jackie hayes

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 02:11 PM) And everyone knew Obama's widely known stance as well, but that was free and clear to run... Well, the NYT disagrees with you. They believe the speech (and the editorial which preceded it) contained new info. Personally, I don't disagree with you. I didn't find anything in the editorial that I didn't expect to hear. But that's a different argument than the one bmags has been making. The only thing I'm saying is that he has a valid point. A newspaper should be allowed to demand the same standards of any candidate editorial. If you want to argue how well it implemented those standards, that's fine, and I don't think I'd say much against you. The only reason I said anything here is that I think most of the replies to bmags were misrepresenting one of his main points. Btw, I think bmags would disagree with me about how new the editorial was, so take this as jmo.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 01:53 PM) And still, they are rejecting his current opinion. Given that they allowed Obama to express his, I'd suggest, the only way to look anything like a fair and impartial news publication, is to let McCain have the same allowance. Anything less is a clear indictment of their bias, IMO. By the way, when I say "they" or "their", I don't mean the entire NYT and all its journalists. In fact, I think the actual newsies at NYT are possibly the best in the world. I am speaking specifically about whomever is making this decision. Again, they are not saying, Your opinion is wrong. They are saying, everybody already knows that you have that opinion. If a newspaper simply has this position, "Every candidate piece must contain some information that is not widely known", that is not a partial policy. It would be partial to enforce it for some pieces but not for others, however.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 02:43 PM) That's pretty lame. "We didn't say change your opinion to a specific thing, we just said, change your opinion". That's a terrible summary of what I said. There does not, again, have to be any change of opinion. In can simply be an opinion that hasn't yet been featured by the campaign.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 02:40 PM) A new opinion requires a change of opinion. If there is no change, it isn't new. Like I said, they can do whatever they want, but then don't cry about it when you get called on it. No, a new opinion could be simply a clarification. That was actually the example the NYT editor gave of what they were looking for. It does not require a change of opinion, nor does it have to be inconsistent with any stated positions.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 02:20 PM) That's what I don't get. If the piece was that bad, publish it, and let people tear it apart. There is no need to try to change someone's opinion to try to fit it to what you think it should be. bmags's point is that the NYT did not say, Change your opinion. They said, Give us a new opinion. They gave no guidelines about what that opinion should be.

Serious question -- Can LaRoche play 2b? I know the Dodgers have tried him there, but I don't know what the results have been.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 01:09 PM) As far as that goes...I don't think anyone knows what level compensation Crede will get until the list is actually out, but with an all star berth this season, he's at least got a shot (one more hot streak this season would certainly help). Technically the system is supposed to look at their last 2 seasons...but in the past they've certainly ignored that rule, otherwise Eric Gagne would never have been type A when he left the Dodgers after pitching 7 innings in the 2 seasons before he hit FA. Joe's had solid seasons 2 out of the last 3 years and is going to be the top 3b on the market and probably one of the top infielders...hopefully that's enough. That depends what categories they use for each type of player. If relievers are judged more by rate stats than by counting stats, the lack of innings may not be enough to drop someone out. BP has a short explanation of the rankings (not that they're privy to the exact formula, but apparently they've reverse engineered it reasonably well): http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4628 Gagne's 2-year era was about 2.35. That'll help. Crede was a mid/low B last offseason. He'll lose his 2006 stats, and his 2008 stats are (roughly) -30 points of avg, probably more strikeouts, more walks, his home run and rbi rates are about the same, run rate is a little lower (per ab). It'll depend on how other 2b, 3b, and ss play, but a jump to the A group looks very unlikely, unless he has a massively productive stretch run. Which would be great for so many other reasons, too.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 01:07 PM) I don't think Crede will get Type A compensation but I could be wrong. I can't imagine he would. I know the rankings are based on the previous 2 years, and Joe was a B player after last year. He was actually closer to the bottom than he was to the top of the B group, and 2006 was a great year for him, so there's even a risk he falls out of the B group if he doesn't step up his production. (Unless they weight the more recent year more heavily. But I think they weight them evenly. Not completely sure about that, though.) Link to last year's complete AL rankings, for the curious: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al...-complete_N.htm

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jul 7, 2008 -> 05:17 PM) First game was the Pacers-Thundercats. (Announcers gave that name to OKC. I'm still not sure who Lion-O is supposed to be. And yes, they really were calling someone Lion-O.) QUOTE (whitesoxbrian @ Jul 7, 2008 -> 05:46 PM) BTW- I wonder if ThunderCats is their official name now? QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 11:53 AM) Oklahoma City Thunder???? Those summer league announcers were pretty close, eh?

Bears and Urlacher reach a deal! http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?i...ce=NFLHeadlines Thank God this story can go away.

Shockey to the Saints for 2nd and 5th round picks (both 2009). I'm surprised they were able to get a second for him.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 21, 2008 -> 12:14 PM) I think Williams will be fine. I mean, even highly-projected rookie are never a sure thing, but I think Williams was about as safe as the Bears could get. Now what I'm actually worried about is whether the below average (I'm being generous there) play at LG is going to hinder Williams's learning curve. Am I the only one who thinks St Clair would be more than adequate at lg? Everyone's worried about that position, but I thought he looked pretty good there in his stint last season. I know he's also the primary backup tackle, but I don't see the reason he can't back up there while starting at lg. (If he's pressed into service at tackle, you use Metcalf or Beekman at lg.) Why not have the best 5 out there to start the year?

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Jul 21, 2008 -> 12:04 PM) Here's a question. Does anyone think that Minny's defense has the potential to be better than Chicago's defense this season? I mean they trade for Jared Allen in the off-season, who's argubly the best pass rusher in the NFL. They've got a great front 4 with Kevin and Pat Williams, and the secondary's pretty good as well with Winfield in there. As a Cowboys fan, they're the team I'm most worried about this season. Jackson should be better with the addition of Berrian as well. Don't forget that the Vikings have had terrible WR's ever since Randy Moss left. Of course they have that sort of potential. I don't think anyone can deny that they have the potential to be the very best defense in the NFL. Receivers aren't Tarvaris Jackson's problem. Tarvaris Jackson is Tarvaris Jackson's problem. Who knows -- he looked good for a game or two last year, he could conceivably shake off the rest of the games and really be a threat. But I'll need to see a few games before I believe that. QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Jul 21, 2008 -> 12:06 PM) And can you count on Williams as a rookie. Don't get me wrong, he was absolutely the right choice for the Bears at that spot, but can you rely on a rookie tackle to produce from the get go? There'll be a lot of pressure on him, especially considering he'll be protecting Orton or Grossman's blind side. I think you can count on him to be okay. Think a little better than Marc Colombo's rookie year (before the injury). He's not replacing a dominant left tackle, though, so I don't expect a big letdown from that position. First-round rookie ot have done fairly well recently -- McNeill, Thomas, Staley, D'Brick.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 20, 2008 -> 07:34 PM) Picking up a probowler for a pair of draft picks a year away? If that's desperation, it's pretty smart for desperate. Maybe. But it was a desperation move. And he is going to be 34 this season. Jon Ogden was also a Probowler last year. I wouldn't have been happy if the Bears had spent a second round pick on him.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 20, 2008 -> 06:52 PM) Jason Taylor traded to Washington for 2009 2nd round pick and 2010 6th round pick. per Chris Mortensen Washington lost two defensive ends in one day. Desperation move.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/fanta...owner_rips_team

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 20, 2008 -> 12:58 AM) He had 4 years as a full-time starter; in his first two, they won 20 games and made it to the NFC conference championship. In 2006, his receiving core consisted of Crumpler (who was his only good receiver), White, Lelie, and Jenkins; Warrick Dunn and Jerious Norwood were his main backs; the defense was mediocre. Yet through it all, they won 7 games. Is there a QB (and probably coaching staff too) not named Manning or Brady that wins 7 games with that team? Without Michael Vick this past season and with Roddy White stepping up and becoming a big time receiving threat and with Chris Redman being a pretty damn good QB, they still lost 12 games. To me, that looks like Michael Vick is worth atleast 4 wins alone and arguably more. Oh, and FWIW, his passing accuracy was 53%...that's better than Namath, though Namath wasn't anything to write home about other than Superbowl III. I can't argue with some of it, but it's hard to dispute the facts. When Vick played, the Falcons were a good team. When he didn't/hasn't played, they've been terrible. It's not a coincidence. I'm not saying you won't get arguments about the Redman statement, itself, but Joey Harrington was the primary qb, and I know you're not gonna say that he's "pretty damn good". Dunn is finished and Crumpler was bad. Their coach left midway through the season and I don't think it's a stretch to think that he was half-assing it well before that, and he managed to piss off the veterans pretty early, including Crumpler, who isn't thought of as a hothead. So, no, I wouldn't say that Vick was himself worth 4 wins. You're saying that Manning and Brady might have won 7+ games with that team, but nobody else except Vick could have. So Vick was the 3rd best qb in all of football? Really?

Is there anybody who thinks Fannie and Freddie are not too big? It's not a position against private banking. I like the idea of making them fully public, but part of the reason I like that is because I see them becoming much less important in that scenario. You cut out shareholder interests, and you get them back to their original purpose -- providing limited injections of liquidity into the mortgage market. The private sector (properly regulated) gradually takes over much of the business Fannie and Freddie currently do, and the government stops subsidizing Fannie and Freddie shareholders.

A prediction: There will come a day, when Francisco Rodriguez will not earn a save. It may not be today (in fact, it definitely won't be), it may not be tomorrow. But that day will come. I have spoken.

6 runs in the first inning. Trade offers pouring in.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 19, 2008 -> 06:18 PM) I think we should sign Richie Sexson and include him in the deal. How could they turn that down? They'd only have to pay him the prorated minimum!

From rotoworld. Orioles sp Adam Loewen is going the Rick Ankiel route. After sustaining further elbow injuries, he's decided to attempt a comeback as an outfielder. He basically hasn't hit since his one year of college (2003).

QUOTE (whitesoxbrian @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 09:02 PM) First off, you can believe in a team, but don't make predictions like this. If Chad Johnson would have come out and said something like this everyone would be ripping on him. Yeah, but only because he wanted the f*** out of Dodge before saying that, not for the statement itself.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 07:43 PM) But here's the other thing about being a draft whiz...if your front office is also willing to go substantially over slot...becoming a draft whiz becomes a lot easier. And if you're starting off at a point where you have Ortiz and Ramirez as part of your team... Except they haven't been going substantially over slot... This year, yes. In the past, not so much.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 06:32 PM) You know, frankly, now that Schuerholz has retired...I'm not sure there's an obvious candidate for the top guy. The guys in Boston are good, but really, how hard is it to be a good GM with the #2 payroll in the league? All you have to do is out-do the Yankees. Beane is very good at winning as many years as he can at his salary level, but he's never pulled off the big prize and he spends an awful lot of time rebuilding. Shapiro had the Indians blow up in his face this year. KW had the Sox blow up in his face last year. Dombrowski's got a ton of money to play with and he's having a team blow up this year. Out of that group...now that guys like Ryan, Schuerholz, Beinfest are gone...can anyone point to anyone who has a consistent, year to year record of putting together teams that consistently outplay where you think they should be based on their salary? Who never seem to have to go through a long rebuilding process? Ryan never went through a long rebuilding process? He took over in 1994, the Twins weren't good until 2001. The Marlins haven't had long rebuilding periods? Beane is seen as always rebuilding, but it's not true that his teams have been off, then on. Before last season, they had 8 straight seasons of 87+ wins. And Epstein might have money to work with, but he's been a whiz with the draft. They've both been very good. Kenny's been very good, too. I really am impressed with the scouting that has been able to single out guys like Thornton and Floyd when the numbers are...not promising. It's just the drafts that have been a problem.