jackie hayes

QUOTE(greg775 @ Oct 27, 2006 -> 04:54 PM) Who says Anderson found his stroke? He gave me a stroke watching him take feeble swings at the ball and hit blistering pop ups. What do 60 homers, the 381 ft, and 9.79 in the 100 all have in common?

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Oct 27, 2006 -> 12:10 PM) Ah...ummm...green? It would have to be a team literally pulling miracles, wouldn't it? You should know by now that I am always dead serious. You and your "math"... You don't understand intangibles, Kid. The fact that the A's didn't win the World Series proves that math doesn't work. Don't you ever watch baseball? The Tigers have intangibles. They must, because they obviously don't have an offense. They will find a way to win. Good teams always do. The Cards have put up a good little show, but I still say Tigers in 5.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 27, 2006 -> 11:27 AM) Webb can't ignore Allen's attack here and just hope it dies out. He needs to address it head-on. Gp, agree completely. If Dems didn't learn from Swift Boat that they have to hit back hard, then they really are asleep.

QUOTE(TheBlackSox8 @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 10:11 PM) I own an '05 Taurus, I've had it for 8 months and have put about 9000 miles on it. I bought used at 16k miles up to 25k. No problems as of yet. You're the kind of guy who talks in the 8th inning about how great it is to see a no-hitter, aren't you?

Pffft... The Tigers are so much better that they'll still win in just 6. Good teams find a way.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 01:30 PM) It'll tire the Tigers out for next year.. And, it's another day we can still call the Sox the "Defending World Champs". World Champs, yeah, but we're not defending anything now. That trout sandwich has sailed.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 04:29 PM) The Supreme Court that a civil union/domestic partnership/same sex marriage must be afforded ALL of the rights and responsibilities that a heterosexual civil union/domestic partnership/same sex marriage entails. Now THAT is a rare institution.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:16 PM) Because MLB must approve all trades, there would be no reason to include that language. If A-Rod was imjured and on his way to Vienna for surgery, that money would be too low. If ARod was wearing 5 MVP and World Series wings after winning a couple Triple Crowns, the average mlb salary rose to $12,000,000, then it would be too high. MLB will judge the trade on today's economic conditions, not a few years ago. Using the theory "The Rangers Pay The Team Alex Plays For" there would be no possibility of changing any of the money unless the Ranger's agree. Making your statement above incorrect. The Yankees traded Boone and Soriano to the Rangers for A-Rod, Wilson, and $67 million. That trade was agreed to by mlb. If A-Rod is traded again, it will have to pass all the same hurdles. All the same checks by the Union, MLB, etc. There seems to be an assumption here that the more cash that trades hands makes the deal easier to get passed by mlb. I'm not certain of that. I know it will be pretty damn tough to trade him, and if the Ranger money has to pass through unchanged, it will be made even more difficult, perhaps impossible. That money was based in part on the player's involved and their current stats. Now if the Yankees are forced to trade A-Rod and that exact amout of money sent in that exact manner for X. Good luck. As for the first part, MLB isn't going to change the terms on a done deal. If they said the money follows, then the money follows, no matter what the value is today. As for the rest, okay, if the money isn't going through the Yankees, then retiming might not be possible. That's not going to make a huge difference, though, as long as the team is on the hook for only the $64 mil or whatever it is that's left.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:01 PM) I haven't been able to find a link but I'm 95 percent sure that what Jackie said is correct. Hey, I'm just trying to be a translator here, I don't know if it's true or not.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 02:04 PM) The Rangers agreed to send money to the Yankees. We all agree on that. Some of that was deferred as was Alex's compensation. IYHO Is there any room for the next team to take the Ranger money under different terms than already agreed to between the Rangers and Yankees? For example, the next team may wish to have the money today to pay Alex's current contract. Could the Yankees agree to send a lower amount, sooner, to the new team. Or does the new team have to accept the Ranger's money the same way the Yankees are? Could the Yankees agree to send the same amount, only spread out over a longer period? Under the "Ranger's pay the team that Alex plays for" theory, unless the Ranger's would be willing to renegotiate, that would be impossible. I believe if the Union and MLB believe the new trade is fair, it could be done. Another reason I believe it could be more or less, is market conditions change and the deal should be evaluated based on today's market. Imagine of ARod lived to the hype and at a future date was now a 60/60 .375 guy with five MVP and World Series rings. He would be worth more than the $16 mil the Yankees are paying. In keeping with the fair trade theory, wouldn't it be unfair to include all the cash? When we see trades where a player plus cash is traded to another team, when is that money considered to be the new teams? Since the cash follows the money, if the Sox traded Crede for a Player plus $5 million, every subsequent trade would have to include cash with that player? They couldn't swap two players for that one and keep the money? However, there is an easy way around this even if the team has to accept the Ranger money as agreed. The Yankees send Alex to team 3, the Rangers send money to team 3 (why would the Rangers send money to the Yankees if Alex isn't playing there), and team 3 sends players and money to the Yankees. Or if the Rangers send money to the Yankees (again I guess that would be stupid), then team 3 could just send money back to the Yankees. Seems like a strange way to do it, but if the Ranger money has to go with the player, this would be a work around. Here is what they are saying: The Rangers send the Yankees $. However, the Yankees agreed, as one term in the original trade, that they would pass this money along in any future trade. As you said, there was no reason for either the Rangers or the Yankees to insist on this. However, there may be a reason for MLB to insist on this (to make any future negotiations less onerous). As MLB must approve any trade, the Yankees likely were willing to agree to this (the Rangers certainly wouldn't have cared, and thus would also have agreed). Steff and Jason are saying that MLB made exactly this demand, and thus, the Yankees are OBLIGATED under the terms of the Yankees-Ranger trade to pass this money along in any future trade. It does not preclude the Yankees from including more money, but it does preclude them from including less. You may argue that this is merely semantics -- the Yankees could demand cash payments from the team getting ARod, essentially making the payments less than the Rangers money. However, MLB must approve any significant cash payments, and as a rule, only allows cash to offset some part of a player's contract. (No 'selling' players.) So this could not be done with young players (which is reportedly what the Yankees want), and would at least be finely inspected with high salary players, to ensure that the Yankees aren't trying to end-run the spirit of the original condition. As I understand it, this is not always insisted upon by MLB -- as others have pointed out, this was an issue when the Sox traded for Vazquez -- but the ARod trade was not business as usual. As to whether it could be renegotiated -- yes, of course, but it is VERY doubtful that MLB would accept any renegotiation that reduced the value of the money passed along. So if the team wanted more up front money, MLB would presumably insist that the total payments up front must have at least the same present value as the deferred payments would have.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 01:42 PM) I always thought it was Found On Road Dead Don't forgot, Fast only rolling downhill.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 01:17 PM) this quote regarding the tigers is awsome: " They are playing with all the passion of a recently clubbed trout, and though it may be too early to declare them toast, the way Detroit is playing now, you might want to break out the butter and jam." A trout and jam sandwich on buttered toast; that's the fat lady's favorite!

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 12:45 PM) LOL f.o.r.d = fix or repair daily. "Fix or replace daily" makes more sense, but either or.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 23, 2006 -> 04:29 PM) Didn't Frank Thomas say after they were down 3-0 that they were going to try and win it for Macha (that doesn't seem like something you'd say if the vast majority of the players were against Macha). It sounded like Bradley (what a shock) and Melhouse had some problems but that was about it. I don't know the Thomas quote you're referring to, but the rest is flat wrong. In this article, Chavez, Kotsay, Zito, Kendall, and Haren all have uncomplimentary things to say about Macha. That's not even mentioning Melhuse's comments. I know a lot of people here despise Beane, but using this to tee off on him is ridiculous.

QUOTE(CardsJimEdmonds15 @ Oct 23, 2006 -> 12:20 AM) And I appreciated my team not giving up in the 9th until that last out.. even if they didnt win! What'd you think about batting Molina? I know he's hot, but still, the guy hit under .220, and you KNOW he's never been a good hitter.

JDINAA.

QUOTE(whitesoxin @ Oct 22, 2006 -> 11:33 PM) The Tigers are stealing our song from last year! Stop playing Journey, it is ours you hand-covered-in-poop losers! Preach.

WTF?!!!!!!!!! Just playing Don't Stop Believin' during the postgame. Fu, Tigers. Get yer own f'n song.

QUOTE(AirScott @ Oct 22, 2006 -> 10:22 PM) oh, there's nothing wrong with the "habla-ing" comment, aside from the fact that Lyons is an idiot. I think that's where our hypersensitve society took it the wrong way, and it made for bad timing with the wallet comment. I don't think it had anything to do with that. I think the part about "I don't understand him" would have had the same effect, jmo.

QUOTE(AirScott @ Oct 20, 2006 -> 09:24 AM) it wasn't that bad. Piniella compared Scutaro's success to finding a wallet. Lyons responded "I still can't find my wallet...I don't understand him, and I don't want to sit too close to him now.'' the "habla-ing espanol" thing was a little insensitive, but he was joking about the comparison Piniella made. I understand the context, I was just explaining what someone could see as "insensitive". Whether it's reasonable or not, I dunno. I've gone back and forth on it. Though, personally, I don't think there's anything even slightly wrong with the "habla-ing" comment.

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Oct 22, 2006 -> 11:56 AM) Beane had to fire Macha just to save his gigantic ego. That's all the move was. There's no way Macha was at fault for the A's losing, they just got beat. Beane had to find someone to blame. Considering how the players came out in force against Macha, just, no. I believe Melhuse's quote was out even before the firing, which tells you something about their feelings on Macha. Success is always mostly about the players, but when the team has given up before the series is over, the decision about the manager should be pretty easy for any gm.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 20, 2006 -> 05:47 PM) I'm not sure where it ranks. I believe the Garry Mathews Jr catch was far better. But when it comes to homerun denying catches, this is probably top 5. How did he hang onto that ball???? I was watching when he did it, and I thought, Wow! Now, I'm thinking WOW!!!!!1!!!!! It gets better every time I watch.

Dude, what do you do with your time???

I enjoyed that.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 19, 2006 -> 11:51 PM) This is probably something that should be posted in another thread, but I just was thinking because of the way someone else said something else in this thread.... Did anyone ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe, they let McCarthy rot on purpose this year? The reason I say that is because they know he's going to he that good and wanted to keep him on the cheap for one more year... because that way when his current contract is up, he won't get as much simply because he hasn't put up any numbers, save next year? Do you all see what I'm trying to say? I'm not saying it very well. No, it wouldn't escalate enough to play around like this. Plus, this season was obviously a priority -- if they thought that he'd be great, they'd have played him this year. It was just the depth. Plus, they prolly figured, well, it worked with MB.