jackie hayes

So would we take away any cs from his obp? Single + sb just isn't as valuable as a double, since noone scores from 1b on a single + sb combo, not even always from 2b. Edit: Okay, I know "noone" is too strong. But it's pretty rare, anyway.

Pods had 713 pa in 2004, I call the season 6 full mos, April-September (the little stub of October games makes up for the beginning of April). Very close, anyway. That makes 119 pa/mo, and (.350-.313)*119=4.4. Anyway, (.350-.313)*713=26.4 per season.

Look at the bright side -- since we found his replacement, maybe this means Timo's nontendered...

Considering how often Podsednik was up, closer to 4.5. But by similar logic, the obp difference between Pods and Valentin is trivial. These small differences matter, IMO.

Okay, who's saying Carlos is only good for power? -- b/c I haven't seen that anywhere. This is a pure downgrade offensively, in almost every category, not just power. Podsednik's obp was awful last season, and he's our leadoff hitter? Even in his big year in 2003, it wasn't that much better than Carlos's last year. He strikes out more than Carlos, he walks less than Carlos, and, yes, he has very little pop too. His one advantage is speed, but it's not going to make up for deficiencies elsewhere. We'll see. Obviously it's a huge failure if KW doesn't acquire a very good sp. Even then, Pods better relearn how to get on base.

I bet a lot of people here knew about Vizcaino. Wasn't he the one that went to the Sox in the Rotoworld predictions article (Cotts-for-Vizcaino, or something like that)? Anyway, most people on this board at least noticed him then.

Ah, okay, forgot about that. Thanks.

Actually, didn't GHC say the 40-man was full already? So how are we getting both Pods and Vizcaino for 1 ML?

Carlos was caught stealing 5 times last year -- that includes "real" steals and pickoffs. You really want to get rid of him for that?

Carlos is not just some Deer-ish "power hitter". He gets on base regularly and has very low strikeout numbers considering his power. His k/bb ratio is also pretty good. That's valuable. We wanted to get better at obp and cut down on strikeouts. We just traded away Carlos for 2 guys who are worse in both areas. Yeah, Pods is fast. But a .313 obp out of a "leadoff" hitter is abysmal.

You can if those pitchers only go 1 inning.

Not a good trade. KW better hope that Podsednik discovers a distant blood relation to Melvin Mora, and fast. Okay, Vizcaino's a good pitcher. But wtf, you only need 1 set of bullpen pitchers. We picked up Vizcaino and Hermanson, and we reupped Politte. That's a lotta setup guys. Mostly, the loss of Carlos is too big. This trade just sounded too absurd to be true. So naturally.... Well, here's hoping Pods proves me wrong.

Not really. I worry a little about Johnson's health, not b/c of his injury history, but b/c the description of his knee's condition sounds pretty bad. From what I've read, he's got almost no cartilage remaining in his right knee. I know he gets those fluid injections, but it just doesn't sound very stable. Now, I know that's not educated medical knowledge, but it is more than "just speculation". I'd actually be really interested in hearing the opinion of someone who understands this type of treatment better. That said, I'd still love to see the Sox take on RJ. I would probably take him for one season over any other pitcher in the ML, he's just too dominant to pass up.

I got tired of all this stuff w/ Colon. I'm done thinking about RJ, hopefully Kenny will pull off a reprise and shock me when we get him. It'd be even better if all we have to give up is Borchard, Politte, and Cotts. (Kinda my modern day equivalent of Liefer, Biddle, and Osuna. Yeah, alright, Cotts/Osuna's not that comparable, but anyway...) But officially, I've given up hope.

Is this just something that's accepted by the players then, that the team has essentially a "comment period" where it can decide if it really wants a player? I would think that the union could make quite a good case out of this, say by comparing Jaret Wright's mri to that of someone who was signed by the Yanks. If they don't have any medical records of their own, then I'd think that's at least something they'd want to start filing for the future.

Only if "f***"= :puke Pugly. JH sez HJ is dead on.

If this is the Yanks trying to get out of the deal, I hope the MLBPA comes after both the Yankees and MLB, and hard. That's ridiculous, especially after all the 'Steinbrenner is furious, a deal's a deal' rhetoric coming out of NY last year, when it looked as if Sheffield wanted to back out of a handshake agreement.

This isn't really about his rights as an American, though, it's just a Washington law. I don't really like any of those "both parties" laws on telephone conversations.

I did not have a problem with you at all, no unfinished business. I asked a question b/c you used the same argument as before, and I never did understand what you meant before. So I asked you to clarify it, that's all. You responded that I was too lazy to read the old posts -- that ticked me off a bit, since I had read them all, but it was 'infant s***ting his pants' remark that really set me off. That's not respect by any light, and IMO I just returned that in kind. But I'm not going to hold a grudge (nor, again, was this based on any grudge against you) -- I've had spats before, and I don't think they've ever carried over. Yours was a classy response, so let's bury it.

It's funny you would mention being full of s***; you could have just told me what your definition of a winner is, but you didn't. I have read your posts -- maybe you don't remember them. Here's the full discussion: There's another exchange where you agree with southsideirish on his definition: When you end your "stab at it" with "whatever", excuse me for thinking that's inadequate. So you say someone is a "winner" if he "always" comes through with whatever the team needs, and you specifically mention bunts, stolen bases, sac flies, fielding, and being clutch. Sure, that's much different than small ball + clutch. But let's go with your words exactly. Why stop with Carlos? Frank and PK can't bunt or steal bases when the team needs it, therefore they're not winners. (And you said Frank is a winner, in response to southsideirish. Odd...) Foulke didn't come through when the Sox needed him in the 2000 ALDS, he's not a winner. Mariano Rivera didn't come through when his team needed him in the ALCS this season, he's not a winner. But maybe you don't really mean "always", or that bunting and stealing are really necessary for every player. After all, then Frank wouldn't be a winner. Maybe the clutch part is most important, and the main thing is that they usually perform their role well under pressure. So did Carlos play badly when his team needed him? (Ans: No. By most measures, he was at least as good as ARow in clutch situations.) Apparently, Carlos Lee did not come through when his team needed him b/c he laughed at a guy with his pants down. B/c he therefore must not have "heart" and "desire". Well, if what Steff said about ARow is true, would you draw the same conclusion about him? Of course not -- b/c for some reason you've decided that Rowand's good (you already stated in that thread that he's a "winner"), Carlos's bad. Rowand, trooper. Carlos, padding his stats. You base it on absolutely nothing, then you come out and announce that you've deduced that Carlos is not a "winner". It's as good as saying "I don't like Carlos" and stopping there, but you act like it's actually part of a discussion. It's pure bs. Don't tell me I'm not reading your posts -- you just don't want to say what you mean, b/c you have no f***ing idea what you're talking about.

Oh, please. "pretty good explanation"=whoever beck prefers at the moment. I asked you to explain it, you said it was "hard to define" -- I call that refusing. I read through the posts, so stfu. But if it's too hard to define, there's nothing there to agree or disagree with. So to determine if someone's a winner, I guess I should pm you w/ "beck, what's your whim on this guy"? B/c you also said it's hard to measure, but you seem to have a pretty fine eye for all the winners, their "heart", "desire", and those myriad unnameable "intangibles" and "qualities". Not to mention the deep meaning of laughing at a guy caught with his pants down. Pretty impressive, beck.

I think the Lancet study got attention. But "civilian" is misleading. The Lancet study didn't distinguish between civilians and insurgents.

Lol, best part is Ted Nugent's Christmas, involves "making jerky from, four calling birds, three French hens, two turtle doves, and a partridge in a pear tree".

No, you misunderstood the Dybber. I'm pretty sure he was reporting for duty, as they say. He'll do whatever it takes, he really, really, really, really wants Magglio. Back. Wants Magglio back.

Well, what is it then? Edit: Looked it up, and you refused to define it then. (Others defined it as small ball + clutch after that.) Sorry, but if your argument rests on words that don't have a meaning, I don't know why I should take it seriously.