jackie hayes

QUOTE(shipps @ Jun 11, 2007 -> 11:18 PM) It wasnt something minor.It was the big war between bosses killing each other,and they built that up on the second to last show.A family killing off another family is a huge deal in this show. Well, yeah -- "in this show" it's pretty big. But when the show's done forever in 5 minutes, I want to see something that wraps up the entire run. It'd be big in the middle of the season, sure. But having that at the end seems kinda pointless.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jun 11, 2007 -> 11:44 PM) Heh, I can't tell if you're being 100% serious in part of your post. There's things that Williams could have done to make this team better -- that's for sure -- but competing with Cleveland or Detroit? Not when four of your top five hitters aren't even league average right now. That's about as sarcastic as I can get, right there. The bullpen is frustrating, but I still hate the idea of signing "established" relievers for the ridiculous numbers they're commanding. (Really, Danys Baez for $5+ mil???) I like the strategy. The lineup -- I wish the cf situation had been handled better, and we had a better power option for left -- but it's not nearly the difference. The big problem of the Sox is the inability to get ANYTHING from the minors. But when the relievers can't pitch, do you blame the stocking of the system, the development, or the major league coaching that can't even get the vet relievers to pitch well? When the hitting prospects suck, are they bad prospects, were they coached badly, or is it the major league coaching, which has somehow overseen the total collapse of the entire lineup? I have no idea anymore. This team just looks all f***ed.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jun 11, 2007 -> 11:28 PM) He did? He explained why Paul Konerko, Jermaine Dye and AJ Pierzynski have collectively hit for an OPS+ of about 85? Please -- somebody outline a reasonable offseason scenario that would have us -- RIGHT NOW -- competing with Detroit and Cleveland. I still haven't seen one yet... nor the posts from the winter calling for Crede to be traded. You may have missed my many offseason posts about picking up Josh Hamilton and Hideki Okajima, along with my prescient posts concerning how we should pick up Ramon Ortiz and Jack Cust and release them after a few weeks or a month. I also said something about trading for Jeremy Guthrie -- once he starts to suck I'll let you know when I said we should release him. Need some time to look for those...

Guys, guys...so much anger spent on a Sox loser thread?...there'll be plenty more, pace yourselves... The trade for Vazquez looks bad. But the signing looks good. It's a short-term deal for an incredibly durable pitcher who's had average production with great peripherals. It's good value, exactly what KW should be looking for.

QUOTE(shipps @ Jun 11, 2007 -> 11:02 PM) That was my problem with the ending ,you knew they werent gonna get whacked.It was obvious the writers were just messing with the audience because they knew everyone was just wondering if any of the immediate Soprano family would be killed,it was a joke.They could have had a suspense filled ending with the Letardo situation and they passed that up. I would've hated that. Phil's only been big news recently. Before that it was Johnny Sack. For the final scene, I wanted a comment on the show's entire run, not just something suspenseful that would have wrapped up a recent plot line. Shouldn't end the whole series on something so minor.

If those characters are or aren't there, it doesn't really change the final scene. (In particular, it doesn't imply that Tony's dead.) It's obvious those groups wouldn't have conspired to hit Tony 'together'. But it's clear we're supposed to think about the possibility of Tony's death. Not only the sudden cut, knowing that "they say you don't even hear it when it happens", but the Godfather reference with the shifty guy walking into the bathroom. (And the episode hammers home the Godfather comparison -- compare AJ's little rant after Bobby's funeral to the opening scene of the first movie, with the fade up from black, the first words, "I believed in America..." Plus the episode title, Made in America.) That doesn't mean he died at the end. He'll never know when, and neither will we. Personally, I like that symmetry, and I think it's more appropriate to the show than just ensuring that the plot is all squared away and cozy.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jun 10, 2007 -> 11:21 PM) To me that was more of that episode where Pauly heard from that Psychic that he had a bunch of dead people following him around. In a lot of folklore, cats are considered spiritual and have a gateway between the living and the dead. When the cat keeps peering at the picture, maybe the thought was he was seeing something. Noticed at the end, the cat came out and was staring at Paully sunning himself. Maybe his ghouls are sitting around watching him after all. Isn't that a different cat? The one from the safehouse is at the Bing, right? Edit: N/m, my bad, just watched it again.

I loved it. John from Cincinnati...not so much. (And I actually was kinda psyched to see a surfer show...for some odd reason...) One interesting take I've read is that we should think of it as Tony's death. "You probably don't even hear it when it happens." Hence the cut and the silence. It's a neat thought, anyway.

Bodog's current odds on Tony surviving: -400 that he survives the final episode, +250 that he dies.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Jun 10, 2007 -> 05:54 PM) I thought I read somewhere that the actor that plays Paulie has a clause in his contract that hes never to be flipped on the show. I think I read it on wikipedia. Anybody else hear anything about that? I've heard that his character can't be a rat, but I thought that just meant that he can't flip to the feds. I mean, he already did sneak around and lie to Tony about it, so I don't think that's off-limits. Someone in this thread pointed out that his name came up when the NY guys were discussing which 3 to hit. That's what makes me think it's not him, but since they did veto going after him, I guess it's possible. It would mean Phil kept his cooperation pretty quiet.

If my math is correct, the Royals whupping of Philly to the tune of 17 runs now makes the Sox the lowest-scoring team in the AL at 3.93 runs/game, compared to KC's 4.05 runs/game.

Good grief.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Jun 9, 2007 -> 06:08 PM) What, did Garlands pitch count get too high? Isn't it time for Ozzie to say "f' the pitch count" or whatever the heck makes him take out the starters (if it isn't giving up runs)? He was at 116.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jun 7, 2007 -> 09:14 PM) I really would have liked to seen the Sox "man up" and take Porcello, but he was called the 2nd best player in the draft by some, yet fell to the AL Champs. A lot of other teams past on Porcello, for the same reason we did. I just can't really hold it against the Sox, And that's fine, that's topical. I don't know either one well enough to have any strong opinion. I just get tired of reading posts in this thread that contribute nothing, that just try to slam everyone who dares to have an opinion about who the Sox should draft. I'm little more than a reader in this, and I just don't get why a number of posters seem to get off just by trying to piss on an interesting discussion.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jun 7, 2007 -> 09:09 PM) My post makes perfect sense. Go back and read the "analysis" of all these posters slamming the Sox's decisions. The first, and main reason why people were/are slamming this pick are due to his K numbers which you just set aside. I see a lot more about Porcello having more than 1 good pitch. The main complaint is that we didn't take the best player on the board.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jun 7, 2007 -> 07:05 PM) What will get Crawford? A van, some ski masks, a lot of gas money and a taser. Yeah, that should work. Don't forget the wig and the makeup. "What do you mean? Of course that's Joe Crede."

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jun 7, 2007 -> 09:00 PM) I doubt they know as much as our Soxtalkers who only follow the game from stat sheets and radar gun readings. His stat sheet was okay, save strikeouts, and his gun readings are quite good. At least make sense when you insult people.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 7, 2007 -> 08:48 PM) 5.87 ERA as a soph? Must be some amazing competition. 2.88 this year. Lot of walks, though.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Jun 7, 2007 -> 08:47 PM) Good point. Milwakee is also taking the same approach. They took LaPorta in the first round, right? Hmm...I already powered off my sarcasm detector for the night...I can't tell...

Best player available. Can always trade good pitching. As long as these guys perform, I have no problem with this.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Jun 7, 2007 -> 08:35 PM) I read he takes academics seriously, so there may be signability concerns. Don't clubs typically agree to pay for college for their signees?

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jun 7, 2007 -> 05:21 PM) So...it's ok to have NO pick this year to get the same pick next year??? This makes ZERO sense...ZERO. You're intentionally not listening. This is almost the definition of threadcrapping, what you're doing in this thread. Please, for those of us who would like to listen to people who know ANYTHING about these prospects, just stop. You're here just to rip people. It's a joke.

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jun 7, 2007 -> 04:38 PM) And if we picked Smoker, Griffith, Harvey, or Porcello all of you would have found reasons to blast the White Sox for those picks too. "They'll get hurt" "Wasted pick...we can't develop pitching" "We'll trade them away" "We'll never sign them" Have you been reading this thread, at all??? I'm basically just reading, and most of the names mean nothing to me, and even I know that people would have been pretty happy with Porcello or Smoker, at least.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2007 -> 03:33 PM) For the people who are already refining, yes. But for the people who could be getting rich of it, who aren't oil execs, it makes no sense. It depends what response they expect. If you expect that current refiners will expand their capacity if you enter the market (not an unreasonable expectation -- they can probably do so cheaper than you can), you won't bother opening it. That's why industries with large setup costs can maintain large profits indefinitely. Incumbent firms have an incentive to take short-term losses for the long-run gain. Knowing this, no potential entrant wants to make the investment. The only way to break it is to convince the current players that you will stick around no matter what sort of losses you see. That's a huge financial commitment (much, much larger than the mere cost of opening a refinery), probably larger than any investor can manage.

1 & 2 are set in stone. This is a curiosity, nothing more.