bmags

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 04:23 PM) I truly believe Hahn and Kenny have an opportunity to do things right. People think of the Cubs "tanking", well the Cubs didn't have pieces like Sale / Q / Eaton (plus to a lesser extent Jones / Frazier / Robertson / Abreu / Melky) when they started the tanking whom they could move to significantly boost their farm system. Shark was really the only guy that they had and they clearly took advantage of that (and of course they did get lucky with Arrieta). So for those who say, well they spent more internationally or via free agency, well us having a better starting point to potentially inject the roster with talent is a major plus in the White Sox favor. Totally agree. As for rest, really need sox scouting to come through. In July, had we traded sale for Sanchez + from yankees, we would have thought a weaker return than boston packages. But then he hits 20 hrs in 2 months. Sox need to hit if they go any lower than top guys to get a higher return of quantity.

It will be stages of grief. It will be exciting at first, it could be disappointing at first, but sad will come last. Appreciate the hell out of what he's done and the .gifs of him with a wipeout slider hitting the batter while they swing for strike 3. But, we are where we are.

If these were really scenarios I'd do boston 1 with 3-4 wildcards.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 02:35 PM) To touch on the "debate" ss2k and I were having yesterday morning, I do agree with the notion that you want to use the Sale trade to get back some quantity, as we have a depth issue. However, you simply also cannot afford to trade a talent like Sale for a handful of "everyday" mlb players. Depth is important, but it isn't so difficult to acquire that you make it your main priority in a Sale trade. Therefore, in my opinion, you've got to balance two somewhat competing considerations: 1) I need to get back high-impact players - all-star caliber type players; and 2) I need to add depth - I need to fill more than one hole here. There are a number of ways to do this, but the way I see NOT to do this, unless we are misjudging the market, is to ask for another team's mlb-proven cost-controlled star (Turner, Seager, Betts, etc). While it would be great to have a guy like that, it likely just results in the Oakland A's scenario, where you are forever trading your cost-controlled high-impact performers before they become cost-prohibitive but never really improving your team's chances of winning. What we'd like to do is really to obtain 1-2 prospects with high upside, but still far enough way that you aren't paying full freight for them - the cost you pay prices in the risk. This is your Michael Kopech, your Rafael Devers, your Yadier Alvarez, your Alex Verdugo, etc. In addition to these 2 prospects, you'd like the centerpiece of the deal to carry far less risk, knowing full well that you are paying for that low risk. This is where a guy like Benintendi or Urias work. Ultimately, it's going to come down to a case-by-case basis of who your scouts like the best, but I subscribe to the theory of balancing high-impact with the need for depth. Right, and this is where I see the LAD/BOS players being essential, because I like their 1b players a lot as future all stars. It's hard for me to see a trade with Nationals and not get Turner back, but I can't see them trading turner. If Braves truly would give us both of their middle infield prospects +, that's a deal. if it's just one, it's not enough. But you need those "not enough" teams to offer their best prospect to put pressure on BOS/LAD to offer 1(b) prospect + package. I would obviously take Trea Turner or (would never happen) Seager, but it does create questions of how the hell we build depth.

QUOTE (peavy44 @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 02:03 PM) We get more or no deal bottom line Great. The past 2 years have been really fun, looking forward to part 3.

Here's the choice you have to make: If you could even get them to trade Trea Turner - you are not getting more than that. Maybe some INTL prospects or A filler, but you are not getting more than that. So the question is whether you break out to the higher risk, high quality prospects below them to get a larger breadth trade to create that depth of talent we lack.

QUOTE (daggins @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 01:35 PM) Might as well have fun with this: Pirates get - George Springer Astros get - Cutch, Sale, Alan Hanson White Sox get hella prospects, including Bregman This is more fun than other scenarios but feel like astros are giving up too much but I'm not that familiar with Hanson.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 01:27 PM) I think Sale will go to Boston and I think Q will go to the Dodgers. I see Q to the Dodgers because they will find a way to get him without giving up Urias (still a strong package) and they are the type of front office who will truly appreciate how good of a pitcher Q is. Sale will go to the Red Sox because when push comes to shove, Dombrowski has the chips and wants to win and knows that Sale will help him do that in the near-term (and he isn't afraid to best other teams offers, when all is set and done). This is why I think having braves in the mix is great for sox. Overall, I think it is less likely to work with just a bidding war between LAD and BOS, I think those teams are more likely to say "meh we can wait and see what else comes up". The cubs really put a wrinkle in this by keeping baez, russel, et all instead of trading for areas of need. All are going to consider that now. But a team like braves that needs to make a big play for fans will keep them honest.

spoke too soon. D'oh

whoa, mizzou is still not losing to Xavier and the 1st half is almost over

It's gotta be a hard decision, when seeing poor performers like Brock Osweiler hit FA and make paydirt. The right team in right circumstances could pull that trigger if their team is largely established with QB holding them back (jets?).

I'm thinking Romo may have a Kurt Warner-esque resurgence with another team. Couple injury plagued years and then one magical injury free year where he is Romo again.

QUOTE (shipps @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 11:22 AM) Would it be crazy for me to hope that Fox is coach next year just so we can keep Fangio? I think our defense is going to be what brings us back to being competitive one day and I really don't think there is a better guy for that. No, I don't think continuity is ever that bad. My main gripe with Fox has been his handling of injuries. His game day stuff I knew would be case, and he promoted from within and this time it burned him. But I still think he has eye for coaching talent. Jim Bob Cooter was on our list for QB coach but went to lions. We could have went Gase -> Cooter and been much better off.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 11:18 AM) The voters that stayed home from Obama to Clinton is a clear message to the Democratic party, very similar to the one that was sent to the GOP after running John McCain. Yes. I agree. It was a failure, they failed the country, they failed their constituents. THey had a murderers row of people campaigning for Clinton and yet it was Clinton herself. I'll never make that mistake again.

If Fox is coach next year I'm going to imagine he pushes for something like that.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 11:07 AM) If you want to just go and call half of the country disgusting, go right ahead, but lets see what good that does solving any problems in our country. It makes you no different then the other side. Hillary should have spent more time attacking the issues and talking about how she was going to drive change and make the country better. I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm not going to call everyone who voted for Trump disgusting (misguided, absolutely), but deep down, I hope somehow they weren't so wrong and Trump ends up being a fantastic president. If he doesn't, then people should use their voice and let it be heard so that everyone understands why his policies are wrong and what he is doing is wrong. But for all those people protesting who didn't cast a vote, I hope they all learn a lesson and cast a vote in the future. And when you say they voted for very powerful positions to go to very horrible people, lets not forget that there was a lot of people who didn't think all that highly of Clinton and could even have gone as far as calling her pretty horrible. So in many people's eyes it was picking the less horrible and some people viewed that as being Trump, others saw it as Clinton, others clearly didn't vote. Honestly, I read your first sentence and I don't know how that is at all what I said. I'm not calling half the country disgusting. But just because there are some Trump voters that have seen their towns pop decrease and jobs go away does not mean that we should be silent that their vote empowered some very terrible people. I may be incapable of making that point, but I am not calling people inherently evil for voting for trump. But their vote for trump put some very bad people in office, despite very obvious evidence that this was the case. Edit: I read the rest of your post and largely agree. But I think both can be done. I and others can be a watchdog, criticize the clinton campaign, and acknowledge that nearly half the country voted for a person appointing absolute nuts to important positions and not be wrong in any of them. Maybe there's too much focus on point 3, it's week 2.

Please be Bob Corker.

The idea that after 8 years "change" is going to be a winning recipe is absolutely true. There is a reason we have only seen the incumbent party win after 8 years of rule from previous president 3 times in last 100 years. It is obvious Clinton was a bad candidate for Change message. But that "change" was the recipe for success among this man that was so clearly corrupt beyond Clinton, ill-prepared, ill-tempered, unbothered, and fomenting racism, xenophobia and bigotry for so many people doesn't absolve them from the responsibility of that decision. Are the very vocal, very terrible people the majority of those who voted for trump? No. But they are a much bigger and powerful group than they would be with any other Repub president. They are becoming cabinet officials. Was this obvious prior to his election. YES. So should we human shield all of the people who voted trump by saying they aren't horrible people? I guess I just don't care. Whether they just wanted to vote against clinton or are a white nationalist voting for trump, they voted for very powerful positions to go to very horrible people. And we all pay. Do I want their votes again? Yes. But the 5 million americans who didn't vote may be a better place to start.

http://www.fostercampbell2016.com/ Donate to Foster Campbell.

I'd recommend calling all of your reps even if dem to make sure they know you expect them to not be spineless babies they were in 02-04.

QUOTE (shipps @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 10:19 AM) I would prefer not to sign a guy who we will hate to watch as long as his is on our team. I am kind of done with those type of experiments. We all know we will rip him and hate his play because he will be pretty damn useless offensively which is just more of what we have seen since AJ left. I'd rather do this and see if Narvaez can develop alongside him than getting a bad offensive and bad defensive catcher that gets Rodon a higher amount of base runners and walks. Not sure who else you are planning to see, and who cares if we aren't competing anyway.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 10:14 AM) If I had to guess I'd put him in the range of 3/$36 or 4/$50. I will be surprised if he is substantially below that. Apparently Olney tweeted yesterday he will get "at least a 3 year deal". I think for sure he is getting a multi-year.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/medicare...e-out-checklist If any of your reps are on the last group I would recommend calling them. Some beggar belief that they would vote for it but it's best to make a stink now.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 09:39 AM) They had that rotation at the end of 2014 and in the playoffs. But two bullpen blow-ups and a Bud Norris masterpiece, and they were quickly swept. http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseas...014_ALDS2.shtml Obviously I misspelled Fulmer but yeah, I know they were on one team at a point but if they had all been on same team and been 1-2-3 cy young voting, Price, and ROTY Fulmer.

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 09:34 AM) "Hey i'm a FA. Are you having a fire sale" "Maybe" "Ok I'm looking elsewhere" Sure, but sometimes players do sign places for the best contract offer.