bmags

And why, again, would north korea be open to diplomacy, when a country that is in compliance is then deemed to not be in compliance just because the next admin didn't like the deal?

I basically hope that he says we are withdrawing in name only.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 01:53 PM) I wonder if that will make players gamble on themselves more and pass up some of these long, long term deals 6-7 years +? I would be surprised. Human brain values preventing loss more than increasing gain.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 11:34 AM) The ATF is the board currently. They evaluate products all the time. It's already illegal to modify your rifle into a fully automatic rifle. You can make your semi-auto into a "nearly" fully auto using either these bump fire stocks which are currently okay'd by the ATF or just by holding onto your belt loop as it fires (this exploits the same recoil physics that makes the bump stock work). And while modifying a semi into an actual fully automatic weapon is very, very illegal, it's trivially easy to do so. The only way to change that would be to ban semi-automatic weapons. That last sentence is what I'm talking about though. Is when these have attempted to have been defined in law (ban semi-automatics), the execution has been semantic. Automatic/semi-automatic, the actual spirit is to try and decrease the rate and amount of bullets that one gun can shoot at once. That's the legislative purpose that's lost. The committee would need to have the authority to shoot for dual-purpose ensuring guns are "safe" to owners and work for sport while not being "excessively" lethal. That's just spitballing it, but it needs to move beyond a technical gun type.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 11:13 AM) Something has to be done, a compromise needs to be made somewhere. People shouldn’t be able to easily modify their guns to become an automatic weapon as easy as he did. If you are stocking up on ammo, someone somewhere should ask “why is this happening? Why does he need this?” When I read this paragraph what sticks with me is an ongoing regulatory board for guns needs to be created. If they make a 94 style law, there will be workarounds and a lot of hearty "they said they banned assault rifles but ...". If the goal is to actually reduce these arsenals, we need a group that does that on an ongoing process, similar to FDA. And the FDA is not perfect. And it is frustrating. And it makes incorrect decisions, and it is influenced by industry and often not as much by suffering patients. BUt, it's a reasonable set-up that I'm sure has led to vastly better results than if that industry was unregulated.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 11:19 AM) Is there any place in the world where firearms are totally banned? Within at least a semi-free society. The point is to reduce the amount of situations where a gun is available. Just like, in the sentence preceding yours, no, we will not be able to insert an intervention into all violent scenarios, but we could insert them where we can and REDUCE VIOLENCE. If the situations where guns were involved was reduced, lethality would reduce, but here's the important thing: maybe not all violence. No, I do not think all gun murders being eliminated is a likely goal. But reducing them is a very worthy goal, something that should be sought after and tweaked and revised toward the best solutions daily.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 10:58 AM) The biggest problem with that concept is that the results are very likely going to come back and overwhelmingly say that having any access to a gun puts the life of you and your family in much greater danger, from both violence and from suicide, and that no one should have these things in their home. And if the results came back saying that, people just wouldn't believe it. it's only a solution if you're willing to listen to the results. It also may say that increasing violence interventions or other social programs could be more effective. There is no case like the US, and we are not allowed to know.

Really can't pull for either. Kinda hate both teams. Hope Sale does well.

we're not going to do this in this thread. If this thread gets in a discussion on government politics they'll get moved to the buster.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 07:44 AM) I just wish we could operate in between being able to stockpile 40 guns and thousands of rounds of ammo without anyone noticing, and “take away all the guns”. For 8 years everyone said Obama was coming to take all your guns and that was just false. I don’t think it is unfair to have some sort of system to insure that people know when someone is loading up on a bunch of guns and ammo like this guy did. Registry, cards, regulation, etc. something more than what is currently the status quo needs to be done. Look how many times Ive posted "can't we at least be allowed to study this?" and it gets no traction. CDC can't even provide statistics on how gun ownership may endanger children in the home. To say there's no middle ground, and people either want to ban guns or permit everything. Well most posts in this thread say otherwise, people have provided lots of middle ground solutions, and frankly they weren't even middle ground. Still very very tilted to gun ownership but trying to limit the amount of firepower we see in these massive displays. I think I was the only person in this forum to say I'd abolish the 2nd amendment, and even then it wasn't about banning all guns, it was about allowing stricter federal regulations and limitations while still allowing guns for sport.

QUOTE (Quin @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 11:56 PM) We just had Covey for a year and had Nieto a few years ago. I wouldn't be shocked to see a team take Micker. Grabbing a AA pitcher and putting him in bullpen isn't that different. And hiding a catcher, who was also 23, from high A was shocking, but then instead use one of your roster spots for a 20 year old player whose never played above low A and strikes out 30% of the time. Like I said, if it happens, it happens, but I'd take the chance and feel confident he's back with team.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 08:02 AM) Prime Giancarlo Stanton isn't even remotely close to as good as prime Albert Pujols. And he's way more injury prone. Right, I forgot to respond to this but this is exactly right. If Pujols, who was the greatest hitter on earth could end up at the end of a contract and people saying he wasn't worth it, than Stanton is much riskier. This year was the first time he's stayed healthy in 3-4 years. Screams he'll eventually be DH. And maybe he'll be Big Papi at DH but it's hard.

Chisoxfn is the one I always think of with the Tatis trade, and I think he just nailed the process fail of it. It's not knowing that Tatis Jr. was going to become a great prospect, it was being against trading away a young position player prospect with power for someone just there to plug holes. I do find it interesting the speed at which many on the board loudly railed against any writer that wrote about how Tatis Jr was an up and coming great prospect, and they just hated the white sox, to finally accepting that an 18 year old in AA with a 20hr/20sb season is a really good prospect and saying "who could have known!"

They’d have to keep him on the mlb roster all year. No one is doing that.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 08:18 PM) Lolwut? You realize Benitendi finished with a lower wrc+ than Moncada right? And that he is a year older and is a mediocre corner OF? There is no GM in baseball that even considers that trade. Read that people think even with Park adjustments left fielders get screwed at Fenway with d metrics.

I think logical place to start is allowing any and all data to be collected and studies to occur but even that is not allowed. Edit: just a reminder https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp...m=.806c8b846187

So he doesn't fit the bill but if it takes down gottlieb that would make it a heartwarming story.

I don't feel a need to protect Micker.

I have doubts that Collins can play OF even as well as Schwarber. All accounts were that Schwarber was a better athlete than Collins. That's a rough report.

I'd bring back all of him as MILB free agents if they go unsigned.

Tatis always provides such interesting conversations /green

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 01:22 PM) Probably. It goes back to what Buddy Bell said at a Soxfest seminar. Most of these signees are scouted not playing games but at these showcases where they take BP, make some throws, and sprint. He was saying you wouldn't believe some of the basic things that need to be taught to these guys after they are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, because they haven't played many games. Tatis probably had a better background actually playing because of his father. Yeah last part probably true. I guess moral of the story is get these kids in instructs soon as possible

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 12:59 PM) I read an article last night that had tidbits on most of the victims and I was straight up bawling by the end. So many innocent lives lost, so many there for memorable moments with friends and family... Same, I read this tragic piece and I couldn't hold it together. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/two...m=.f228e82ea518 So many stories of the heroic and selfless acts of people at that concert.

One thing I feel kinda sure of. Had Tatis Jr actually played on the field for some games prior to the trade it would have never happened. THe rumors about him began almost immediately for when he took the field.

Based on premise of first post, I think we'll actually see a better player than sale (to me, likely a position player) traded, and a better package given up. Kopech became top pitching prospect later on. And I think there are already teams that have or will come close with top hitter/pitcher. Braves with Acuna and a jump from Allard/Wright Nats had the reverse at the time, but Giolito/Robles And Pads could end up in the position with Tatis Jr/Gore in a few years. Point being, teams often are there or close to having a top hitter/pitcher. And what made the position possible for sox was that team was also competitive. So I think it was a more rare than common, but it's possible and now there is precedent.