bmags

QUOTE (shysocks @ Nov 8, 2016 -> 09:05 AM) My polling spot opened at 6 AM, I got there at about 6:15, and I was out just after 7. Not too bad. I voted NO on the roads amendment because I read that it was lobbied onto the ballot and promoted by construction companies, and that it would hamstring the Illinois budget even further. Don't think that's what we need right now. Not a discussion for the Presidential Election thread though, so I digress. Well you can blame me for that

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 8, 2016 -> 08:54 AM) It's a non issue. Hillary is getting rid of the second amendment. Trump said so. He doesn't lie. Straight shooter. This is true. I wish I hadn't spent time on it now.

Oh damn I won. Did not think Tyrod Taylor would have a good game and he overcame my 23 pt deficit.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 8, 2016 -> 08:48 AM) I forgot to vote for that amendment and realized it the instant I sealed the envelop. I don't know how I would have voted (was leaving that to the end to finish looking into it) but was leaning towards being in favor of it. If it loses by one vote, blame me. I voted against it. I understand reasoning behind it, but to me the strict rules on things like that always come back and bite you. Imagine a huge flood where lawmakers couldn't move funds out of the road funds to relief funds.

Curious to know how illinois voters here voted on the road fund amendments and consolidation proposal for cook county.

I had looked at my sample ballot maybe 3-4 times, but today I voted and out of nowhere there was a ballot measure from Oak Park proposing updating the language of the 2nd amendment (the federal constitution's 2nd amendment) to allow congress to regulate the use of firearms. It was very bizarre. One, I have NO idea what power that even holds, like...what does that do next? But obviously I voted for it since I am soxtalk's only poster in favor of changing the 2nd amendment (and perhaps I hallucinated the question?).

JK rowling is nice.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 04:48 PM) Aren't there several posters that have become sick of his antics? That's not as sexy of a scoop for Crasnick, unfortunately.

Sure wish you guys were around to talk ghostbusters when I wrote my incredible critique.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 04:35 PM) Vogelbach was traded to the Mariners in the Montgomery trade. LaRoche debacle was pre Montgomery trade, per his story.

"Let's try to drive down price of Sale"

Eichenwald is fine in his reporting, sometimes, a bit too flamboyant for me, but his twitter is too Olbermanny.

Man last year was really weak outside of ML development (Saladino/Anderson) and 2016 draft class.

Is that the guy who said computers can't store 650k emails yesterday?

Marquis Wilson is back at practice, I legit forgot he was on team.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 02:37 PM) what happened to Bayh in Indiana? He had been looking pretty comfortable for awhile there. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix...-to-much-worse/ Not shocking. Came out he didn't stay at his Indiana condo once in 2010 (last year in senate). Too busy saying he was above politics and raking in money from his consultant gig. Above it All Baye.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 01:37 PM) I think if there is a team most motivated to overpay for Sale, it should be the Dodgers. Assuming Kershaw is 100% next season, he and Sale pretty much dominate the NL, and think of those 2 in the playoffs. Pretty much takes left handed hitters out of the equation. For the Cubs that is Rizzo and Schwarber. And they can restock their farm system by signing a million international guys. One thing I like about Dodgers is getting a handful of "interesting" guys to round out the deal as wildcards. I don't like their headlining talent as much as others, however.

Makes sense, saw it on twitter and thought it was the catcher.

Thanks for sharing. Nice to read people recognize value of players like Jones/Quintana *cough cough* Rosenthal

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 11:30 AM) I have a different opinion of them than most of the public, but I was still surprised by the rank unprofessionalism from them. Especially the New York office. I don't think Comey's actions were partisan, I think they were political to pre-emptively respond to attacks of them trying to "cover up" the investigation if htey were working on it. It's political in trying to preserve FBI integrity. But because his letter was so vague, all of the agents leaked out the motivations and details. It was a mess and entirely predictable and a reason why this doesn't happen. It's hard for people outside that law enforcement world to understand what it means when a letter like that gets introduced.

Has been pointed out - IRS was able to get through this thing without the high profile leak (the NY Times leak was clearly not from IRS). The last two weeks of FBI leaks are embarrassing for them. Comey needs to clean house.

They won't need to. We are at close to 90% of our available budget and fans didn't come out for it. Benefit of a rebuild is you can operate with way less and then spend the difference when they are closer to a watchable product. Spending money on an aimless mediocre team is no more fun than spending it on a bad, building team.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 10:19 AM) Ultimately, whatever package it is, the White Sox rank the prospects a bit differently from the publications, and they have to be right. Yes. In July, had we sent Sale for a package surrounding Gary Sanchez I would have been very skeptical. Now - totally plausible. Scary relying on a front office who just traded for James Shields to get good value back, but I stand by statement that they are capable of doing hte right thing but have made the wrong decisions because of bad strategy. Trading Sale for surplus of talent would be beginning of showing they have sound strategy and are capable of doing the right thing. Or - it would be just like the Rams. Made the right trade once, but still incapable of team building anyway.

I don't want to trade Sale for a bad package. Yes, that return the Marlins received for Cabrera was bad and would really hurt as a white sox fan. But we just had someone argue Mike Trout isn't good enough return for Sale. Our diagnosis of bad is going to be subjective. But I think we all agree that some we expect mixtures of top 25/top 100/wildcards to come back. Where I disagree is the tendency to act like all top 25 talent is flat and = in value, where I think certain top ten talents are so good you take less back around them. Others are certain we need to salt the earth of the teams we trade and I just can't get behind that being necessary.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 09:56 AM) It's pretty much an unprecedented trade to give up an ace signed cheaply for 3 more years. I really don't know if teams would be able to pay that much more than they would if he had 2 years left on his deal, which seems to be when guys get dealt now, and usually at a higher payroll number than Sale requires. To me there is a limit on what teams can and will give up. Yes, he might be less valuable next year, but that doesn't necessarlly mean the package to acquire him will be less. I am taking the chance that this 2016 class really is as good as it looks. With that in mind this is a good time to sell as you could have that wave of talent arriving in 2019, all young and cheap and can supplement with FA $.