jackie hayes

Who are we not interested in the last couple days? Kenny's been interested in Ortiz before, that part of the report worries me a lot. Btw, shouldn't it be brrrrrrrrrruce levine, not bruuuuuuuuuce levine?

Well, we know exactly how many people voted for each candidate. (Heck, we even know this county-by-county.) So the map gives us no new information about the preferences of people.

If anyone knows any more, correct me, but I was under the impression that he has very little cartilage left in his right knee. Maybe that's not a problem, I don't know, but that plus the fact that he's taking those shots before pitching worries me a little. Is there a doctor in the house? But it's not just RJ, it's the whole staff you have to worry about. If you have a marginal 5th guy, and a 2-4 goes down -- or if Jose Contreras melts down midseason -- you've now got two marginals on your staff. After last season, that sounds like a huge risk.

I agree w/ you about getting RJ, but your projection used the word "potential" -- rightly, I think. Counting on 20-22 wins from RJ is somewhat optimistic. It wouldn't surprise me if he only gets 14-20 b/c of injuries. But even w/ that, he could still be the missing piece, if we fix our 5th starter puzzle. Even if RJ goes the whole season w/o missing time, the odds that there are no injuries at all to our starters is pretty slim. Imagine having 2 of our #5 pitchers going for a few weeks -- you can lose a lot of ground to the Twins in that time.

Agreed. That 5th spot is too big a hole. At best, RJ+black hole is even with Garland+fa. (Unless that fa is Russ Ortiz, maybe. I just died a little inside.) I would love to get RJ, even if it's just for one run in 2005, but it'll be too hard to make the playoffs if our fifth starter problem isn't straightened out.

Vizquel isn't a leadoff hitter either (not once in the past year did he lead off). He's a #2 hitter, just like Renteria. Just b/c Guillen doesn't like the option of bringing in a 2b and playing Uribe at ss doesn't mean it's not an option at all. I think that's what a lot of these "outsider people" are thinking (also a lot of us who aren't excited about bringing Omar in). We'll be getting a .250+ hitter who's also a declining shortstop with little power and diminished range, who doesn't hit lhp very well (barely above a .300 obp the last couple years). I think it's a reasonable question if that $4 mil could be better spent on a different player. If nothing else, that's most of the salary of a very good reliever.

Even Jeff George?

Maybe we could reach a Schilling-esque deal, where we pay him $14 mil, plus a $2 mil bonus WHEN we win the WS. Maybe all KW has to do is have him over for Thanksgiving. Maybe... Yeah, I know it won't work, but it's too nice a dream to give up now, w/ the rumor just getting started.

You don't seriously put Chris Carpenter on the same level as Randy Johnson, do you? I think even Pavano is a big stretch.

Yeah, I'd agree w/ that. But since Addison did say best in "the game", I just thought it should be pointed out. I don't know if RJ would be my #1 choice in all the ML, but he'd be close.

I can't disagree more. Our pitching was just putrid, look at the team era. We scored runs even without a good leadoff man. Now, it would be nice to get both, but I don't think those 2 needs rank even close to each other.

Well, National League, maybe, but probably not the game. Santana was better this past year. But I wouldn't blink if someone told me that they thought RJ is today the best pitcher in the ML. Wouldn't exactly agree, but I don't know why that statement is unusual.

Well said. As much as I want RJ to be on the Sox, that type of deal would make me balk. Konerko and Garland aren't tremendously useful to the Dbacks by themselves. I remember reading that they believe they can compete next year -- it's a nice thing to say in the papers, but do they really believe that? It seems like they demand pieces to make them immediately competitive, and pieces for 2006 and beyond, and noone has been quite willing to meet that price. I hope we're not the first. I don't want to sound like I'm not willing to part with anyone. I can even accept Anderson being dealt, and honestly I can't see how Arizona wouldn't make him the dealbreaker. But giving up your top position prospect & your top pitching prospect & your starting 1b & a young #5 starter...wow, that's a big dent in a ballclub. I know, I know, it's all just speculation at this point. But the unnamed prospects are really the most interesting part of the deal, since you'd think that's what the Dbacks would be most keen on.

Adjustments for AGI include alimony and contributions to certain types of savings accounts, but not itemized deductions. If Bush cuts off savings deductions, it may not be appropriate, but I haven't heard anything along those lines. Most of what I've read suggests that he'll exempt even more savings.

I do understand basic econ theory, trust me. Note that this MPC will depend on who is getting the refund, MPC for the rich is lower than MPC for the poor, so this tax multiplier will be relatively low. Since Bush (according to one report I read) wants the tax reform to be "revenue neutral", and the tax on the rich will be decreased, the effective, economy-wide MPC will decrease, and thus the multiplier along w/ it. Then think about the long-term effects of government debt (commonly called the "crowding-out" effect -- also think about default risk, and fiscal/monetary policy interaction), and note that Bush's tax cuts will result in a large increase in the debt. It is more than debatable whether Bush's tax cuts are good for the economy, forget about fairness.

Yeah, that's an anecdote. Here, I did your research for you. According to the IRS, the rich do not on average pay a lower tax rate, and nothing close to 11%. Here's the Excel file: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02in03at.xls. (These data are for 2000-2002, and they apparently have not been updated for 2003.) Btw, you didn't address the savings exemptions I mentioned.

No, aggregate evidence. Anecdotes don't count. As I was once told by a teacher, If it's so obvious, it'll be easy to prove.

Matsui didn't win, Berroa did.

I am trying to keep that in mind, but is a starting shortstop more important than a starting pitcher? And even if he is, how much of a boost does that give him? Crosby was (I've heard) a good defender, but his struggles at the plate are a big strike against him, imo, while Greinke was as good as any sp on the Sox while in the ML. But everyone weighs these things differently. I take a lot away from Takatsu b/c he didn't pitch very much (not that that was his fault, just in terms of judging his overall contribution). If he threw 80+ innings, I'd probably put him above Greinke.

TD Train!!!!

No, I do get it. This economic boom you envision won't happen. Yes, reducing taxes WILL help the overall economy in the short run. But I doubt the effects will be very large (can you show me a reasonable economic model that shows they will be? b/c I haven't seen one), and they would not in any case affect growth, it would be a one-and-done gain. It's not clear at all that prices will fall. Is that what you meant, or that inflation will fall? Either way, I want to see a coherent argument. Would net-of-tax prices fall, or just gross prices? No evidence at all has been brought forth to suggest that these loopholes are so big that the wealthy would actually pay more, this is just populist rhetoric, which coming from the Repub party is called irony. In fact, since many of these plans involve large tax exemptions for savings, and the rich save a lot more than poorer households, I think the de facto tax cuts for the rich would be even larger than the nominal rates suggest. The GOP sounds ridiculous -- 'The lower-middle class has such a hard time with all the complications of the tax codes, they'd be much better off with fewer complications and a higher tax rate.' Please.

But according to MLB rules, a person shouldn't consider that when voting. I believe the directions are to vote for the best player who's in his first full year in this league -- no exceptions.

I don't think there's anything strange talking about Takatsu as roy. His overall numbers put him in the top tier of AL relievers. But he won't win. If Matsui wasn't selected, no way Takatsu is. (Unless the writers are sensitive to some of the criticism of that vote, which is doubtful.) Why is Crosby such a shoe-in? He was pretty brutal at the plate in the 2nd half. I'd probably rank them Greinke, Takatsu, Crosby. And what's the deal w/ Morneau? Is he eligible?

Ah, hell. I'm just keeping track of the game on the internet, and those arrows are embarassing. 3rd and 29. Are these ticky-tack penalties, or is this going to be our worst game in this awful season?

I'm not sure why Takatsu would help any. Shingo's Japanese, Kim's Korean.