bmags

Yeah, they should have managed. But I like that they took the idea to get a better player by giving him more control. It actually drives home human elements of the game more. But it also drives home that you can't just have organizations with piecemeal approaches. Just because you hire a stats guy doesn't mean anything if you don't put forward the work to get everyone on the same page.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 10:41 AM) Gawker has has access to the courts and could counter sue him as well if he continued to bring frivolous suits against them. EVentually he would lose a lot of money unless Gawker kept doing wrong. BUt you have a great point here that needs to be considered. They can, it would cost them money though and I don't know what grounds they have. According to that law firm, they basically just know any suits brought against gawker will have the bills paid. What are you suing him for?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 10:23 AM) I mean if we are just talking about money here, what about situations where the media giant is libeling someone without money? Do they get away with it, because the person being libeled can't afford to take on the media giant in court? That was case with Thiel's funded puppet James O'Keefe. They are at least marginalized and shamed. Which is what I'm trying to do by voicing my opposition to supporting Thiel just because you agree that Gawker was immoral against Hogan.

Pretty sure individual games commercials are run by the networks.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 09:25 AM) Last night i saw a commercial promoting the series against the Indians starting tomorrow, and the end of the commercial tagline was "We've got Lawrie, They've got Lindor" and i thought to myself "are you really gonna go with that?" Nobody could pass up the opportunity to talk about how both teams have players that have last names that start with the same letter.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 09:54 AM) If you take the opposite position to its extreme, it would be argued that this would enable an unchecked media, which is what libel/slander law is supposed to protect against. Yeah so I never stated we need to abolish libel laws, so no, that's not the opposite of any position here. I'm questioning the ethics of allowing some of the very powerful people in this world to use the legal system to financially punish media outlets they don't like. Peter Thiel was not libeled by Gawker. Hogan may have been, and this donald trump company was not. But he is making sure every law suit get staken to Gawker just so they have to pay for dealing with it. According to Gawker, the items youv'e heard about are justt one of mulitple he has lobbied against Gawker: http://gawker.com/now-peter-thiels-lawyer-...on-t-1781918385 Do you support all of these actions against Gawker? Do you support when Trump just threatens to sue any publication regardless of meriti just to punish them financially?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 05:50 PM) http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/opinions/tru...rgen/index.html Greg, I want you to read this, and give a serious response that doesn't mention the name Hillary once...tell me why you believe the author and Obama are wrong and Trump is right on this issue. Like DrunkBomber says, there are no Trump supporters on soxtalk, not even Greg. I will not vote for Trump. I also as you know despise Hillary. So that means I write in somebody. As far as Trump's position on TEMPORARILY suspending people from some countries coming into the USA, well like the writer says it may not work because most of the attacks are made by assholes born in the USA. I wouldn't think a temporary ban would be the worst thing in history however. We have to attack this problem somehow. I don't even know what Trump thinks about gun control. I have a good buddy on Facebook who posted why he wants to keep his guns and it was an effective argument even though I told him I could never carry a gun. He said he refuses to as he put it be "whimpering on the floor when some gunman invades the restaurant where he is dining." He also said he will protect himself and his family and others from the gunman. He wants to be armed to have a fighting chance and not be begging for his life from some lowlife with a gun. Hard to argue with him. I don't want to be a sitting duck hiding in some bathroom praying the gunman doesn't come in. Good point. There's really no reason to keep mentioning Trump on here. Pretty much everybody agrees he's an awful candidate for president. Thing is ... so is Wall Street moneybag Hillary. I can think of no worse candidate in history besides Trump because of her elitism and desire to please the 1 percenters at her own benefit. The rules don't apply to her as email scandal proves. Trump is the republican presidential candidate who gave a major speech after this shooting about this shooitng. He will be brought up plenty. Get used to it.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 09:21 AM) No problems? Go google it Greg. And stay away from partisan sites on both sides. At best it has been just a shift from gun deaths to other violent deaths and crime. Even Snopes which leans left, despite trying to appear otherwise, says it is a mixed bag. 5 million more people, less murders per year than 15 years prior http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html No mass shootings. Banning guns won't eliminate murder. But there is a hell of a lot of success between 0 murders and mass shootings every day.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 10:57 PM) False. They have Trevor Story. That begins and ends their reasoning. I don't think they ever wanted him anyway, I assumed that was a bit of price matching on the Rockies part while taking a flyer on him. He's been bad for a while now.

Man his line drives are smoked though. You can see how much pressure he puts on a defense. Their reads need to be right on because he can easily turn a single into a double with one bobble or misplay.

How about Eisenhower? Coolidge? Grant? Bush? Taft? McKinley? Harrison? Harding? Only 3 republicans listed. You've lost your touch Caulfield.

Yeah and it's specifically the 1) elevating animals to human level and 2) online parenting harrassment groups that are ridiculous.

I can't stand the Internet justice. I don't know how to solve it but it is way out of line.

Only saw Andersons scorcher to Kinsler. Looking forward to hits

Maybe, Leury is having a pretty good year though. I wouldn't mind giving him a nother shot. He's still only 25.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 04:26 PM) I agree but at the current moment I feel like Bourgeios' speed/base stealing would be helpful (completely ignoring him hitting over .400 in Charlotte) Why not Leury then?

So glad Avi is DH. Shuck at CF is not nearly the calamity.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 03:55 PM) No, my argument is this sort of activity is ripe for abuse but it's not a certainty. There may be positives to rich third parties financing lawsuits against large corporations that individuals may not be able to afford by themselves. Here is one of them. A s***ty online blog that breached someone's privacy for page clicks got a significant judgment entered against them. You're looking at nothing but the assumed "certain" negatives, whereas i'm looking at the potential positives. Okay, I get what you are saying. I think you are overrating his actions in the Hogan case and underrating how this is a persistent action to fund any plaintiffs willing to threaten action against them. It's easy to support this because Gawker may have been wrong in the Hogan case, but the implications of the power of these parties is scary especially for media.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 03:50 PM) Is there a difference between being opinionated and judgmental? I guess I think there is, but perhaps I am wrong. But honestly, for a guy that rails at all times against the oppression of others, you certainly can be a snarky jerk to others at the drop of a hat. Snark is the worst oppression of all.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 03:41 PM) Carroll has turned into a legitimate pumpkin. No reason he should ever see Chicago ever again. I disagree. his outing vs. Texas was bad, but every one of our relievers was bad in Texas. He recovered the next day.

What about these stats has people excited? http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/reyesjo01.shtml Saladino can't get to 700 OPS, granted, but he is a much better defender.

I really like when we have Carroll up as mop up. But we do have jennings and albers who can both go 2 innings or more.

Argh, damn. These Emery drafts, man.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 03:25 PM) If his ability to play a caliber of baseball, which would enhance this team's chances to improve, this moral debate might be a worthwhile exercise. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Therefore, this entire discussion is a waste of time. We can hope that Hahn will be able to find a couple of players, who would actually improve the roster. Names like Braun, Jay and Lucroy qualify. I'm hoping and wishing, but not really expecting anything significant. Yes, funny enough, Reyes is bad enough on defense now that I'm 90% confident that Anderson could put up better defensive stats than him. Offensively, I'm giving Anderson a lot of leeway, but we aren't talking about a player far past what Rollins or Saladino can already do. He hovered around 700 OPS last year. Now in the AL he's going to get better at his age? No way.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 02:56 PM) I always find it humorous how the bleeding heart folks so often are the first to get snarky with everyone else, completely blind to the hypocrisy. Shack, I wish I could be as nonjudgmental as you. You are just so above the fray. Please teach us your ways.