jackie hayes

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Nov 5, 2007 -> 08:28 PM) Yeesh, everyone picking the Steelers unanimously. This is going to be closer than they think. Nope... The Ravens are embarrassing themselves w/o the corners.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Nov 5, 2007 -> 02:30 PM) Jackie, You are right, what the reporters did is technically legal. Even though it undermines the entire grand jury system, our society favors the rights of the press over the rights of the defendant. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/15/politics/15jackson.html My disgust for them does some times jade the reality of the law. Even though what they did is tantamount to a crime, since they are journalists, they are protected by the first amendment. So as long as they did not obtain the evidence illegally, they can do whatever they want. I disagree with this, because all of the evidence has to be obtained illegally, as it is illegal to talk about a grand jury proceeding while it's under seal, but its irrelevant, the law is the law, and they did not break it. You cited 21 usc 802, note for you to be guilty: Knowingly or intentionally (and then it states the exact exemption of if it was prescribed by a practitioner) So Bonds did not violate federal law, because he did not knowingly take an illegal substance. Knowledge is a requirement, you can read the grand jury transcript where he said he "didnt know". So yes I misspoke on the reporters. I feel what they did is no better than the person who leaked it, and it should be illegal, but as of this time it is not. I more meant that they aided in the publishing of illegally obtained transcripts, but that was not how i worded it. You stated that the cream and the clear violated no laws, not that Bonds violated no laws. I was pointing out that these are "illegal" -- in the sense that Bonds' possession implies that someone broke the law. Personally, I find his claim of ignorance ridiculous, but I never said that there's enough evidence to convict him of anything.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Nov 5, 2007 -> 12:35 PM) Jackie, Interesting you point out the leaker broke the law, not the journalists. Much like the Dr. broke the law illegally giving Bonds medication, versus Bonds broke the law unknowingly using the medication. Now lets say I go to the Dr., he proscribes me Amoxicillin, the drugs he gives me turn out to be PCP. Who is at fault, the Dr, or the patient? This is basic stuff, so I didnt think I needed to spell it out. Not one person has ever said Bonds knowingly took it, the Dr said the same thing as Bonds. Also, if you are going to say there is a law, cite it. I want the law, so I can research it, find the case law about it, and make sure that you are actually giving me good precedent. Lawyers are not expected to know every single law, they are expected provide the common courtesy of a cite. So if you have a law, find it, cite it, and let me see it. Texsox, Where have I said Bonds didnt do it? All I have asked is why can pitchers blatantly cheat, Gaylord Perry, but Bonds is held to some different standard? Bonds arguably didnt knowingly cheat, I can say with 100% certainty that Gaylord Perry knew he was throwing a spit ball. Yet Bonds is the bad guy. Source: Me and the Spitter (Gaylord Perry) So please if you are going to argue, at least keep it relevant. Ive never said that Bonds didnt do it, merely that: 1) Baseball has never caught him. And its pretty unfair to hold Grand jury testimony against him that was illegally obtained. Imagine if every baseball player had to talk about cheating under oath, and were told that none of this would ever be leaked, and that if you testify you are helping the fed, etc etc. Only to find out all of their testimony was leaked. How many of your heroes do you think have taken greenies, or roids, or other performance enhancers? Equal is equal, and baseball has a test for cheaters. Bonds never failed baseballs test. 2) Plenty of other baseball players have cheated as badly or worse than Bonds, and yet their records are not tarnished by public perception. Where did I say Bonds should be prosecuted? I was replying to your post, in which you said the substances were not illegal. Don't try to change the subject. You said the journalists broke the law by using leaked information (without a citation). You said that the cream and the clear were not illegal (without a citation). If you want cites, maybe you should provide them when you make a statement about the law. At the very least, avoid making claims when you don't know the relevant laws. In terms of the reporters, it's a standard interpretation (ie, basic stuff) of the first amendment. While it is illegal to leak information, it's no more illegal to publish it, once leaked, than it is for us to discuss the information here. It falls under the "free flow of information" guarantee of the first amendment mentioned in Branzenburg v Hayes. Do you have a cite, or even an example of a reporter successfully prosecuted for using a leak unrelated to national security? (Mind you, NOT for refusing to reveal the source of the leak, but for publishing the leaked information.) The relevant steroid law is the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990, which classified anabolic steroids as a Schedule III controlled substance. The relevant passage: The cream consists of testosterone, with epitestosterone, and is therefore directly mentioned by (X). The clear is tetrahydrogestrinone, which has since been added to the list (in 2004), but is nonetheless covered by (Z). It was immediately recognized by the FDA as a steroid.

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Nov 3, 2007 -> 10:06 PM) You're completely missing the point - and he mentioned front office personnel. Regardless, you're harping on bs, when the real issue his attitude. If he's not healthy, then don't play. But then don't sit there and whine about being asked to go, because it wasn't a Sox official telling you directly. And if he isn't healthy to play, and he isn't asked to be handed the starting job, what in the hell does he want? He wants a Sox offical to tell him that he's not healthy, hasn't earned to be called up, and because of it, he's not going to start in 08? That's what this whining is about? No, I'm not completely missing the point. I already explained to you how I look at the quotes, go back and look at it if you want. What does he want? I think he just wants out. But then, I'm not the mindreader you are. You think he's being a prima donna, fine. Go ahead. Please, Kenny, just trade him already. So we can get the week of BA-hate out of the way and move on to the innate championshipness of David Eckstein.

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Nov 3, 2007 -> 07:47 PM) If he doesn't want a personal phone call, what in the hell is he talking about? His agent already talked with the Sox, and his agent talked with him. He's made it clear that isn't goos enough for him. Maybe a personalized note would do the trick, but who knows? (SARCASM - just so everyone is clear) If he has no incentive to go to winter ball, then it is he who has given up on the organization, not the other way around. If he doesn't go, he does not prove he's healthy and he does not prove he has improved and is ready to be in the majors again. I'd say after what he's shown to date, he has a whole lot to prove. That's the benefit, here's a shot for him to prove it. He says he doesn't want to be treated like a 6 year old, but it sounds like that's exactly how he wants to be treated. He should understand what's going on, and dig deep down to get motivated to show what he has. If he doesn't, why would anyone hand him a starting job? You said from the GM. He never asked for that. I get tired of all the exaggerations. If there's one thing I feel pretty sure about, it's that they've both given up on each other. Given what happened in st, I believe the Sox gave up on him first. But at this point, it really doesn't matter. As for what he should "prove" -- if he knows he's not healthy, then he knows he'll perform badly. Why would you try to "prove" you can swing a bat when your wrist isn't right? It's not like he can merely "dig deep down" and will himself to perfect health. (Not everybody is as gifted as Darin Erstad.) I missed the part where he asked to be handed a starting job. Mind showing me that quote? Or are you referring to his refusal to compete for the job this past st? It's silly, the amount of bile spent on some players. Everyone wants him out, let's just get it over with.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Nov 3, 2007 -> 07:45 PM) Right, "Game of Shadows", the book that contains illegally obtained federal grand jury evidence. Those authors are such a beacon of following the law, that they, unlike Bonds, actually broke federal law. Those authors should be ashamed at what they have done to the judiciary process because they have made Bonds unconvictable. But yes, lets all give a loud cheer for the authors who blatantly violated the fact that grand jury testimony is supposed to be sealed and not released to the public. Lets all commemorate their blatant disregard for the law of the United States, because they wanted to make some money. Because its okay for them to break the law, screw the federal govt's ability to prosecute Bonds, just because they wanted to make a quick buck. But its not okay for Bonds to have allegedly used "the cream" and "the clear" because while those were against no federal law, its clear that we would rather completely destroy the judiciary process, than let some one like Bonds perhaps gain an edge in a game. Because the game of baseball's integerity is more important than the US court systems itegrity. Book of Shadows is a joke, and their authors should be in prison. And it really is a sad day for the American legal system, when more people consider it okay to violate one of the most important tenants of the criminal proceeding (grand jury evidence is sealed). And Im sure all of you criminal lawyers in this thread know that Grand Jury testimony is of course taken without any ability to cross examine a witness, and that is why it is not considered real evidence at a trial. But yes, we should convict Barry on grand jury evidence. Because once again, hearsay is admittable at the grand jury level because the whole point is for an indictment, not a conviction. All they are trying to prove is probable cause, not whether or not the person actually committed the crime. Not to mention barry had no 5th amendment rights during the grand jury trial, hence why he was forced to answer the questions. But who cares about the legal system, lets just destroy that, because maybe a guy used some cream on his body for a game. Lets all appluad the authors who violated our system, who destroyed a federal investigation, because they made money off of it. It wasnt about the truth, it wasnt about honor, it wasnt about fairness, it wasnt about anything but money. And for that the authors deserve a far worse fate, than a man who may have cheated in a game, that is full of cheaters. The leaker broke the law, not the journalists. (And he was convicted for it.) Journalists have immunity. A new steroid is included as a controlled substance under the original 1990 law -- it does NOT need to be individually named in the law. Therefore, the distribution and possession of the cream and the clear is illegal. So you're a lawyer, huh?

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Nov 3, 2007 -> 07:11 PM) I realize he's injured, but the point is about him whining, not whether he takes the assignment. And that injury has a lot to do with him not being called back up, so saying the Sox have not intended to play him is pure speculation, and as you say, I see things differently. I would want to get out and play for a non-contender too, in order to have another shot as a starter in CF. If the Sox pick up a FA, he obviously won't be in their plans in that capacity. Again though, this is not my argument. I'm merely disappointed with his comments, even if he is frustrated, because his complaints are not justified with his play or health. If you have a wrist injury and can't play winter ball, why are you talking about getting personal phone calls from the GM about his plans for you in 08? Get healthy, and show you can play. As it stands, how can he possibly believe he deserves the red carpet treatment? He never said he wanted personal phone calls from the GM. He said, "But I have to assume when a guy is somewhat in a team's plans and gets hurt, and his season is over, I would assume someone in the organization, front office-wise, would check up on you and give you a rundown for what their plans are for you." Considering the part in bold, I took it as, 'Look, I know you don't want me here.' He also hints at that in saying, "If someone wants to come and tell me something, I can handle it. If I can handle hitting .225 in the big leagues, I can handle getting news that's not too great about me." As for the rest, he's asking how it will benefit him, personally. ("It would be nice to talk to someone and find out why I'm going there and as to how it will benefit me.") That's not asking for "red carpet treatment". He's saying he doesn't know what his incentive is to go to winter ball. Honestly, I don't think he has any.

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Nov 3, 2007 -> 05:57 PM) Was it written in green, or do I know the writer personally or something? You really need to learn how to communicate sarcasm. In any case, he's not complaining about being healthy, he's complaining about being sent down, not being called up, and being told to go to winter ball without a personal visit from KW, Ozzie, and JR with some flowers and *** kissing about how great they think he is, despite his inability to hit the ball. As CWSGuy406 pointed out, I was talking about supernuke's post, not mine. When it's that obvious, green isn't needed. You said that even stars go to winter ball. My point is that it's much riskier for Anderson to go because he's not a star and he's injured. He wants a shot, it won't come here, why make yourself look worse than you are? The article does state that he's still recovering from the injury. Obviously his comments go beyond that. (I never said they didn't.) Feel free to interpret them however you like. I look at them differently. I'm sure he wants out pretty bad, and the Sox have held onto him for a year and a half without any intention of playing him again. Maybe he's trying to force their hand. You can look at that as whining, or just recognizing that the clock ticks fast for prospects. Next year is basically his last shot. Who wouldn't want to get out asap?

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 3, 2007 -> 02:54 PM) I hear this guy needs a job.... Plus, he's just as colorful. He'd give us a whole new wordhoard to use on Mariotti.

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Nov 3, 2007 -> 09:42 AM) At what age does a man need to be responsible for his own actions? If someone struggles and is too proud to ask for help, how receptive is he going to be when you offer it? The Sox seemed prepared to offer him the help anyhow, and he is b****ing about winter ball. I mean, we have super stars playing winter ball, and this guy thinks he's beyond it. He said his wrist isn't 100% yet. If he goes to winter ball and bombs, injury or no, he'll have a more difficult time getting a look from another team. Since he obviously isn't in the plans for the Sox, that has to be his primary goal. So why would he go before he's healthy? Btw, you really need to learn how to recognize sarcasm.

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 09:41 PM) Of course you could....in a 48 minute game, you could just throw up half-courters the whole time and probably make a handful. I thought about that, but if the NBAers were truly playing hard the whole game, knowing how bad we are, they'd just press every time. Even if you get the ball in, even if you get the ball to half-court, can a 6'0" guy with average hops and quickness even get a shot over a 6'6" shooting guard?

Of course, it depends on your background. If enough of you played collegiately or in a decent hs program, okay. But those guys are so quick & so tall, I don't even know how I'd get the ball inbounded. If I were bringing the ball up, they could strip me or trap me at will. So, I'm with your friend on this one.

Skipping the triple dare is a slight breach of etiquette. Skipping the dare, the double dare, and the double dog dare as well is downright gauche.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 07:12 PM) So lets use our imaginations for a second. A-rod breaks the record, I catch the ball, I take the ball and write: "You can suck my balls Boras" They would show it? Because they just want memorabilia right? They wouldnt try and cover it up, or hide the tarnish, they would just put it out there for the world to see? Otherwise they are making a statement, and they should do whatever it takes to restore the ball to its natural condition before it was defiled. You change the circumstances by using foul language. They'd probably take the ball but try to hide the part with the writing for display. Obviously, they don't want to offend parents bringing their kids through. A better comparison -- You write "Boras", with a slash or an X over it. Yes, they'd take the ball. I don't doubt it for a second. How they'd display it, I dunno. Nor do I know how they'll display this one. Bonds didn't say anything about how the ball's displayed, he just said they shouldn't accept it. So that's really neither here nor there.

The HOF didn't brand the ball. It's a statement by the owner of the ball, who's in no way connected to MLB. The HOF isn't taking any position on the statement, they just always want balls from record-breaking plays. They should take the ball just like they'd take any piece of history. If Bonds doesn't like it, he can go suck an egg. The HOF doesn't exist to whitewash his image.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 02:45 PM) Isn't Barry who has altered history? Not only by using steroids and forever changing the record book, but also by then DENYING he used steroids despite mounds and mounds of evidence he did indeed do what he is accused of doing. I'd say that's part of the history of the game, for...uh, for worse. But to ignore the scandal would be altering history, and that's what he's asking for now.

"You cannot give people the freedom, the right to alter history. You can't do it." So the natural conclusion is that we should whitewash the whole controversy and pretend it never existed. Who wants to alter history, now? Obviously they should take the ball. If Barry or Roger don't want to show for their inductions, there won't be many tears shed.

Cowher: Brady's gonna be a target http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/footbal...ticleid=1041584

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 10:58 AM) We need defense and a lead off hitter. Furcal supplies both. Tejada would be a luxury a 3B, but he is no longer a SS. We were last in the AL in runs scored. I wouldn't call offense a luxury. Tejada's offense is better in every meaningful way -- he has a better obp, better slg, better avg, more hr, and fewer strikeouts. If his defense has slipped so badly that he actually can't play ss any more, fine, pass. I just don't have enough info to make a judgement on that. Furcal would actually be my first inquiry, because of cost, as Balta suggested. But if Tejada's price falls and your scouts think his defensive problems are an aberration, then he's probably a better option. Not likely, I know, but I wouldn't rule it out.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 11:23 PM) Well, I overestimated Crisp's career OBP, as he has average only an OBP of .330 in his career, I thought it was closer to .350. However, Furcal and DeJesus have averaged an OBP at .350 or close to it throughout their career. In fact, DeJesus has yet to have a season with his OBP under .350. It is more then just hoping as obviously Owens and Gonzalez have never had an OBP over .340 in their MLB careers and neither has shown by judging at their minor league numbers that they could do it consistently do it down in the minors either. Owens did it twice, and Gonzalez just plain sucks, as well as Time (who had his first ever season with an OBP over .350 last, which was in only 90 AB's.) So yeah, there is a bit of a difference. See, here's the point -- Coco's never managed a .350 obp in the majors, ever. Furcal's done it 3/8 years (once in the last 4). So merely hoping for it doesn't mean much. DeJesus is pretty consistent, sure. But all 3 "hopefully" having .350+ obp next year? That's a bit more than hope. I can hope for anyone to hit 30 homers. It's pleasant and all, but it doesn't translate into production.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 10:37 PM) Why not? We have enough pop in the middle of the order, and we add defense and speed, and 3 players who could hopefully all have OBP over .350. Holy s***, that's all it takes?!!! I am extremely hopeful (I said extremely!) that Owens and Gonalez and Timo (yeah, get yer ass moving on that trade, KW!) will have obp over .360, dammit. I mean, I'm hoping not just that they have that obp, I'm even hoping that I continue to hope that they have that obp! You can't ask for more hope than I'm pouring on the Sox! Playoffs, here we come!

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 06:09 PM) So apparently Magic Johnson, VP of the Lakers, came out and said no deal will happen with the Bulls due to there reluctance to give up Luol Deng. There was also some rumors about a deal with Phoenix/Chicago/LA that would involve Marion heading to LA, Kobe to Chicago, and Gordon/Other Bulls headed to Phoenix. I know the Magic quote was from last night or this morning. Apparently they're still talking, anyway. Not that I think anything will happen. Just saying.

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 05:24 PM) For what its worth, Paxson told the Daily Herald that the rumor is false. Yes, but it was recently 90% true. So, if it's totally, 100% false, that makes it only 10% false overall. It has to be 190% false before we can really dismiss it.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 30, 2007 -> 11:56 PM) Furcal fits our needs much better with defense and with a lead off hitter. Tejada is not a fit whatsoever. Our only "need" is to score more than they do. Tejada would help us score more than Furcal would. Furcal would keep them from scoring more than Tejada would. Each "fits", it's just a matter of trying to balance those two sides and the cost of acquiring them.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Oct 30, 2007 -> 11:29 PM) I really want ARod on the Marlins. It would be really sticking it to the Yankees. The Marlins get $30 million a year in revenue sharing, most from the Yankees. It would be like the Yankees were still paying him. If the deal could be short, it would almost be plausible. But the Marlins aren't going to go 7+ years at $30+ mil.