jackie hayes

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 05:16 PM) This is exactly why Boras has so much less negotiating power in this system than in the "free market system." Nobody else can compete for the offer. I think he'll have no choice but to blink. Once a post has been made, I believe its good for one year; And if no deal is made, then the Red Sox get the 40 million back. If the deal is fair, then Boras will probably have to take it. Fair is probably 8-12 million. Boras could sue alleging restraint of trade... but that battle could take years. I suspect the court would not grant an injunction against the posting system since the loser would be irreparably harmed and the actual likelihood of success is questionable. (Some of the other lawyers here, I'd be interested to hear other opinions). Maybe the Bo Sox trade the negotiation rights... I don't know. I could easily see a scenario where the Dodgers trade a bunch of their prospects (they have a lot) for the rights to Matsuzaka and like 20 mil. Then, the Dodgers could probably put together a reasonable deal for Matsuzaka.... and he stays out of the bronx. The cubs could be another possibility; but other than cash, I don't see what else they have to offer. The more capital they spend on a risky investment, I think they would be less valuable as an organization that may be for sale. Hmm... I doubt it. That's Boras' whole m.o. -- not blinking. I think it's far more likely that he'll challenge the posting system in court, then, as Rock said, wait a year if that fails. Or Selig will cancel the bid. On a 3-year contract for $40 mil, I bet the Red Sox have to eat at least $30 mil. That would require finding a team willing to pay Matsuzaka $17 mil per year. I can't imagine many teams going higher than that. And that seems like an enormous amount of money just to keep him away from the Yanks. Too much. This is just ludicrous money. Is this guy the love-child of Clemens, Koufax, and Walter Johnson? I dunno, it just seems implausible. Something's got to be wrong with these figures.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 04:27 PM) Huh??? They supposedly posted upwards of 40-45 million for matz. Which means he costs them that much even before he gets a contract. Boras has been saying that they want a 3 year deal so he can enter free agency again. I would expect Boras to at least get 11 million per year for 3 years. If that is correct we are talking about a 73 million dollar commitment over 3 years at a minimum for one player. AF was saying that he thought (wasn't sure) they have to offer a contract with total value at least as large as the posting amount. If the posting amount is $40 mil, and Boras holds fast to a 3-year contract, that's $80 mil over 3 years, or roughly $27 mil per year. I was asking, if Boston insists on a 5-year deal (making the total $80 mil over 5, $16 mil per year), who blinks?

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 03:30 PM) Its also a real possibility that the Red Sox bid so high in an effort prevent the yankees from getting him. Then, they might deal him to a National League team, eat part of his salary, and maybe get a few nice pieces in return. This keeps him out of the hands of the evil empire for at least three years. If they got 30 million back from the deal, basically they'd be keeping Matsuzaka off the yanks for 3.3 million bucks a year. Strikes me as a real problem with the posting system... You think they'd only have to eat $10 mil? I dunno, I don't think any team (besides, maybe, the Yanks) will pay $70 mil for 3 years. Still way too much.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 02:49 PM) I agree with what you are saying, but Boras has come out and said he wants a 3 year deal which then allows Matz to move into Free agency again in the MLB which should be a more lucrative payday at that point. I can see the contract being 13.3 for 3 years, which will tie up almost 80 million dollars for one player over 3 years. I just can't imagine the Red Sox would be willing to pay $27 mil per. Suppose this info is true, and Boston insists on a 5 year, $40 mil contract. Does Selig annul the bid or does Boras challenge the posting rule in court?

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 12:38 PM) I'm not going to make a seperate post to address moving Thome. That is why I generalized a group of "people" and not say "you" want to trade Thome. Signing a guy just to platoon with him is stupid IMO, but Alou could play DH against LHP and play LF against RHP That's fine, I just don't understand how you were responding to that post. Trading Thome -- seems like an idea that a couple people have floated, but I haven't seen tons of people clamoring for it.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 12:30 PM) In 2006, these lefthanders had the following Sox players hit well against them: Santana: Pablo and Jim Thome Sabathia:Pablo and Jermaine Lee: Crede, Jermaine, Mack, Iguchi, Konerko Rogers: Anderson, Dye(.851 OPS,) Konerko (.833) we didn't hit his cheating ass that well Robertson: Crede, Dye, Thome, Uribe Redman: Anderson, Crede, Konerko, Pablo, Thome Perez: Crede, Iguchi, and Pablo Where exactly do you plan to start? Looks like LF, C, and SS to me. Yet people think trading Thome because "he can't hit any left handers" is a good idea. :rolly I'm pretty sure the poster was saying the idea of signing Alou has merit, not the idea of trading Thome.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 12:03 PM) J.D. Drew is an absolute moron. The whole idea of opting out of your contract early is that you'll get more money if you do so, not less. He's going to wind up in the Jeff Weaver role of last season...taking a 1 year deal somewhere because no one will give him the big contract he and Boras want. Unless he was just really, really, really unhappy with the Dodgers, which is always possible I guess. Just, no. I'm not saying he'll get anything close to what Soriano'll get, but he should at least be able to match what he would have had with the Dodgers and tack on an extra year. The Weaver comparison couldn't be more wrong. Weaver is a guy who gives you a full, healthy year but may be utter crap (while occupying a rotation slot). Drew is a guy who will always produce when he's on the field. If you have a decent 4th outfielder, you can use Drew conservatively, and very likely eke 450 abs out of him -- in which you'll have a .900 ops and a damn good fielder to boot. And why would he need to take a one-year ('prove it') contract after a good year? I'll say this -- the Dodgers sure don't sound happy about losing him.

The article is mlb.com, of course they're gonna sound upbeat. I'm sceptical. If this is just as good, I don't know why the Sox would have sounded so insistent on surgery.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 07:08 PM) I just want to point out that Bolton is not going to get another hearing, so I don't know where the heck the NY Times is getting there info. I'll take the direct words from Bill Frist over the NY Times. Oh and this is my first post over in these parts. It's pretty obvious where the info comes from, since they quote Tony Snow. And they're 100% right: the WH did nominate Bolton today and did want him to be confirmed by this congress. Since then, a number of senators (including Frist, apparently) have agreed that it would make no sense to move on that nomination.

He won't settle for a platoon job. But if the Sox signed him, they'd have no reason to platoon him, anyway. He murders lefties, true. He'd sit cuz he merely hits extremely well against righties? I think there's a slim to none chance Alou ends up with the Sox, just saying, his willingness to accept a platoon job won't have anything to do with that determination.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 04:25 PM) A bunch of people are willing to trade 2 starters and live with him in our rotation as a 5th starter. I'm sorry but thats unacceptable to me. We want to win, I can live with breaking in Bmac but breaking in Bmac and Haeger well thats just not a way to win (unless you get lucky). I have no major problem with using him as our LAST guy out of the pen. You were responding to a post about using him out of the pen. I understand the reluctance to use two first-time starters. A lot of uncertainty there, okay. But I think there's also a lot of plain anti-knuckler opposition, and that I don't understand.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 04:06 PM) I don't get why Haeger gets all this love. I think he's real over-rated on this board. Cuz he pitched well, maybe? I don't get why everyone sh**s all over him. The guy throws a knuckler that clearly can dance, plus a mid-80s fastball that he doesn't telegraph. If he can keep the knuckler down, like he did this year, he gives you a league average or slightly better pitcher for peanuts. God forbid.

Dammit.

Virginia's law is that a recount only happens at the request of the losing candidate. If the first tally shows a deficit of .5% or 1% (I've read different things), then the recount is free. Otherwise, if the recount does not change the result, the candidate requesting the recount is responsible for all expenses.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 7, 2006 -> 10:40 PM) I think it's pretty much a given. The Senate was sort of a stretch, anyway. But the House still looks pretty good, and that's really the prize. End one-party leadership. I'd love to see that macaca out in Virginia, too, but I'll take what I can get. QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 7, 2006 -> 10:43 PM) I ain't counting those eggs yet. But the ones that don't hatch get thrown at the (ugh) senator from Virginia. After a week or so. In the sun. Dear NSA, Metaphorically. Respectfully, jh Ah...sweet error.

gridlock, , w00t

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Nov 7, 2006 -> 11:48 PM) Webb with the lead. Aw, crap, I just kept subtracting, I didn't even notice the names had switched.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 7, 2006 -> 11:10 PM) Ryan Freel will not get anywhere near the White Sox as long as Williams is the GM. You have to remember KW is looking for character guys and Freel is the complete opposite of what he's looking for seeing how he's a psychopathic drunkard and all. Wtf, when you say it, it almost sounds as if it were a bad thing.

CNN just had Allen-Webb close to within 3,000... Whadda bunch of teases... Edit: N/m, 10,000 between 'em. Aw, please. I really, really want this one. PPS: Less than 8,000... PPPS: I meant "fewer". And currently 7,000. PPPPS: 6,000. Stay tuned. PPPPPS: About 2,500. Go, go, go...

I ain't counting those eggs yet. But the ones that don't hatch get thrown at the (ugh) senator from Virginia. After a week or so. In the sun. Dear NSA, Metaphorically. Respectfully, jh

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Nov 7, 2006 -> 10:35 PM) I really don't think the Senate will change to the dems. I think it's pretty much a given. The Senate was sort of a stretch, anyway. But the House still looks pretty good, and that's really the prize. End one-party leadership. I'd love to see that macaca out in Virginia, too, but I'll take what I can get.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 7, 2006 -> 10:10 PM) It's going to be a 50-50 deal I bet. And that sucks. If it were exactly 50-50, that would f'n rock, imo.

ABC gives Allen a 26,000 vote lead with 88% in. Dammit. Come on, Timo! Come on, Timo!!!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 7, 2006 -> 09:39 PM) Sheldon Whitehouse has beaten Lincoln Chaffee. That's the 3rd Dem Pickup in the Senate. And the only one Republicans will be happy about.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2006 -> 09:27 PM) Yup. Someone mentioned it earlier, and I am not sure on the details. But for certain elections, if a party gets 5%+ in any election, they get certain things automatically that they didn't get before. I don't recall what those things are or if they are at the state or national level, though. At least part of it is the number of signatures you have to get to be on the ballot. If you pull 5%, you're a 'reputable' party to the public, so you need a lot fewer sigs. I think everyone's rooting for a Green 5%. The Republicans are just such a mess.