bmags

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 09:13 AM) But you are pretty much hoping the prospects turn out as good as he has been. Considering his production and contract, I don't understand taking on the risk. If some of the mid level market teams traded their Adam Eatons before they made their runs, they would never had made their runs. It would have to be a no doubt blown away offer, or it makes no sense. Those midmarket teams had a deep farm system behind their adam eatons. We have a single promising draft class 3 years away.

With all of the votes nearly counted, it's clear that: - This wasn't a low-turnout election - Clinton did what she was expected to with hispanic vote, contrary to early exits So to me, my initial thought that the next candidate just needs to get the apathetic voters that missed 2012 was false. Trump's ability to manipulate positive media coverage and deflect negative coverage is quite frankly amazing. And this Carrier-style populism will probably resonate in a larger way than if any other politician did it. At this point, I think 8 years is increasingly possible. That said, the likelihood of impeachment is low so long as republicans are in house/senate, and that likelihood is high unless medicare privatization is pushed thru. The other key will be foreign policy, where I'm terrified, as balta said, that some group will attack a Trump hotel and it drags us into a huge war.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 2, 2016 -> 08:59 AM) It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. Besides, he has 5 years of control. Those guys are not available. We have a thread. I could go either way here, but with the way he plays I would be more surprised that this wasn't his career year. But I don't think it's obvious and it would be a joy to watch him 5 more years, he could just as easily be a juan pierre type that finds himself with a long career as a speedy leadoff type.

Blue Jays are in a weird place. Kinda feel bad for em after years of that build up for it to crash so soon (though kinda feels like 05 white sox without the world series, they'll have a weird, near competitive team for several more years)

Braves didn't give up much. I know he had a pretty bad year last year but I like move for Braves, who either will catch career years from all or the worst of every one of those guys they acquired.

QUOTE (PolishPrince34 @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 04:05 PM) That's extra $4 million to build up your system and big advantage over the other 29 teams. I think that will be the big advantage when dealing with the international market in the new CBA. Go after the higher cost players of the past couple years: Torres, Jimenez, Mailtan, Espinoza, Alvarez, Mazara, Tavarez, etc. All those signings done by the teams who went over cap in the last CBA. Your going to see the Dodgers, Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox trading strengths in their system to get international allotment to continue rebuilding their system. Example Cubs will trade a player like 3b Candelario who has no spot in the majors and be traded to the Marlins for allotment money. Right, but at this point i'd rather poach the signings of those teams that have shown success in promoting their LatAm talent in their lower levels rather than give the money to the sox system for a 2017 class. I like Marco Paddy. I Think we are getting better. Not relying on him yet thou.

Eh, would prefer to get players a little more reliable than latam cash.

I think we'd get a + there, but as headliners, you can't do much better than a top 5 prospect and a top 20 prospect, not that many teams have both. Point is - it was hard to figure out Eaton's market, but if McCutcheon after his season and age is truly bringing a Robles + back, then Eaton would command a Giolito + Robles.

That's interesting PP34, In Klaws chat today he said PIT should ask for Giolito and Robles in a shoot for the stars land on the moon moment. I mean, if You could get Giolito and Robles for Adam Eaton, prior to a Sale trade, we are talking about a serious infusion of high ceiling talent.

Good Career, Good Effort!

QUOTE (Dunt @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 12:19 PM) It's an odd move, b/c Cutch is actually pretty bad in CF, but that lineup would be mental. Nationals win 4th straight paper champions award! Is espinoza so bad they can't move him? Edit: yes he is

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 11:58 AM) While true, baseball is unique in that even if they made a balanced schedule and every team played every other team the same amount of times there is no guarantee they'll face the same starting pitcher each game. In all the other sports if you take out factors like injuries and trades, you know that you'll be facing more or less the same team every time you play them. Anyways, teams within the same division don't even play the same schedule, yet hardly anyone ever says a word about that. Was it fair that the Sox had to play the Cubs for 4 games but the Indians got to play the Reds instead? Right. We are talking about a 162 game schedule. If you are tops after that haul you deserve the spoils.

Regardless of the different leagues, you can't convince me that best record is not the single best determinant.

Thought this was good news to see PIT thinking they can get Robles for 30 year old McCutcheon on a downyear.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 09:54 AM) Some were speculating that teams would try to do 2 years deals for under $50 million but my interpretation of the rule is that if you sign a player with a QO, you are losing your 3rd round pick unless you are a tax team, then you lose your 2nd and 5th rounders. I think this happens regardless of the contract that the player signs. Right, the $50mill only affects what the losing team receives, but they don't receive a pick from the signing team.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 09:47 AM) Surprised no major moves have been made yet. I thought things would've happened quickly once this thing was resolved. I don't know, while nothing dramatic, some changes directly affect the major market teams (increase in multiple offender tax) that they will want to figure it out before moving.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 1, 2016 -> 09:44 AM) So since the White sox don't count as the 15 smallest markets they would never receive a pick after the 1st, only after the 2nd? Correct. OTOH so much of the CBA has been tailored to JR's interests it's hard to complain too much.

Best write-up I've seen on Player Compensation: Teams that lose a free agent who rejects a qualifying offer will still get a draft pick. The details: For most teams, that pick would be a sandwich pick immediately following the competitive-balance picks that are awarded after the second round. However, if that team comes from the 15 smallest markets and is receiving revenue-sharing money, and it loses a free agent who signs a contract worth at least $50 million, that pick would follow the first round. And if the team losing that player is over the luxury-tax threshold, the pick would follow the fourth round. http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0595981839814890747-4 h/t sss larry for finding

I don't see how dodgers can justify giving away all of their cheap near MLB talent for Sale after this CBA.

So did the teams that would have been restricted from being allowed to spend in players in LatAm now get to spend 5 m?

Really screws white Sox, also players can only receive a QO once

Dang, bad game to lose in front of a lot of tough games

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 30, 2016 -> 09:08 PM) Do teams still get picks for losing free agents? If so, is it still a 1st rounder? Just wondering how this new CBA will impact Frazier's trade value. Have not seen anything saying that changed, just what signing team gives up.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 30, 2016 -> 08:24 PM) That would be huge for us assuming no loopholes. Was hoping for punishment for those that were so ridiculous with last CBA

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 30, 2016 -> 10:12 AM) Haha, yes. Phew, thanks.