Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 10:06 AM) You're welcome. I want my prize. A wite dollar, only accepted at Wite's dollar branch, headquartered in exciting North Dakota. PM him for more details!

QUOTE (SnB @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 07:29 AM) Yes absolutely. If we're being honest, forums are almost a relic of the internet past at this point. With reddit, facebook, twitter, etc - they're not quite as needed as they once were. If forums even have a chance of staying relevant, you'll need a mobile app. You sir are a relic. What is this facebook you talk about. None of the cool kids today use facebook, that is for old parents like you and me. Soxtalk is actually stronger today than it was 5 years ago in terms of traffic, etc. I think part of it is, you can't replicate this sort of discussion on facebook / twitter / instagram / etc, so for those die-hard sports fans, forums are still the absolute best way to vent, share, analyze, and discuss their favorite teams! Kind of awesome, definitely surprising and a true credit to all of the amazing members!!!

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 07:37 AM) Interested in who you guys think should be lower or higher. The best part of the FS list is seeing how this site falls in love with certain guys (Cleluis Rondon comes to mind) and becomes really bearish on others (i.e.Chris Beck) and then comparing the outliers to the big time publications. I'd be the one who rates Rondon the highest. I'm also probably one of the least down on Beck out of the group (although Beck there is definitely a disparity).

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 09:03 AM) I have admittedly shoddy memory on this subject, but my recollection was that he didn't like or didn't know about the sweeping slider. He thought he was fastball/change with a show me slider. I am also not a Keith Law fanboy by any stretch of the imagination and I prefer the opinions of many others over him, but there are most definitely worse minor league guys out there than Keith Law. Law is actually probably one of the better one's. He isn't afraid to stick his neck out their. That does mean he'll be wrong from time to time but the whole thing is a crapshoot.

Good...cause its coming!!!

How come ESPN keeps talking about the balls being deflated by 2 PSI. According to PFT, 10 of the 12 balls were under-inflated by 1PSI (not two), which makes weather and natural deflation and even better argument? What's next is the report is going to come out that the ball boy stopped at the restroom to take a leak prior to delivering the balls.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 03:42 PM) Is that a player safety issue that has anything to do with lowering the mound, independent of more offense? I mean, I see how you could have some legal grievance there, but I have to think the likelihood of pitcher injury goes from miniscule to miniscule. Pitchers have often times argued that the mound is too low and they are in an extremely dangerous position. However, some argue a lower mound would reduce the risk of tommy john (interesting article below that I hadn't previously read). http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/...ower-the-mound/

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 04:25 PM) I don'the think he even remembers that. He argued with me over it once. Maybe their are 2 Daver's that hunt and catch all of their food? Haha.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 03:56 PM) Sounds like your buddy is a science computer. Haha, he kind of is.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 02:57 PM) Haha...my buddy that is a physicist & engineer (or as I call him, professional student). Shows how simple it should be able to prove whether it was elements vs. an actual act. He also said if you want the balls to deflate, knowing the conditions, you could just inflate the balls with pretty hot air. You'll meet standards but get natural deflation out of them (along with the elements during a cold game). Said you could essentially manufacture the balls to get that PSI reading and move it down.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 02:52 PM) Caufield are you saying the regional # alone is $120M / yr plus the 78M national deal? Nevermind..I looked it up. Yep, they are at 120M + 78M so $198M before factoring in stadium and merchandising revenues. From a cost perspective you obviously have player, stadium maintenance, etc. But man, with that type of initial return, it certainly means you can easily put up a $120M payroll no problem (without even sneezing about losing money). Phils TV deal calls for $200M annually (5 B over 25 yrs). The Angels are probably a better comparison than the other teams and their deal calls for a rights average of $95M and an annual average of $147M. The reason I use the Angels as a good example is they kind of share an extremely large market (albeit they aren't directly in the LA market) with another team and are the "second" fiddle team. Clearly Angels have been the more successful franchise over the past decade from a consistency perspective and I am not sure on the ratings draw they bring. Part of this also happens to deal with when teams have signed these lucrative contracts as all the top deals have been entered into the past couple of years and its been a while since Sox negotiated and none of us know what the value is of their equity stake.

Haha...my buddy that is a physicist & engineer (or as I call him, professional student). Shows how simple it should be able to prove whether it was elements vs. an actual act.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 02:28 PM) FOR LDF This doesn't factor in the new national broadcast rights deal for MLB, which someone in this thread pointed out provides $78 million guaranteed per team (as opposed to the previous $14-15 million)...and then the new regional rights deal, where a realistic number for the White Sox would be somewhere between the Mariners (around $120 million) and Rangers. (Of course, in the last year or so the Dodgers and Astros situations have caused some media skeptics to predict a "bust" in these RSN riches before the Sox can make their own deal. The Cubs are already positioning/posturing/predicting.) That will be a BIT more complicated with JR and Co. controlling 40% of Comcast at the moment. At any rate, we're easily capable of supporting $125 million...but, knowing the fans are going to be skeptical, they're not QUITE willing to go all in again because that approach in 2011 led to four pretty disappointing seasons (other than Abreu/Sale and the 2012 season until mid-September). Caufield are you saying the regional # alone is $120M / yr plus the 78M national deal?

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 12:31 PM) I've seen several articles mention that this would be a less disruptive change than something like lowering the mound. I totally disagree with that. Especially from a fan's standpoint, you wouldn't have to know anything had changed if the mound was lowered. There would just be a little bit more offense. I would say, though, that for a lot of guys the run to the mound is a meaningful part of the warmup process. Lowering the mound might impact player safety (specifically the pitcher). I don't think the league would want to do that in this legal environment. All of a sudden, more pitchers get hit, sustain serious injuries, and lawsuits follow.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 12:57 PM) you got a valid point, the ticket sale are really to be a second thought, esp with tv deals and all. the revenue of vendor and etc... is basically where the money comes from in the 2 source. writz and business shows you have to own the product, and / or get it lease to a really inexpensive way. a soda drink is only cost the companies 4 cents.... the company that owns the hot dog and other food product which the sox also forces the vendor to buy from them as well comes from the sports serv corp. how bout the corp advertising how much money from that???? now a smart account will find a way to diversify that with the lease of the park at such a great deal. JR was trying to buy the ownership of the PHX hockey team.... 75 mil. and he wanted the city to foot the lease and to lease it to JR as even a cheaper rate. JR is not stupid.... he is a great business man.... maybe not as good as writz. Even in comparison, how much of net profits are driven by ticket sales vs. concessions, etc. Clearly Sox have a sweet-heart stadium lease which probably means their gate attendance ultimately drives a higher proportion of revenues vs. media / tv deals than certain teams but would be very curious to see the breakout.

How much do ticket sales ultimately drive the payroll these days (after you back out the lease costs, vendor costs, etc)? I don't know the answer, but actual ticket sales are becoming a much smaller component of the revenue equation, right? I'd be curious on the percentage.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 10:04 AM) Who you work with is HUGE in terms of having a good time at work, wherever that may be. I don't care if you are one of those "ohhhhh, I just looooveeee my job" type of people, if those you work with are a bunch of asshats, that love won't last. I don't hate my job...but I wouldn't call it a love fest, either. There are a LOT of things I love more than being at work, such as my family, friends, road trips, good restaurants, a vodka martini, fishing, etc...I'd rather be doing those things than working. But work isn't bad...I don't hate being here, either...but I do it because I'm pretty good at it and I get paid...not because I love it. Other than fishing and vodka martini's, which I'd replace with some other leisure activities, you've pretty much nailed it.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 09:09 AM) That is the exact advice a fellow educator gave his son who is considering being an archaeologist. Be Phil Collins instead and buy every Alamo artifact worth owning and fill the dream that way. I can't say I disagree. I would third that advice. I'd also say that the more important part of job satisfaction isn't the actual duties of the job but the people you work with (in many instances) anyway.

STUPID.

Classy man and an incredible baseball player. RIP!!!

Sloppy with turnovers but another strong defensive performance and overall great road win. Big tike. Great to see Noah back and taj and pau played great. Rose carried team early got sloppy late but still stayed aggressive despite looking tired. Jimmy was filthy in second half and Snell with another solid game.

I had partially mis-spoke. You can't get the next 3 or 6K you spent, rather, you are fully capped at $6K, so really after you do the FSA, you could add an additional 1K (to get you to the total cap of $6K) however, that extra $1K is only available if you have 2 or more kids (and the actual tax savings is 20% of that 1K or $200). But in terms of benefit, Jenks, based upon what you described, you get a much greater benefit from using the 5K in the reimbursement account vs. the 20% rate that would be applied.

Ichiro to Marlins for 1yr 2M deal. If you ask me that is a really good move for a back-up outfielder. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-leag...-174242522.html

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 02:31 PM) "loophole" wasn't the right word, but it's yet another complication in the tax code. You can't claim to hate a big, complex tax code but then love every one of these programs that help make it so complex. I think its complicated as hell, but I don't think the concept behind the programs we are talking about is bad. I think there is an easier way to do it with general tax reform (including saving people the time and cost it takes to prepare taxes) but in this political environment that will never happen. Encouraging people to save for retirement and / or education is never a bad idea in my book. Even if it helps rich people too, I don't have a problem because ultimately it means less people are dependent on old uncle sam and in my department, that should somehow be something we as a society track to evaluate the success of the government. The goal should be to reduce the # of people in this country who need government assistance and increase the # of people who are independent and can do things on their own. Plus the less people dependent, the reality is the more time / energy you can spend helping the other people. I really do think that more people want generic handouts and total reliance on government than ever before. I have no study to back that, just my own personal opinion and I'm sure someone will turn this and say I have that same expectation given 529's, etc, but I'd argue the types of programs I'm talking about taking advantage of are ones that largely are utilizing your own money and just better incentivize / encourage you to put more of it away so that you are more independent.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 02:28 PM) But what I'm missing is how a 529 helps an 18 year old from wealthy parents whose parents refuse to pay? Wouldn't they also have not bothered to set up a 529 in the first place, and wouldn't direct tuition assistance help them a heck of a lot more than their parents getting tax breaks? It would, but if you did direct tuition assistance, everyone is poor so it has its own failures as well. I am just stating that I have zero problem with us having programs that encourage you to "save" money for college. I see little negative to something like that and the general cost (in terms of tax savings) vs. the benefit (advanced education at a more affordable price for those who do have it) as pretty beneficial. When you already have quite a bit of benefits for the poor, it really is the middle class and upper middle class who ultimately get pinched in all of these programs and if you pull this program away, its probably the upper middle (and really the upper middle is the middle class of 20 years ago) who is most impacted (as opposed to the wealthy).