jackie hayes

QUOTE(holly wiggins @ Jul 22, 2006 -> 10:44 AM) Yeah, they should trade Buehrle now. Who the freak does he think he is, letting down the "fans" like this?! I say we teepee his house. Also, no team has ever come from 6.5 back on July 22 to win; and this team definitely doesn't have the tools to do it. I'm giving away the rest of my season tickets, since there's no point even watching the Sox anymore. Get a grip. A pitcher who has been rock-solid for half a decade goes into the worst slump of his career, and you're trashing him? Classy. Trashing Buehrle? Did you even read what you quoted? He said he's been a disappointment. How the f can that be denied? He said we need him for the stretch run. Maybe BECAUSE he's our best pitcher (at least tied for that honor), and we need our best players to perform. But hey, I'm forgetting, you're an expert on class, telling other posters that they aren't real fans with the scare-quotes bs. Why would anyone bother to stick around here and post if they didn't really care about this team? As for "trashing" Buehrle, did you bother to look at his member group? That's not an automatically generated group, he had to ask to have it changed to that. But your mind-reading powers saw through that ruse to his true Buehrle-hating self. Great point, bravo!

He won't be 30 for a week or so. Does that qualify him as a rookie in the Giants' clubhouse?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 22, 2006 -> 12:24 AM) I have no idea what you're talking about Eh, okay. Sticking with the Orioles, guess who's back? The great Fernando Tatis. Reports of his demise were greatly exaggerated. I don't like bumping anything before my time, but, for fun, here ya go. He's been gone so long that there's hardly any mention of him in the history of Soxtalk. Hurry to your waiver wire before it's too late!!!

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 22, 2006 -> 12:06 AM) Russ Ortiz' WHIP is now 40 points higher than Francisco Liriano's ERA. Aw, it's not that high. I know he's working himself up to a 42.00 whip, but I don't think he's even hit the 20s yet.

QUOTE(pcullotta @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 11:50 PM) Since July 2nd, Mark Buerhle is Dead Last in MLB in ERA with a 13.81 and also dead last in Hits per 9 innings with 18.9. Actually, checking the stats, I'm pretty sure that doesn't include tonight's games. He dropped his July era to 11.4 after this game. Phew.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 11:55 PM) Oritz has only pitched 12 innings in July, he's allowed 18 ER but he's pitched about as much a very active long reliever. Well, a 13.5 is better than a 13.8, that's true. Very, very sad. But true. How can Mark look himself in the mirror? Russ has done everything he could to get that worst pitcher of the month award. You can't possibly do more/less than he did today. But Mark wasn't content with the ASG, he had to have this, too.

QUOTE(pcullotta @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 11:50 PM) Since July 2nd, Mark Buerhle is Dead Last in MLB in ERA with a 13.81 and also dead last in Hits per 9 innings with 18.9. Even after Russ Ortiz's no outs, 6 run night?

I have to copycat, here. Pedro. Not much to say on that. And I hate the Cubs as much as anyone, but still -- Wood and Prior in the first couple years of their careers. And Joaquin Andujar. Don't ask, I don't know.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 11:30 PM) What the hell happened to Jake Peavy? The guy is absolutely awful this year. He's getting rocked again, and is ERA is over 5 as of right now. That is absolutely horrible, especially in the NL in an serious pitcher's park. How is this the same guy that posted ERA's of 2.27 and 2.88 the last two years while striking out more than a batter per inning? There's (^^^) tragedy... ...and then there's Russ Ortiz, giving up 6 runs to start the game without getting a single out. I didn't know it was possible for Leo Mazzone to make you worse, but Russ Ortiz has found a way.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 04:14 PM) Ah yes, so easy to explain it all away isn't it Aren't numbers just grand. The irony is you managed to cherry pick out what you wanted, and throw in a few irrelevant things, just like the author of that story did, and like I did. Congrats we are all biased economists now. And you managed to be totally nonspecific and avoid any substance at all. Congrats? I don't see a single disagreement between economists on these numbers or the WSJ analysis. Only between pundits and politicians.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 01:48 PM) TrickS. You used both "trick" and "tricks". QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 01:48 PM) First is the played out class warfare card. Let me make this simple, if rich people are making money, poor people have jobs. If rich people are losing money, poor people lose jobs. Its the same with corporate profits... If coroporations lose money, people lose jobs, see also the airline and auto industries of today. Guess what. Corporations are making money, and since August of 2003, 5.4 million new jobs have been created. Guess what else, corporations are paying lower rates, but paying more money in taxes, which is exactly what conservatives said would happen. It's not class warfare, it's accounting. Even the WH budget director acknowledges the fact that the increase in tax revenue is coming from high income taxpayers. Why are Republicans so worried about mere fact? And frankly, your "simple" argument is flat wrong. If inequality is so great for growth (as you claim it creates oodles of jobs), why didn't payroll outstrip WH projections? Why did it fall below WH projections? The WH itself has admitted that the tax cuts do not create more revenue on their own. But it's true that whatever 'revenue effect' you get from a tax cut, it will be stronger for corporations than for individuals. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 01:48 PM) How about showing the increase in corporate profits as a percentage, and then comparing it to income tax collections for a comparison? For #1, corporate profits are HUGELY volitile, and a prone to large swings. #2, you can actually have negative coporate profits, while you can't have negative income tax collections. The lowest you can have is zero. #3 income tax collections are a much bigger piece of tax revenues than corporate profits, but the implication in the article is that they are somehow equal. #4, because of the size difference in between the two it takes a much smaller dollar figure move in profits to make a larger percentage difference than it does the other way around. #5, payroll taxes are incredibly stable because of the fact that there has been a nearly stable unemployement rate in this country for the past year, which means the group has not grown at all, and the simple fact remains that there can't be huge growth because the growth potential is capped by the income limit. If a guy doubles his salary from 90000 to 180000 his taxes paid rise a ton, but the amount he pays for payroll taxes only goes up 7.75% X $4200. It makes liars out of the percentages because they don't tell the whole story. The volatility's sort of the point. Although corporate taxes are only about 1/5 of personal income taxes, because they are so volatile, a large increase can have a sizeable effect on overall tax revenue. It's like suggesting that GDP numbers should ignore investment, because it's small and volatile. As far as records exist, the only time aggregate corporate profits have been negative was in the Depression. I can only hope that Bush isn't that incompetent. And forget income, what happened to all those jobs that come from inequality, btw? That would push up payroll taxes, right? Hmm... Anyway, we know that there aren't too many people jumping from 90k to 180k, since the WH itself "trimmed its estimate of wage and salary income by 1%". All evidence suggests that wages are stagnant, except at the top end. I don't see any "implication" that corporate taxes are of the same size as income taxes, either. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 01:48 PM) Another cute little trick is using whole numbers in some sections, while using percentages in others, and comparing percentages to percentages in other areas. Just because the percentages don't match up, doesn't mean there is something sinister going on. I really like the part where they adjusted for inflation in one section, and didn't in another, and then used that to make it look even more outlandish when comparing the two percentage changes. I guess total tax revenues aren't effected by inflation, just econmic output? Come on. They don't compare the percentages, they just report them. As for GDP, they provide both inflation-adjusted and non-adjusted numbers, one right after the other, clearly labelled. The inflation-adjusted number is mentioned second, almost as a curio. Basically useless, I agree that it would be better left out. Everywhere else they seem to use non-adjusted numbers, which is the right thing to do. This is a simple accounting point they're making. They're not ripping the WH numbers, just the way Bush interprets them in public statements. Since those interpretations don't agree with his own administration's analysis, that does not seem difficult to justify.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 12:03 PM) No problem at all. I am sure that the next time Konerko hits a dong off of him, when Konerko flips the bat or stares at the ball going into the dark of the night that Zumaya just remembers that its part of the game. Hopefully Paulie gets a pitch to hit next time.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 09:07 AM) In writing this the author misleads the public. What is not mentioned is the fact that GDP growth was 5.6% in Q1 2006 and is expected to remain strong for the forseeable future. When you have strong economic growth you get greater tax revenues. The author also failed to cite declining unemployment and the few million jobs that have been created since this latest expansion started taking hold in 2002/2003. In spite of all those failings, I wasn't referring to the author as a douche but the class-warfare playing blogger who Balta cited. No, it's not a bit misleading. The deficit is lower than earlier WH projections, which assumed a particular rate of economic growth, income distribution, payroll employment, etc. The WH projections on economic growth were basically correct. So that can not be the source of the discrepancy. The payroll employment numbers are actually below WH projections. So that's definitely not the reason, either. Basically, the assumptions that were wrong involved income distribution (corp profits are larger than expected, and household labor income is absolutely more unequal). What's so hard to understand?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 09:36 AM) And an interesting and misleading trick this is as well. I love fun with numbers. Its funny for the author to accuse the President and his group of accounting and math tricks, but then to do the samething in his own writings. *sigh* Mind telling me what the trick is?

QUOTE(MichiganBorn @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 11:46 AM) Guys, I'm a Tigers fan so I feel like I'm probably bias here. I was reading an article in Sun-Times about the game yesterday. I'm not rubbing anything in. I'm just wondering if the Sox Fans on here agree with the article that Zumaya got too excited after the strike outs in the 8th. Again I'm a Tigers fan so short of the guy full out taunting I'll probably let it slide. That being said I don't mind celebration. As long as it isn't ridiculous or for routine things. Heres the article Sun-Times Article Thanks. There were different reactions in the game thread yesterday. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. Big game, heart of the order, sure. But, Paulie was dead on -- if/when the Sox ever get to him, he has to be ready to get it back in spades. If so, game on. That's the problem a lot of us had with the Cubs and celebrations. Endless whining over Osuna's fist pump, then Zambrano pulls out a Sharpie for every strikeout.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 10:36 AM) The Abreu developments are pretty stunning to me, if no reason other than the fact that Jim Duquette admitted last night that the Baltimore Sun had correctly reported that the Phillies and Orioles were actually discussing a deal which would send Rodrigo Lopez to the Phils for Bobby Abreu. He claimed the deal was "unlikely" however, because Abreu likely wouldn't waive his no trade clause to go to Baltimore without having his $16 million option picked up for 08'. Then, you suddenly get wind that the Mets may be willing to part with Milledge for Abreu after all, which seems somewhat like offerring $1 million at an auction when the previous bidder bid $500. Strange. QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 11:40 AM) Who would they rather have. Rodrigo Freakin Lopez, who is just bad all the way around. Or Freddy Garcia who would be good against the NL. I gotta think the Rodrigo Lopez stuff is bunk. There's just noone who's so stupid. Maybe a really dumb attempt to make the Yanks think a trade was coming soon, so hurry up and give us Hughes.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 12:30 AM) Increased economic activity + steady job growth + falling unemployment + rich guys making a bigger killing = more tax dollars. Id leave it to a leftist blogger to play the class warfare card while trying to spin positive news into something negative. Rich guys making more money is part of it but not the entire reason like this douche says. "this douche" = the WSJ??? Cool, now the WSJ is part of the vast left-wing conspiracy. It gets better and better. Can we add it to the axis of evil too? I was able to find the article free here. It's listed as "today's free feature" -- hopefully they just mean, from "today's" paper, and continue to have it up.

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Jul 20, 2006 -> 05:31 PM) Only two, dude! I completely disagree with you on #2. Are you kidding? Ozzie knew this, KW knew this, I knew this. To say that smallball wasn't the main reason for 2005 just defies logic. And history. Or not. Our pitchers were out-of-their-minds good last year. We scored a large percentage of our runs off the homer. We had ONE fast guy. None in the 2nd half. Smallball has nothing to do with the Sox then or now. (Nor should it...)

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 20, 2006 -> 05:29 PM) I think you are taking his post to the extreme and assuming more than what is there. I don't see how. He took his own post to the extreme, saying there's no "logical" discussion anymore. He did all the work for me. Rex, I know other people have been here longer. But thanks, the last time I was reminded was yesterday, and I'd totally forgot.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jul 20, 2006 -> 05:18 PM) The post was about a lot more than him stating he's leaving. I love Soxtalk. This site has been a big part of my life (I hate to admit that) over the last 4 years. But it hasn't been very enjoyable of late. The constant gloom and doom posts by various posters is really starting to get old. Why is it so hard for some people to keep a damn perspective? No team's season ends because of a 2-7 stretch in July. What's even more frustrating is that we saw this same movie last year. No matter what's happened the last couple weeks, this is nothing compared to what almost happened last year. Are there legitimate concerns? Most definitely. I had some concerns even before the Boston series. This is a message board. And one of the great things about message boards is it allows you to share your opinions, express yourself, ect. I don't have a problem with that. But to deem the season over after every slump? Just stop watching the damn team if you're that damn emotional. Someone makes a whole goodbye thread crying about how he can't bear to see another negative post -- and it's everyone else that's "that damn emotional"? Lol.

QUOTE(TheHolyBovine @ Jul 20, 2006 -> 03:42 PM) I love KW, but I'd really wish he'd try drafting a power arm every now and then. I think we have enough soft tossers at the ML level. It's not that simple. Verlander was a #2 overall pick. Zumaya fell to the 11th round, so NOONE thought he was this good. The Sox did try with Nick Lemon in the 5th (?) round -- we all know how that turned out.

Congrats! That's a pretty big recognition. How many more hits has it translated to? If you don't want them to use that name, though, why do you introduce yrself that way on the site?

We should have done more against Rogers. Man on 2nd, none out, that hurt. But I will say, Zumaya was just flippin awesome. Just effin awesome. F'n awesome, I tell you. Even his breaking pitches were sick, and he (smartly) pitched well around the guy most likely to hurt him. I honestly can't imagine any lineup in baseball hitting him in those 2 innings. Still, this series leaves me with a lot of nagging questions.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 20, 2006 -> 03:45 PM) One more inning to score at least one run. More important, one inning of Jones instead of Zumaya.

QUOTE(CYGarland @ Jul 20, 2006 -> 02:36 PM) a bunt here by Pablo might not be a bad idea A successful bunt, or one of ours?