jackie hayes

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2007 -> 02:20 PM) You can auction off as many credits as you like, but unless you find a way to limit actual carbon release, the credits are worthless. They are trading carbon, by trading these credits. You have to have a set supply to determine a market, and an artificial number doesn't do that. Explain. The government says, Hey, you, big utility company that we're heavily regulating already! Yeah, you! You have to install these monitors on your equipment, and if you spew more pollution than you have credits for, you're in deep s***. And since we already regulate you, you know we can and will be checking to make sure you don't tamper with those monitors! How do those firms increase their pollution on the sly? Where does it sneak the exhaust out?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2007 -> 11:42 AM) It makes perfect sense. You cannot trade carbon as a commodity. There is no fixed supply of pollution, so it will not respond to market conditions correctly. The government plans on monitoring every single company? Good luck with that. If they don't, they are setting up the two America's scenario. On a side note, in my personal reading, I came accross something interesting... One of the leading supports of the Kyoto treaty in corporate American was none other than Enron. It seems they had a special interest in the Carbon credits trading market... ??? -- They're not trading carbon, they're trading the right to release carbon. And the supply of these credits IS fixed, by the law. These plans typically only apply to power companies and other big-time polluters. Enforcement really isn't a big deal, especially considering the fact that these tend to be natural monopolies, or close. When you need a very large scale operation to be profitable, it's obvious what needs to be monitored. (There are no boutique coal-burning plants.) The idea for this type of market actually comes from classical economics (a U of Chicago guy, even). There are some objections on practical grounds, but the theory is universally accepted. There's no "market imperfection" (in fact, in theory it FIXES a market imperfection and reaches an efficient outcome). Now, I would say that the credits should CERTAINLY be auctioned off, not just awarded. But that doesn't make the basic idea (pollution credit trading) a bad one.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 10:19 AM) The problem is, this isn't a good idea. You cannot apply the concepts of a commodity to a gas, and expect it to work as a regulatory device. There is no way to physically limit a gas, which means you cannot limit supply. It is impossible to make something function on a supply and demand basis, when you have an infinate supply of it. It is a market imperfection. There is no way a carbon exchange will ever work. I can't tell if this is serious. If so, it makes no sense. Of course it can work. In this market, the supply is not of a gas, it's supply of a right to pollute, or a claim on a part of the environment. The supply of that is fixed by the government, by fiat. As long as the government can monitor average pollution levels for every polluter covered by the statute (it's not very difficult to measure plant emissions), it's plain whether a polluter is compliant. You can't "physically limit" radio frequencies, either, but you can award ownership rights to certain frequencies. And when Q101 decides to start broadcasting on 103.5, it won't take too long to put things to rights. QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 11:19 AM) plus, it just contributes to Edwards 'two-Americas" but on a grander scale. Those with money can just pay a little extra to offset thier excess, while those just getting by cannot. For the lower to middle class to be carbon neutral, or even to simply reduce, they would have to actually change thier lifestyle and consumption habits, whereas the rich can simply write a check to feel better about themselves. You do know this only applies to a particular set of companies, right?

Jason Kendall is easily the worst starter in baseball right now. I literally can't disagree more about Uribe's defense. And, as strange as it is to hear myself say it, I would like to see more of Luis Terrero.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jun 16, 2007 -> 07:10 PM) Maybe if Minaya was sure that he could sign Buerhle for long term. If he has been a long term target, and they have the coin. They might want to get him in house, get some of the exlusive time to negotiate with him, and get him long term. Just, no. We're talking about 3 guys who've been top-25 in BA's list within the past two years. Personally, I don't believe more than 1 is at all likely.

not

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 02:05 PM) Are you going off runs per game? They've been in dead last in total runs for a while. Yes, runs per game. Sox at 3.85, Nats at 3.94. Total runs seems kinda pointless to me.

After yesterday, the Sox are no longer just the lowest scoring team in the AL. They've undertaken the Nats to become the lowest-scoring team in all of baseball.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 06:55 PM) Of course I have every answer. wite's right...

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 07:49 PM) Given that both Dye and Iguchi are free agents next year and are both entering the down-slopes of their careers, I'd strongly consider doing that deal. Unfortuntaely, Dye picked the wrong season to put up crap-tacular numbers at the plate. Yup. In my ideal world, Abreu continues to suck, so the Yanks are desperate for Dye. Packaging Dye & Iguchi for Cano + midlevel pitching prospect looks very good to me. But I don't think it's likely -- mostly cuz Abreu's just not this bad.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 07:23 PM) When Soriano strikes out less than 120 times in a season and is able to play something other than LF competently, let me know. Seriously, I'm not even trying to put Cano in the same league as Soriano. But, geez, Soriano is a freaking strikeout MACHINE. Because of that, their BB/K ratios are just about the same (~0.28). No, it certainly is telling. I agree that he doesn't appear to be much of a base-stealer, but it seems really odd that a 2B has attempted so few steals. Geez, even Iguchi attempts way more than that. Cano's 41 doubles last year and four triples already this season certainly suggest that he has some wheels (especially considering that he doesn't have a ton of power), which is what I was referring to when I brought up his "speed." I'm not a big Soriano fan, either, fwiw. If his speed helps him with doubles and triples, great. I'm saying, he has good power for a second baseman. (Mostly gap power, but as he ages, 20 hr is pretty realistic.) I think it'd be nice to have him on the Sox. But if the Yanks treat him like a premiere prospect, untouchable or all but, he's just not worth it.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 06:54 PM) You're making that statement based on 16 attempts over 2 1/2 seasons? I'm not saying you're wrong, but there isn't much of a sample size to draw from. Yeah, I suppose that his .890 OPS last year had nothing to do with that. Only a Yankee 2B with those numbers would make it to the ASG. The fact that he hasn't even attempted to steal much isn't telling? Not to mention his minor league numbers, as Kalapse mentioned. His ops at the asb was .792. So, uh, yeah -- not all that spectacular.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 06:23 PM) Barry Bonds' OBP was around .330 for his first two years in the majors and he didn't get anywhere near .400 until his fifth season. Soriano is another high-slugging/low-walk guy and he seems to be enjoying a pretty good major-league career. Young, cocky players are often undisciplined at the plate. Who said that Cano is going to hit .340 for his career??? If he "only" puts up a .290 career average, that and his power, speed, and defense will still make him a very solid player. Nobody is saying that he's a future HOFer, but he's got a ton of talent, already has an All Star appearance and a Silver Slugger award, and his plate discipline can only get better. He doesn't have NEARLY the power of Soriano. Now, with Bonds -- remember, I asked about walks. Bonds had a relatively low obp because of his ba -- he ALWAYS walked. If Cano hits .290 (well above his minor-league average, btw), then he might, might!, with improved discipline, have an obp around .330. w00t. And again, "speed", whatever he may have of it, doesn't mean steals, as he's NEVER been a basestealer. Not even a marginal one. A NY All-Star??? Bestill my heart... QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 06:27 PM) Anyone who can hit .340 deserves any kudos they get. Cano' is a great hitter and will be .300 by the end of this season. I doubt he is available anyway. I will agree with you on a couple things...I like a 2nd basemen who can walk and run some. I still want to see Chris Getz get called up to AAA as he has uncanny strikezone ability and can also run a little bit. Not saying he is the guranteed future for us at 2nd base, but he provides some reason to be optimistic that he could be ready if we keep Tad for 2008. He deserves kudos, yes. Results are results. But there's nothing to indicate he'll continue doing that year after year, and that's all the Sox should care about. And again, he CAN'T run... If the Yankees consider him untouchable, fine. The more imbecile teams, the better.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 06:24 PM) Who Jackie? What talent do you see coming up that is any good? WHO!? We have seen it all. There is Sweeney and Fields and some young arms. That is it. That is it! Anderson blows. Owens blows. Fields, and I'd like to see Sweeney up. And if KW wants Anderson up, he should play, whatever you think about him. (Personally, I'm surprised he's not on the dl, but I assume the Sox know what they're doing.) Anyone who's showed promise that KW thinks should be in the show. What I don't want is over-the-hill utility infielders taking half the abs from a young guy who's looked good in the minors. Do you disagree, or not?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 06:18 PM) I'd say that Ozzie did a pretty good job of coaching that rookie closer down the stretch in '05, no? The Sox didn't go into this year to season to develop young players. They went in to win with their vets and expected guys like Danks, Massett, Aardsma, Logan, etc. to contribute right off the bat. But since their situation has obviously changed, Ozzie WILL have to develop young players and deal with the inevitable growing pains. We'll see how that goes. Exactly. We'll see. I'm not saying anything should be done now. But if Fields is on the bench every other game, I hope Ozzie is gone sooner rather than later. Hell, even a quarter of the games. Fields should be starting 95% of the games, no matter what he's doing.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 06:16 PM) I think he means if Ozzie dicks around with Fields like he's hinted at. That's it. But I'd extend it to anyone else KW wants to bring up. This team is just awful. Cintron and Mack aren't likely to be around for the next contending Sox team. I'll be real pissed if I see them starting 1/2 the games.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 06:08 PM) Patience at the plate can be taught. The ability to hit .340 can't. Given that Cano is young and that he's also pretty good defensively, his upside strongly overwhelms his lack of discipline at the plate. Really? Got any examples of hitters who consistently walked once for every 20 abs who improved that in any significant way? I'm not saying he's a bad player. I'm just saying, we're not talking about a future star here. Decent average, some pop, no steals potential -- an okay bottom of the order hitter. But when his career's done, .340's gonna be a LONG ways off his career average. A LONG, LONG ways off.

Because of the WS, Ozzie has a chance to prove that he can coach young players. If he refuses to do it, he should be canned. There aren't any other options, and he'd better figure that out.

QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 05:37 PM) Cano' is projected to compete for batting championships. The fact he is cheap never enters the mind of Yankee brass, but the sheer talent of the player. Didn't he hit something like .330 last year? He's going nowhere. He hit .340 -- which is particularly useful, since he refuses to take walks. Even hitting .340 (.340!!!), his obp was only .365. His minor league batting average was only .278. There are few stats that scream "fluke" more loudly. He may be a .300 hitter. But no better than that. He never steals bases, can't take a walk, but he does have a bit of power for a second baseman. All in all, he's a okay bat for the position and the price, but he's nothing close to his press clippings. I'd like the Sox to have him, but the more I think about it, the more I hope they'll do better elsewhere.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 12:52 AM) There's a case for both but I prefer Buehrle's, both because of Less Batters and because he's a White Sock. I don't see how there can be any argument. In terms of predicting future performance, I love the high-k guy. But in terms of past results, who cares if it's a k or a fo? An out's an out, and Buehrle got 'em easier.

QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 04:44 PM) I'd be utterly amazed if the Yankees gave up Cano'. Utterly amazed. Why? Every year there's a Grudz, Aurilia, Cairo, who'll hit and be passable defensively, who won't demand a king's ransom. Why would the bottomless money pit that is the Yankees be so obsessed in holding onto a 2b just because he's cheap and has above-average pop?

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 02:31 PM) Hughes is untouchable. While winning now is the priority in New York, with the pitching woes the Yankees have had in the past few years, dealing Hughes, who has eclipsed a Mark Prior "messiah-like" status in the Bronx, would result in Brian Cashman's head on a skewer. It's a given that he's gone after this year if they don't make the playoffs. But Steinbrenner would probably veto it, anyway.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 12:39 PM) If you deal with the Yanks, you go for Melky and two projectable arms unless of course you get them to bite on giving up Phillip Hughes. I still think they might give up Cano for something they really need, and the Sox could include Iguchi to fill in this year.

QUOTE(Wanne @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 02:05 AM) Yeah...I wish I could refer to my posts before last year wanting Eric Byrnes...only to get met with the "woohoo more grinders" reply. Yeah...my post was complete bulls***.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 01:33 AM) I really disliked the MASH finale. By the end of the run, the series had been well past its prime and Alda just seemed like an insufferable prick. The last thing I needed was 2 hours (or however long it was) of that drek. And that is coming from a pretty diehard fan of MASG through most of its run. On the other hand, I realize I'm the only one on the planet who quite liked the last Seinfeld and all of the self-referential elements that went into it. The whole trial thing was a convenient vehicle for all of the cameos, sure, but it really did get you thinking that, yeah, pretty much the whole group was pretty much a bunch of jerks and ruined a lot of lives during the course of the series. I also liked the ending scene with them all stuck with each other in confinement for a year (again, a pretty stupid plot vehicle I'll concede), where they just start talking about the same innane nothing stuff they've been talking about from the start. Hands-down, the worst sitcom series finale ever: Rosanne. Just awful. Everyone thought Rosanne had been cancelled years before that. Didn't really matter. Seinfeld's was only good in that it was almost the Platonic ideal of condescending tv s***. Worst ever. As shallow as the characters were, it's not like the supporting characters were any different. Then trying to manufacture some moral out of the shallowness? It was the vomit of finales. Maybe the only conclusion I liked better was Arrested Development's -- and I wasn't even a huge fan of the show. But I laughed my ass off for those two hours.