bmags

*praise hands*

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Jul 22, 2016 -> 02:22 PM) I think EVERYONE hated Reggie, lol. I was annoyed that he'd blast the front office for having done nothing, when they tried, but you can't really do much of anything when your star player's knees blow a gaping hole in the plan. It was working great in 2012. The only thing I think that was indefensible both then and now was trading away Korver for a bag of basketballs to save money. Stop, stop, it's too depressing.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 22, 2016 -> 02:04 PM) No, he let his brother and BJ Armstrong do that for him. Lets not forget when Reggie was going around telling everyone who would listen that Derricks supporting cast wasnt good enough. Derrick never stepped up and quieted that, to me that is just as bad as being passive aggressive through the media by yourself You are right on that. I do think the Reggie show, though, was acting independently of Derrick and he just liked the spotlight and having Cowley.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Jul 22, 2016 -> 01:48 PM) Jimmy. Derrick isn't passive aggressive, he's just pretty dim and oblivious to what goes on outside of his bubble. Yeah, these are my thoughts. Derrick is just dumb, very dumb. But for how stupid he is, I like how he never, ever tore down his teammates to media. I am as disappointed in what the outcome of the Rose era is as anyone, but for me that was 100% his injuries and timidness post injury not that he's a terrible interview.

You all are way too hard on Rose. His "son graduation" thing was the worst thing he said, but I'd take a player acting like a hobbled noah, rose and melo are a super team over this crap: "I'll have a voice in the locker room. I'll say what needs to be said. What I want (those) guys to do, whenever I'm on some (B.S.), I want them to tell me. I want you to say my name, man to man. That goes along with everybody. Say my name. And I'm going to do the same to you. "Whenever you're (B.S.)ing and not doing what you're supposed to be doing in practice and the game or not taking care of your body, you need somebody holding you accountable. You can't beat around the bush and say: 'Hey, guys, we need to take care of our body. Hey, guys, we're taking bad shots.' It's: 'Jimmy, you need to do this. You need to do that.' " The IDEA of this is fine, holding teammates accountable, but I can't stand how he does it to the press. Overinflating how good your team is is one thing to do in press, but he takes way too much stuff to the media. It's ridiculous.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 22, 2016 -> 01:03 PM) Things at the time that seem like great ideas don't work either. Matt Davidson, some couldn't believe the Sox fortune being able to get him. According to one very negative poster at the time of the trade, Davidson was the best 3B prospect available. The conversation was when does the Super 2 kick in. I posted BPs top 20 prospect list from 6 years ago on here a couple of months ago. If you had all of them, you would need a lot more help to be a playoff contender,just once in a while. Trading Sale with several years left on his contract better get you back actual future stars, not just guys that look like they may be them, or your rebuild makes no sense. And that is hard to do. Yes, you have brought up the same examples over and over. But, just like we can reasonably look at a current major leaguer and have a better idea of their production than a minor leaguer, I can look at the current white sox roster and performance, and tell that without substantial money used to overpay players on the free agent market in a weak fa class, there is no way the sox will get to playoffs in next two years, which happens to be when their cost controlled pitching ends. Things have risks. If the goal of the white sox is to put together a profitable and winning franchise, they are failing currently. The question isn't Aren't prospects so much better than major leaguers? The question is how to the white sox get as many dynamic players as possible. They have hit a wall where they cannot find a 5 WAR guy with their farm or payroll. So you take a chance on getting multiple talented young players to come up with your other talented young players and get as many lottery tickets as possible. Matt Davidson was worth the risk because he had the potential to be a cost controlled 3b for years with power. Relying on Matt Davidson panning out because of your horrible (for over a decade) farm system that you routinely raid just to add average players that are not getting you for a playoff is not. The point is not to get prospects. The point is to get more great players on their roster. They cannot do that without taking the risk of getting them while their young and unproven.

Kansas City being bad for 20 years has nothing to do with anything. No, selling star players for young players isn't a cure-all. But with the current and future set-up of the sox it makes more sense than doing nothing. Yes, things performed badly don't work out. Thanks.

Rose compliments teammates -> narcissist Jimmy's repeated over the top I'm a leader selfish comments -> leader

Neutering Warren by making her VP would be the worst. I don't want a John Kerry situation either.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 22, 2016 -> 10:49 AM) People aren't going to be able to deal with a full rebuild. Just look at the facts. 2014 was a rebuilding season, how many people complained about Konerko taking the 25th spot and ruining "roster construction"? They weren't going to win, I thought people didn't care. And many who have said this season is over are complaining Jacob Turner is starting tonight. That's what you get in a rebuild. Guys like Jacob Turner starting, for years. Dick, you should be thrilled we're getting a rebuild. Think about how many terrible specious talking points you could use!

IF the sox are a player away, they may be more likely to spend some of their addiitional prospects for their top pitcher, vs. signing a lester at top price ala cubs. They have luxury to do that with their attendance/payroll. Sox may sell on a Soler instead. Can we stop acting like cubs are only good because of Arrieta? That team is loaded. 2 years ago look how many on here were laughing at Baez and how much he can't hit. Now we'd trade Sale for him. They have young talented players all over the system.

What thread is this if I can't come into post weird creepy stuff trump says about his daughter?

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 22, 2016 -> 10:04 AM) One's a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher and the other is an ace. Maybe it works out, maybe it's a scenario with two King Felixs. But everyone wants to emulate the Cubs - yeah, they traded Samardzjia, but their rotation is big FA signings and a failed prospect suddenly becoming god. It's not just the cubs, I can't find an MLB team that gives me hope sox will make it. All of the good teams just had a wave of young talent come up at once. The phillies are doing a good job, the reds are not. I would have liked us to go balls to the wall in international market, we didn't. Those teams now have dominating teams with all of those LatAm pieces to trdae for proven pieces. That's where I want to be in 3 years. A young, promising team with payroll flexibility to add and farm flexibility to trade. We are sooooo far from that. The only team operating close to white sox is Tigers, except they have 80 million more to play with.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jul 22, 2016 -> 10:00 AM) The big issue with trading Sale AND Quintana is that it makes it really difficult to compete for the world series for the foreseeable future. Teams needs at least 2 top of the rotation starters to have a good shot at winning the World series. If not they could get lucky but will more or less not have that realistic chance. The cubs for all the hype are relying on a veteran acquired in a minor deal, who decided to become one of the best pitchers in baseball later in his career. SOrry, to be clear, I don't think we necessarily need to trade both. In some sense, opening up both may devalue them, in opening up supply of great cost-controlled pitchers. I love Q, he is the best thing. But, this is a case where we may be wise to sell high as a kite on our best buy low piece of all time. We unfortunately just didn't time him right.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 22, 2016 -> 09:42 AM) I won't be bummed to keep Sale and Q. Still have the rotation set for four years basically with that. Davidson and Avi should be warnings of "we'll just trade for a Top 100 prospect and they'll plug in automatically." I will be bummed, because that means we'll continue to have a paper thin team with no depth which is the opposite of what we should be trying to achieve by selling. I like having sale as a pitcher, it's great, but the overall sox experience is just constant hope and disappointment that they can make a run. And its irrational because they aren't talented. The warnings of Matt Davidson and Avi Garcia is you can't trade for 1 prospect and assume he makes it, like Hahn did. We need jump shot to the arm, and with the LatAm kids finally coming stateside, 2 straight solid drafts, and an infusion of talent from trades, and a large drop in payroll, we could then go into 2018 with lots of young talent and payroll flexibility to try and add hte home run.

We are gonna be so bummed when we trade Melky Cabrera for some 8-10 team prospect.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jul 22, 2016 -> 09:08 AM) That wasn't a standard wave. It looked like a brainfart where she forgot whether she wanted to be waving or pointing. Or she was trolling. Ha that was the best part. *Sees teleprompter "Wave to crowd"* *Thinks* *How do I do this* *Ah yes, got it now, wave stiff arm and rotate torso instead of wrist. Natural as can be*

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Jul 22, 2016 -> 09:05 AM) http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/20...arack-michelle/ Overall, I agree the way Trump handled the issue was bad. In that same article Obama swears he didn't plagiarize but was poor footnoting.. Please. That's as bad as the Trumps deal. To my main point of it being stupid. There are much bigger things to concern over than some stupid speeches that no one will remember in a few weeks. This? This? Really? Michelle Obama: “…the world as it should be.” In 2008, the aspiring First Lady was accused by bloggers of lifting lines for her DNC speech from Saul Alinsky. Alinsky wrote, in Rules for Radicals (emphasis added): “The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be.” Michelle Obama said: “And Barack stood up that day, and he spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about ‘the world as it is‘ and ‘the world as it should be.'” (Perhaps Mr. Obama who left out the attribution.) That's not even a sentence, it's turn of phrase. This is just breitbart adding in the right wing bogeyman Saul Alinsky into every concept. That's not even close to plagiarism.

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 11:12 PM) What's stupid about it the speech that was plagiarized was already plagiarized to begin with from Michelle Obama.. She copied Saul Alinsky.. Barack also copied Deval Patrick in 2008 speech. Plagiarism happens all the time in those speeches First, no, she didn't. Please show us your hard hitting analysis of that. Second, the difference is Obama stated when asked that Patrick told him to use those words. Whereas the Trump campaign said "No no it's not plagiarism! Only 7%! No this is Hillary Clinton cutting down powerful women! Ok yeah we wrote down the passage It's their response that's the story. That and m. Trump needing to steal the values expressed by Michelle Obama when Obama is ridiculously reviled by that crowd.

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 10:31 PM) Everyone goes on about the Hitler salute but Hillary has done them as well between this stupidity and the plagiarism one.. I swear people are getting dumber by the second. It's probably that she doesn't openly court authoritarianism and fascism I unno. What is dumb about the plagiarism?

That is awful, but I will say at the very least this is an actual apology: ""Significant change can be frustratingly slow; this is especially true in public education. Many of us, at one time or another, have sent hastily crafted emails containing inaccurate or intemperate statements," Trover's statement said in part. "This particular email was sent out of frustration at the pace of change in our public school system. The governor regrets writing it and apologizes to CPS educators for making an unfair, untrue comment.""

QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 06:17 PM) I'm totally cool with this Barstool dude just shutting up until something is done and about to be announced. We've heard how things get out and messed up deals before. Nothing he's saying would complicate anything. It's the equivelant of saying "sox open to trading!"

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 05:10 PM) Spitballing still defines his positions but my argument is that one statement in this interview does not set up the WWIII commie take-over that is apparently feared by some people around here and at The Atlantic. If bmags and that author can read way more into his answer than what was written, why can't I do the same thing in reverse and put those statements into a fair context? No matter what bmags claims, he's never, to my knowledge, advocated getting rid of NATO or not coming to the aid of a member or anything along those lines. He simply said in this interview that he would make sure that the other country in need of help is doing their part, e.g., paying their 2%. I ask again, what the hell is wrong with that? Why does the US (and the other members of NATO meeting their responsibilities) need to continue doing all the work if the other countries don't? Why is that our obligation? Perhaps it is under the existing treaty, but we can't even discuss possibly changing that agreement? That's sacrilegious? Why? The last time article 5 was invoked was on September 12 with the Nato allies coming to the defense of the United States. There is no obligation of those members to follow the US in all US foreign policy decisions, though most often do. There's also the idea of deferrence. If Ukraine was in NATO it is unlikely Russia invades for Crimea. It was unlikely they invaded baltic states, as invading meant war with all of western Europe and biggest military in the world. Without question. You know, they have a treaty, you attack they all attakc. But now you have a presidential candidate on the republican side saying that if you make your land grab, it isn't automatic you attack. No, you will only attack if you like how that country has behaved. Then your deterrence isn't credible. Then you are rightly forced into the situation of "do we really want to go to war with russia over Estonia?" But, yeah. You already have, they are in a treaty with you. You don't back out of your most important treatys because they ...matter.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 05:10 PM) This is such a tired accusation of every Cuban player at this point. Every. Single. One. Was just going to write that. That is so ridiculous. I'm disappointed in Abreu, but the guy has been a class act since he's been here and tried his all on a decent contract. Grow up, it's just baseball.

QUOTE (JLarucci23 @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 04:59 PM) I was all for trading everybody with value but the more I think of it. Maybe you keep Sale and a position player to being the veteran presence like an Abreu or Eaton. Then trade Q for the haul we need, along with guys like Frazier, melky plus the BP arms. This is where I am.