bmags

Hue Jackson has to be pumped. Now they have 20 receivers.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jul 25, 2016 -> 02:15 PM) Think the Mets would bite on Frazier for Conforto, or is that unrealistic? If it's Collins pulling the strings!

QUOTE (Sox Fan In Husker Land @ Jul 25, 2016 -> 01:54 PM) It's the Dodgers call. Do they want to win this year, and have another ace to go with Kershaw (who can opt out after 2018) for the future or do they try to hope to make the playoffs with their current rotation and hope Kershaw is able to pitch again this year? Here's a fun fact the Dodgers are 42-42 in games not started by Clayton Kershaw. They are 14-2 in Kershaw starts this year. They currently have a 2 game lead for the 1st WC, and a 2.5 game lead on the 2nd WC. Their current 4 man rotation is Maeda, McCarthy (coming off TJ surgery), Kazmir, and Norris. Urias, is back at AAA and on an innings limit. If they plan on making the postseason they need another quality starter point blank. Again looking at the free agent market available in the winter, there is nobody they can go out and buy remotely close to the caliber of Sale or Q for next year. If they want to win this year they better be prepared to dish out a lot of top prospects/young players for Sale or Q, and that includes Urias and De Leon. This is pitch perfect.

Tim Kaine deserves a chance to show off. He was a huge get in virginia, and was an attorney fighting against housing discrimination for 20 years. You couldn't pick a civil rights issue I think is more important than that. I love Liz Warren, but she is older and unlikely to be able to run after Clinton. She also could basically run the senate, which is way more powerful than VP (who technically does, but whatever). Kaine is not the most liberal choice ever, but at what point are things more about policy than about giving your the feels?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 25, 2016 -> 10:28 AM) The price that pitchers are going for right now suggests the Sox should be able to completely stock their system in a Sale trade. No, it will be "Oh well we paid more for .5 year of a closer because it helps our flexibility. Getting 5 years of a cheap #1 starter is too expensive!"

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 25, 2016 -> 10:27 AM) He's always been stateside. I thought last year was his first at Arizona?

I block images Clinton likely to nominate Julian Castro. Have to say, I don't know what the game plan is to get that guy to a senate seat, but running the DNC doesn't seem like the leg up to get there.

I was hoping this was a show me year for Micker Adolfo and boy is he not showing. He has always just been this unseen hype, he finally gets stateside and was mostly injured. Now his first full year and he's not hitting for power, obp or average. Have a hard time imagining someone can recover from a line that bad.

Considering the weird players Bean always wants that makes me nervous.

I'm surprised you aren't pissed at these emails, SS, given how much you also hated DWS. From the sounds of it, I put some of the blame on Obama as it seems DNC in both structure and leadership was lacking and a better structure existed in OFA. But yeah, I'm fine with people being pissed that the DNC had animosity with Sanders. But Sanders also spun any ruling that was not explicitly helping him as a sign of a corrupt organization. As if anything short of changing all rules to favor him was corrupt DNC. That said, weird that the CFO has basically been fine by just saying "Naw I wasn't talking about Sanders I was talking about the other possibly Atheist Jewish surrogate we cannot identify or remember".

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jul 25, 2016 -> 10:02 AM) Trying to bring Russia into the DNC leaks is embarassing at this point. It was a last ditch effort to try and save face with no evidence of anything and even if there was, it doesn't change what was in those emails. At the time it happened it said it was by Russia, so this isn't "at this point". But, quick, go ask Manafort if Russia was involved. He'll get an honest answer from Putin.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 24, 2016 -> 11:40 PM) Had an interesting conversation with cousin in Dallas today. Says the most logical way to get Mexico to help pay for the border wall would be to tax the remittances through Western Union, Pay Pal, Xoom back to their home country at 25-33%. This would push some illegal immigrants back to Mexico and/or open up more job opportunities for American unemployed workers....creating an eventual higher salary for American workers over time because of lower demand from illegal immigrants for those jobs. Just want to point out how impractical that is, the wide implications of it, and the dubious economics of that suddenly "rising" American wages. Best way to raise wages is not to decrease population. Cleveland's wages should be crazy high!

That reminds me of tweets from college recruits that are like "can't decide what I want" and people are like OH NO HES DECOMMITTING and he's talking about a drive thru.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/polit...rs-clinton.html This was best rundown of emails I found. I will say, while this shows a clear lack of control from DWS, who clearly didn't like Sanders operatives and possibly let more open s*** talking and postulating than should appear in a political operation that is not a campaign - the idea that this shows 'rigging' is pretty out there. This reminds me a hell of a lot of the leak of the CRU (Climategate), where out of thousands, a few inappropriate emails were found and claims of mass conspiracy were claimed. Think about any organization you are in and how hard it is to coordinate anything. That a few flip emails are signs of a mass conspiracy is a stretch. I'm pretty/very happy DWS is gone, she lead over two dramatic beatdowns during a mostly popular presidency But I'll give her some humanity, plus the staff. Part of the Bernie strategy was a lot of "THIS IS RIGGED, DNC IS CORRUPT". That you could get a trove of emails and find that yes, some employees took this personally is unexceptional to me. It doesn't mean you don't punish those that don't do their jobs. Part of their job was to be as neutral as possible. But there's no real clear cut sign that someone occassionally b****ing actually ever acting on it. The "Atheist" email seems like a group annoyed that Sanders was mostly treated uncritically, and if you were coordinating against him, why would you be shocked that he's being treated uncritically. But, the other side of this substance - it's possible we have Russia openly interfering with our election, and that is pretty incredible, not in the good way.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jul 24, 2016 -> 10:02 PM) So she is staying on CNN. Alright then. You realize you said that because of the DNC dump she was ousted as DNC chair and we were on chair #3 today right?

Yeah, you know where you could have found out that news? Hillary Clinton's press release.

LOL ok. What is she just going to be a shadow DNC chair, where nobody reports that she has left but is secretly just on CNN? CNN says she is staying on for convention unpaid. See explicit paragraph. I'm sure deadline has it in the bag thou "DNC Vice Chair Donna Brazile will serve as interim chair through the election, it was announced Sunday. She had been a CNN political commentator, but CNN and Brazile have mutually agreed to suspend their contract, effective immediately, although she will remain on air during the convention week in an unpaid capacity, CNN said. CNN will revisit the contract once Brazile concludes her role."

Yeah, no. So Marcia Fudge is the Convention Chair, and Brazile is the interim DNC Chair. An easy place to find news like this, would be a place like CNN, where you talked about her "returning". http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Jul 24, 2016 -> 06:48 PM) So the DNC called their hispanic outreach the "Taco Bowl Engagement." You going to post the corrective errr

I'm guessing you aren't providing a link because you are so sure this is reported? This must be coming from the Pravda

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jul 24, 2016 -> 07:52 PM) DWS replacement was also just removed due to more stuff coming to light with Wikileaks. We're on DNC chair number 3 today. So this hasn't happened...did you mistake CNN for the DNC?

I get really frustrated when it's time for us to sell. When it was Peavy, that he was 1.5 control we thought it would be such an asset to get more back. Then what did we hear back? "teams were looking for a cheaper option" When it was Rios "Just a rental, shouldn't expect much back" I feel like when push comes to shove we'll hear "Too good for the market, teams went after cheaper options"

seriously. WTH.

so the clubhouse staff is doing the job requested of them by the marketing department that work long hours with not great pay to provide a marketable product to their fans and chris sale needed to bully them to show who wears the $2000 suit? good work Chris, always about winning.

QUOTE (CyAcosta41 @ Jul 24, 2016 -> 01:43 PM) Hello, fellow Sox faithful. Wild that after that blazing hot 23-10 start, we'd be dealing with an all-but-dead team late July, and, worse yet, a new round of grave concerns about this team's future. At some point, even this loyal to a fault ownership group must acknowledge that the franchise is broken. Because they're intelligent and successful (at least in their other pursuits), I'm clinging to the hope that there will come a time when reality trumps misplaced loyalty -- if for no other reason than protecting the value of the franchise. Me? I'd jettison Ventura, Cooper, and KW today, and give the keys to the car to RH (without his egotistical backseat driver). Now, on to the topic of "specific trade ideas." I'm not going to list the various Top-100 guys we should target who are sprinkled throughout prospect lists, but concentrated in the systems of a few teams. Others have done that at length. Instead, my contribution today is simply my own view (shared by others -- very little is original here) of big-picture philosophy. More than a few of us have criticized Sox management of either lacking a coherent overall philosophy and/or failing to properly execute on a philosophy (if they actually have one). For your consideration: First time in ages the Sox are in the driver's seat for all sorts of possible deals. If we're going to sell, then MAXIMIZE this rare opportunity. In an era of sky high prices for a limited pool of Top-20 pitchers, we have a Top-5 guy and a Top 12-15 guy (I'm a huge Q fan), BOTH with way below market price tags and control. Are you kidding? That's gold. Please Rick, treat it as gold. Create an auction environment. Make sure all of baseball understands we're expecting to be blown away because we don't have to trade either of these guys (and not to you ... Red Sox or Dodgers or Rangers or Astros). And Rick, please -- for once, we're not going to be the ones throwing in additional sweeteners to make the deal. THEY pay or we don't play. Recognize WHO would pay the steepest price for a Sale or a Q and make them pay! For instance, we all talk about how the wealthy teams can take on Sale or Q without blinking. That's true, but it essentially trades just the star player, and not the star player PLUS his insanely below market contract. A team like the Pirates want and frankly NEED a Sale (+ contract) or Q (+ contract) to survive. Accordingly, there is every reason to suspect that in the end they'll pay the most (and they do have a system which will allow for that). Notice I haven't mentioned the Schlubs. Count me in among those who would only deal with the Cubs if they were literally the last team in all of baseball. And they're not. There are at least 5-6 teams who could provide the same or better return than the Cubs. Do you want Sale or Q pitching for THEM and helping them to achieve something that would sicken many of us? I sure don't, nor do we need to do so since there are so many other alternatives. We also have a solid and fairly priced closer at a market price. Great value in Robertson to the rich kids on the block. You know the Red Sox would pay to have him as a temporary closer and then a top-tier 8th inning guy (and wouldn't be phased by the price tag). Others might too. Want him? Then pay good value -- not fair value, GOOD value! Above that threshold, best offer takes home the prize. Frazier? Big value there to for a team that needs a bopper in this power-starved era. 1-2/5 seasons of power and decent defense has value. Melky? Professional hitter having a really good year. With control for another year at a reasonable contract. Someone will want him and should pay. I think the philosophy is to construct separate deals for the big-5 (with just a remote possibility of packaging Robertson in a blockbuster of blockbusters starter plus Robertson deal). Trade all 5 and the Sox should net an overall haul that might include a half-dozen Top-50 prospects, another half-dozen 51-100 guys, and likely a young stud or two just removed from that status (Betts, JBJ, Mazara -- no way the Bosox trade Bogaerts). Smoke clears and the Sox have a couple of young stud regulars we could be excited about (position players please, since we're curiously horrible in developing our own), plus 10-12 new super prospects who would likely ALL be in our top-15. Key is to be professional and closed mouth about what we're doing. Plug the leaks. Negotiate all these deals separately and simultaneously. Announce a flurry of closed deals at the same time before the rest of the teams see what you've done en masse! This CAN be done and it should be done (even if we've never managed to execute on this before). Use a sweetener -- I'm talking about guys like Duke and Jennings (for heaven's sake, no throw-ins like Fulmer or Adams, but feel free to throw-in a Coats or a Sanchez) -- ONLY to close a super-deal. For once, we should resist having to sweeten. Let the bidders do it! Intentionally flogging this horse one last time ... for ONCE we're holding some valuable cards -- an Ace (!) in Sale, a King in Quintana, and various other cards of value. It's go-time, Rick. Don't blow it. Act like your job is on the line. It is (and should be)! good stuff cy, especially formatting