bmags

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2016 -> 02:52 PM) So here's my attempt at logic on that draft pick. Take as a given that most picks in the late 20s will not amount to much and the value of those picks on average is ~2 WAR. Most picks in that range are guys who never make the big leagues, and there's what, 1 out of 10 who become a really good player, fair? If you view the guy as a reliever only, which is the only fair interpretation of the guy being rushed up to the big leagues as a reliever and starting his service time this year, then that player has a reduced ceiling compared to a guy who could be a starter. However, if you're evaluating the quality of the pick, both the ceiling and the probability of success matter as well. So yes, his ceiling may be lower, but if you think he has a 20% chance of being a successful reliever, then compared to guys around him with a 10% chance then that's the right pick despite the lower ceiling. But there's one problem with drafting a guy as a reliever and keeping him there. If you draft a guy as a starter and keep him there for several years...if he flops as a starter he could still become a valuable player if you move him to the bullpen. If the White Sox are intending to keep Burdi as a reliever the next 2-3 seasons and he winds up being Daniel Webb, they're not going to be able to convert him into a starter while he's still in this organization because it will take more years than he has options to stretch him out. In other words...you draft a reliever highly, you better be darn sure you're right on him. You better be willing to bet your job on it. Yeah this is my beef with what has taken place since draft. He was drafted and it was "oh Sox must think he can start" then we hear Hostetler say they'll decide in offseason, which makes sense. But if they bring him up it just screams to me that this is the start of his career as a reliever and there will be no attempt to stretch him out in offseason.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 17, 2016 -> 11:02 AM) Something I read said he stepped down in 2007? Before taking over Obama's campaign anyway. Really more funny than anything. If someone had written a script that mirrored the 2016 campaign, it would be rejected by every producer as way too ridiculous and over-the-top. I guess that's possible he was in both, but that was same time as his CAP run. He may have been on board.

Yeah it has been a bit strange but maybe they have a defensive instructor in GF that they like to work with Fisher first.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Aug 17, 2016 -> 09:40 AM) This Lochte story is so very bizarre... http://deadspin.com/rio-police-are-casting...of-b-1785389540 More people probably came to Rio for New Years eve than the olympics.

I don't think J. Podesta has been involved in the podesta group for over 20 years. Not since his original Clinton group. Now, if this takes down Tony Podesta and Vin Baker in one swoop...hey, not bad.

Oh s***, so this Manafort cash is reported to have been used to funnel to US lobbying firms. Manafort also worked and set the stage for the annexation of Crimea, something Trump had said he'd recognize.

It's amazing how much this mirrors the Bulls now.

So tired of the liberal media coordinating with the democrats ugh

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 16, 2016 -> 10:10 PM) I guess I hadn't realized until recently that the Watergate scandal broke before the 1972 Presidential elections, and Nixon still managed to win one of the biggest landslides in history, and that Nixon managed to hold office for two more years. I guess I had always assumed that the timeline was that the break-in happened in '73 or something. I imagine it was viewed as shenanigans until the connection to the White House was made.

I used to believe that Hahn was tactically strong but strategically weak in how he was unable to convince his superiors in a broader strategy (or he himself was unable to create a broader strategy). But then this year came up and tactically he was pretty terrible barring the draft.

his contract amount.

Probably the best ringer article i've read: https://theringer.com/nfl-tablet-playbooks-...a511#.7k9hb9of4

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Aug 16, 2016 -> 12:42 PM) The owners would never do that, because they would never want that done to them. Taking away the ability to relocate would severely impair the leverage of ownership in future stadium negotiations and in turn would make the team substantially less valuable in a sale. Owners will never impair other owners from the ability to make money. I disagree. Just like how MLB players will allow tighter restrictions on incoming draftees vs major league players, owners would easily allow for tougher restrictions on new owners that they wouldn't allow on themselves. They may not handicap an owner once he is an owner, but they certainly will to a potential one.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Aug 16, 2016 -> 10:58 AM) They were on board with letting the team move to St Pete 30 years ago. The MLB owners are not going to stand in the way of any other owner being able to make money, unless of course it cuts into theirs. Yes. 30 years ago.

Going to guess that DGB still hasn't cleaned up his act.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 15, 2016 -> 05:56 PM) The shares go to their heirs, and they do with them what they want. If they sell them JR has the right of first refusal. Thanks this is what I was looking for.

Maybe it's appendicitis.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 15, 2016 -> 04:33 PM) CNN needs more missing plane coverage. Ha I just don't see the value in the 24 hr news networks. I only see them at airports and it's like, you can see how out of touch with reality you could become when you are old and not engaging with society and only see a 24 hr news network telling you what's going on.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 15, 2016 -> 03:18 PM) Other partners. Several wanted out. A few are getting way up there in age, but I think the title changed their minds. There was a quote by one in the article I read about it saying the ownership structure of many of the other teams was making it hard to compete and that was 2003 or 2004, then they won it all. They can get out and sell their shares, but it is not nearly what they would get if the team was sold. So when they are dying their shares are just going to a trust, but there is no active representative of the original partners interest at their meetings. Is that right?

Eh, those emails did exist but they were on an internal email chain, and there was no evidence that it was actually carried out or communicated to anyone> There was no push of surrogates ever questioning religion from Clinton, either. http://www.vox.com/2016/7/23/12261020/dnc-...leaks-explained That article includes a paragraph on the politico reporter sharing their story pre pub which is lazy and bad but also...basically what you'd expect from politico.

Dick - can you elaborate on these: "There was a time before they won the WS where several thought selling and setting up their estates for when they die was the play. After they won, most of them shifted and thought their heirs would love being part of owning a team and all that comes with it." Is this referring to other partners or JR's family?

I assume you are talking about the religion email from the CFO but I don't understand how that relates to CNN.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2016 -> 03:02 PM) I didn't know I had a candidate. Could you teach me who my candidate is? That's referring to Greg.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2016 -> 02:48 PM) So when CNN distorts the facts and sabotages a candidacy by the influence of the DNC and the DNC's most principal member has to step down that's just bias? Or is that media corruption? I think it's the latter. I don't watch the mainstream media but I think that's far worse and damning to our country than whatever Fox does as an obvious Republican leaning station. What? The DNC is supposed to be neutral. A hacked email of internal emails showed they were antagonistic toward Sanders. The head was fired. But the head was also fired because she had very little support and the DNC has been cut in half by OFA. I'm not really going to bat for CNN or any 24 hour news network. DO they get spun? Um, yeah. Their news consists of a host, and then 4 panelists, who are openly affiliated with some political party. But, people don't really watch cable news. There's a lot of media that exists. You could have this amazing campaign that embeds a bunch of shills to put forth your talking points and tells everyone on every 24 hr network your spin and it would do ... basically nothing.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2016 -> 02:27 PM) Are you as informed on Clinton's transgressions in Africa as you are on this matter? Does adding degrees of separation in money transfers and having decades of being corrupt and scummy on a global scale really excuse the same type of behavior? Clinton should have put up a firewall between herself and the Clinton Foundation in 2008, but especially after. But "Does adding degrees of separation in money transfers and having decades of being corrupt and scummy on a global scale " Yes. That does actually matter quite a bit. There is a huge difference in evidence of a quid pro quo of getting cash transactions for lobbying work and then suddenly working for a candidate that is more openly pro russia than we have seen pre WW1 and donating to a charity run by a political family in the hopes that it will get you preferential access down the line. For one thing, that's because the Clinton Foundation actually does perform a lot of charity work. For two, it's not clear that even when the access is given that it matters. That distinction matters. You wrote that the russian hack of emails on the DNC showed them openly trying to manipulate the media (one, that is literally what every political organization does) to help one candidate, and while that email did say that, there is no proof they ever actually did anything. Having tried to coordinate many gatherings, the idea that you can perform a massive conspiratorial campaign from a single 2-email thread makes me envious. The world is really messy and even when the President tries to get everyone to talk about X he can't even do it. So frankly, a full dump of emails from a heated campaign only showing that, kind of tells me that things really aren't as corrupt as the Alex Jonesers want you to believe. The emails that were just dumped show examples of elbow rubbers of clinton trying to get people special favors from Abedin. That's bad, except we actually know the outcomes and that those people weren't actually set up with a meeting and weren't actually given ambassadorships. On the other hand, we do know that Trumps camp for some reason scrubbed hawkish language toward Russia in Ukraine. And had they twisted arms for a whole bunch of things it wouldn't be that strange because for one that was a terrible policy that they are probably right on! But that's a lot different than just drawing the lines (x donated, x got arms) when there are a lot of history of previous arms deals and reasons anyway. The psychoanalysis is that the Clinton's, after his 8 year term of having cooked up nothing scandals brought up to congress ad nauseum, stopped giving a s*** about appearances of conflicts of interest and figuring people will come at them regardless. That's not good, because there are a lot of people that are relying on them and they need to be more disciplined. It would be pretty easy for her to cut out her hanger ons and put stuff in a trust and she doesn't.