jackie hayes

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Jul 2, 2006 -> 06:50 PM) Believe me, I wouldn't select Pierzynski over Mauer either. I'm merely suggesting it's easier to understand selecting Pierzynski because atleast he's put up All- Star caliber numbers. Not to mention Guillen will be more willing to select one of his own. Mauer's numbers are obviously all-star and then some. In past years, players have been selected -- most noteably from the Yankees -- who aren't even deserving of a spot. We act as if Guillen does anything conventional. Did you watch this afternoon's game? Wouldn't it be pure Ozzie to do exactly the opposite of what's expected? It's just too much. It's disrespectful of everyone who plays the game to snub someone so badly. I admit that I'm no expert on the psychology of MLB, but I just think that would create a lot of bad will towards the Sox around the AL. I mean if (God forbid ) we don't reach the WS every year, I wouldn't be surprised to see our players snubbed for many years. Not that the ASG is a bastion of integrity, but snubbing Mauer would make it a complete joke all over again.

Eh... Zambrano can do that. Even Neifi, sometimes. That's not too big a deal. But EVERYONE was hitting Mark tonight. And how many times on the first or second pitch? It looked like batting practice. Worst MB start ever?

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Jul 2, 2006 -> 06:38 PM) Even though I would hate to be a fan of an opposing team and have one of my players not make the All-Star roster, it's not as if anyone can say none of those names are undeserving. All seven deserve their places. If people are criticizing Guillen for taking Pierzynski over Mauer (for example) it's easier to rationalize than Veritek over anyone. AJ's having a great year, but Mauer's been the best catcher in baseball, hands down. How in the world could you rationalize AJ over a guy flirting with .400 and leading all catchers in slugging? (With excellent defense, btw.) Edit: Okay, I do realize you said 'easier...than Varitek...' But that's like saying it's easier to justify making Star Jones the new Miss America over Roseanne Barr. Not saying much.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 2, 2006 -> 05:28 PM) f*** that. This was not Cliffy's loss. Come on, let's get real. The whole staff sucked balls today, especially our "ace". I think this is a record for the longest uncontested "Mark Buehrle is not an ace" ever. Congrats! QUOTE(BobDylan @ Jul 2, 2006 -> 05:54 PM) Nothing like beating a dead horse until it's not really a horse anymore.

QUOTE(max power @ Jul 2, 2006 -> 06:51 AM) Wow 7 of you people have no idea what you are talking about. Or 9 people just felt like giving the rest of us a laugh. Which is more likely?

Andruw, and you are making too much of mlbtraderumors, imho. Too pricey even if they decide to shop him in-season (which I doubt).

QUOTE(knightni @ Jul 2, 2006 -> 01:03 PM) Hendrix actually said: "Roll me over, I mossed be stoned". I luuuuuuuv levity after that type of loss.

Fwiw, over his career, Javy's era is exactly a full run worse in June than his overall average. So we can hope that this skid will end soon. We knew going in that he could be streaky. Given that, it seems a bit early to bail, after one awful month.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 10:50 PM) I have a feeling that the first time someone gets arrested for wearing American flag boxer shorts, the GOP may think twice about this amendment. That's a liberal fantasia. The amendment says that any flag desecration can be punished, but we all know they won't pass any law that punishes...skid marks...flags in the rain...flags on the ground...flags on tp...only the desecration of flags for political statement, not crass showboat commercialism, is really at risk. Thank America's God.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 10:54 PM) do you listen to lumbaugh? Every once in a while, I can't hit snooze before the "Rush Limbaugh morning update" comes on. Other than that, f*** no. I did, occasionally, for educational purposes only, many many many many years ago. The inanity, the inanity.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 10:55 PM) There are people who must have something in their DNA that makes them unable to kick. I'd bet that's a LARGE portion of humanity. A good number of people have just refused to get into that s***, even once -- good choice.

I think so. WGN focused on the Sox fans, especially late, and they were clearly part of some chant. Good job! Stay till the end, be respectful, you're golden.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 10:07 PM) man, i know i haven't read all of this thread or any of it...but it sure does seem that this amendment only gets thrown out there when the GOP needs a boost...its prolly best it never gets voted into law or they wouldn't have it to fall back on. Dumbass... When they need a boost, they throw out the $100 'gas rebate'. Only when mf'in Rush Limbaugh...complains...about being treated like a GOP whore...(let that sink in a while)...THEN they whip out the flagburning amendment.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 09:38 PM) This is just a guess, but most people on here play fantasy baseball, which isn't free on other sites. The same was once true for football, until ESPN made theirs free and everyone else was forced to follow suit. Because of that, not everyone has a fantasy ID on some of these other sites. That's just my guess though. I will say this, I wasn't a fan of Sports Illustrated's football leagues, and I personally prefer Yahoo's setups for baseball and football to ESPN's. Thanks for the info, just curious. Only other place I've played is mlb.com, which wasn't as good as Yahoo, but it's not like I'd refuse to do it again.

Don't know why everyone's dead set against Giambi. The guy has had one HELL of a 1st half. Hafner's been great, but he's barely played at 1st. I can't really blame someone for picking Giambi (who's played more 1st than dh) over him. It's Mauer then Ramon Hernandez. Screw Pudge, Martinez, Varitek, and Posada. And Johjima, although I'm impressed. Good year for catchers in the AL.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 09:37 PM) Hopefully the O can give Bobby the night off tomorrow. He has had a lot of work lately. Agreed...but DAMN has he come through! F yes. Thornton and Jenks stunning 'em tonight. I luuuuuuuuuv this.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 04:06 PM) Hahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... OF COURSE it was a power grab. But, the LEGISTLATIVE BODY had not drawn districts in this state since 1990, and the districts have shifted. So, the GOP went ahead and redrew them, basically saying that the districts had changed immensely since 1990. Of course they had. Nothing would have been said if this was done 2 years earlier by the same legislature, but it was tied up in the COURT system, which is where it doesn't belong. I agree, though, NSS, that an independant body would be even better, but that's not how most states do it. I agree with some of this, I was just pointing out that it was in no way some principled stand. Nothing in the law specifically forbids it, but then, nothing specifically forbids each and every new legislature from redistricting as it sees fit. You say it does not belong in the courts, but there's no justification for that. It's been acknowledged that the legislature has the responsibility of redrawing the districts, sure. But if it abdicates, the courts SHOULD be involved, which is exactly what happened in Texas. It's also been acknowledged that the government has a duty to settle the districts in a reasonable amount of time. Having the legislature revisit the issue years after they were supposed to deal with it breaks at least the spirit of that directive. Not to mention, Tom DeLay sure as hell wasn't part of the legislature.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 11:54 AM) Whenever I see these conflicts over districting, and see that it is performed by the legislature(s), it always makes me cringe. It doesn't seem like legislative bodies should be handling that. But then I must admit, I cannot think of a better way. Some sort of independent commission would seem justified, but it would be hard to insulate them from partisan politics. It's essentially just a math problem (divy up a distribution). You could probably come up with an algorithm that does it impartially, but I don't think anyone would go for that.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 11:39 AM) You people have to understand what the issue really was. The COURTS drew the maps in 2000. That's why the LEGISLATURE, who are the ones that are supposed to redistrict, did it in 2004. Hahahahahaha. You're trying to say that this wasn't done to wrest more seats to the GOP, that part was only coincidence? That's hilarious. The real issue is pretty transparent here.

QUOTE(SHAFTR @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 11:25 AM) There are steroid rumors about Oliver Perez. Okay, based on what? He still throws hard, just nowhere near the strike zone. I wouldn't mind getting Perez, but I wouldn't want to count on him for anything. This is the second year in a row he's been terrible, only he's much worse this year.

Just curious -- why are some people so adamant about Yahoo? I mean, that's what I've used most, and it seems to work pretty well, but why would you avoid it if it were hosted somewhere else?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 08:28 PM) I'm trying to make a few points... (1) Environmental scientists stand to benefit from Gore's movie regardless of who's in office. The main point of Gore's movie (which I agree with, BTW) legitimizes the concept of global warming and the research programs that revolve around it. Gore's movie could affect public opinion, which could affect elections, which could affect overall federal funding for environmental research. (2) A Dem in the WH (or Dem control of Congress) would also tend to benefit proponents of global warming, given that many of them run on environmentalist platforms. It's possible (even probable, if somebody with Gore's agenda occupies the WH in '09) that they could increase funding for environmental sciences. (3) The Bush Administration has little control over scientists not directly employed by the federal government. They can't "silence" their results and they don't control whose grants get funded. But (on your third point) they can affect the total amount of grant money available and how it gets directed -- as you mention in your second point. That's a game both parties could play. If that's really what's going on, if scientists are just shilling the movie to get some research money later, you'd think scientists in other discliplines would be downplaying global warming (to make sure their own research dollars don't get redirected) -- Is this a common phenomenon? Imo, losing your reputation over discredited statements is a much bigger downside risk than the small upside risk that your individual statements will sway the public debate in any noticeable way. Edit: Or just ignore my post and read Jim's, since he actually knows something about this.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 07:48 PM) I was talking about professors (like the ones cited in the article), not government employees. Their applications for federal grants are reviewed by their peers... not Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice. The Administration does not attempt to stop them from publishing their results in independent, peer-reviewed journals. You seemed to be suggesting that if the Dems take the WH, these scientists will stand to benefit. Now you're saying that the administration ("Cheney and Rice") doesn't affect grant applications, that it only depends on peers -- who obviously can't change with a change of administration. So right now I'm just confused about what point you're trying make.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 06:02 PM) I have to paraphrase because I can't find it now, but GWB said that while he is "concerned" about global warming he thinks it's time to "move beyond" who/what to blame for it. That tells you how concerned the Administration really is right there, as solutions can only emerge when the causes are identified by science and then governments do what is necessary to affect solutions. With the Supremes ready to hear arguments and eventually rule on whether the Administration has a legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to curb greenhouse emissions, it's certainly no wonder they would like to move beyond assessing principal causes. And, while not diminishing the significance of the GWB conservation move a couple of weeks back at declaration of the NW Hawaiian Islands a National Monument, the cynic in me now sees that the timing of that pro-environment move makes sense in light of the anti-conservation move the Administration knew they would soon be taking in defending their refusal to enforce the Clean water Act. I agree with all that, but I wasn't thinking so much about actual concern, just some fake political interest. I'd expect something like, 'Mr Gore feels very strongly about this issue, and I am looking forward to seeing his film as part of the ongoing debate about global warming.' Something where the WH gets in the 'no consensus on global warming' tomfoolery, instead of just admitting that it's going to hide from ideas it doesn't already agree with. QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 06:06 PM) Keep in mind that many of these "100 top climate researchers" are vying for federal grants to keep their research programs alive. They obviously have a vested interest in legitimizing his movie. I agree with Gore in principle, although his apocalyptic imagry of the Atlantic swallowing Manhattan takes away from his argument, IMO. So the best way to get grants from a GOP dominated federal government is to publically back up the movie of one the nation's most prominent Dems...? How does that work?

Bush said he would not see it? Wow. Am I the only one who thinks that's a tonedeaf move, politically? There are a million ways to dismiss the idea without making it look as if you're shielding yourself from outside ideas.