jackie hayes

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jul 11, 2005 -> 11:05 PM) The salary is a pro-rated minimum. so something along the lines of 150K. Nothing that a major league ballclub should worry about. (It's less than the Sox have to pay out in all-star bonuses over the next two years now) Oh, okay. Well then that sucks. Kinda. Good move, still, but I'm not too concerned.

Addition by subtraction (of Luis Rivas). Okay move, nothing to worry too much about. But if they're using leftover salary space on Boone, that's a pretty good sign.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jul 11, 2005 -> 09:48 PM) those haven't been 'goods' in a long, long time. See, I had a whole thing worked out around "hanging it up", but then I get to this and it suddenly doesn't seem funny anymore. Thanks, jerk.

QUOTE(rangercal @ Jul 11, 2005 -> 01:44 PM) for the sake of tiger fans rogers should step down. Rogers= asshole Yeah, but there's a guy who never learned when to walk away. /had to

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 10, 2005 -> 04:41 PM) Yeah, my math was bad Do Canadians not work a 40 hour week? What accounts for the 10%+ amount of work that Canadians don't do over American's? Also in that respect how many more Canadians would it take to do that work then with the lack of hours worked? Also nice caveat at the end of that, assuming that health care will stay at presant value. Health care has been rising at a double digit clip forever now. No, I meant the present discounted value of future health care costs. It's hard to guess how rising health care costs will affect things, so I'm not making any guess there. If they go up by a lot, Canada may have to increase taxes, but the supply of labor is based on the after-tax wage, so... Who knows what the overall effect will be? Americans nearly work 2000 hr per year on average, but that's very high by world standards. We even exceed Japan now. (Old CNN chart. These data are a little old, but it hasn't changed dramatically.) Everyone has a theory why that's happened, I don't know which is right. I'd guess hours at this factory would be more than average Canadians, fewer than average Americans, but I could be wrong. How many more Canadians it will take is really the whole question. Toyota is claiming that it won't take many more (if any), b/c they're better trained and therefore more productive.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 10, 2005 -> 04:19 PM) Balanced out to the tune of about $1.5 billion over ten years when you factor in Canadians are forced to pay their own health care costs? Somehow I doubt it. Their subsidies to build the plant today might have been higher, maybe even significantly higher, but I doubt they come close to the $130 million a year in perpituity that Toyota would be saving according to their own numbers. All this is, is the corporate world forcing American's to pay their own health care costs through higher taxes, dispite the label of "government" health care making it sound like we are getting something for free. With the trillions of dollars of profits that corporate America makes off of their employees backs I think 10k a year towards the health of their employees isn't that big of a deal. Well, not to nitpick -- but the $130 mil is too high. First, the big thing, you added an extra zero. 10,000*1,300=13,000,000. Second, 2000 hours is too high -- Canadians work, on average, about 1750 hours per year. And you took the high end of the $4-5 range. So it could well balance out, even considering the health care savings by their present value. Just saying.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 10, 2005 -> 04:00 PM) I am sure it is nothing to do with this... Or this... By my calculations not only does Toyota get the $125 mil from Canada to build there... They also are going to save $10,000 an employee by making the employees pay their own health care through Canada's higher taxes, which by my math makes Toyota save $130,000,000 per year in employee costs in Canada (1300 employees x $10,000[$5hrx 2000 hrs worked for typical employee year]). Higher training costs my ass. But I am sure it was just how smart Canadians are... :rolly We as employees make companies rich by contributing billions to their bottom line, and we as American's are greedy to expect them to actually contribute what they promise to pensions, or to pick up some of their employees health costs... f*** that, and f*** Toyota. It'll be a cold day in hell before I ever own one. To be fair, the article does also say that "Toyota turned its back on hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies offered from several American states in favour of building a second Ontario plant." If true, those incentives may nearly balance out.

No, I don't believe that, and that's terrible logic. Look, if anyone cares (which I doubt), just read it for yourself and make up yr own mind. No offense to the op, it started fine, but the way it's gone made this thread suck, and I apologize to everyone for my part in the threadkill.

Priceless. Chapter 1 of this online book you link: Gee, why does that sound familiar? Did your prodigious reading take you into the FIRST chapter? And cut the bulls***. I had quite a bit to say after the s*** you threw at me before, that I then cut out. I only asked that people judge your posts themselves. Although I can understand why that would concern you.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 9, 2005 -> 09:02 PM) If your goal is to learn about a player, then they should be in the minors where they can play every day. If your goal is to win a world series, then you shouldn't have people up on your roster to "Learn about" them. You should have people up on your roster because they can perform in the job they need to do. If we need a left handed bat off the bench and Harris can't handle it, it's time for someone else to get Harris's job. We can learn about them and give them a lot more at bats in AAA. The goal is not to learn about anyone. The goal is to win. I'm referring to the posters here, tossing the 2005 stats around, not the team. I think Sox management has had their mind made up on both players -- whether they can handle their roles -- for quite a while now. But arguments being made for one or the other based on 70-odd abs each are ludicrous. Who's going to be convinced by that?

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jul 9, 2005 -> 08:42 PM) I understand your point, but Iguchi definitely wouldn't have f***ed up so many times. Nobody can prove it, but everyone knows it's true. So it's guaranteed that he would have moved Pods over safely twice? Despite his recent appetite for strikeouts?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 9, 2005 -> 08:37 PM) Here's the key...their roles on THIS TEAM aren't going to change. Timo Perez will not start many games in front of Pods, Rowand, and Dye. Willie Harris will not start many games in front of Iguchi. These 2 have specific jobs; they are late inning replacements/pinch hitters and guys who do not get many at bats. If they can not produce in the limited at bats, then they are hurting the team by taking away the roster spot of someone who could produce with limited playing time, like a Gload or a Jenks. They're not going to put up better numbers than the guys in front of them. We all know that. But if they can't put up better numbers than the guys who could take their roster spot, then there's no reason for them to stay on the roster. But you're not going to learn anything about them from 70 abs. We don't know any more about these 2 than we did at the beginning of the season. All this 'looky looky at the ops now!' is silly. And good Lord, how much bitterness can you have b/c someone had one bad day. The most electrons are spilled here over the least important issue.

Who cares? It's pretty obvious that the Sox won't play either one. But I can't believe all this tossiwng around of 2005 stats. There's been a huge shift in Willie's stats over the last month and a half. People must be thinking, oh wow, that's a long time, that must be meaningful. That's 26 abs. After his first 26 abs, Rowand's line was .115/.148/.269. I guess that's pretty good information, huh? And then it's narrowed down to one game, how absurd is that? At least Pods hasn't done anything stupid in ONE game, like get picked off twice in one game, that dumb Texas hick. And the same w/ Timo. They've each got less than a month's worth of abs over the whole season. That's essentially useless. Save the 'subs have a job and they have to perform when they get in, etc'. It's ridiculous to think your bench players -- on the bench because they're not as good -- will be the most consistent players on your team, or in the major leagues, for that matter. But from the reaction here, I'd guess that everyone is perfectly consistent except Willie. After all, we've been told that it's guaranteed the Sox would have won the game w/ Iguchi playing. B/c he's never, ever failed to execute, I suppose. Kind of like his flawless fielding to start the year. Between the 2, Timo has a stronger arm and a bit more power. Willie gets on base better, is a better defender at more important positions, and has more speed. I think Willie's better and more useful, but all this arguing over the player who won't ever see the field is played out. Especially these silly stats -- oh oh, after yesterday, my guy's better now, oh oh oh....

Out at least a month w/ a broken bone. Linky.

QUOTE(Hanky Panky @ Jul 9, 2005 -> 03:40 PM) Has anyone ever talked to Willie in person? He is such a hick. He can't even speak right. Oh wait, he's from Cairo--that's Cairo, GA. Are you kidding w/ this s***? The "hick" crap is just f'n dumb. And of all the fans of ML teams, you'd think White Sox fans would be the LEAST inclined to talk s*** about Georgia, after 16 years. And if there's one thing I couldn't care less about... Hey Joe, how do you spell Mississippi? Hey fat lady, how do you spell triple? Uppityness is for Wrigley.

Now our only hope is this homemade Prozac...

I started to reply but you are just not worth the time. I merely say, this is complete and utter bulls***, and I do know something about patents in fact (they came up incidentally, in my main profession). And I encourage anyone who's interested to look into the history of patents. You know what sources are credible. It's not hard. Also look into Jugghead's post history -- that'll give you some idea of his credibility. Jugghead, I just don't believe you're serious with any of this. Your posts are so often so completely wrong, so obviously wrong, your replies so vacuous yet still full of bile, that I truly believe that if Soxtalk has had one authentic troll, it's you.

I just heard it for the first time. Great email ss, and it's great to see the site get some love over the air. Mike in Mich City....yes!

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jul 6, 2005 -> 07:30 PM) Patent enforcement is definitely a key factor but if you look at where the local & federal governments are moving on this issue it's in the opposite direction. Some in Congress are even debating whether this mega-corps should continue to retain their patents. Patents came into existence to give inventors time to acquire the capital they needed to mass-produce their inventions. Otherwise the wealth barrons having a major advantange in that area would simply steal their inventions. But mega-corps don't resemble the inventor of yesteryear. They are able to go into mass-production immediately & use the patents mainly to charge high prices. It's a good idea unless the wealth barron's themselves possess the patents. QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jul 7, 2005 -> 12:16 AM) Drug patents were never intended to feed monopolies but I agree that is pretty much what they do today. I've not heard anyone in Congress advocate doing away with them. But there are some pushing for shorter time lengths if the drug companies don't help out with rising drug costs. Umm, okay. It's not much of a debate if everyone advocates the same position. Yes, they are and always were intended to feed monopolies, and that's a good thing. (The first patent law in England was called the "Statute of Monopolies", thank you Wikipedia.) Innovation is difficult, noone'll do it without a prize at the end of the day. Patent laws were not created to allow someone to gather up capital. The first US patent law allowed for a 14 year patent. To get a patent, you must present a finished product. If it takes you 14 years to gather enough capital for yr fully mature widget, face it, it's not getting made. I don't care if Congress plays w/ drug patent lengths, but they should not do it to 'punish' the companies. That won't change the pricing of other drugs, and it'll hurt customers when drug companies drop research drugs that may require more testing, or may not be profitable enough over the shorter time span to make it worth their while. Okay, I'm done w/ this. Where you come up w/ yr particular view of the world, Jugg, I'll never know.

Ronnie Woo Woo is at the Sox game?!?!?! Wtf??? Or are Rooney and Farmer just jerking us around?

QUOTE(Antonio Osuna @ Jul 7, 2005 -> 01:07 AM) Now Cantu is an interesting name. Given that he is a Jorge, I assume he's of Spanish/Hispanic ancestory, but Cantu just doesn't sound like a Spanish name. You rarely get a final u- in Spanish. It actually sounds Sardinian. Good call. Cantu's Mexican, and the name is apparently common in Mexico and derives from a similar Italian name. Or so sez ancestry.com.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 6, 2005 -> 09:10 PM) I'm not totally sure that baseball has a good random number generator running the thing...Technically out of 100000 possible numbers I should get a number that is below 1000 only 1 out of 100 times, and I'm absolutely certain they've been more common than that on me. Yeah, and there've been some odd coincidences. I could've sworn I had 93309 twice (just kind of an odd number, easy to remember), then after the second time, I got 9309, which is awful similar. Now I know this can happen, but I still have some doubts. I'm betting it's not just any number picked randomly. Sorry for the off-topic. I'm taking a little break.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 6, 2005 -> 09:11 PM) IMO Pods has a much bigger lead over Jeter than the MLB is leading us to believe. I think Jeter's already done. Any reason for thinking that? Keep voting!

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jul 6, 2005 -> 07:30 PM) Patent enforcement is definitely a key factor but if you look at where the local & federal governments are moving on this issue it's in the opposite direction. Some in Congress are even debating whether this mega-corps should continue to retain their patents. Patents came into existence to give inventors time to acquire the capital they needed to mass-produce their inventions. Otherwise the wealth barrons having a major advantange in that area would simply steal their inventions. But mega-corps don't resemble the inventor of yesteryear. They are able to go into mass-production immediately & use the patents mainly to charge high prices. It's a good idea unless the wealth barron's themselves possess the patents. Argh. No. Patents for drugs exist b/c they allow the company to gather up monopoly profits for a limited amount of time (by, yes, charging high prices). Without that carrot at the end, there would be zero reason to do drug research -- otherwise, as soon as you produce a drug, everyone'll just grab the formula and drive profits very low. (Although drug companies DO overstate the amount of research and understate the amount of marketing, the research costs are still enormous.) Noone except perhaps a few hyperextreme dimwits in Congress would ever consider getting rid of drug patents. They do control the length of the patent, of course, and it has been adjusted in the past. But make patents too short and you'll kill off innovation, which is in noone's interest. Btw, just for clarity, drug patents are much different than other sorts of patents. In particular, the length of the patent is tailor-made to fit the drug industry.

QUOTE(Wedge @ Jul 6, 2005 -> 01:41 AM) I've got an idea! Let's replace Garcia with Jason Schmidt! That's a great idea! I love the Sox, I just hate all the players. Our players suck to a man. We just need to get some of those other-team-players and then we'll never lose again.