jackie hayes

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 03:22 PM) I don't either, which is why they should have just overruled the Gratz decision.Talk about judicial activisim. Gratz essentially said: when you're dealing with membership in a historically exclusive group, it's ok if race is one factor to be looked at because diversity is good. Still cracks me up that O'Conner had to write in her conclusion something close to 'hopefully in 25 years we won't need affirmative action.' Grutter, not Gratz.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 01:32 PM) Paxson was on the radio this morning and said when deciding who to take at #9 they had three guys in mind. Noah, Hawes and Yi. If Yi hits the trade block due to pressure from the Chinese government I could definitely see Paxson making a push for him. Who would the Bucks want, though? Not Noah, given that he raised the same issues that Yi raised. I'd love to get him, but I don't see how we'd match up.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 12:22 PM) In the case of race based selection in schools, there are precedents all over the board. Some of the most recent decisions happen to be in favor of allowing, but by no means has it been all of them. Those newer decisions, in some cases, overrode other existing precedent. So then, what IS precedent? I am much more concerned about Alito's inexperienced and politically motivated decisions than I am about Roberts. You are correct that its just a sound bite, and the issue has all sorts of complexity heaped onto it. But I think the overall issue could be very, very simple, if people let it be. That is what he was driving at, and I agree with him. I think Kennedy's opinion is a good example of why this issue is not so simple. The other majority opinion is just remarkably sweeping, seemingly implying that even noticing race, any act of categorizing except in redressing previous local institutionalized discrimination, is unconstitutional. That seems pretty extreme. Compare it to the Michigan law school decision a couple years ago. This really is a fast change. In the opinion, they bracket off the Michigan decision, saying that its program looked at factors other than race. I can't see, logically, how that's different in any meaningful way. But it does leave a loophole to be tested, which could be interesting.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 09:02 AM) I think you are right that the seperate opinions in the majority are important here. But, glib or not, I think Roberts' opinion nails the issue cold, both legally and morally. I said on nomination that, even though he is more conservative than I'd like, I was OK with the Roberts nomination. He has been consistent during his career, and he seems very effective at reducing things to their essence. That all said, you make a very good point about the big changes occurring, and its entirely possible the changes may start to get scary at some point. That one sentence, it's just a sound bite. It's far too simplistic to summarize this fairly. When Roberts was before Congress, he emphasized repeatedly his respect for precedent. It's hard to imagine a less cautious SC than this. To me, that's inconsistent.

Anyone who sweats the 2nd round is really overthinking the draft.

This is a scary term. From the NYT: Whatever you think of the substance of the opinions, I think you have to agree with this quote. The last couple days have been a carnival of precedent-crapping. Roberts really does appear to be the wolf in sheep's clothing that some Dems expected. As for this case, Kennedy's separate opinion is crucial. And imo it's much more insightful than that glib quote from Roberts. I hope it carries the day.

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 06:47 PM) I'm a little surprised ESPN knows about Frank Thomas or that there are players that don't play for the Red Sox or Yankees. http://www.theonion.com/content/news_brief...nother_baseball

QUOTE(GoRowand33 @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 09:35 PM) well Tyrus is a year more experienced he already showed that in his best moments he can be a 20-10 guy, so being a year more experienced his best moments will come out more often and consistently Now, I loved the Tyrus Thomas pick, don't get me wrong. But, I don't buy this at all. A few 20 point games doesn't mean anything. It's not like a high-90s fastball -- just because it was there once doesn't mean you can recreate it. (When did he have a 20-10 game, anyway? I can't find one in the game log.) Which is fine -- Thomas is good at what he does. But what he does is not scoring.

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 09:15 PM) Maybe we can trade Noah to the Knicks for two more high draft picks. Silly rabbit, defense isn't for the Knicks.

QUOTE(GoRowand33 @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 09:12 PM) I bet in a year we'll all be thanking Paxon for this pick sure he's not a scorer, but good defense and rebounding can't hurt us and with Tyrus Thomas a year older maybe he will develop into a low-post threat and honestly who's better? Hawes is a 7 footer with no rebounding ability. that guy should have been a defensive freak, and its a huge redflag as an athlete to not dominate people half his own size. Hawes would probably negate his offense by allowing too many people to score on him so even if Noah doesn't 100% fulfill our needs, he was the best pick to take So is Sefalosha going to become a stunningly accurate jump-shooter, as well? One year doesn't make you a different player. Like I said, I think Noah is a good player. But the Bulls get scoring out of two players, for the most part, and both are due extensions soon. Suppose you extend both, you keep drafting mid to low and using your midlevel exception -- do you really think that wins any championships?

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 08:49 PM) Who knows, you could be right -- the Bulls may end up trading him. I'll say this about Noah -- he should be an above average defender in the paint against #4s and some #5s (the non-gigantic centers, like say Rasheed Wallace). He fits in as one of these 'new generation' defenders, ie I can see him being a guy who really knows how to utilize the flop charge to his advantage. But am I wrong in saying that that's not the type of 'ceiling' guy I want at the ninth overall pick, that I want more than an Anderson Varejao type (and I'm not just saying that because of the hair)? I don't know how anyone in their right mind could project any offensive game down the road for Noah besides "good at wide open dunks". People (ehem Jay Bilas) says his jumpshot is ugly but effective. Effective? What? If Noah wants to take a jump shot outside of ten feet and I'm on defense, I'll kindly show him where the rim is so he'll take the shot. Gosh damn... You're right in saying that Pax should've earned the fans' trust by now, but it's still very frustrating. It's going to be very tough for me to root for him. I'm just saying he's earned my trust. Question away, I'm not trying to quiet anyone with that comment. Partially, it's just because I follow basketball a lot less closely that baseball and football, and so I don't trust my opinions. You really think he's comparable to Varejao? Ouch... I'd agree, his offensive skills won't see much improvement at all. He'll never, ever be a scorer. I just look at him as a defender-rebounder. I keep looking back to the Pistons series. Joakim Noah is a useful player, but the Bulls still get rolled in that series, even with a surprisingly good Noah. That's my standard right now, and I don't think this team has found any real answers to the questions that series raised.

Well, not Amare, but pretty close, eh?

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 08:26 PM) f***. I hope they trade him, gosh damnit, Noah has no f***ing offensive game. He's doesn't help the Bulls at all. Yeah, I'm not sure I get this. I don't dislike Noah, he could fill an important role on a good team. But it seems like that role is already filled on the Bulls, by more than one player. He seems redundant. (Except that he has a bit more height -- I'll grant that.) I don't see either Noah or Hawes making much of a difference for the Bulls next year, but at least Hawes could be an important player in a couple years. Noah, I'm not so sure. I'm not as upset as most. I'm just unsure. Really, Pax has made very few bad decisions, so I can't get too worked up about it.

QUOTE(fullcollapse @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 04:45 PM) a couple of years ago he wrote that frank was a hof even if he didn't get to 500 home runs. i guess since then he forgot about his career line of .303/.423/.562, two mvps (should be 3) 7 other times in the top 10 for mvp and just how dominating he was for that little stretch from 90-00. big hurt = first ballot What he said, iirc, is that Thomas deserves to be in the Hall. He's written articles also about who actually gets in the Hall, about what sort of candidates draw enough votes. The two lists aren't the same, and all he was saying here was that he doesn't believe 500 homers automatically will change the minds of enough voters to make Thomas a lock. Not that he doesn't believe Thomas should be in. Seriously, how many sabrmetrics guys do you think would vote against Thomas?

Congrats, Frank, on reaching this completely arbitrary milestone that shouldn't mean jack for getting into the HoF.

QUOTE(toasty @ Jun 27, 2007 -> 06:32 PM) the si.com report does mention cowley's article... but not directly saying that is what their sole source was Right, he mentions Cowley's piece, but the source is given as "People familiar with the situation..." A journalist would only write that if he has some way of knowing, himself, that the source is "familiar with the situation". If he's just reading the ST piece, he should credit that. The only crediting of the ST article is this: So he really should have independent sources for the rest of his info.

QUOTE(knightni @ Jun 27, 2007 -> 06:26 PM) Does the Sun-Times say anything? Well...yeah. That's Cowley. He started the parade.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jun 27, 2007 -> 06:17 PM) I just hope the Score and SI aren't getting the story all from the Cowly article. Both FoxSports and SI claim they have their own sources. If it were coming from Cowley, they would just say, "The Chi ST reports..." or something like that. So now it's Cowley, 670, Rosenthal, and SI vs the Trib and AM 1000. And even the Trib is reporting about Hahn making a trip to Tampa. Whatever's going on, I can't believe it's as simple as the quotes from Buehrle's agent made it sound.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Jun 27, 2007 -> 05:32 PM) OK, i'll be the jackass and not go back and read since I had my 1:30 call... is ESPN still reporting no talks and WSCR still reporting the deal is very close? SORRY!! Yes, everything is exactly the same, except there's a lot of piss on the floor.

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Jun 27, 2007 -> 02:39 PM) yeah, its about 5 million less than what he could make per year on the open market, but not all baseball players are greedy snobs, some are just good guys. It's not about being a greedy snob or a good guy. It's about being f'n insane. He'd still be making a big compromise and leaving a lot of guaranteed money on the table at $60 mil over 4 years. I'd say that's the floor, and that would be Mark being a really good guy.

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Jun 27, 2007 -> 02:35 PM) Even though 4 years, $50 million is nothing for a pitcher of Buehrle's caliber, it is still a s*** load of money and sets him up nicely for the rest of his life. So, maybe Mark is just a great guy and will take a little less to stay here. There's just no chance the money's that low. It's possible they're talking an extension for 4 years, but if so, the $50 mil is just a mistake.

Cowley, Rosenthal, and 670 vs the Trib and ESPN. Pretty interesting that everyone seems to be sticking to their stories after this long.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jun 27, 2007 -> 11:09 AM) Interesting they didn't even have to go 5. I'm guessing there are going to be some unique clauses involved in it that could make it worth quite a bit. A 28-team no-trade?

QUOTE(Wedge @ Jun 26, 2007 -> 03:27 PM) Someone was saying that Pedro's return is uncertain... if it ever occurs. QUOTE(iamshack @ Jun 26, 2007 -> 03:28 PM) Well, counting on Pedro is the problem here. There are absolutely no indications thus far that he will be able to pitch effectively IF he does in fact return. Additionally, I think it's pretty clear-cut. You bump Perez or Maine. Come on now? You have the World Series on the line and you're going to pitch John Maine or Oliver Perez over Mark Buehrle? The writer was asking a hypothetical question. "...if the Mets are at full strength..." That would include Pedro. As for Mark vs Maine/Perez -- First, you have to pick between those two. Right now, you'd keep Maine, imo. (Or you'd sit Glavine, if it wouldn't cause a mutiny.) But besides that, it probably depends on who's going best. Remember, Mark wasn't our main guy in 2005. If Perez ended the year as dominant as JC did in 2005 (and he's obviously capable of that kind of dominance), it wouldn't surprise me to see him ahead of MB in a Mets playoff rotation. But I'd expect him to end up as one of their top 4 pitchers, yes. QUOTE(BearSox @ Jun 26, 2007 -> 03:31 PM) You bump out Sosa, and if Pedro returns you bump out Duque. To take out Maine or Perez would be idiotic, IMO. He's just assuming Sosa's out of the discussion to begin with. If Pedro comes back, you can't just bump El Duque, you need to sit one more starter. That's the hard part.

Am I the only one who doesn't believe the Milledge stuff? After the rap song, I read all these articles about how he was considered lazy, wasn't liked in the clubhouse, was a shame to the organization, and would never be a Met. Now he's an untouchable cornerstone of the organization, even though he's been injured most of the year. Whatever the reluctance last year, I find it tough to swallow this time around.