JUGGERNAUT

You can upgrade #4 from "may" to "would". The ticket joke was an affirmation of KGJ telling the media how many relatives & friends he has in Chicago & more importantly that he's thought about what it would mean to play there in front of them. Coupled with his talk of wanting to play in the WS I think we can eliminate the loveable losers as a choice

There's nothing to spin. The numbers don't lie. People on the other hand often tend to exagerate. It's human nature

They were saying that Reinsdorf really wants to win a title, and is willing to open up the pursestrings for Griffey. They said that the Reds would pay about 4 million of his contract for this year, leaving 8 million to the Sox to pay. Where do they get this stuff? He's making about $10.4M this year. $6M in cash & $4.4M deferred. The deferred $$$ is interest free until the last day of the 2008 WS. Which means the Reds have already paid him $4.5M in cash this year. The most the CWS could be on the hook for this year is $1.5M plus $4.4M in the near future. From 2006-2008 they will owe him no less than $22M in cash. From the end of the 2008 WS to 2024 they will owe him about $26M earning 4% a year in interest. Even those payments are structured to greatly benefit the team. They grow slowly & then escalate greatly near the end. The last payment is expected to be $16.5M in 2024. This is w/out a doubt the best contract for a marquee player in professional sports today. Take that $26M & invest it in the Nasdaq 100 or DJIA over that time. Thanks to Bush the dividends that will pay will more than make up for the 4% interest owed on the money. So that's a wash. It's a declining principal but $16.5M is good for all but the last year. Assume a modest 5% growth compounded annually & you can turn that $16.5M into $34M by the time you have to make the big payment. JR would be a fool not to open the wallet for KGJ. But I feel Linder knows this as well. That's probably why he's reluctant to trade him. But the Reds have a greater need for that $22M/3 yrs than the CWS do. I think that ultimately will be the deciding factor to get this deal done.

Well this goes back to what is the value of a "marquee" player to a franchise? Any one looking to buy the Reds should compare KGJ to Nomar. Nomar was one of the biggest marquee players in the game. But he can't stay healthy having to play in the field every day. KGJ has proven to be the same kind of player. That greatly reduces their marquee value. There's simply no way Linder can convince a new owner that the Reds are better off with KGJ than w/out him. What the league has proven time & again is that the general rule is "you win you draw." Only the loveable losers have proven to be the exception to that over time. If he doesn't trade KGJ at a time like this where his value has soared he's an idiot. The White Sox have a proven track record when it comes to OF prospects during KW's term as GM. Yes the Reds have Kearns, Dunn, & Pena but these guys are likewise moving into big bucks range. Getting a couple of good solid prospects that project to be MLers for KGJ now is a smart deal.

Most? The numbers don't even come close. The Philips thread indicates every team can request ML waivers on as many as 7 players per business day. There was plenty of time for both the Mets & NYY$ to request ML waivers on most of their players prior to the Newsday column being written. But that clearly wasn't the case. It wasn't even 1/2. Breakdown of "waiver" occurences in MLB transaction logs from Aug 2005-Aug 2004: 2005 Aug 6 Jul 7 Jun 13 May 10 Apr 13 Mar 13 Feb 3 Jan 2 2004 Dec 8 Nov 5 Oct 16 Sep 12 Aug 11 Notes: All OR & UR waiver action is recorded. This includes players clearing waivers for outright assignments or unconditional release. I think this is a case where non mathematician people related to baseball are just talking off the top of their head w/out looking at the numbers. :rolly Likewise I think it would be rare to even find one month where 20 or more transactions are related to waivers.

None of your three sources support the belief that "most" of ML players are put on waivers in August. Most is normally considered 90% & above. Even Phillips testimony of claiming 150 players doesn't help. I believe Hawk said "most" are involved in waivers thru the course of the entire season. That's a different story & one that can be checked against. All other waivers are reported upon because they involve a change in status of the player. So it's reasonable to check the transaction logs & check how often waiver appears. As for the Newsday report that puts Aug in the 350-400 range. Pedro & Beltran cleared. They were not pulled back. But as to the belief they just put them out there to feel interest I have this reference on the Pirates: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05227/554134.stm Littlefield said the Pirates have placed players on waivers this month for the purpose of trading them, but he would not divulge specifics. Requesting ML waivers on a player implies the team is open to trading that player. That's why they were created in the first place.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/mariotti/cst-spt-jay15.html The home centipede (that's what he reminds me of when it comes to his columns on the White Sox) has a point ths time. I'm assuming Ozzie is Christian. He must have been absent the day they preached about "removing the log in your own eye, before removing the speck in your neighbor's". You can't condemn someone for one thing & turn around & say something even worst. Greeting his friend with outlandish remarks was one thing. I looked the other way because I felt it was a private circle & reporters should have treated it off the record. But referring to Iguchi as being "queer" in front of female reporters is STEPPING WAY OVER THE LINE! What it shows is that Ozzie is not respectful of other cultures. Yet he wants us to be respectful of his. Whatever that may be, because it sure is not from his home country. I agree with Kotex boy. If any other manager in MLB refers to his #2 hitter as being "queer" he'd be crucified by reporters. But not Ozzie. It's like the double standard we endured as Sox fans with Sammy Sosa & Barry Bonds. Bonds is bad, Sosa is good. That's what reporters wanted us to believe. We know how that turned out. I think more than a reprimand JR should talk to Ozzie directly & ask him to spend some time with the team psychiatrist so that he may help convince Ozzie not to call his MVP "queer". Asian people in general are very reserved people. That doesn't make them queer.

The word is "militant". You can be fanatical about God, the White Sox, or any other thing that means something to you but you can still be a peace-loving person. But if you're fanaticism makes you militant (see Trotksy, Hitler, Stalin) then it matters not whether you are a Darwinist, communist, egenicist, or spiritualist. A militant is what you are the most & the less developed your conscience is the more likely you are to kill.

When a good GM like Beane says it I will admit wholeheartedly that I was wrong.

Nice of you to jump on the post before I had finished editing it. What I meant to say is that 23 players were on their 25 man rosters & 3 were not. Hawk was a horrible GM so I wouldn't say his actions would exemplify typical GM behavior. If Beane says it I would treat it as Gospel.

Specifically 17 on the Mets & 9 on the NYY$ or 23 players on their 25 man roster, & 3 others. Forget most. That's not even a majority of their ML 40 man rosters. Pedro & Beltran available? Scratching my head on that one. If we assume the request for ML waivers on them went in on Aug 3rd, then it would not have been reported to MLBPA until this past Friday that they cleared waivers. My guess is that's the entity leaking this "confidential" information. The Mets GM might have been hedging his bets on the team. On Aug 3rd if they go on & lose 10 straight they fall out of contention. What would Pedro &/or Beltran be worth to BOS, ANA, & NYY$? Well that didn't happen & now they are w/in 3 gms of the WC. There won't even be a small rumor of them being available while the Mets remain in contention. Phillips statement that he put in 150 claims on players on ML waivers seems reasonable. After all using the Mets & NYY$'s as a sample that's nearly 350 players league-wide. Maybe not most but it sure is a LOT.

http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/graziano/...ll=1&thispage=3 Linder apparently rejected the prior deal citing a need for roster stability with a sale pending on the team. The NYY$ did ask about him in late July. So apparently $15M is worth more than roster stability

Where did you read you can only have 7 guys on ML waivers at a time? The one link I posted on the rules itself didn't mention any limit like that. Nor do any of the other waiver rules.

First off I've never claimed a number. If you are saying 100's then that makes sense given the average contract value of a MLB player. Especially considering how often players move from the 40 man roster to the ml's & vice versa in the course of a season. All I've stated is that they first call GM's around the league to determine interest before requesting ML waivers on a player. Whereas you've argued they don't & they use ML waiver requests to do that work for them. I likewise doubt the confidentiality of these waiver transactions. Newsday reports that Ken Griffey Jr., Mike Piazza and Tom Glavine have all cleared waivers. In addition they report Pedro, Beltran, Benson, Mientkiewicz, Zambrano, Graves, Cairo, & Castro, Posada, Chacon, Womack, Lieter, Rodriquez, Franklin, Escalona, Small, & Flaherty cleared. I don't think they left any stone uncovered there so that amounts to 19 players on 2 40 man rosters. Most? No. Some. So much for the confidentiality of ML waivers. Heavy contracts missing from Newsday's NY teams ML waiver list are: Floyd, A-Rod, Jeter, Matzui, Giambi, Sheffield, Martinez, Johnson, Pavano, Wright, Mussina, & Williams. With respect to KGJ, I'd like to know if the Reds requested ML waivers on Dunn & Kearns. They were told they wouldn't be traded. KGJ was not told that. I feel that's the biggest eye-opener as to Linder being open to trading him for the right deal: one that costs the Reds next to nothing to trade him. I read over the weekend that the NYY$ were never on his short-list. The teams were HOU, ATL, & LAD. All reports say that KGJ would accept a trade to the White Sox, but what about ANA? I don't think you can rule them out either.

It's a good question. What are the rules governing PTBNL trades? I think the worst case scenario would be 3 days. The White Sox & Reds could complete this trade just under the Sep 1st deadline so they wouldn't have to bother clearing the ml'ers. It could be Griffey + cash for 3 PTBNL's.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050813/ap_on_...ybrid_tinkerers Energy CS: will convert any hybrid to a plug-in for about $12K starting next year. Believes auto-makers could mass-produce them for $6K more on the sticker price. This is what makes Americans great. They don't sit around waiting for big govt or big business to solve a problem. While reading this I was thinking way beyond the home owner. Buses, passenger trains, trucks, freight trains can all benefit by this hybrid technology to reduce costs. That in turn will help us slow inflation & protect against spikes in oil prices.

If he doesn't catch on with the Mets I'm sure Ozzie will invite him to ST.

That's very good news. That means no team was willing to risk picking up the remaining value of the contract. The rumor had the White Sox picking up all but $15M. That was the best offer prior to the deadline. It's doubtful that another team will best it now. Which means the White Sox are essentially bidding against themselves to entice the Reds owner to trade him.

If Levine has been telling the truth then 1 of 3 things has happened by now: 1) KGJ has cleared ML waivers. The Reds are free to resume trade talks with the White Sox & all other teams. 2) A suprise team made a claim & the Reds are not happy with the offer so they have withdrawn their request. KGJ can't be traded before the Sep 1st deadline. 3) A surprise team made a claim & the Reds can live with the offer. KGJ is not coming to the White Sox. Given the size & scope of this story it goes w/out saying that confidentiality is out the door. By Monday we should know what happened or whether Levine was telling the truth.

If the Reds request ML waivers on Griffey Jr 1 of 4 things can happen: 1) A surprise team makes a claim & a trade offer they don't like. They withdraw the request & lose the right to request ML waivers on Griffey Jr again for 30 days. 2) A surprise team makes a claim & a trade offer they can live with & they trade Griffey Jr. 3) An expected team makes a claim & trade offer they like & they trade Griffey Jr. 4) He clears ML waivers. The Reds can then trade him for best offer. I read the Stark link but I still think it's just his general opinion. Mainly because it's not been backed up by a majority consensus of former or current GM's & to the best of my knowledge Kenny himself as never said anything about it. So I'm left to decide between Stark's opinion & logic. Logic tells me teams would not risk losing the right to trade most of their players for 30 days at the risk of having to withdraw a request for ML waivers. So if I accept Stark's opinion then there would have to be a logical reason for it. I would have to conclude that prior to requesting ML waivers on a player a team would first do their homework to determine the likelihood of having to withdraw the request. That means talking to the other teams & finding out who will make a claim beforehand. If there's a near certainty that no team will make a claim then it would make sense to request ML waivers on a player just to clear that hurdle for making the player trade eligible.

She tops Miss Williams. My junior high porn-star looking teacher who later got hitched to my football coach. That was a sad day for all of us We used to purposefully get detention on the days she had the role of the babysitter so we could sit, stare, & chat her up. Those we're fun times.

It's all Daley's fault. Prior to 9/11 I think I read Chicago was a top spot for terrorists to settle in & get comfy. Now Daley's gone dictator on us & we've become a prime target. Damn Sear's Tower & Hancock. Always got to be towering over the world we do.

What does that have to do with Trotsky? As to your claim it's pretty ignorant of my posts in other threads with respect to atheists & communists. Even though I can easily make an argument that they are more prone to murder than Christians I would never suggest that ALL atheists & communists are prone to murder. Mathematically speaking that does not compute

Thus the church of Rome stands before the world, “the woman in scarlet, on the scarlet colored Beast.” A church claiming to be Christian, drenched in the blood of sixty-eight millions, and five hundred thousand human beings! -- W. C. Brownlee, Letters in the Roman Catholic controversy, 1834, pp. 347-348. This is utter garbage. He's essentially assigning all murders at the hands of dictators to the Church solely because there existed no clear separation of church & state in those times in history. That's utter garbage. There is very little factual evidence linking clergy men & women to those murders. Whereas in reference to the history of the power-elite atheists, communists, & heathens who came to power there is plenty of factual evidence linking them to the murders. For those not understanding what 160 million represents try imagining an earthquake gobbling up Japan & parts of CA. It's a HUGE number. **************************** As to your question: read on .. http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2005/08/2050.php

The 7-10% figure though as held true to today. I think you have to draw a line in the sand on his work. He traveled across America to interview many 1000's from both urban & rural areas to tabulate his findings on his first two books : Male Sexuality & Female Sexuality. It's the last book that is what wrecked his reputation : Adolescent Sexuality. The bulk of that data came from pedophiles of the worst kind imaginable. Anyways if you want to learn more: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Bisexuality 0 - 100% heterosexual, 6 - 100% homosexual 1 - incidental homosexual attraction, 5 - incidental heterosexual attraction 2 - mostly heterosexual, some homo, 4 - mostly homosexual, some hetero 3 - 100% bi-sexual Kinsey reported that most American men fell in the 1-2 range. One criticism of his study was that it was underfinanced to where the incentive to come forward was not great enough to attract people from the norm. In otherwords he basically attracted ONLY people who were both curious & open to the study to begin with. http://www.americonservative.com/Reisman_Kinsey.htm An interesting perspective on his work. I think the problem with people is that they take extreme positions on his work. The left tries to view it as law of human nature & the right tries to condemn it as heresy. If you take a middle-ground viewpoint you can conclude that yes his screening process probably didn't reflect the norm & attracted fringe groups but there is still value in the data in that these fringe groups existed in all regions of the country. So if nothing else you can conclude that though they are small in numbers they are still spread all over America. I totally discredit his work in adolescent sexuality. In my opinion he became obsessed with his work at that point in his life. He never should have gone there. We did not have a need to know. The inclusion of sex education at a 3rd-5th grade level in our school system is not something we needed. At some time during the publishing of his books he referred to those rating a 0 on his scale as homophobics. It was a sign he was under heavy stress.