jackie hayes

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 07:48 PM) Only a 6th rounder? Excellent trade for the bears. I wouldn't say the end for Brown though not by any means but it could mean FS might not be a serious issue come draft day. SS, you mean. I'd be damn sad if we cut ties with Brown.

So, when do the Red Sox come to town?

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 11:00 PM) also, my guess would be that Freddy Sanchez would be batting second, and Wilson more towards the bottom of the order. I don't think so... Edit: I knew rotoworld was predicting him to bat second, but there's at least one more Pennsylvania tv channel that has a 'reader's questions' column where someone asked why Wilson will bat second. And in every st game that I checked, if Wilson played, he hit second. He looks set at that spot. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 11:01 PM) Wha? What the heck happened to Ibanez? And Sexson? Why in the world do you bat the guy with 7 home runs and 47 RBI 3rd when you have a guy with similar average and OBP but 33 home runs and 121 RBI, and a masher like Sexson to sit behind them? Supposedly it'll go Ichiro, Beltre, Vidro, Ibanez, Sexson at the top. Kalapse already covered the why. QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 11:02 PM) To me the Mariners are the 3rd most boring team in baseball behind PIT and BAL. Outside of Ichiro and Hernandez that team is useless and now know that Vidro will be hitting 3rd they look even more pathetic in my eyes. So yeah, I really haven't been following them this Spring. More luck than persistence on my part -- I just caught it while looking at something else on rotoworld. And if you see that headline, you gotta read it.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 10:54 PM) So would that make Adrian Beltre the 2 hitter for them? I assume so. Yeah, that's what they're saying.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 10:49 PM) I SAW 2 THAT WERE WORSE, SWEAR, THERE ARE 2 OF THEM WORSE Pittsburgh probably will go with Duffy-Wilson, and even though Duffy can actually steal a base, he is horrendously bad about getting on base. And Wilson is like worse than Erstad offensively. but shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit DeJesus is actually good, sry, Sox are #29 best Duffy's major league obp is .006 below Pods's. And his minor league obp is much better. And he's 4 years younger. But Wilson's pretty bad.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 10:41 PM) Red Sox: 1.) Julio Lugo 2.) Covelli Crisp/JD Drew I thought Drew was protecting Manny, and where's Youkilis? Not that it changes the conclusion, just saying. Edit: And Vidro's gonna bat third for the Mariners, sez Hargrove.

Owens doesn't stand a chance because he doesn't bat righty. It's Terrero.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 19, 2007 -> 11:44 AM) OBP's the last few years. Erstad .331 .313 .309 .346 .325 .279 Iguchi .342 .352 Just what we need. Fewer runners on base for Thome, Dye, and Konerko. This persistent desire to move Iguchi down in the lineup is the most baffling thing to me about this team's thinking. They were so desperate to do so last year that they fooled themselves into believing (for a while) that Uribe, of all people, would make a good top-of-the-order hitter. I can't think of a single good reason to move him down in the order, but every year...

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 18, 2007 -> 06:57 PM) Considering he is 28-11 the past 2 seasons in the minors, and was not too bad in the majors after his initial start (I'm sure nobody ever is nervous their first major league game) its unbelievable to me he's not the frontrunner for this job. It really should be his to lose. I agree, but it's a lost cause. It's obvious he's not going to get that spot.

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Mar 18, 2007 -> 06:31 PM) As long as we are debating the 5th starter, let's throw Charlie Haeger out there again since nobody is running away with the spot. For the comedy value?

QUOTE(rpmahr @ Mar 17, 2007 -> 10:32 PM) should be 1 pods 2 erstad 3 dye 4 thome 5 konerko 6 iguchi 7 crede 8 pierzynski 9 uribe QUOTE(rpmahr @ Mar 17, 2007 -> 10:39 PM) ya i think he bats better from that position QUOTE(rpmahr @ Mar 18, 2007 -> 12:54 AM) you cant really make any judgements before the season because anything can happen. Very logical sequence there.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 17, 2007 -> 06:47 PM) Except Weaver hated to bunt, and never called for a SB. If he had a player he thought could steal, he would give them a sign saying they had the green light IF they wanted to go. Yeah, if there's one thing Weaver didn't mean by "fundamentals", it's smallball. Something tells me he wasn't a fan of those -- what did he call them?, oh yeah -- "fleas on the f'n bases, getting picked off, trying to steal, getting thrown out, taking runs away from you". Just a hunch. Incidentally,he was an excellent gardener.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 17, 2007 -> 06:31 PM) And Webb has been selected right around Carpenter and Halladay as well. As for the 16 wins, that seemed to be a best case scenario for him, in by far his best game as a pro, a year in which he won a Cy Young he still only managed 16 which wasn't bad considering the win totals of others in baseball but from all accounts Webb is almost certainly destined for a bit of regression this season bringing that win total down a bit more. I personally like Brandon Webb but I wouldn't take him any higher than the 5th round same goes for any pitcher not named Santana, Oswalt or Zambrano. No, Webb is going much lower. Carpenter's adp is 19.3 and Halladay's is 35.9, while Webb's is 47.3. The ranking by adp is Santana, Carpenter, Oswalt, Halladay, Zambrano, Peavy, Webb, Dice-K, Smoltz, Hernandez, Lackey. I don't disagree about wins. I don't know if 16 is an absolute ceiling (so much depends on that bullpen working itself out), but it's close. I wouldn't count on 20. But overall, I just like his numbers and how stable he's been. I prefer Oswalt, but there's a guy whose k rate has dropped over the last 2 years (last year he and Webb had basically the same rate), who's almost 2 years older than Webb. His team is better, his bullpen is better (well -- probably). But with the direction his numbers are moving and his age, I don't see him being two rounds better than Webb. Jmho.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 17, 2007 -> 04:45 PM) Well as a general rule you don't typically draft pitchers before the 5th inning unless they are ultra elite. Brandon Webb doesn't strike out that many hitters ~170 and even after having a career year last season he still only won 16 games. 5th round seems about right to me. I don't have numbers to back this up, it just seemed to me that people were backing away from rules like that, that pitchers were creeping up in drafts. I've seen a few pieces arguing that the top pitchers were going (roughly) one round too low, given the production. As for Webb in particular, I don't think wins are a big problem -- 16 in a year in which noone in the majors won 20 shouldn't bump a guy down. And the strikeouts, sure, they could be better, but his k rate is close to Carpenter's and well above Halladay's, and it doesn't hurt them much. But if people want to let him slip to the fifth, I'll be grateful.

QUOTE(Felix @ Mar 17, 2007 -> 04:29 PM) 1. (7) Chase Utley 2B 2. (14) Carl Crawford OF 3. (27) Jason Bay OF 4. (34) Carlos Zambrano SP 5. (47) Brandon Webb SP Thats how they went for me. I was amazed Zambrano and Webb were still around, but hell, I'm not one to complain Actually, when I check Yahoo's adp, it seems those slots aren't very unusual. I'm just surprised. I guess I think a lot more highly of Webb than most. Anyway, looks like a solid team to me.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Mar 17, 2007 -> 01:51 AM) good news for Sox fans, bad news for members of the Brian Anderson's a God fan club: Don't be so modest! It's not just bad news for them, it's bad news for all those in the I-want-the-White-Sox-to-win-more fan club. For myself, I am a Sox fan. I want to see bad bunts, caught stealings, feeble pop-ups, and s***ty defense. I'm not even gonna worry if I offend anyone!, I'll say it! -- I want to see the game played the right way. Change your name to The Grinder Kid, for you have earned that name, sir!

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 11:19 AM) keep in mind he did say it was a 10 team league and not the usual 12 team league so he should have a better than normal team. Oh, I did think about that, but I count 5 guys who would often go in the top 3 rounds of a 12-team league (Utley, Crawford, Bay, Zambrano, and Webb). I don't know how you get all those players even in a 10-team league -- especially drafting deep in the 5th round.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 09:48 AM) I kinda figured that would be the reply. The article is pretty techinical and statistical, but it makes the points in detail with tons of sources. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/02/07/ala...ution-heresies/ That's crap. For discussion of income taxes, maybe looking at income would be a good idea. Card and DiNardo come closest to that, but they look at wages, not overall income, and more importantly, they use the CPS, which topcodes top incomes (ie, for incomes higher than x dollars, they just put $x -- it seems to now be topcoded at $150k). In other words, virtually NOONE in that top 1% is even included in their sample. Consumption is a terrible proxy and notoriously difficult to measure. Wealth is not income, nor a good proxy itself, and you shouldn't expect to see changes in income distribution reflected in wealth immediately -- and hoping to see changes in wealth within 4 years (the study ends in 2000) while using Kopczuk and Saez's method (an extrapolation from estate tax data) is lunacy. Is it just because there are no good data for income? Hardly -- it's because the data don't say what Cato hacks want it to say. Look at Piketty and Saez or Dew-Becker and Gordon. Piketty and Saez find that the share of overall market income excluding capital gains accruing to the top 1% increased from 14.1% to 16.1% from 1996-2004 (and further increased to 17.4% in 2005). (Including capital gains, the numbers are 16.7% in 1996, 19.8% in 2004, and 21.8% in 2005.) This is using IRS micro-files, so no topcoding. Or look at median income growth (0.5% annually) compared to average income growth (3.2% annually) from 1996-2004. It's not reasonable disagreement, it's mere dishonesty to deny that income inequality has gone up in the US. If you want to argue causes, fine, have at it, but the facts are crystal clear. Edit: The median income data are wrong. After I posted, I knew it couldn't be that large of a difference. I was using the wrong column for mean income -- it's more like .5% compared to .9%, which is still quite significant, just not absurdly so.

QUOTE(Felix @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 11:16 PM) 10 team league, drafted 7th. C Brian McCann 1B Adrian Gonzalez 2B Chase Utley 3B Chad Tracy SS Bill Hall OF Carl Crawford OF Jason Bay OF Nick Markakis UT Jim Thome BN Richie Sexson BN Carlos Guillen BN Pat Burrell BN Joe Crede BN Jhonny Peralta SP Carlos Zambrano SP Brandon Webb SP Scott Kazmir SP Erik Bedard SP Jeremy Sowers RP Bobby Jenks RP Mike Gonzalez BN Anibal Sanchez Thoughts? I think I need to strengthen my bullpen and 1B, but past that I like my situation. Tracy and Crede are a good platoon at third, and I think Peralta will bounce back from a poor 2006. Are you f'n kidding me? Who the hell else was drafting? Are saves worth 1,000 points? What gives?

'Killing an animal' is not the story here, at all. It's the fact that the animal was killed for no respectable reason, and the cruelty of intentionally traumatizing the dog's owner.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 01:18 PM) Briggs's salary only goes up if he plays in at least 6 games next season. If he sits out the whole year while tagged, then he can be tagged at just about the same price next season. Which is what CC was saying, I think. It doesn't really count as a second tag, then.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 09:25 AM) Oh they totally can. I was just explaning the whole 6 weeks thing. It isn't a loophole at all. All it means is Briggs gets credit for an accrued season. The Bears can then lay the tag on him again if they choose. The only difference I beleive is now he would get the average of the top 5 salaries in the league, not just the LB position. Where as without playing those 6 weeks....it's as if the year didn't even count and he is still full property of the bears. If they franchised him again...I'm not sure, but I think it would only count as a first year franchise tag cause the previous year is void if he doesn't come back for 6 games. Either way...I still beleive there is no way Briggs sits out next year. I don't think a player ever gets the average of the top 5 salaries in the league. From the CBA, it seems that, the third time a player gets franchised, he gets either the average of the top 5 salaries of whichever position has the highest average for top 5 salaries (qb, I imagine), or 120% of the average of the top 5 at his position, or 144% of his prior year salary. From the CBA: There doesn't seem to be anything special about the second tag, although 120% of the prior year salary could still be enormous, obviously.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 03:39 PM) That is the biggest point IMO. Young is regarded as one of the Top 10 prospects in all of baseball, by almost every publication out there. The Sox had to think Young was expendable due to the presence of Anderson in CF. It would seem to me if you're going to make that big of a commitment to a player, you give him for than 400 AB's to figure it all out. I keep wondering if "the Sox" are of one mind at all. Given KW's comments on Anderson, I can't shake the sense that Williams and Ozzie don't see eye-to-eye on Anderson.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 09:34 AM) The way I believe it works is he can sit out the first 10 weeks and come back for the last 6 weeks, to get credit for a season. If he didn't return he'd still be under contract for the following year. If he did return for the final 6 weeks The Bears would have to take him in and pay him, but they don't have to play him or even activate him for the games. Briggs will also be fined $14,000 for each day he misses of training camp. But why can't they franchise him? From the CBA, Article XX: I'm not saying the Bears would franchise him, but I don't think he can do anything to prevent that.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 12:04 AM) "can of worms" is a figure of speech meaning "A source of unforeseen and troublesome complexity." For years posters such as "The Cheat" (AKA GeneHondaCivic) have challenged the belief that White Sox starting pitcher Mark Buehrle is an ace much to the dismay of many fellow Sox fans. This opened the proverbial "Can of Worms", if you will. Well, since we're 'splainin': it would then get tossed into a thread tangentially just to see what sort of a brawl would result. It was awesome.