player over ten million dollars a year? Soxtalk 1997 learning Albert Belle signed a new contract with the White Sox Who could possibly imagine being able to pay a baseball player over twenty million dollars a year? Soxtalk 2000 learning A-Rod signed a new contract with the Rangers Well...they aren't really worth that, themselves. The players as a whole are probably worth what they are paid, but the older players are peaching some of the value off the younger players who have no choice but to play for peanuts. Technicality, I know. Just saying.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 01:08 PM) I have a hunch the Sox end up with the Melk Man.... For Gio or DLS? I can't imagine what else the Yankees would want.

QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 12:42 PM) Only problem is apparently the Red Sawks are asking a ton for Crisp.... Cowley believes the White Sox, meanwhile, will move on to Coco Crisp. They've long had interest in him. I'm not sure how the White Sox and Red Sox would match up though. The Red Sox are asking for quite a bit for Crisp - three prospects. The Rangers balked upon hearing this. http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/basebal...ticleid=1047493 That is f***ing insane.

QUOTE(ChiSox_Sonix @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 11:41 AM) The machete was Taylor's. They said he kept one next to his bed for protection and grabbed it when he heard noises in the house. I think wite's talking about the earlier break-in; supposedly they left a kitchen knife on the bed. Can't help but wonder about it. Nothing was stolen this time. Doesn't sound like they took anything in the previous break-in.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 24, 2007 -> 06:43 PM) By no means am I advocating a Cameron signing. I'm just saying steroids =! amphetamines nor is there real correlation. !=, not =!.

Jesus, rtft. It's a throwaway line, meant as a joke. Never mind...

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Nov 24, 2007 -> 12:19 AM) Jackie, it is a viscious circle, to a point. The poor stay poor in part because of their extra mouths to feed, bodies to put clothes on, etc. But why is it poor people have more kids? Is the only entertainment they can afford to f*** like rabbits? Condoms, or the pill, are cheaper than kid(s). I haven't seen anything suggesting that unintended pregnancies are important for population growth. As for why the poor often have more children -- In dramatically poorer countries, you have to deal with a couple facts. One, many people are living on near-subsistence levels of income. Two, LOTS of kids die. From an economic perspective, yes, an additional kid provides another mouth to feed for a while. On the other hand, a kid doesn't consume as much as an adult, and he eventually starts contributing to the family through work. And when you get too old to work, you want to have at least one kid who: survives, becomes relatively prosperous, remains in contact with you, and wants to support you. That's a lot of ifs. (And of course there's no Social Security...it's paradise for Republicans...) And in many places, it usually means it's gotta be a boy, one more if. Add it all up, and it may well make a lot of sense to have a huge family. From an evolutionary perspective (if religious fanatics like all you Republicans believe in that sort of thing), it obviously makes sense to have a large family when any given kid has only a so-so chance of surviving to adulthood. In the mid-1800s our birthrate was comparable to that of many African countries today. It doesn't imply endless poverty. QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Nov 24, 2007 -> 12:21 AM) Yes, they are. And with the huge immigration flow they have there, if the native population stops having kids, they will soon be outnumbered by Muslims, who are NOT going to stop having kids. Muslims can be part of the "native population", too.

Yeah. I'd prefer Jones on a make-good contract, but Cameron would be okay.

Well, obviously Barack is the best, because he is a clean, articulate black man. But he's obviously the worst, because he went to a madrassa. So that's not very interesting.

Let me add that I think people on the left are appalled by really out-of-control pollution in the developing world, as China continues to get a lot of attention. But if Mali has to double its carbon emissions per capita in building roads, transportation infrastructure, and hospitals, so that fewer people starve and suffer awful deaths, yeah, I can live with that. I'd trade off a marginal improvement in SUV fuel efficiency for that, yes.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Nov 23, 2007 -> 08:23 PM) Go ahead and make fun of abstinance only programs. I have no problem with the idea, other than they don't really work too well. I also don't like schools handing out birth control to 12 year olds. I thought you were taking a potshot at me. Sorry for the tone of my rebuttal. But I was not entirely tounge-in-cheek with the posting. We always hear that the planet has too many people anyway, now you have a study that shows that it would be a good thing to have smaller families. Will the UN and Greenies champion this cause worldwide, or give exemptions to China, Mexico, the Middle East and the entire African continent? On a different note, the story, being from Britian, shows that the British have a slightly higher birthrate than the rest of the EU, and the author suggests that the Brits should stop procreating so much. That would be the death of England as we know it, since they are being overrun with Muslims, who you know would not stop reproducing, and soon would be in a majority. So just like all the CO2 emmitions, we need to find a way for the 'developing nations' to stop their polluting of the planet as well, instead of just blaming all the so-called 'rich' nations. Well, I certainly hope you don't think providing more condoms will solve anything. That's gotta be a joke, at least. The "study" is pretty silly, imo. It provides absolutely zero information. Unless a person has a neutral 'carbon footprint', eliminating everything he does (by making him not exist) will help the environment more than just reducing his footprint. Since basically noone has a neutral carbon footprint, the conclusion is mind-numbingly obvious. And then, Giuliani's assured us that the Brits are dying in droves from socialized medicine, so what more is left to be done? (Had to get that in.) The poor, always and everywhere, have more kids than the rich. Without resorting to draconian measures (China -- which actually has a lower birthrate than the US; Mexico's not much higher), that's not gonna change. But the impact of one person in a rich country is much higher than the impact of one person in a poor country. So if your goal is environmental impact reduction, it still makes more sense to start with rich countries. (At least in this very simple analysis.) Of course, the growth in pollution (overall) is being driven largely by developing countries. But that's not at all surprising, either. Higher living standards mean more pollution per person. So growth in pollution per person (as they catch up with our standard of living) plus growth in the number of people plus the fact that it's a much larger group of people to begin with -- of course they are going to contribute more to the growth of pollution. It hardly seems morally right to demand that they stay poor. So the better solution seems to be making the ultimate end (our standard of life) more sustainable. Btw, as far as I know, Muslims are allowed to be British.

Dammit, Crimson... The only reason I check this thread is to see if anyone made choices that had some sort of circular ranking (A>B>C>...>A, or something like that). You HAD to say something...

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Nov 23, 2007 -> 06:18 PM) And why would I do that? Just because I tend to be on the conservative side of things doesn't mean I fall lockstep into every ideal that appears on that side. Do you think Bush = Hitler, 9-11 was an inside job and only white people can be racist? Those ideals cerainly appear in some people on the more left side of things. As far as I know, none of those things has been part of the official policy of any Democratic president. It was meant as a tongue-in-cheek shot at the current admin. I took your post as more or less a joke, and as a rule I sort of expect that those willing to make light fun of the 'other side' are not quite so touchy about their own. Guess not.

Wouldn't you prefer sponsoring some of that abstinence-only education that works so well here?

Rotoworld has a report that Joe Kennedy passed away. Google news has headlines suggesting that it resulted from a brain aneurysm, but none of the articles have any details.

QUOTE(Benchwarmerjim @ Nov 22, 2007 -> 08:27 PM) ah Well, from what I understand, Santana countered with 7/125. He wants a Barry Zito type contract. So that basically means start lining up your best trade offer because there is no way the Twins are going to sign that Other boards might want to line up their best trade offers, at least. I'm still not sure. They aren't so far apart that a compromise would shock me.

QUOTE(Benchwarmerjim @ Nov 22, 2007 -> 05:28 PM) from what I undestand, the Twins offered 5/93 You're right, I just meant on the counteroffer. I was unclear there, my bad.

Recall that the Twins offered Johan $93 mil to stay. A far cry from fa money, but a lot for the Twins. Supposedly, Johan countered with $126 mil. Which is a lot, but a lot less than he'd make as a fa, and close enough to $93 mil to make me worried... No word on the years.

QUOTE(thomsonmi @ Nov 22, 2007 -> 02:59 AM) We suck. You're right. I forget these things. I guess you haven't seen anything about our farm system, or (say) the entire 2007 season? Yeah, we suck.

QUOTE(103 mph screwball @ Nov 22, 2007 -> 12:35 AM) Now, if the Sox sign Linebrink, then they sign Hunter, then the Brewers get the 2nd rounder and the Twins get the 3rd? Would doing this deal first change the pick the Twins would get? Do I understand this correctly? I think it depends on who's rated higher by Elias, but I could be wrong on that.

QUOTE(CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 21, 2007 -> 08:59 PM) IIRC Boras said Jones wouldn't sign a 1 or 2 year deal. Eh...I don't think they've quite said that he under no condition will sign a short-term deal. Not that I'd believe him even if he said it, but he's been a little more mealy-mouthed than that, it seems. What I've read is more like this: Link. And this: Link. Not ruling it out, exactly -- just saying (as loudly as possible) that it'll never come to that.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Nov 21, 2007 -> 08:41 PM) Considering Jones had to come out and publically say he would not sign a one year deal, I doubt there are any GMs out there offering anything like 7 or 8 years. I thought he said that he wouldn't do it unless he had no other options, not that he wouldn't do it at all -- am I misremembering? Boras can swear and affirm and stomp and bellow that he won't sign a one-year deal. If Andruw isn't getting paid on a multi-year deal, he'll do a one-year. Or, like Keith said, something with an opt-out (although I'd bet on the one-year, just because of age).