iamshack

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. I'll take a look at it tonight. I know the laws for retail theft allow a store owner to detain someone for a reasonable amount of time, but they also have to be very careful as to how they go about it. I'm fairly sure you're not allowed to use force to detain someone (i.e., they try to run and you tackle them or something). I believe there was a case that Victoria's Secret settled because they had a security guard use force to detain someone and injured the thief. I think the courts are trying to usher the law out of the 19th century here because society has developed to the point where they don't view minor theft as reason enough to assault someone. My feeling is if you detain someone in such a small enclosed space such as a vehicle, simply for failing to pay a fare, that the odds are good that something ugly is going to ensue. The courts usually recognize that and try to rule as such to avoid a high probability of violence occurring. As I said, I will take a look at it this evening.

QUOTE (son of a rude @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 06:55 PM) Soto was in a slump and was a dead pull hitter at the time. Whether Ozzie knew this and had him play there on purpose or not, he was in the right spot. That was certainly the case, as I remember exactly which play you are referring to. And perhaps he was in the correct position THAT time, however, there were numerous other instances where Stone and Hawk both commented on his defensive positioning, and it did, in fact, come back to hurt us in other instances where Alexei could not turn a double play because he was late getting to the bag.

QUOTE (son of a rude @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 04:42 PM) I think he will be better at SS next year, just from experience. I always think of hawk when people are talking abut Alexei's defensive capabilities. "In my 50 years in this game, I have never seen a shortstop play that close to the line in this situation. Ozzie and Joey need to help him out." *Soto grounds to Alexei and into an inning ending double play What about the other 12 times he could barely get to the bag at second because he was playing so deep in the hole?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 04:20 PM) Rock, Sorry, I thought out of consideration for everyone in this thread you could provide some support for your statements. I just was curious as to what the law was. 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?

QUOTE (longshot7 @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 11:47 AM) This is wishlist stuff, but what about trading for Adam Dunn to be that LH power bat? I think a lot of teams are going to be after Dunn, just as a lot of teams are interested in Figgins via FA next season. Just difficult to count on getting a guy that will be in high demand.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 11:45 AM) I'm just wondering if he's been watching Jermaine Dupree in celebrity soft ball tournaments or something because Jermaine Dye right now is not a "very good fielder". We just had this exercise with Greg in the other thread. Let's not go there.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 11:36 AM) Can you define "very good fielder"? Again. Ass.

QUOTE (Capn12 @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 10:28 AM) Other than standing on the other side of the plate, what exactly does Jim Thome bring to this current ChiSox team that Dye doesn't bring as well, and at a younger age? The OBP can be argued for sure, but other than that, I don't see a real advantage for Thome over Dye at DH. Just what you said...he will break up the relievers on other teams by batting lefty. What does Dye bring that Thome doesn't? My guess is Thome would sign for less as well.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 10:09 AM) Given that he's right at the age where most hitters tend lose bat speed and injuries become more problematic, he's far from a lock to keep up the exact rate. Keep in mind what he has done in August and September over the last few years...do you remember when he was chasing 500 in 07'? Then he went crazy and hit about 10 bombs in the last month and a half alone. I wouldn't count Jimmy out from ending up with another 32 homer season. He tends to go off around this time of year...

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 10:29 PM) Wonder if Beckham will give over his # to Rios... Yeah, it will be interesting to see what happens. I doubt it. But I am glad I didn't order a Beckham jersey yesterday (mlb.com had a 25% off deal yesterday).

QUOTE (thedoctor @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 09:26 PM) rosenthal's take Good article. Rosenthal is the best in the business.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:45 PM) 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. I was waiting for it!

Ahh, thanks KHP and Fathom. I love how KW realizes he is the man.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 08:14 PM) Kenny: "When people start ruffling my feathers, people start leaving town." Who do you suppose he is talking about?

Can someone summarize the comments made by KW on Lawrence Holmes' Show?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 07:38 PM) Rios is 6'5" 215lbs. He's going to lose a step or so in the next couple seasons. Jeesh, Dick. Do you have to piss on my parade already?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 06:24 PM) As I said before, I'm pretty sure this spells the end of Dye on the White Sox after this season. Thome as DH for 2010 with Konerko moving to DH in 2011 while Viciedo takes over 1B. It leaves us with the power lefty for next year PLUS the chance to see him crank out his 600th homer on our team. Konerko is not under contract in 2011.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 06:17 PM) So what are the full details of his contract? Alex Rios of 7 years/$69.835M (2008-14), plus 2015 club option 7 years/$69.835M (2008-14), plus 2015 club option signed extension with Toronto 4/4/08, re-working 2008 deal signed 2/5/08 ($3.5M signing bonus remains, 2008 salary reduced from $1.335M to $0.735M) 08:$0.735M, 09:$5.9M, 10:$9.7M, 11:$12M, 12:$12M, 13:$12.5M, 14:$12.5M, 15:$13.5M club option ($1M buyout) full no-trade clause, 2009-10 limited no-trade clause, 2011 - end of deal (may block trades to 6 clubs)

Cowley's comment insinuates that the team does not have the stones to bench Dye/Q as much as they should. I sure hope that is a failure to recognize the situation on his part, and not on the part of the team.

QUOTE (G&T @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 06:09 PM) Per Cowley on the Score: Lot of confusion in the Sox club house, but coaching staff telling guys that this is another sign that the Sox are going for it. Beckham is being considered as lead off, or possibly Rios. Wait, what does that mean in terms of Podsednik?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 04:53 PM) Moving Rios might put them in a better position to keep Halladay. I know Halladay won't renegotiate currently but remember, the Jays were going to trade Roy because he kept saying he wanted to test the market (so the Jays didn't want to lose him for nothing) not because ownership told them they needed to cut-payroll. They want to shed payroll but that is because Wells, Rios and others are making a lot of money and they can't afford paying guys that deserve the money they get because of some of the other contracts on the club. My point was that I cannot see them trading Halladay in order to accommodate Rios' salary. While they may not be trying to rid themselves of Rios' salary for Halladay's sake, there certainly seems to be some motivation to move Rios' salary if at all possible. I would tend to agree with this after reading some of the comments from writers and fans in Toronto, who have a much better understanding of the situation there than we do here. Considering they already have more money committed to just 8 players next year than their entire payroll for this season, I wouldn't be shocked to see both Rios AND Halladay gone by next season. My guess though is that Ricciardi will take the opportunity to rid himself of the Rios' contract now, while he can.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 03:43 PM) It really does bring up an interesting question if all these circumstances come about at odds w/ each other maybe around the end of 2010. We're still winning despite going younger. AJP is still productive. Flowers is killing at AAA but will very obviously need adapting time with handling a staff. Is he? .783 OPS?

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 03:36 PM) But this year they dont save much by launching Rios. So if they like Rios and like his youth... ....they can immediately cut into that '10 payroll any second they want this offseason by moving Halladay. And actually get something back along with the money savings. hope they are just plain tired of rios though. Who do you think is more popular in Toronto....Halladay or Rios?

The Jays' payroll was $81 million this season. As for next season? On the books for 2010 are Vernon Wells at $16.143 million (plus his $8.5 million final bonus instalment next March); Halladay at $15.75 million; Ryan at $12 million; Rios at $10.12; Lyle Overbay at $7 million; Encarnacion at $4.75 million; and Aaron Hill and Scott Downs at $4 million each. That's $82.26 million. Source: http://www.torontosun.com/sports/columnist...411851-sun.html My guess is Rios will be ours before noon tomorrow.

Hah, it's really easy to criticize these guys since they are in the public eye. We can all throw venomous darts at them with no fear of reprisal. I'd love to see some of the train wreck" stuff that would appear if all the stupid things we did were up for public consumption and commentary. I, for one, know I would be in trouble...