RagahRagah
-
Posts
1,989 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by RagahRagah
-
-
20 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:
Obviously that is an overpay for Darvish. It will take more to land Marquez than it will to land Darvish.
I think you are underestimating what it will take to get Marquez. Think back to what we got for Quintana. That’s similar to what it will take to land Marquez. I guarantee Colorado will be asking for Vaughn or Kopech. If we could get a deal done without losing either of those two, you have to think about pulling the trigger.
No. No way I'm trading all that for Marquez. And I'm not sure why citing an example of another team overpaying somehow makes us overpaying more sensible.
-
1 minute ago, maloney.adam said:
Well, we didn’t last year with signing Kuechel. Yes, we lost Wheeler but we didn’t lose out by much. What makes you think this year will be different? The uncertainty of the virus? JR not not opening up his wallet?
We got lucky with Keuchel. Either way, yes, that is exactly what happened to us last season. Dallas working out doesn't change that.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:
Would a package of Madrigal, Cease, Steiver, and Adolfo be enough to land Marquez?
And what would it take to land Darvish? It’s gotta be less than what it would take to get Marquez, considering the money owed and his age, right?
Why the fuck would anyone wanna trade all that for Marquez? What did I miss? Am I ignorant and he's actually an elite starter? Even for Darvish, all that is a ridiculous overpay.
What is with all these ridiculous Madrigal, Cease++ trade proposals lately? Jesus. These guys are our future.
-
3
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, maloney.adam said:
I wouldn’t worry about this too much. It sounds like all these guys are at the bottom of their list or a backup in case their plans don’t work out. That’s how I read the tweet.
Problem is, that's usually the scenario we tend to end up in.
-
Are we that desperate to have conversations not pertaining to TLR right now?
The fuck.
-
1 hour ago, wrathofhahn said:
It means he has been yet to be convicted of the charge that is all.
Also I am not telling anyone, they are telling me. They can continue their crusade of bad faith if they want but when people start to bring in his politics it sort of tells me where the outrage is actually coming from. I also read through his hiring before his 2nd DUI was known barely a mention was made of it. I think it was one person. When Ozzie was being considered noone mentioned it despite him being an admitted alcoholic.
In any case I am sort of done with this. I actually don't like TLR despite us sharing similar politics and I wouldn't have hired him either but he's here and people need to just deal with it.
I think you're jumping to conclusions a bit.
No, a lot of us don't like what you call his "politics," in which a lot of it isn't actually political. For some reasons every issue gets labeled as "political" now so that people can defend reprehensible views and be protected. I don't support vitriol but I do support shooting down people's "views" when facts and morals are opposed to them.
Anywho, IMO it isn't *because* of his views, it just amplifies them and gives us yet another reason to intensify and validate the fact that the guy should have never been hired and now the organization is in a catch 22 where no matter what way Reinsdorf goes about it, he looks like an idiot and an asshole.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Texsox said:
How about this?
When writing or calling sponsors thank them for their support of the team. Explain you are certain they share your outrage over the hiring of TLR and would appreciate a statement from the company denouncing drunk driving especially by people in high visibility leadership positions within the community.
but fall short of asking them to stop advertising with the team.
That wouldn't make one ounce of difference.
-
Another club just hired the first female GM, who actually seems qualified...
And we just hired a 76 year old douche boomer-type convincted drunk who hasn't managed in 10 years to be the manager of our young and up and coming team.
I know it's technically off topic, but this is just another reminder of how the situation for us just seems to cut deeper and deeper as time goes along.
-
55 minutes ago, Texsox said:
Actually quite the opposite. I'm not for a minimum wage, I'm for a livable wage, which is generally much higher. I'm picking the working class in this and you think I want to shit on people seeking minimum wage. Where the hell is that logic?
I'm suggesting we punish the fuck out of Larussa without screwing over the guys working for a paycheck. You want to screw over the working guys in hopes it will punish JR and Tony. Whose fighting for regular workers?
But we know Reinsdorf won't do that, and he's the only one who can.
-
3 hours ago, gusguyman said:
You've somehow let a Billionaire owner convince you that he has no autonomy, no free will, no choice in this matter. He does.
If fans put enough pressure on sponsors, they'll tell him the Larussa is bad for business right now, so they are terminating the deal until he's gone or until a couple of years go by and it all blows over. He then has a choice, a legitimate choice with a glaringly obvious answer - fire larussa or suffer revenue losses. If he CHOOSES to take losses (a stupid, selfish, and irrational choice) and then CHOOSES to fire every other employee except Larussa, that is on HIM, and only him!
Your argument is like saying we can't put someone in jail because their innocent family will starve to death if they choose not to work. Your argument is like telling someone who got sucker punched not to fight back or its their fault that they got in a fight. Your argument is exactly the same one billionaires use (and spend millions on amplifying) to paint workers going on strike as the villains.
Its bullshit, its bootlicking, and, unless you are a Billionaire yourself, its counterproductive to your own success.
Fucking truth.
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, Texsox said:
Yes it is. A problem that he will solve by punishing innocent people.
And this is why the guilty rarely get punished.
Some sacrifices have to be made to achieve the greater good. Sounds harsh but that is reality.
You come across like the guy who shits on people that seek a livable minimum wage because "Everyone will raise prices!" When it's the people raising the prices you should be mad at, not the little guy trying to make ends meet.
-
2
-
-
Just now, shakes said:
Go back to my earlier example. Ray Rice wasn't convicted of a crime. What should have been done with him?
Not really relevant. Ray Rice is one man with a family and looks small in scope. Guys like Rensdorf don't go to jail for anything and technically he didn't commit a crime; but the ONLY way to make a difference here is to hurt his pocketbook.
-
1 hour ago, bigruss said:
Stone was taking a similar stance, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I think we all (or hope) agree with that.
But that's also why organizations DON'T hire someone who is under investigation or charge, because there is risk that there is guilty. You would wait until that person is cleared and then hire them.
So what happens if Tony has to serve a sentence, do the Sox really hold onto him at that point? I'm not sure how MLB doesn't intervene if that happens.
Another bold illustration of just how ridiculously stupid this hire was, aside from it simply being bad on principle from the beginning.
-
10 minutes ago, Texsox said:
That's what our courts are for. Jail time. Heavy fines. Ignition lock devices. Easy to punish people. Punishment is what our justice system does best.
I know you aren't this naive. Virtually none of these people actually face jail time.
The only way to achieve greater good, unfortunately, requires loss before being put right.
-
19 minutes ago, Texsox said:
Agreed. But taking an indirect path that hurts innocent people isn't as productive as a direct path where the victim is punished. Should you have your income and livelihood in jeopardy because a coworker received a DUI? Is that the society we want to live in? Punish the guilty.
With this logic it is impossible for people in these high positions to actually get punished. Sorry to say.
-
25 minutes ago, Texsox said:
So your plan is to pressure sponsors to demand he goes into a victim impact panel and completes an alcohol awareness class. (At least in Texas that's pretty standard for everyone). And if he doesn't, the sponsor should stop supporting the Sox and pull their ads.
I think it's easier to have the courts continue to require that for everyone. But whatever.
If nothing changes, it all stays the same.
-
6 hours ago, GradMc said:
40 years of tone-deaf Reinsdorf apologists.... just as tiresome.
It is indeed a new level of condescension towards the base. Oh how I wish he could have bought in his native New York.
It also makes me shake my head that people can be that oblivious to how things (and people) like this can affect attitude and morale and that makes a huge difference.
-
5 hours ago, ChiSox1917 said:
The petty bullshit that is this thread never would have started if the sox hired cheaters cora or hinch and they blew a 0.09. This is petty bullshit from posters who were already against TLR.
Tell people who have lost loved ones to drunk drivers (I'm not even one of them) how "petty" you think this is, and also stuff your ridiculous assumptions about what people would have done if it were a different coach.
-
4
-
-
18 minutes ago, ChiSox1917 said:
From what i read it was .09 at the scene (update said he blew at the scene) and then the blood test actually came in higher at .095. Either way, its the equivalent to me of someone driving 15-20mph over the speed limit.
What in the actual fuck.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:
Of course he said nothing because he knows the possibility to sign with the Sox still exists so he doesn't want to burn a bridge. Stroman knew he's not a possibilty to sign with the Sox so he's free to say how morally outraged he is.
*Sigh* We've already covered this nonsense.
-
1 hour ago, Rowand44 said:
Brooks has always been good at getting back to fans. Like others have said, I feel for these other Sox employees who are now put in this situation to deal with this mess while in the meantime the guy that put them there just gets to run and hide.
This is the prime reason for my contempt with corporate America. You can't access the people in conversation that the bithcing needs to be directed to. And so the low level employees who have no say so over anything have to eat all the shit. The people who need to be eating it are laughing all the way to the bank.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, fathom said:
At some point you would think Tony would respect Jerry enough to step down.
Nah.
-
Just now, South Side Hit Men said:
"Miss me yet?"
It is absolutely incredible how continuously this team can make us call for the head of a manager, only for him to finally get fired and then immediately want that person back once they move on to the next person.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, manbearpuig said:
Assuming he's our manager on opening day, does anyone honestly see this going beyond a season if it is a disaster?
This isn't even what sucks. Reinsdorf has zero way out of this without looking bad. The only actions he can possibly take from here are for saving face; this is purely a catch 22 situation now. This is the FULL incompetence of this franchise undoubtedly exposed. The damage is done. There are a lot of ways this can affect us negatively from here on out. The Stroman comments are damning whether we seek him or not. And if not... is that already a bad sign of what might come in the offseason?
Only thing we can do is pray for best case scenario. We'll have to be lucky.
Offseason Targets
in Pale Hose Talk
Posted
Again, what another team "wants" or does is entirely besides the point.