jackie hayes

I never knew steroid manufacturers had such a sense of humor.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 2, 2005 -> 06:52 PM) I don't see the Phillies trading Howard, but I could see them trading Thome. And after the beat downs he put on the Sox for years, I could see the Sox being interested in him if there were some money put up by the Phils. With a new GM, they are going to be interested in makes some moves and putting a new stamp on that team. Plus, who doesn't enjoy completing a collection?

The play's very short. It probably won't take too long to read (skim) it well enough to answer a list of questions.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2005 -> 02:34 AM) Amazingly, the Yankees are spending so much more than everyone else that they can actually afford some stupid decisions, as long as they simultaneously make an occasional smart one and at the same time bring along an occasional young guy. It depends -- it becomes a problem when your roster is too full of $10 mil guys breaking down to carry someone who can actually play cf, and when your rotation is so fragile that you may realistically have to field 2 or 3 replacements in the rotation at some point. They didn't have a good solution to their problems this year except complete dumb luck. Their savior was Aaron Small -- how many times does a team get that lucky?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2005 -> 01:59 AM) And they won't always make stupid decisions like Kevin Brown. They don't need to. They can just keep making stupid decisions like Jaret Wright, and the Red Sox'll cruise.

QUOTE(Brian @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 01:09 AM) Wow, Cullpepper could miss the rest of the year. Will miss the rest of the year. Link.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 05:25 PM) he is saying and rightfully so that Greg Maddux is their best pitcher. He really is the only sure thing in that rotation. I know what he's saying, but Zambrano > Maddux.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 05:15 PM) In the past decade or so, the way that number is calculated has undergone several fundamental shifts that no one has been told about. First and foremost, in 2002-2003, the Department of Labor phased in what they call the "Birth/Death" model indicator, which is basically a statistical trick designed to account for jobs the government basically assumes are being created based on past performance...but I for one have virtually no confidence in this number...it is included as-is in the unemployment figures every month, but never are we given a margin of error on the number. The margin of error on that number has to be huge, somewhere between 10's of thousands to hundreds of thousands depending on how rapidly shifts are taking place in the economy. Even the DOL admits that their model currently cannot account for rapid shifts in employment, and it will tend to smear them out. Can you point to something which states that this adjustment is done on the Household Survey data (from which the unemployment rate is derived)? B/c I can only find evidence that the adjustment is made on Establishment Survey data (which is not used to calculate the unemployment rate), and really, it wouldn't make any sense to use it on Household Survey data.

Most careful studies have found that increasing the minimum wage has no effect on jobs. Probably that's not quite true, and there are some measurement questions about those results -- but the effect will be very small.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 03:59 PM) where a grandpa was your best pitcher this year I don't think they start off THAT early in Venezuela.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 03:50 PM) I'm not trying to push your buttons or anything...but I think you should just disappear. To quote my fav troll,

Look, this topic wouldn't be so offputting to me if the op didn't start the whole thing off by patting himself on the back. 'You guys were SO wrong. But I was right the whole time.' Especially when there's basically NO paper trail to back up that statement. He did make fun of Vinny Castilla. Well, I didn't want Vinny Castilla, and I was wrong on a lot of other things. Topics like this work better if it's more like, 'Boy was I wrong on... [May I suggest Eddie Guardado?] How about you?'

QUOTE(LittleHurt @ Oct 30, 2005 -> 07:50 AM) And I passed the picasso on My way to work. My new wallpaper. Thanks, man!

You'd respond why? Just let it stand, it says everything w/o any assistance.

Okay, your opinion. I still say Renteria is a better player who had a bad year. And no chance were Roberts and Cabrera the difference there, it was all the pitching. Sentiment doesn't get outs.

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Oct 29, 2005 -> 06:48 PM) Renteria was not better than Cabrera last year. That said, they both stunk. Renteria was a bit better at the dish while Cabrera was much better in the field. They could have kept a guy who helped them win a championship, but they spent 40 million over 4 years for qual or lesser overall production. That was change for changes sake. And the Red Sox should have signed Kirk Saarloos and every team should have signed David Dellucci and... It's easy to do this analysis ex-post. I think most people thought last year that $2 mil/per more for Renteria was at least even -- at least for the Red Sox, who had some money to burn. And I still think Renteria will be better next year.

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Oct 29, 2005 -> 06:04 PM) I think the Sox made changes for changes sake. Renteria for Cabrera. While Pedro and Lowe may have wanted too much money for too many years, a reclamation project (miller), a soft-tossing 41 year old (Wells), and a guy coming off dangerous ankle issues just shouldn't have been expected to succeed at the same level. I am for being proactive to an extent, but we are in better shape than those Angels. We could use another bat, but the rotation and pen can pretty much remain the same and still be elite. I don't think they were expected to perform at the same level. They didn't know how well Schilling would recover, so they had to aim at quantity as much as quality. But with a team that can score like the Red Sox, it doesn't look like such a bad tradeoff for the season. You hope Schilling's healthy by playoff time, then you're looking at a top 2 of Schilling and Clement -- looked like a good plan to me. And Renteria's better than Cabrera; how is that change for change's sake? I think the big question for us is whether we would be willing to trade a starter for a hitter. B/c if Paulie leaves (which apparently is a given for everyone outside of Chicago), we will desperately need hitting. Even if he stays, we badly need to upgrade there.

CC and SP, I'm very grateful for the pix. Many thanks.

You can tell a story for almost every one of those guys. The players' reactions are meaningless -- the guy's not going to look like a murderer in a silent film just because he roided. The only part that worries me is that Carroll says that this is a name we'll care about. People will care about Sheffield, or Vlad, or whoever, sure. Even a minor player, lots of people will care. (Look how many people remember Alex Sanchez, for crissake.) But people would really care if it's the World Series winner. It's hard not to wonder if that's how he means it.

I luuuuv Willie. ROONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks John.

Thought he wouldn't be able to say another word after that shout, geez.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 28, 2005 -> 05:46 PM) Your right, but I guarantee Hawk will be doing something. I thought they said he was MCing the rally -- ???

Is Rooney there? Seems like most of the announcers are, it'd be great if he were part of this. (Though I can understand why he wouldn't be.)

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 28, 2005 -> 03:57 PM) Ahh, open your eyes? Well, thanks for everything except.... Cute, Tex. Real f'n cute.

I dunno, I can't figure it out. I had seen that troubleshooting page, I can't find anything relevant. My apps are all up to date. Could be a firewall thing, I guess. At least I get the audio. Thanks.