jackie hayes

QUOTE(danman31 @ Feb 5, 2007 -> 05:51 PM) His contact skills impress me, but 13 HR is far from exceptional. Especially when you consider the park factor. I think he'll be a .270-.290 hitter in the bigs, but will doubtfully consistently hit 25 HR in a season. His walk rate is rather poor as well. I'm thinking Mark DeRosa or Jay Payton, which isn't all that bad, but would probably disappoint a lot of people. I'm not as well-versed in the minors as a lot of people around here, but I was under the impression that a 21-year old doing as well as he did is pretty impressive, even with the park factors. Adjusting his numbers to compare them to Delmon Young's (since they are about the same age): Sweeney had 13 hrs in 449 abs. Young had 8 hrs in 342 abs. The hr park factor in Charlotte is 1.54 to Durham's 1.11 (first thing that came up in a Google search, anyway). So the comparison would be (I think) 13 * (342/449) * (1.11/1.54) = 7.14, or just a shade below Young's 8 hrs. Given what Young looks capable of becoming, why then should I be concerned that Sweeney hit only 13 hrs? Or about his walk rate, which looks better than Young's (and to my eyes, not at all shabby)? I know Young tore up AA the year before last, but since the conversation's centered around the AAA numbers, I don't get the pessimism.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 7, 2007 -> 04:34 PM) And, finally, may I ask...what did the other teams in the division do to improve themselves? The Tigers added Gary Sheffield... Sheffield's alright, but it's the other Tiger pickup that makes me shudder.

After long deliberation, I have decided that keeping Jose Reyes might be a good idea. If you need any more ideas, I'll be in my study.

Am I the only one who thinks Rhodes got jobbed on the mvp? Very sad day -- the Bears could have won this one.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 2, 2007 -> 10:47 PM) Personally, I think that's actually one of the better options, depending on how its done. If you accept that we've made a mess and it's going to collapse into a full civil war anyway, which I do, then the questions are; what can America do to protect itself in that event, and what can we do to mitigate the negative consequences of it on the people. Couple of points on the standard dem position (a slow pullout over 1-2 years, which again I'm not sure I agree with, too slow for my taste). If you go back to the Murtha plan, which has been out there for over a year now, his suggestion was not to completely leave the region, but to back off to Kuwait and form sort of a "Rapid deployment" force. Presumably, given that airpower is America's biggest strength by far, some combination of airpower and air-mobile abilities would be used to protect whatever side we choose to support as the government in the mess that follows our pullout, so even if that plan were followed, the goal would be to do so while still leaving the Iraqi government something to hang onto. I'm not sure I agree with the first part. I don't think anyone's really explored other options -- a managed quasi-partition, for example. (Something that allows you to still say that Iraq is one state, even though it's not.) I'm not convinced a "full civil war" is inevitable. As for the second part, I would call that effectively a total withdrawal. We could not react quickly enough from Kuwait; for example, I don't think we could have supported the Iraqis in this last battle. When you're talking about insurgents, Kuwait is too far to provide any meaningful support.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 2, 2007 -> 09:52 PM) Honestly, the sad thing is I think you'er right...there is simply no strategy that will work. In fact, if you read the summary of the Iraq NIE that was released today, that's exactly what it says; pulling out won't work, and more troops won't work. The thing you ask about, what has changed in 3 years, is the sheer amount of violence. There has been an ungodly increase in the violence in that country since 2004, and there has been a similar increase in the sectarian violence as well. 3 years ago, additional troops could possibly have helped quell the violence as it was increasing. Think of it this way, in 2004, 130-140,000 American troops was not enough to control the country, but more troops might have been a decent suggestion, because the margins were much smaller; upping the troops then might have given the U.S. enough forces to quell that level of violence. But since then, the violence has gone up by a factor of roughly 3-4. An increase of 15% in troop levels might have had an impact against lower levels of violence, but the whole thing has blown up so badly since then that anything less than a full 100-200% increase in American forces simply won't be enough. And that might not even do it. To my eyes, though, I think what I just said was wrong; that was the argument for why increasing troops in 04 might have worked and why it won't work now. Personally, I think the whole adventure was doomed from the moment it was thought up in the late 90's, and being stuck where we are now was the inevitable result of the choices we made. In other words, I don't think that a "Surge" in 04 would have worked either. Certainly the violence has increased, but those were the warnings 3 years ago. At that time, my impression of the Democratic position was that they would never condone a policy that led to utter chaos. But I don't believe a (relatively) fast pullout could avoid that. Even where the militias are loyal, they are unprepared and may be overwhelmed without the air support they receive now. The question becomes, which is the best of the bad options? As much as this war has been a disaster, I'm inclined to think that some 1-2 year withdrawal plan might be the worst plan of all going forward. But that seems to be the new consensus among the Democrats.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 11:55 AM) Something I'd like to say clearly for anyone who's willing to listen: Thinking that more troops in Iraq would be a good idea in 2004 does not mean that you must continue to think more troops would be a good idea 3 years later. Situations can, you know, change. And they have. For the worse. Thinking that a troop increase in Iraq would be ok if it was tied to a specific plan for withdrawal, or benchmarks, or something else, does not mean that you think a troop increase in Iraq would be great without those benchmarks. That is all. But, how have things changed? Isn't this exactly the scenario that Dems were worried about 3 years ago? Isn't this the scenario that all clear-thinking people were worried about? Where's the new information? My discomfort with the Dems' consensus is that I am not at all convinced that a US pullout will not lead to a bloodbath. And I admit that I don't know if that's worse than the 'slow death' taking place now; but I don't imagine it will be much better, and it will certainly be more horrid. Which is not to say I support the escalation/surge/20kmoretroops proposal, which strikes me as yet another half-ass strategy. Just that I'm disappointed in each direction. Also, Stephen Hadley says that the "the current strategy was not working and it was a prescription for slow failure". But 20k more troops is clearly the answer. Because, clearly, this WH has excelled at fine-tuning.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 10:28 PM) That's in the official rules of breeding thoroughbreds; the horses have to be naturally concieved. That way, you know exactly what stallion bred with what mare. What constitutes a natural conception, though, is a whole nother can of worms. It's somewhat interesting what the breeders will do with the colts. QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 10:38 PM) I dont really know, maybe they just want to protect some eensy weensy semblance of integrity in the sport and leave the breeding up to a higher power. Its true that they put certain mares and certain stallions together to produce, but its no gaurantee that the mare will get fertilized. From what I have read, its really a crapshoot with horses. Cigar retired to stud a long time ago and never impregnated a mare. Ever. They put him in the ring with hundreds of mares, sent him to breeding specialists, but he couldnt get any of them pregnant. As it stands, Cigar is going to end his life without passing along any genes. I have a feeling there would be some genetic freaks out there nowadays if that rule wasnt in place though Ah, okay, thanks to both of you. I didn't know it was a regulation.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 06:17 PM) ...because thoroughbreds cannot be artificially concieved Why is that? That's been the biggest confusion to me all along.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 07:26 PM) I would kill to be an iguana DOUBLE YOUR PLEASURE, DOUBLE YOUR FUN Yeah, but for your purposes, you might want to remember this little bit of math: 2 x 0 = 0.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 12:19 AM) Just a factual question; has the Catholic Church said anything about the film, or just the Catholic League? /twiddles thumbs

Go Haeger!! But I'm guessing the Sox have written him off, 2/3 years ago. So please, someone, step up. If I had to guess, I'd guess a decent, not great, st from Floyd wins him the job. Sadly.

Just a factual question; has the Catholic Church said anything about the film, or just the Catholic League?

From Merkin's article about Erstad's signing, this: First thing I've seen backing off of the 6-week figure.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 12:58 PM) Obviously there are a few different factors that play into things, but I'm surprised and disappointed with didn't see Preston Wilson's name linked with the Sox. Makes a ton more sense than Erstad IMO. The major difference being handedness. I think of this move this way -- KW knew Ozzie was going to play matchup in cf against rhp. Given that you NEED a lh hitter for cf (not that I like that idea), are there many better choices? We've heard that Mack will NOT be playing cf in 2007, but when those statements came out, Ozzie and KW didn't know any more about Mack's defense than they did in 2006, when Ozzie kept trotting him out there regardless. I'm not sure that Mack would NOT be playing cf next year if we hadn't made a move like this, despite what's been said. And I'm sure it helps that Erstad was a favorite of KW, too.

QUOTE(chisox72 @ Jan 23, 2007 -> 08:02 PM) Don't totally quote me on this as 100% factual, but after just talking with a friend of mine, Levine is reporting $750,000/yr with an option for 2008. Assuming Levine is right (BIG ASSUMPTION), that is a very low-risk, potentially high-reward signing. One that I have no problem with. Any word on the buyout? If it's on the same scale, I'd say that's fine.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 23, 2007 -> 07:43 PM) Something you should look at.........If the White Sox would have traded a valuable piece for Aaron Rowand, (I am assumming Erstad's surgery was a success and he will be 100%) the majority of this board would be dancing on the streets. Erstad hasn't been getting on base all that much in recent years. Except for 2004, Rowand hasn't been getting on base at about the same clip. If Erstad is 100% healthy, he is just as good as Rowand except he may hit 3 or 4 less homers. What's the harm in signing him cheaply? There are 2 worries -- First, it's hard to say what a 100% healthy Erstad even looks like now. How diminished is his fielding? His baserunning? Even his hitting? Second, what if he isn't 100% and he plays anyway? I'm just not willing to rule that out. I don't dislike this as much as some. If the doctors told KW that this surgery is likely to make him again a productive, healthy cf (1b is NOT enough), then it could be worth the risk -- depending on the dollars. Edit: And I am a Rowand fan, but no way would I be "dancing in the streets" -- if we gave up a "valuable piece", I'd even be pissed.

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Jan 23, 2007 -> 06:21 PM) Just cause you are given a major league doesn't restrict you from being sent to the minors. Nobody is gonna hand him a job just because he got a major league deal, he still has to earn it and Ozzie and KW knows that more than anybody. Uh, wrong. Veteran players cannot be sent down without their approval. "Any player who has been in the major leagues for five full seasons may not be assigned to a minor-league team without his written consent." And the contract is guaranteed, so if you release him, you just eat the whole amount. This is not an invitation, this is a signing, so it's not as low-risk as you're saying. Add to that the recent articles that suggest he'd be coming here because he'd get more at bats, and I'm thinking wite is a lot closer to the truth.

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Jan 23, 2007 -> 05:57 PM) Erstad is here to compete for a job, Ozzie will not hand him the job. If he plays well in ST and starts, he is likely fully healthy and ready to be a starter, if not, he can be released, go to the minors or be a bench player. This deal has no downside. Wait, has it been said anywhere that this is a minor-league deal?

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jan 22, 2007 -> 02:58 PM) WWCND? Wait wait wait, I got this one, just hold on. Umm... Don't f with the man who counted to infinity twice.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 21, 2007 -> 10:21 PM) I can't believe Reche Caldwell's two drops. Well, if you'd just checked his Wikipedia page, it would all make sense.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2007 -> 02:31 PM) Granted on both points, but before this, 2nd base was one of the few positions where we hadn't yet seen someone get a really big contract. Ahem... Soriano?

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Jan 20, 2007 -> 09:04 PM) That could replace the phrase "world's tallest midget" but as I posted above, he does look like he has a chance to be good... I still stick by my point that going into the season, NL or not, having Lily as your #2 on paper (obviously with Prior a question mark) is not the greatest situation 2nd best to Zambrano is no disgrace. Best of the rest may be, depends. Hill's a k machine, and I'm more of a Lilly fan than most. The Marquis signing was a joke, though. Obviously it is "not the greatest situation", but I'd question the Marquis vs Schmidt signing more than the rookie vs Schmidt signing.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 20, 2007 -> 09:00 PM) Rich Hill Could easily be the Cubs' 2nd best pitcher this year, but gets routinely ignored.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Jan 20, 2007 -> 08:49 PM) holy crap, I'll just throw this in on this thread since it's probably not worth starting a new one... but Jebus... with the Cubs convention this week the Cubs are getting pumped like there's no tomorrow... my fav so far is on espn.com that has an article saying Prior is ready! We've heard that before! But really, with all the money they spent this off-season they are STILL in the position of relying on Prior's health. Using hindsight, if they were dropping all this money, the Schmidt contract should have been one they stepped up with... IMO opinion, Carlos Schmidt Lily Prior Marquis looks a hell of a lot more solid than Carlos Lily Prior Marquis rotating rookie door of death At least Prior has talent. Unlike Marquis.