jackie hayes

Any other Sopranos fans see this and immediately think, "Aw, poor you!" - ? Don't know how to fit that in, so I'll just throw it out there.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 2, 2006 -> 04:29 AM) Ok. Aaron Fultz - LHP from the Phillies. Arbitration declined. Arthur Rhodes - LHP from the Phillies. Arbitration declined. Rick White - (yes I know that Rick White, but he had sort of similar numbers to Riske in his Phillies stint). Arbitration declined. Matt Herges - RHP from the Marlins. Arbitration declined. Jose Mesa - Arbitration declined from the Rockies. Mike DeJean - Arbitration declined from the Rockies. Ray King - Arbitration declined from the Rockies. LaTroy Hawkins - Arbitration declined from the Orioles. Steve Kline - Arbitration declined from the Giants. Eric Gagne - Arbitration declined from the Dodgers. David Weathers - Arbitration declined from the Reds. Kent Mercker - Arbitration declined from the Reds. Rudy Seanez - Arbitration declined from the Padres. Octavio Dotel - Arbitration declined from the Yankees. Russ Springer - Arbitration declined from the Astros. All of those guys today weren't offered arbitration by their respective teams, so they won't cost a draft pick to sign. No, those aren't "similar". Very few of those guys have been as good as consistently as Riske. Those who arguably have been are old or lh or both. Russ Springer has had seasons like 2006 Politte recently (seasonS, plural). I saw a lot of Hawkins this year. You think Riske looked bad? Rick White? You're telling me that if you were a gm you'd really think White and Riske are interchangeable? Matt Herges had a whip of 1.7 last year, and sucked every which way in 2005. Gagne will be more expensive and often broken. If you compare career numbers, Riske's better than almost every pitcher on that list. And Kline's a Giant.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 2, 2006 -> 02:44 AM) So say if you're another team and you could sign a similar reliever to Riske, without giving up a draft pick, then well you would probably do that. I'd love to see this list of "similar" relievers available who don't lose you picks.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Dec 2, 2006 -> 02:14 AM) You want the upper hand? You call every bluff. Iran says they want talks? Okay, let's talk. When they don't talk, you can say - see they didn't want to talk after all. You can't just assume every promise is bulls*** publicly, even if it is bulls*** and everyone knows it. Because, you always leave the "what if" open. Establishing a dialogue with Iran would be a better policy than the one we have now, which is do nothing and b**** about it. The best part about diplomatic dialogue is it can lead to real change over time - but at a pace in which societies can often adjust peacefully. Don't believe me? Look at the end of the cold war. Had it not been for the detente opened up between the Reagan/Bush administrations and the Soviet politburo during the 1980's, there would probably still be two Germanys. Why? Because unification couldn't happen until there was mutual consent among the powers that be. And the USSR only gave their consent after a lot of diplomatic nuance from the US. Ask our current secretary of state, she was there when the older President Bush basically tricked Gorbachev into agreeing in principle. You're talking in convenient generalities. Suppose the US agrees to talks on the condition that Iran's nuclear capabilities are not up for discussion. We go to the talks and insist on talking about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Talks fall apart. We say, "see they didn't want to talk after all." Iran says, see, they didn't want to talk after all. They even broke the conditions that they agreed to. But at least we'd have the moral high ground. Our policy is pretty clear. We're willing to talk if Iran's nuclear development program is part of the discussion. It's damn odd that 2 countries famously pissed about this administration's diplomacy support our position on Iran (France and Germany). Odd, since this is merely another example of the administration's hatred of diplomacy.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 2, 2006 -> 01:54 AM) This I definitely don't understand. No problem, Brian Sabean will explain it to you.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Dec 2, 2006 -> 01:41 AM) Only reason I could possibly imagine (for refusing Riske arbitration) is teams are lukewarm to surrendering a highdraft pick for him. Considering the nature our minor league system, and how Williams yesterday mentioned his desire to rededicate this organization to scouting and player development, it sort of hurts your cause to miss an easy opporunities for a draft pick. Still, he goes to arbitration and you trade him for a high-risk A prospect. Even if it's not a high pick, it's something. The only reason to do this is if noone anywhere wants Riske at $3 mil or so. Hard to see that.

You forgot the "They did f'n WHAT?!!!!!" option. Awful move.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 11:46 PM) That is 100% the way diplomacy works. It is also why a specific segment of american politics (the segment currently dominating the government) despises diplomacy above everything else...because it is so nuanced, so contradictory, and so contradictory, all of which are bad things if you only view the world in black and white. But none of that means it doesn't work. Balta, if you don't take a hard-line stance on Iran, what do you take on? Ahmadinejad has said that Iran's nuclear program can not even be on the table in any talks. So what exactly do you think the US should discuss? This is not how "diplomacy works". Some hateful figure publishes a transparent pack of lies, so you arrange talks. Good Lord, no. I'm as critical as anyone about this administration's sorry (read: disastrous) diplomacy with respect to Iraq. But you just lump this in without any reasoning, which is pretty ironic for someone claiming the upper hand in "nuance".

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 05:28 PM) If he's so great, why is he still a backup? He's 30, made his big league debut in 2000 and has never had over 250 plate appearances in a season. In 2001 and 2003, he never even played a game in the big leagues. There's a reason folks. I mean judging by the way people talk about him, if other GM's feel the same, we should be able to just flip him for some stud talent. He's a first baseman by trade and most teams would not want him as their everyday first baseman. He's not that good and neither is Podsednik. What're you talking about, Pods is awesome! If he isn't great, why is he still a starter? He's had 550+ plate appearances for each of the last 4 seasons. Each of those years, he's started more than 3/4 of his team's games. There's a reason, sir. I mean, judging by the way you're talking about him, if the Sox felt the same way, they wouldn't have him in the roster everyday. Obviously some team must want him as their left fielder for the Sox to have resigned him. He's teh bestest.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 01:17 PM) If Scott Podsednik is on this team in anything more than a 4th OFer role, this offseason will be a failed one. There's a reason this guy wasn't getting full-time ABs till age 27. He's a bad baseball player who is still, somehow living off of his 2003 season. I'm not going to jump to conclusions. I don't think Podsednik's chances of being our starting LFer in 2007 were made any worse/better because of today's signing. If anything, it could mean that KW believes there's a market for Podsednik, and that he doesn't have to ditch him for nothing. I think the bigger news is that the Sox aren't offering Riske arbitration. At SSS, we came to the conclusion that Riske will probably get about $3 million (probably slightly less) in arbitration if it came down to it. It's an easy chance for the Sox to pickup a top 50 pick in the draft, and if not, I don't think Riske would be untradeable, considering how much guys like Chad Bradford and LaTroy Hawkins are getting. I don't mind the idea that the manager should have some say over the roster, and it seems Ozzie's #1 desire is a guy who steals 40+ bases each year, no matter how many times he gets thrown out or picked off. I don't agree with him, but I'm resigned to it. Suppose you're KW, and this is the one thing that Ozzie absolutely insists on. What do you do? You can resign Pods, you can count on Owens, you can sign Pierre for boatloads of money, or you can trade for Figgins or (I don't see it but since the name has come up) Young. If Figgins and Young are both too expensive to get (their teams demand Crede for Figgins, or McCarthy for Young, say), which is the best remaining option? I'm not sure Pods isn't the best bad choice. I think we agree that this is a stupid choice to have to make, but Ozzie's not going anywhere, so what is the best option if you have to have a player who runs? I'm really surprised about Riske. That's just a bad move.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 06:55 PM) Honestly, if you think that Adolf Hitler and this guy are anywhere close to being in the same league.... Misses the point completely. The whole point is how extreme it is; it's meant to show just how cheap talk can be. QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 06:55 PM) If the US government takes the words of this letter seriously, they can enact enough pressure on Iran to act at least a little more responsibly. Given Iran's problems internally, its a possibility. Perhaps enough to allow them to accept the idea of a weak Iraq as a neighbor rather than a failed one or worse yet, an Iranian satellite. Give a concrete example of how something in this letter can pin Iran down on any particular issue that is important to the US.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 08:06 AM) Here is the exchange, I guess you passed over it. Not just the people of Iran, but all humans, including you and me. No, I did, I just think you're misreading this. But whatever, I'm not interested in this sidetrip.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 10:47 PM) I guessed you missed the posts about human behavior being hardwired towards hatred and violence. That it would be impossible for someone, once they make a statement as bold as the destruction of Israel, to ever change. We hated Japan enough to drop two atomic bombs. If we accept that Iran could not change their ways, then we must accept that we can not change our ways. Unless we are a different kind of human. I believe that humans can change, it is the only way to have optimism that there can be peace. If the people involved can change, like we did towards Japan, and Germany for that matter, then it is possible for those countries to change as well. If Jimbeeyatch said that the whole nation of Iran is hardwired to violence against Israel, I missed that, please point it out to me. I thought he was referring only to Ahmadinejad. This is tangential, anyway; whether or not it's possible to have this sort of epiphany, Ahmadinejad sure as hell didn't.

Stolen from wizardsofoz at SSS: http://redsox.bostonherald.com/redSox/view...rticleid=169531 Rumor, as of this morning, is still that Boras wants $15 mil, while the Sawks offer $7-8. $7-8 mil is ridiculously low. If it's true, and who knows.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 07:01 PM) America's or Iran's? If human violence is hardwired as b**** believes, you would also have to believe then that we too are hardwired towards this violence. Unless we are somehow a different species than other humans. We are the most successful war machine this planet has ever experienced. If we are hardwired, then we too will choose war over peace. I do not believe that is true. I'm talking about this letter. If he was renouncing his former beliefs because of this "epiphany", he would have said so explicitly. Either, I should not have said X, I was completely wrong about that, or, I never meant X when I said X, only a monster would say such things. What he did say was a bunch of making-nice-sounding, but completely nonspecific, noncommittal sound bites. Something for some sympathizer in the West to point to when people bring up, oh, Iran's support of terrorism, quest for nuclear weapons, whipping up of anti-Semitic sentiments... Those sorts of things. He has NEVER backed away from those statements, even when asked point blank about the 'wipe Israel off the map' comment. I don't know why you're talking about entire countries ("America's or Iran's","we"). This is about Ahmadinejad and his personal history of assholeness, no more.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 05:28 PM) So, he's a nutjob. Established. But he's an established nutjob with a good point in this letter. It's pure hypocrisy. "We all condemn terrorism"...even though we fund Hezbollah. "Our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world"...except Israel, which we want destroyed. "It is possible to sincerely serve and promote common human values, and honesty and compassion"...but we exclude Israelis, cuz they're not really humans. It's not even that he's a nutjob, it's that the speech is mere dissembling. That's not laudable in ANY sense. It's right to scoff when the whole point of a speech or letter is to get people to approve of you by concealing your true intentions. f*** him. QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 06:19 PM) Two bombs? Yep, just a couple of bombs. Hell, we've dropped thousands on some countries in one day. We win wars.That's how we have become the leading superpower in the world. We've killed hundreds of thousands of people in our couple hundred year history. So which would prove your point about being hardwired? A nation that in a couple hundred years has killed more people or one that killed less and did it in thousands? So if you want to preach that this is hardwired and people can not change, then you have to accept that includes Americans. There is nothing in our history that would have you believe we favor peace over war. Yet, I believe in the principle of tabula rasa. I believe a leopard can change its spots. There have been negotiated peace accords. Those only happen when both sides agree to put down the weapons. An eye for an eye leaves both sides blind. You're completely insane if you think this is some radical self-rediscovery. It's bs posturing.

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 05:28 PM) Quick comment. I've read several posts in this thread talking about how Crede had a "moster year" "career year" etc. Have you actually looked at the stats? It was a good year, but not a great year. There were times where he was great. And there were extended stretches where he was bad. Overall it made for a good season. That's all. I hate it when fans remember a player's good play and conveniently forget when he was horrible. Let's look at the overall numbers. .323 OBP - not impressive .506 SLG - good .828 OPS - pretty good. Certainly not great. Let us not pretend that Crede has EVER had a great season. He hasn't. Will he get better? If so, how much? The answers to these questions is not obvious. Not great...with the bat. Quite good, but not great. But he was great in the field.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 05:01 PM) It would be for Crede, Garcia and McCarthy it that scenario. No, read the post.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 11:45 PM) I'm drunk as hell and I know there's not even a remote chance we land MC. Some just handle it better than others.

I mean, there are a lot of bizarre trades proposed here, where we're getting Hughes and Pelfrey and every great prospect the Angels ever had, but -- when you start talking about trading for Miguel Cabrera, just drink some water and sleep it off for a day, please. I mean, I'm only asking you to post half-sober, for God's sake.

QUOTE(beautox @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 07:39 PM) Got ya. When your posted you forgo FA. The bid has to be accepted and a contract worked out within that time frame or else the bid goes back to the team, and the player goes back to the team posting. If Matz isn't signed within this time frame and the red sox offered him a comperable contract; he will go back to the lions, and next year the lions can post him again, and lets just say for argument that the negoations fail again. in '09 he would be a FA at age 28/29. Okay... The MLB article says otherwise.

QUOTE(beautox @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 07:20 PM) Thanks for the info on Igawa. As for Matz; upon watching MLB.com's GM meeting special(11/14/06) and hearing Barry Bloom's report, Matz isn't a FA next year, he has 2 more years till FA, and also if the red sox tried to post for him in bad faith(block the yankees, and not attempt to sign him), Boras could goto the players union and the next highest bidder(mets) would get a shot to sign him. also because they've posted 51mil they now have to pay a contract comperable to that. The first part was about Matsuzaka, not Igawa. Sorry, I was unclear. About free agency, I'll defer to you. But was the article just wrong, or does free agency come sooner if you get posted?

QUOTE(beautox @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 06:50 PM) I'm pretty sure they put a bid in for Matz and Secondly Matz isn't a FA after next season, he has two more years on his arm in Japan before he can become a FA that would make him 28/29. I like the theory behind the posting system eventually coming to a lull, i would love to see Yuu Darvish get posted within the next two years. All the reports said they weren't bidding. For example, As for Matsuzaka, I was going by this article, which says But I don't know the posting system well enough to back it up myself. What are the rules, then? Is the article wrong? I watched that clip when you posted it before. Movement on his pitches, yes. But the control? Walks/9, k/bb?

QUOTE(beautox @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 04:53 PM) Just a feeling, they already have a built in system with Johjima and Ichiro to provide a comfort level. They need pitching and they lost out on Matz like most everyone else. They didn't even bid on Matsuzaka. Here's a convoluted, out-there theory: The humongous bid amounts will encourage Japanese stars close to free agency in Japan to wait until they're clear of the posting system. For example, Matsuzaka now thinks, well, I'm worth $51 mil plus the contract amount for 3 years of work, but I'll only get $36 mil (just a guess). If I wait one year, I get all $87 mil. Even Kei Igawa loses $25 mil to his team. So the top players will choose to wait out their time. Knowing this, Japanese teams will start posting players earlier, meaning a lot more young talent for MLB. Probably cheaper, too, without the long track records of success. Is it possible that the bidding this year is strategic, that is, MLB teams overbid to encourage exactly this reaction in Japan? I can't figure out how Boston would gain enough this way for themselves to justify the bid, but I can't figure out that bid in any way, so I thought I'd throw out my annual conspiracy theory. Cheers!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 02:03 PM) Bengie Molina? Fa. The article stated that Ricciardi doesn't want to resign Molina, also that the Barajas deal fell through. So Zaun appears to be it.