jackie hayes

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 11:21 PM) They were, weren't they. Big, juicy ones. They caught the best fish. I love, love, love sucker fish.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 11:27 PM) Right click, view image, or go here.. http://bp0.blogger.com/_W6YuhWU3sm8/RfYlOC...PH7-3-12-07.jpg Well, you knew this was coming.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 09:47 PM) Mark was for a couple of years, but that's opening a different can of worms. Yeah, but those were some damn fun worms.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 09:57 PM) I was only saying that IF the Bears franchised him again in 2008, that contract would be guaranteed, not that they will. And you are absolutely right, if Lance doesn't play, the Bears get nothing, except $7.2 million that they won't have to pay and whatever fines they get from him not showing. Plus, they can get either Jamar Williams or Rod Wilson some playing time. Or some free agent. Plus, if Lance wants to get paid like he thinks he should be, he HAS to play this season. Not because teams will be upset by him sitting out, but because he sat out a year. And as someone said before, even if he trains all year, it's not game play. "guaranteed" = not conditional on anything. So it's meaningless to say x is guaranteed, IF y etc. Then x isn't guaranteed at all. If Briggs gets a contract now, the guaranteed money is really guaranteed (as in, guaranteed now). At least $20 mil, NOW, no injury worries, no performance worries, nothing. With the franchise offer, only 7 and a half or so is truly guaranteed. That's a huge difference. As for getting someone playing time, that's nice and all, but it doesn't substitute for talent. Give me the picks. I'm just not sure about the last part. My personal belief is that he'd still outdo $8 mil in guaranteed money by sitting out a year. And Rosenhaus, who knows better than I, seems willing to risk it. Maybe because he knows that not even the stupidest NFL team would throw away that much value just to stick it to a player. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 10:38 PM) So wait one second. If the Bears franchise Briggs, and he doesn't show up to play, the Bears don't have to pay him. So, the whole motivation behind making sure that teams don't franchise people 2 years in a row is that their salary goes up 20% each successive year they're franchised. So, if Mr. Briggs refuses to suit up and Rosenhaus can't find a suitable trade partner...if he's sitting out the whole season, that means that the Bears can franchise him again and have it not cost them a dime because he won't bother to show up, right? I bet he'd play the second year, cursing all the way to the bank. Two years out of the game is too much. QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 10:43 PM) Thats relatively right but there is a loop hole where if he comes back with 6 weeks left he isnt property of the Bears anymore and they cant franchise him. Clayton was talking about it on sportscenter. Is there a link to anything talking about this loophole? Cuz looking throught the CBA franchise tag section, I can't find anything like this.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 06:16 PM) "I'm the CEO of Lance Briggs" just about says it all. He's disappointed that it's like this but he feels he's doing the right thing. It will air again so don't worry. Thanks -- funny quote, anyway.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 06:07 PM) Lance is on SC now. Crap! I just turned it on as they went to commercial. What'd he say?

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 05:44 PM) My first objective is putting the best team on the field. And that includes Lance Briggs. The Bears did nothing out of the ordinary or against the rules. Lance wants to go on the open market, which makes total sense. But, that's not the system. He could have shut his big yapper, played out the year, pocketed his guaranteed $7.2 mil and gone on the market next year. If not, another guaranteed $8.6 mil. I don't understand what the big deal is...that's a GUARANTEED 2 year contract worth $15.8 million dollars. That's nothing to spit on, but Lance did. So, let him sit. Tell him you fielded offers, but the Bears thought he was worth more than what was being offered. *wipes hands* Done and...done. I missed the part where the Bears are guaranteeing the second year. Probably cuz it doesn't exist. Your policy ends with Lance sitting out the year and the Bears getting nothing when he signs elsewhere in 2008. Sure, he'll get less money. The Bears get NOTHING, because there's no chance we get offered two firsts. It makes the Bears a worse team than they could be. I happen to dislike that.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 05:27 PM) Yeah...and...? Lance Briggs playing for the Bears is what's best for the team and the Bears gave Lance 7,200,000 reasons to do just that. It may not be best for Lance Briggs, but that's not the way the system is set up. If he'd shut up and just talk to Angelo, maybe they could have had a gentlemen's agreement, a la Thomas Jones, that he'd play under the franchise tag this year, they won't tag him again next year. But, now that he's made a total ass out of himself and is trying his damndest to make the Bears look bad...yeah, sit your a** down if you don't like it. I mean best POSSIBLE, obviously. Sure, the best thing for the Bears would be to have Briggs next year. It'd be best for the Bears if Peyton Manning was our qb, but that's not gonna happen, either. If your first objective is to teach someone a lesson, sure, franchise him this year and franchise him again next year. I prefer a competitive team, that's all.

Well, you knew this was coming.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 04:59 PM) That's the point I was making. If a team comes to Angelo, that's where you start. If they say, no f'in way, which they absolutely will, then what's the difference? Lance still sits. The difference is you might get a low first or a second plus a mid-rounder. You're gonna throw away two good picks just to f some guy over? No thanks. Do what's best for the team.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 04:46 PM) I agree...you don't pay him, in fact, he's fined for missing practices and games, I think. AND, he hurts his own value by sitting. If someone tried to sign him, the Bears get two first rounders, yes? That should be the starting point with any trade discussions. Why should the Bears take less? It's a business and the Bears are playing by the rules. Of course, Lance can do what he wants, it's his prerogative. But, he's only hurting himself.... Other players have tried this before and even sat out the year, Sean Gilbert of the Redskins comes to mind. His career was never the same after he came back. Lol, you take less because noone ever offers two firsts. Noone ever signs franchise tag players. I don't mind waiting for a good offer, but if you think we'd ever get two firsts, you're deluding yourself.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 02:23 PM) k and I really, really, really doubt the Sox are interested in acquiring Rowand. KW may like Rowand, but to suggest he does NOT love Anderson is a joke and a half. He may have soured on a him a bit, but he was a f***ing rookie last year. Consider the fact that KW moved not one, but two CFers to ensure Anderson would be the starter in CF last year; do you think he doesn't like Anderson? Unless it's Tracey and Phillips, or some other AAAA player, KW better not even respond. I think KW supports Anderson, but I don't know about Ozzie. If KW knows that Ozzie won't play Anderson, doesn't want him on the team, and sees that the other rh cf is Luis Terrero, maybe he kicks the tires.

It was mentioned in the Dem thread. It was obviously inappropriate. Even supporters of the policy should admit that. The policy has always been justified on the idea that it makes the military more effective, not on the notion that it acts as a moral compass for the nation. Pace is completely out of line.

QUOTE(103 mph screwball @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 01:37 PM) It's not important if any of us feel that Rowand is a key to White Sox success. If the Sox players and management feel that way, I think that is hugely important. Attitude, team chemistry, juju, superstition, or whatever you want to call it can focus the team's talent. If it fires up the team and Rowand for another run in 2007, go for it. I think it is more likely that an extremely happy Rowand improves his 2nd half 2006 numbers than BA figuring it out in as Ozzie's reluctant choice. I also believe that Rowand meant more than a cheerleader to the 2005 championship. Like how they insisted we get Alomar, and how that fired up the team for the stretch run?

Peter Pace approves of Don't Ask Don't Tell, because "homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral." Linkage. To be fair, he doesn't say anything about threesomes.

QUOTE(Capn12 @ Mar 12, 2007 -> 10:59 AM) Somehow I have a feeling that the deck is heavily stacked against BA making the team...its sad, but Guillen would rather trot out a dead horse(AKA Pods) in left once he is healthy, and Erstad in center, than have Erstad in left, BA in center and Pods at home or wherever the hell besides in the lineup. QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Mar 12, 2007 -> 11:02 AM) I honesty think Anderson is headed to Charlotte regardless of what he does in spring training. Ozzie has said that Anderson won't be platooned -- he either earns a full-time job or is in AAA. There's no way Ozzie will keep Erstad or Pods on the bench. He's already on record as saying that Erstad will be hitting in the top of the order, so we know he will be starting. There's effectively no room for Anderson other than a CF platoon and that's already be ruled not an option. More or less agree with both. He may start with the team, if Pods starts on the dl, but I think he'll be moved down pretty quickly. Sure, if he's hitting well, the Sox won't demote him, but I don't think it'll take much more than a 1 1/2 - 2 week rough patch for the Sox to justify sending him down. With the sort of hitter Anderson is, those stretches are inevitable. I hope he sticks, but I doubt it.

f***!... I thought I'd at least make the middle rounds, so I didn't pay much attention to preranking after the first few dozen names. Then I get caught in a St Pat parade traffic jam for 1 whole f***ing hour. Clemens and Pedro and Lee? My pitching is teh suck.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2007 -> 04:16 PM) If the White Sox were to reacquire Rowand and he were to depart as a FA, do people think he could qualify as a Type A free agent and bring the Sox 2 2nd round/better draft picks in return? If we could pull that off, it'd basically be a swap of Logan for a second and a sandwich and an extra year for Anderson in the minors, which might be tolerable if we're not planning on trying out Sisco as a starter. If the Sox acquire Rowand at this point in the season, that would tell me enough to bet dollars to donuts that Anderson is done as a White Sox player.

Late, rude request -- Would it be possible to delay the draft just 15-30 min? I'm dropping someone at the airport just before draft time. If not, that's okay, I have a prerank. (I just don't trust it completely.)

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 10, 2007 -> 01:15 AM) In any case you're likely going to have to include 1 legit arm in any deal with the Phillies, I don't see how trading away a bullpen arm for a below average offensive OF is going to help this team one bit. We already knew Rowand's benefit to be intangible. It may be invisible too. Still 3 senses left, keep trying! Why give up on Brian Anderson? I thought the rule was, if you performed badly last year and got off to a slow start in st, you got 34 million dollars. No?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 05:52 PM) Honeslty, I don't have a clue...the column is behind the NYT subscription wall. As far as I can tell, that study is only partially released, but at least in the data online they don't seem to give tables to allow for comparison with investigations during the Clinton years. If I can log into that site, I'm going to leave that as a comment. The previous GOP administrations would be interesting, too. (Not that I'm asking you for those data, I'm just saying, in principle.) It's a better control group than Clinton's administration.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 04:26 PM) It's certainly possible that the Democrats at the state levels are 700% more corrupt than the Republicans, despite the fact that the Republicans had majorities in an awful lot of area of hte country until the last election or two. But that certainly does seem to be an interesting set of things to think about when considering their prosecutor purge. I'd bet Dems would be investigated significantly more at the local level, simply because cities are often controlled by Dems and a political machine is more likely to exist at city level. It's probably the leakiest sort of corruption, too. (Because it involves so many people in the know.) Whether the difference would be that large is a whole 'nother story. Does Krugman present any data on past investigations?

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 11:12 AM) What? I was laughing the whole time. "Apologize." Takes off pants, shakes hips. "Apologize." "You wan't me to? Oh... Ok..." "Yeah, apologize." That little real-estate midget cracked me up too. Meh. The Cartman-"little person" stuff was good. The rest of it just didn't get many laughs. It was no "Make Love, Not Warcraft." But Silverman was pretty good, which helped make up for it.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 11:45 PM) Two things: Who is Buehrle's agent? And, do you guys think Buehrle is more of a stability guy or a money guy? And when I say stability, I mean, same team, not more years. I think he should go on the open market, UNLESS he loves the White Sox, and sees the team staying competitive for the lifetime of a 3 or 4 year contract. His agent is Jeff Berry. I think he's a bit of each. Everyone wants the money, and most want to play on a winner, and I do believe Mark enjoys playing for the Sox (only a little less now that he can't slide on the tarp ). But $40 mil is $40 mil, however much he cares about the Sox. And there's nothing saying he can't sign with a winner if he's a free agent. I don't think he'll end up with the Cards, but if he wanted to, I hear they did okay last year.

I keep asking myself, Will this be the third year in a row I get Freel then hang on to him way too long only to drop him the very week he starts to be productive again? I think, yes.