Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 02:45 PM) And that is fine. But what I am saying is that people who are poor in America, are real lives as well. So when Republican's (not saying you) argue that they want to reduce social services for real people while at the same time arguing against abortion, it just does not make any sense. Either lives matter or they do not. My personal belief is based on science in that until X time a fetus can not live on its own. Therefore until X time, it is entirely up to the mother whether she wants to go forward with the pregnancy. After X time has passed, abortion is no longer okay. That way you balance the right of the mother versus the rights of the potential life. Well my view on the government and social services is that their is a real need to protect the youth and be their to help the youth move forward and make a life for themselves. However, at a certain point, my views go to the fact that you have been awarded your chances and you are now more in control and at this point, the government is their only to provide a temporary fall back plan (to help you get another kick-start). To some extent, it is a self fulfilling prophecy in the sense that the better you have it to start, the more likely the chance of success. However, I don't draw the line at certain things, such as health as I feel all adults, even people who have made all the wrong choices in life, are deserving of medical treatment. That said, one of the biggest travesties of our health system (pre Obamacare) was how people who make all the right choices could have found themselves facing bankruptcy with significant medical costs and no ability to get insurance (pre-obama care). Yeah, if I got cancer and was out for a year and was lucky enough to win my battle, you know what, I think I'd still deserve coverage and everything else and I'm okay paying a little more to ensure that is the case (vs. being kicked to the curb because of an illness I had no to limited control over.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 02:39 PM) Chisoxfn isn't one of them, but there's a strong overlap between people who strongly oppose abortion and also oppose good, useful sexual education for teenagers and widely available reproductive health services/information including contraceptives. Defunding Planned Parenthood would virtually guarantee that the number of unwanted pregnancies would increase. Yeah - I support educating people vs. the tactic of pulling the wool over everyone's eyes and being ignorant to the realities of being a teenager / young adult. I hope I am the same way when my kids are older and that the education pays off and I really hope that I don't find where my son or daughter are in this situation.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 02:37 PM) I think a lot of people fail to recognize and remember that fundamental difference in philosophy and I'm glad you pointed it out. Could you (or anyone else who opposes abortion generally except rape/incest/woman's health) explain how you can square those views, though? If the fetus is a person, it's still a person regardless of how the woman got pregnant. What makes it okay to abort that fetus but not one because the woman just doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term? I can put a real value to the emotional distress that carrying something that came from such a traumatic experience which was completely out of such parties control. Reality is the fetus is going to live inside that person for 9 months and be a constant reminder of an extremely traumatic experience. In regards to a full on health situation, where the mom is susceptible to dying if they have the child...then the existing life to me is far more important, not to mention the reality is, if you don't choose the mom, you probably are talking high odds that both the baby and the mom end up dead.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 02:25 PM) They are potential lives. That being said the part I dont get about the Republican anti-abortion sentiment is the cost of abortion is far less than the cost of supporting someone for 18 years. Potentially 300k+ mouths to feed each year would be a significant burden on social services which would mean higher taxes just to keep similar services. At the end of the day abortion is a personal decision and no one seems to be stepping up and saying "Ill pay for those 300k+ potential lives each year" and that is not even counting all of the medical bills that go into having a child. I think a good first step is providing birth control for free. No offense, but I don't f***ing care. We are talking about people. While something could happen to those fetuses naturally that prevents them from being born, the reality is most of them are real lives. The sad part is the people in this situation in the first place and most of them are probably desperate and the mistake is going to change their life and potentially ruin it. I understand those things, but at the same time, the baby is a person as far as I'm concerned. Not going to debate, you either feel that way or you don't, but since I do, I'm not going to throw out some whacky argument around cost / finances. We are talking people's lives. It is why I have actually supported many of the concepts behind Obamacare because I think healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Note: My view differs entirely if someone is pregnant due to cases of assault.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 02:20 PM) Continuing to fund reproductive health services like Planned Parenthood (along with solid sex ed) goes a long way towards reducing the number of desired abortions. Just an FYI, but I'm not even getting into the debate on funding / not funding. I'm just talking about how disgusted I am with that number. As a parent with two young kids, knowing and understanding the joys (and frustrations, haha) they bring to your world...just hard to imagine if a decision was made not to bring them into the world. Obviously we tried to have them and planned for them but even if I didn't, I could never have made the alternative decision. That said, I understand that in many of these cases, the situation the children would be brought into would not be a healthy one. However, their are lots of people who can't have and look to adopt and it seems like adoption rates are increasing in this era of dual income families where people have children later. I feel like more then ever before (and I have no basis for this...just an assumption), more people are having trouble conceiving. I can think of a lot of friends who had to get treatments, etc, as they tried and I never remember hearing about that when I was a kid (again, could be it always was that way) but I presume it is a consequence to people having children later in life.

QUOTE (Jake @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 02:15 PM) Just going to annotate these SP FAs with some numbers. Pitcher - 2015 WAR/2014+2015 WAR, career FIP (age in 2016 season) David Price - 3.7/9.8, 3.24 (30) Johnny Cueto - 3.1/7.7, 3.79 (30) Scott Kazmir - 2.6/5.8, 3.89 (32) Mat Latos - 1.5/3.2, 3.40 (28) Mike Leake - 1.6/3.8 4.17 (28) Jordan Zimmerman - 2.4/7.7, 3.33 (30) Yovani Gallardo - 1.6/3.3, 3.73 (30) Ian Kennedy - -0.5/3.0, 4.03 (31) Jeff Samardzija - 2.4/6.6, 3.74 (31) Brett Anderson - 1.3/2.3, 3.54 (28) (note -> last season before 2015 that he threw 100 IP was 2010) Does Samardzija really look like the worst or second worst of those groups in terms of market value? Price, Cueto, and Zimmerman are the only ones who I'd say are a lock to earn more. Let's not forget that Samardzija also has the sort of name recognition that tends to make guys money. I was going to say, I have a hard time putting Shark near the bottom of that list. You said it far more articulately then I could.

QUOTE (Jake @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 01:42 PM) Well, in 2014, here's how a breakdown of their services looked. This is one a per-service basis; that is, if I came in and got 1 STD test, that would count as 1. If I got a second, that would also count as 1 for a total of 2. 41%, the largest portion of all the categories they have, is devoted to STD testing and treatment. The vast majority within are tests for common STDs with quite a few HIV tests as well. 34% of services are for birth control. Most of these are "reversible" forms of contraception, which is anything other than a sterilization. They list emergency contraception separately, which is a large portion of the birth control services that they provide (this is the Plan B pill). In case you were wondering, they performed 3,749 vasectomies in 2013. Based on a formula for likelihood of pregnancy, they estimate that they prevented just over 500,000 unintended pregnancies in the year. 10% of services are cancer screening and preventative services. There is a near even split between pap smears and breast exams. And no, they do not provide mammograms. Clinicians will do manual examinations and people can come to PP for subsidized referrals to mammogram providers. HPV vaccinations and some other procedures are also provided. 90,000 people had their cancer detected via PP services in the year. 11% are "other women's health services", which is almost solely pregnancy tests. They also give some prenatal care to expecting mothers. There is 1% that falls under "other services," which encompasses 41,000 people who received family practice services from a doctor, 53,000 people who were treated for urinary tract infections, and a few who were sent to adoption agencies or received other services. And of course PP provides abortions, which account for 3% of all services rendered. 327,166 people receive abortion procedures in some way, shape, or form in 2013. And to be clear for another poster who mentioned this, Planned Parenthood is a non-profit. The vast majority of revenue comes from private donors and government grants. It makes me sick to see how high that abortion number is. Someone might go, well our population is huge so relative, but man, that is 327,000 lives. Okay...I am probably assuming high since some won't end up going full term and miscarriage, but even then, you are talking about 300,000 lives. I won't force the hand of other people and what they should do, I just wish 327,000 people weren't in a position that they were doing that. And lets be honest...number probably isn't 327,000 as I'd presume their are some repeaters on that list (sadly).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 01:58 PM) Since Dombrowski was originally with the Sox, wouldn't hiring him be a loyalty move? It is actually why, of all things, I could see the consultant angle possibly working. I still put those odds at so low because JR clearly thinks extremely highly of Ken Williams and I don't think he'd do that to Kenny. The other option would be Kenny and JR have already had the conversation relating to the Blue Jays and basically at the end of the season the Sox are going to let Kenny explore other interests and thus Dombrowski could come in without really ruffling all that many feathers (outside of potentially Hahn's). I don't think Kenny is here for much longer (and no I don't see Sox firing him, rather, I see Kenny leaving on his own accord). For those who say JR is afraid to hire good baseball people, I think that would be crazy. I think he knows the better baseball people their, the better the team, and in theory, the more profitable his franchise (not to mention he does like to win...just not at all costs).

The only realistic way of hiring him would be if JR said, okay Dave, I need to bring you in here to help me evaluate what is going on with the club and if we are headed in the right direction (with an understanding that long-term Dave wants a more lucrative job so this is just a temporary thing for the rest of the season...a friend helping a friend). Can you come in and give me your opinion of the franchise, the direction, the people, and what you think. The downside of this, you might piss some people off and you might also get an inherently biased answer (cause Dave could be looking out for himself and want the job to begin with), but depending on what his goals are, you might get a pretty clear assessment as the owner of the franchise from an incredibly respected guy and knowledgeable guy. I always wish we did something similar with LaRussa (who knows, maybe Jerry has). Plus, lets be honest, Dombrowski should have a pretty good idea of our franchise anyway, given the rivalry.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 01:46 PM) The big assumptions are that Samardjiza keeps pitching like he has, and that the market for baseball players doesn't completely collapse before November. In 2015, a pitcher like Jeff Samardjiza is a $100 million pitcher. I am not entirely sure about that. Shields thought he was, turns out he wasn't. More then ever teams are focusing more and more on stats and while Shark's stats are good, he really hasn't been the elite pitcher everyone thinks he is and I think he'll struggle to get paid as much. It is why I think, for the right price, it could make sense to sign him. That presumes he sits around for while and the market shrinks (kind of like what happened with Shields).

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 01:43 PM) If the Sox do anything in free agency I think it will be Cespedes. The term of the deal won't be as long and no draft pick compensation attached make him a solid match. Upton and Heyward will be out of the realm of possibility for the Sox. I think Upton will be a bad idea. Teams are too enamored with his skill set and his one season and tend to ignore his actual production, which will good, is nowhere near as good as the contract he'll get. The same might happen with Heyward and the real question is how his defensive value will trend as he ages and whether you bet on his bat continuing to improve or not. Guy is loaded with talent and should be a much better hitter then he is. Cespedes would seem like the guy who would be the best value signing...how will he age is a question but if you can get him 3 years, 4 max, then it might not be so bad. Part of it depends on what he does in the post-season (if he gets to the post-season) as that could inflate his value if he gets all hot.

Was he actually fired or was this more for Dave to pursue other things? We also will never know how much certain signings were tied to Dombrowski thinking they were the right moves vs. Ilitch saying, its okay, I'd rather pay the extra premium knowing the potential downside.

Dombrowski might have given out some bad contracts, but he is a fantastic baseball guy, one of the absolute bests. That said, the White Sox don't usually get in the habit of bringing in high paying consultants and I presume that is all Dave would be at this time. Me, I'd look at bringing him as the CEO to let Kenny out to do his thing, however, I'm a realist and understand it won't happen. While people are going to say Red Sox, it seems like their successor is already set. Funny thing is, Larry Luchino is a fantastic CEO of a franchise as well and would make an upstanding hire if the Sox wanted to go that direction. Before people talk about what he did in Boston and say well he had a large market franchise, lets not forget his successes in Baltimore and San Diego.

He is a great baseball guy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 10:15 AM) Going back farther we had no 2nd rounders in 2008 or 2005. Just noting that it does play a role. I would reckon we are on the very low side in terms of giving up picks. On the flip side, its been a long time since we were on the receiving end of picks as well (again, we are probably on the very low side). I recall back in 04 or so when we whiffed on Lumsden / Lucy / Whisler / etc. Horrific use of those picks all things considered.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 10:10 AM) They sacrificed their 2011 first round pick for Adam Dunn as well. That said, outside of Dunn and going back through basically all of the 2000's, I presume that was the only time, correct? So long term, you really can't talk about our draft being bad because we lost first round picks due to signing free agents.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 10:10 AM) They sacrificed their 2011 first round pick for Adam Dunn as well. I was thinking they must have, but decided I didn't want to look up. As If I didn't already dislike the Dunn signing enough, haha. If memory serves me right, that was the year we would have taken Walker then with our first pick.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 09:49 AM) While I believe there has been improvement with regard to selecting pitchers, if I wanted to play Devil's Advocate...I could just say that the White Sox followed up a period where the team averaged winning 53% of their games with a period where the team has won 46.7% of their games over a 5 season period and as a consequence of nothing other than that their draft performance should have improved. While that may not be all of it....that has to be noted. They're regularly losing right now. That keeps them drafting higher and it keeps them from losing their 1st round pick when they sign FA. Losing picks for signing people is pretty much a moot point with the Sox. Other then this past off-season, had we lost picks for anyone in recent years? While picking higher helps, I would argue in the draft, it is a crapshoot anyway so you don't get near as significant of an advantage picking top 10 as you do in say the NFL / NBA. The interesting play in all of this is going to be how our international guys pan out. Those signings take years to gauge and we really are still new players their (due to combination of the Wilder fiasco and Sox being cheap prior to the updated international signing rules which attempted to level the playing field a bit) so we are probably still 3-5 years from seeing potential true pick ups in the overall quality of the farm system (where the supply of talent isn't just coming from the draft). Outside of El Caballo and Maggs, Its been forever since we've developed any sort of impactful foreign talent (Viciedo is an exception as he wasn't drafted as a guy you were going to sit in the farm for years to develop...plus he didn't exactly turn into a productive player). If this organization is going to take the next level in terms of enhancing the farm system, it will not only take strong domestic drafting, but it will take consistently strong international classes as well. And then of course their is the development side of the house as well. One thing I want to see is for the White Sox to recognize what the Cubs and Dodgers are doing (not in terms of having all the cash / resources to spend money) but from the perspective of how they are focused and diligent when it comes to finding the best talent and developing it. Clearly both teams have an advantage in the sense that they are willing to break the international free agent rules and that helps significantly. Plus they have additional revenues to fortify the major league team (vs. having to use prospects) but having a strong farm system is critical to contend, especially if you are going to do it without spending $150M+ on payroll. The Sox aren't in a position where they can consistently win by being aggressive and buying in free agency. They need to try and do things more like the Cardinals, use that farm system, trade when necessary, but get a lot of mileage out of home grown talent. Then use FA to be smart and then every once in a great while, make the aggressive play in FA to try and help put you over the top (but don't ever use FA as a quick fix).

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 08:13 AM) Alan Keyes, that was definitely about branding and books and speaking engagements, same with Huckabee now, Gingrich, Santorum, Trump and Fiorina. What is Herman Cain up to now, btw? Fiorina has spent massive amounts of her own money. It has nothing to do with her branding and if it did, she was an idiot. Same with Newt and others.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 3, 2015 -> 08:01 PM) You do realize Obamacare is way to the right of the Romney and Clinton versions...? The Pacific Trade Agreement is liberal? The majority of foreign policy in the Middle East has been following the so-called Bush Doctrine, other than the recent Iran move...so I guess the GOP would prefer a full-scale invasion, as sanctions definitely haven't worked? If Obama was a candidate in the 60s 70s or 80s, he would have been considered a moderate/centrist. He should have let all the banks and auto manufacturers go bankrupt? I didn't see any members of the GOP like Romney applauding that idea, although he did go down to defeat saying he would have let DET implode even when it turned out to be a great investment by the government. Let me make one thing clear. This is a republican thread. I didn't come in here to defend my thoughts on Obama to a lefty and don't need to. I am talking about the primary with other republicans. I was giving my perspective on my views as a republican amongst other republican voters.

One thing to point out. Over the past few years the Sox philosphy on drafting did take a fundamental shift. I don't know if that was driven by Hostetler or Hahn or whom, but the reality is, when you look at our early round picks, we have had quite a few successes or at least perceived successes (still way too early technically on Rodon / Fullmer) after an extended run of stinkers in the early rounds. We also have seen the farm system get stronger. What we still haven't been able to figure out is how to develop (or find) the right position players and I don't know that we have necessarily changed that trend (although you have to give Sox credit for Semien (A's) / Saladino / Sanchez / Micah who all look like they should play at least a few years in the majors, if not more) and obviously Anderson is the one top end position prospect trending in the right direction. I might be overstating on Saladino cause he's probably the one I have the least faith in of the bunch but I like his presence enough to stay patient with him, however, he will never play as a starter at 3B (and I highly doubt he'll be able to stick at SS either, I think Saladino's best bet is as a super sub where Sanchez and Micah could potentially both start with the main issue being they both play the same position (although Sanchez might be able to play a good enough SS).

Bush is my top choice and I actually think he'd have a shot at winning the general election if his last name wasn't Bush. However, since it is, I don't know if he'd get enough of the independent vote in a general election. For all the reasons I like him, smart, moderate, but progressive, he won't actually get the republican nomination. Too much of the party has fallen way too to the right because of how insane Obama is and it just drives me nuts cause a good moderate candidate would be able to win and would be a boon for this country. The far wacky right drives me just as mad. They are creating the need for a 3rd party, but the problem is it just means while the 3rd party is created, the left can continue to do whatever they want.

Bush is my top choice and I actually think he'd have a shot at winning the general election if his last name wasn't Bush. However, since it is, I don't know if he'd get enough of the independent vote in a general election. For all the reasons I like him, smart, moderate, but progressive, he won't actually get the republican nomination. Too much of the party has fallen way too to the right because of how insane Obama is and it just drives me nuts cause a good moderate candidate would be able to win and would be a boon for this country. The far wacky right drives me just as mad. They are creating the need for a 3rd party, but the problem is it just means while the 3rd party is created, the left can continue to do whatever they want.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Aug 3, 2015 -> 02:45 PM) When was the last time a 30-year-old pitcher was signed to a big contract and was actually worth the money? Grienke? He might also be one of the only ones.

I would think Hawkins would be a given.