Dick Allen

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 07:37 PM) Iamshack, I actually dont know, which is why I was posing the question. There are a lot of different angles to look at it. I do know there is a merchants exception for a store employee to detain some one for a "reasonable amount of time" so that they can ascertain whether or not merchandise was stolen. I do not believe that there is any requirement of value (ie if I steal a 5cent piece of candy I can be detained the same as if I stole a $1,000 piece of candy.), but Im not going through case law so I could be wrong there as well. The problem with saying that its not that important, is that you can be arrested for failing to pay a fare. The problem is that most people who are going to knowingly skip a fare, do not give the right address, so when they get to the location they get out of the car and run. At that point the cab driver then needs to call the police and tell them that some one skipped a fare (robbery.) Does it protect the cab driver to allow him to lock the doors and call the police if he believes that a passenger is going to skip a fare? I think the answer may be yes. Unlike the shopkeeper who is not sure whether or not the person stole (once they know they stole they can detain them while they call the police), the cab driver immediately knows whether or not the fare is going to be paid and as soon as the fare is paid the cab driver would no longer have any right whatsoever to hold the passenger. I would say there is a good argument to be made that a cab driver should be able to hold a passenger who fails to pay a fare and so they can bring them to a police station so that they can be arrested. Whether or not this is supported by the law, I dont know. I dont try and guess or use logic, because it generally ends up being wrong. Just from doing very brief research I cant really find anything, which is why Im curious. The driver admitted he locked the door and maybe that is false imprisonment and maybe why his attorney appears to be backing off.

I think his best move was the Peavy trade. He paid pennies to the dollar for an ace.

KW's comments about Anorexei were interesting yesterday. He basically has given him a pass, saying he hadn't played the position for a while before this season. Coming in, he was talking about how the guy was GG calibur, and he has shown, in flashes, that he is, but he hasn't kept his head in the game for long stretches, and his baseball acumen, which seemed pretty high last season, seems below average for a SS.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 06:35 PM) Badger, I am not an attorney like you, but I did graduate from law school (hah, that sounds like saying "But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express!). I haven't reviewed case law, but my guess is, merchant or not, you can NEVER purposefully detain someone in your cab for refusing to pay. My feeling is the law would never encourage a situation which could easily turn into violence, as it did in this case. Again, this is just from my background knowledge, but it seems as though a reasonable court of law would not rule that anyone could be held against their will in a cab. Paying a fare, especially for the sums of money most likely to be involved, is never THAT important, and is an issue to be worked out between the cab company and the passenger at a later date. Allowing some sort of merchant exception which allows a cab to detain a passenger for something as miniscule as paying a fare would seem to be a ridiculous measure for the law to allow. Your thoughts? I totally understand why they may lock the doors, but if you think about it, it really is asking for trouble. The reason most would skip the fare is because they don't have the money. Locking the door isn't going to make the money appear, then what do you do? If you want to drive them back to where they came or to a cop or something, there's a good chance something a lot worse than being stiffed a fare, is going to happen.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 11:56 AM) Last I saw, the Cabbie is going to be lucky if he doesnt face charges, I dont see any payoffs in his future. He locked the doors of the cab which is unlawful imprisonment which deems any acts of self defense legal. Second he didnt even have a valid drives license which makes it unlawful for him to drive a cab or operate as a licensed cab operator, therefore his asking for a fare in the first place was illegal. I didn't know that, and my wife is a lawyer. I've been hammered in a lot of cabs in my day, and as soon as we get to my stop, I hear the locks click into place. I would never skip a fare or have an altercation over $.20, but if the story has gone from Patrick Kane with the choke hold while his cousin was beating him to Patrick Kane had nothing to do with it and alcohol was not involved, with a 20 and 21 year old out at 4 am, its pretty hard to believe there is no payment coming the driver's way. I don't know if anyone read the initial story in the Buffalo newspaper's on line edition, but the locals in Buffalo were not surprised at the charges. There was post after post how Kane and his "crew" which more than a couple of responses called them, have been causing trouble for quite a while. As usual, he's probably not the initial monster anyone would have concluded after the story first ran, and he's probably no where near as innocent as he's starting to sound right now.

QUOTE (Gregory Pratt @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 06:32 PM) I remember when people were penciling him into our starting lineup with thirty homeruns. 30? I remember the proposterous 50 predictions.

Fields isn't long for the White Sox organization, but he won't be waived. He's probably feeling sorry for himself, and you can't blame him, but he's going about getting a major league gig all wrong. Teams will wonder why a guy who has performed like he has the last 2 seasons thinks he should be handed a starting job on the major league level. He'll hang around as fodder for some team for a while, but probably won't have much of a career.

QUOTE (Jake @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 12:23 AM) "The safe route will ultimately lead to a mediocre result." -- Kenny Williams He is living that this season as he went the safe route last off season. His bold moves hopefully will start helping him now.

I read this comment from KW: Williams said, "All of [the current outfielders] need breaks, too. ... And what that also does for you in this season is by having that versatility and strength, a guy like a [Mark] Kotsay will be on the bench if he's not in the lineup and it will be one of [scott] Podsednik, Rios, Dye or [Carlos] Quentin that's also on the bench. Your bench, all of a sudden, you have right-handers and left-handers and speed coming off your bench. I concluded Wise-------he gone. Then I got to thinking. They don't need a 5th starter until Aug. 23. Rosters go to 40 Sept. 1. Wise is like Houdini. They will find a way to keep him those 9 days and carry him in Sept. He's a White Sox the rest of the season IMO.

QUOTE (striker62704 @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:52 PM) I like this move and I'm wondering if this is a change in philosophy, putting more emphasis on defense and speed vs. power. I wouldn't mind seeing both Dye and Thome leave and see an Abreu or Winn, someone with more speed and higher batting average (I know Winn is having a bad year). I didn't see any highlights or read any notes about yesterdays game. Can someone fill me in on what ruffled KW's feathers? I don't think there's any question about it. The White Sox want to have a fast team that can play defense and score runs. They just haven't been able to swap out the slow guys yet, but its coming. A couple years from now there will be no Thome or Konerko or Dye or AJP.

QUOTE (RME JICO @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:49 PM) However, now that could be like giving away someone like Beckham. He was drafted too high. They wouldn't have had to surrender that pick. They did surrender a pick for Linebrink.

QUOTE (tommy @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:21 PM) It's on FOX. If it is, it was just added because as of Saturday there was no TV. Oakland wouldn't change the starting time to accomodate local broadcasts.

QUOTE (RME JICO @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:46 PM) Rios was a Type A player in the offseason, so it is nice to get him without giving up draft picks. I also like the fact that KW is getting more than 2 month rental players in Peavy and Rios. It is hard enough to find moves that help now or later, let alone for both situations. He pulled off 2 of them in a matter of 2 weeks. Back when the Sox were drafting guys like Broadway and McCullough in the first round, giving up draft picks was ideal. Its saved you millions for garbage.

QUOTE (rockren @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:44 PM) KW mentioned the 5 or 6 thousand walk-ups we had during the last home stand. I'll bet KW used that as a selling point to JR on this. The walk ups were for $9 tickets. They have been sitting on money.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:42 PM) Jerry approved of this deal because of our attendance, per KW. We were at just over 90 million this year for our payroll this year before Peavy and Rios. We might not only be looking at that insane amount of money off the books, but also a general increase in payroll for next year, as I doubt the doomsday expectations were met. Regardless people worried about the money are being ridiculous. Whatever KW says, I think the truth is they had some money to play with. They weren't at their budget at the beginning of the season, perhaps anticipating moves like this, and for everyone who thinks I think Rios blows, I don't and I hope he hits .400 with 80 homers.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:39 PM) So, let's imagine this...let's say you're right and he's slightly overpaid. That means either he's making $1-2 million more than he should be per year, or he's signed for what, 1 year longer than would be fair? Given our holes in CF and the fact that we get him for this season for only $2 million, doesn't it seem worth paying a slightly premium price if this guy brings production? As a said, he's a nice player, but if he really is a lock to be as good as most think he is, Toronto wouldn't have let him go, and if Toronto would have pulled him back, a lot of the people who are praising him right now would have called Ricciardi an idiot for keeping him. If he's a bargain, Ricciardi is an idiot for letting him go for nothing.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:31 PM) Why wait, its pretty easy to use reason. True/False With bad Free Agent classes, players generally get contracts that are more than what they are worth because of less supply. True/False The economic situation wont be as dire this winter than last when teams didnt know what to predict True/False Good defensive Cf'ers with a plus bat make more than 10 million a season on the open market That was in the past. I know you might think the economy is fine now, but its really not. There aren't a lot of teams that will be throwing around money this offseason for crap. This guy is signed for 5 years at $12 million. Its more than he would get on the market. The Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Red Sox and Cubs won't be looking for high priced OF. Who else would be paying him?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:24 PM) And in THIS coming offseason, his contract would have been on par with what he would have been paid, especially with the weak class. I'd like to see an example of what contract you think he would get right now, since I've already thrown out 2 players that are comparable with worse contracts. Rosenthal said last offseason you could have signed Abreu, Hudson, Branyan and Adam Everett and still had $800 k left over for one season of what Rios would be averaging.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:23 PM) Which means worst players will be getting paid even more than what they are worth, and you are saying the economy is going to be worse than last year? I doubt it since teams were mostly cutting costs trying to PREDICT what would happen with their fan base and the economy, and at this point its pretty clear we have seen the bottom and attendance is not as bad as originally thought. We'll see in the winter.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:21 PM) Don't know. I have made a pretty concerted effort to keep off the Walker subject, maybe you should make a concerted effort not to try and bait. Can I mention your boy Rudy in Texas? The Rangers are 13th in the AL in AVG. and OBP. but lead the league in homers. Lift and pull.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:20 PM) Who said he was a savior? Please quote that post, cause I havent seen it. And yes, on the open market, not in last offseason, he IS a 60 million player, no question. Aaron Rowand 5 years 60 million signed as a 30 year old career stats .282 .341 .793 Torii Hunter 5 years 90 million signed as 32 year old .274 .329 .802 Alex Rios 5 years 60 million signed as 27 year old career stats .285 .335 .786 The White Sox assumed the contract THIS year. That's why THIS year's economic climate is relevant.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:16 PM) So which under 30 centerfield from said FA class would you want? I'm not saying I wouldn't want him, but I certainly wouldn't pay him $60 million.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:14 PM) Love this move. Hopefully he gets a bump by coming over to a pennant race. Hitting in our park will help him out in the long run. What effect will Greg Walker have on him?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:10 PM) And in the next offseason it will be a different economic time than this one. Whats the point? This offseason was an outlier? Next offseason will be the same or worse. Probably worse as the FA class is pretty weak. Even the Yankees are making teams eat money.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:08 PM) just get to the point and state your beef with Rios. You are bringing up players that arent even closely related to what Rios is just to prove a point, I am just not sure what your point actually is. Rios's contract should be compared with Rowand and Hunter, not over the hill corner OF'er/DH's on their last legs in a recession. My beef? I have no beef. I just don't think he's the savior everyone here thinks he is. He's a nice player, not a $60 million player.