ptatc

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 09:04 PM) Still doesn't matter. Getting the #1 pick means you get your top guy guaranteed + more money to spend overall. You're still banking on your scouts, but if you don't trust them then the franchise was doomed regardless. I swear everyone arguing against this seems to think the only 2 options are: Lose 100 games and get the 1st pick or win 99 and get the 29th. We're talking about a garbage team that's already a lock to get a top 5 pick, lose a handful more games and now you're getting the #1 pick. Complete nonsense to not want that. This is the part I would disagree with for a couple of reasons. 1. The better the team plays the better the individuals are playing thus more trade bait. I would trust a player who has shown progress in the minors more than the draft picks. 2. as the minors players come up, if they play well the team will win more. The other side is the team losing because Moncada et al. are playing poorly.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jun 8, 2017 -> 03:32 PM) The domestic violence is deplorable. I don't give a crap about adultery. Julie DiCaro's response is best described as measured. She still talks about how uncomfortable the Chapman situation was. The thread has a bad title. The news isn't the adultery. No one cares about adultery. It's the domestic abuse claims that are the real problem here. That is a sad commentary on society. When i was working in the MLB, NBA and NFL, the MLB was always the worst.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 4, 2017 -> 08:31 PM) Overall, this whole week has sucked from the standpoint of nearly everything in life. Well, Wonder Woman was good. What really sucks is the Cubs just don't have anyone to challenge them the next couple of seasons in their division. MIL is still a year or two away, and Braun's getting older. The Cardinals are at least an impact hitter and a healthy Reyes from being able to mount a challenge, and that would require everything going right. The Pirates are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place, like the Rays, and have seen McCutcheon's trade value plummet the last 18 months. And it just reinforces the idea (to me, at least) that you can't have enough good young hitters in your minor league system...plus, they're a lot more fun to follow. I think you mean pitching don't you? There were plenty of runs scored. They need to stop the other team.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 01:31 PM) Woe is Kris Bryant. He plays in the world in which he lives. Rules are rules. He's going to get so much money it won't matter. It would be completely out of left field if Bryant suddenly wouldn't sign with the Cubs. The Cubs can absolutely afford it, but there's really no way to tell what they'll do when it comes to that kind of money. Also, it will be interesting to see what value teams put in clubhouse chemistry. I'm not sure the Rizzo led Cubs would be a good fit for Bryce Harper's personality. Once you have all the money that it doesn't matter, pride becomes an issue. Rules are rules, we'll see what he and Boras decide.

QUOTE (daggins @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 12:23 PM) Ynoa - Hip flexor strain. probably not arm related, hopefully will be a short stay. This could just be workload management, giving him a bit of a break. You are correct, the hip flexor is not in the arm. However, if you really want to stretch it ( ) The gluteus maximus is connected to the latissimuss dorsi which does connect to the humerus so they could be related.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jun 2, 2017 -> 04:23 PM) And there's nothing wrong with that. There is if you're the player.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 2, 2017 -> 07:49 AM) Hawk's job is to sell the White Sox, and taking the umpires to task and sportswriters is a part of it. JR PUBLICLY sent a message to Hawk to cool it with the umpires, but considering he hasn't been fired or suspended and that cooling really never occurred, I think it would be safe to assume, privately he isn't so concerned. And sportswriters? JR hates them way more than Hawk. Hawk called out Marriotti. What did Reinsdorf have to say about the same man? I loved Hawks rant about Berns and Boernstein. I have no problem with announcers that do that. It makes the broadcast what it's supposed to be...entertainment. They don't need to be so serious and professional as if they are discussing the debacle in Springfield. Baseball is fun, entertainment.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jun 2, 2017 -> 02:32 PM) Um. My post you quoted was me saying the very opposite of that. Really, that's not the way I read it. I thought you were saying the way they voted due to their views was hurting themselves economically. My bad.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 11:53 PM) That's true, but the ones who aren't continuously vote against their economic interest, which is pretty fascinating. See: Trump. Again, you are sticking far too much too the generalization and stereotypes. Are all Republicans in the same tax bracket? Are all of their economic situations identical? I know you like to stick to one philosophy and one point of view but everyone's situations are different and voting Republican doesn't mean that it effects everyone in the exact same way.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 10:28 PM) The typical argument is that both China and India aren't technically developed/1st world economies (huge wealth gap/disparity, of course no different in the US)...therefore, they don't have to pay the same share as Europe and the US. That's the theory, whether you agree with it or not. Really. The world at at large doesn't consider China is a 1st world country? They consider China to have a much bigger wealth disparity than the US?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 09:13 PM) LOL. My dad was a Republican. He idolized Warren Buffett (before he became more political), Benjamin Graham and H. Ross Perot. He voted GOP every election until 1992, and hated the Clintons. I don't have any particular views, personally...I've read all of Ayn Rand's works and understand the philosophical reason for most Republicans to think the way they do, even if I don't particularly agree with it in practice. There have been a number of Republicans with the most honorable of intentions...I've spotlighted Justin Amash of MI and Will Hurd of Texas (both GOP Congressmen) I particularly like. Working in the non-profit field, nearly all the rich people (billionaires to 100's of millionaires) in Kansas City tend to be Republican, and I've always respected their viewpoints, like Tom Bloch of H&R Block and Donald/Adele Hall of Hallmark Cards. Barnett and Shirley Bush Helzerg, of Helzberg Diamonds. Once again, all good people with their heart in the right place and willing to back up their beliefs with their own money. Now the Koches of Wichita or Steve Bannon, I'm not going to provide you any kind words for them, although I'm sure they also have the best of intentions, not unlike Grover Norquist and the majority of Republicans sitting in the front row at the Rose Garden today (Mnuchin, Ross, Pruitt, McMaster, Gary Cohn of Goldman Sachs, etc.) But on economic issues, I do tend to be a lot closer to the Jared/Ivanka/Cohn/Dina Powell/Tillerson wing of the GOP that apparently has lost favor again due to Jared's carelessness and "privilege." They lost BIGLY today, and it's unsurprising none of them were at the press conference. Really, you read Ayn Rand and now you understand why a specfic group of individuals think the way they do. I really hate to break this to you but not all Republicans are rich tyrants who idolize Warren Buffet and the all mighy dollar.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 03:44 PM) Good article. Brings back some memories. I never thought Brian Anderson got a fair shake of ML development, and I seem to recall that Ozzie Guillen had some personal problem with him that led to him not really giving him a chance during the 2007 season. Is that accurate? Was it really fair to evaluate a very good defensive CF on the merits of basically his 2006 season where he hit .225 but otherwise had relatively decent power? 23 doubles in 405 PAs seems pretty ok to me, as does 8 HR. Look at Avi's 2015 numbers for example. I wish Brian had gotten one more full season, especially during the 2nd half of 07 which was totally meaningless Yes. Ozzie didn't think he really was focused on becoming a better baseball player. After the fact, anderson admitted Ozzie was right. He was too busy chasing the "honeys" and enjoying the MLB lifestyle.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 08:46 PM) China has $3 trillion in reserves. The US has almost $20 trillion in debt. I don't think the US was ever going to subsidize China, though. Believe the intention was to support a democratic partner and counterbalance to China in Modi's India. According to the article, the EU gave China money and it was implied that it was taking the place of the US giving them the money. Maybe that wasn't the case but the major countries shouldn't send money to China for these purposes. If China is going to be the supposedly leader, they shouldn't be taking money from other countries.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 08:54 PM) Now Iamshack will get called out for calling all Republicans "bad human beings/uncaring/cold/cruel/insensitive misers" like Potter in It's a Wonderful Life. Because the corollary to that reasonable enough statement (from the point of view of most progressives) ends up with the above-mentioned characterization. Sometimes in this thread, it has been termed "racism" or "reverse racism," the implication being that Republicans care just as much, if not, about the poor, but that they would rather (simplistically stated) teach the poor how to fish than simply give them fish on a daily basis, creating a sense of dependency on the government, and a crippling inability to attain self-reliance (which is unavailable to those not holding a job, basically). I don't think he mentioned anything about politics. However, your views of a "Republican" are pretty evident here.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 08:26 PM) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Climate_Fund The European Commission does not provide funding to the Green Climate fund. It is EU Member States that directly contribute. Anno 2016, jointly, they have pledged nearly half of the fund's resources: USD 4.7 billion.[11] The lack of pledged funds and potential reliance on the private sector is controversial and has been criticized by developing countries.[12] President Obama, in his final 3 days in office, initiated the transfer of a second $500m installment to the Fund.[13] I don't know how they come up with anywhere close to trillions of USD when it looks like $1 billion. Going by those figures, the US commitment would be something like like 10.6% of the funding. Just going by the quoted article that said the US was going to be a major contributor to the program for other countries. I don't see any reason why the US should contribute any more or less than other major countries such as the EU or China. I definitely don't see why the US or the EU for that matter needs to send money to China. There was a discussion on XM POTUS that was saying that under the previous agreement the US was to decrease coal production and close plants while the EU was allowed to build coal plants and India was allowed to double their coal production.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 31, 2017 -> 09:12 AM) Meanwhile, the EU and China have agreed on a climate deal. https://twitter.com/FT/status/869914490594316288 The US is going to be left behind on a lot of emerging technology and manufacturing because we need to do everything we can to save 50k coal jobs for some reason. So basically by the agreements and information from the article, the US was basically going to pay other countries to try to be more green. Instead the EU is paying China. The EU, home to the world’s largest carbon market, has agreed to give China €10m to support its plan to roll out a national emissions trading system this year in a move officials say will hasten the possibility of linking the two schemes. The US under Mr Obama was a major contributor to international climate financing programmes. Many developing countries have submitted climate plans for the Paris agreement that are contingent on receiving international funding. The EU and China have also agreed to co-operate on the deployment of electric cars, energy-efficiency labelling and scientific research into green innovation.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 01:37 AM) BITCOIN? Josh Hamilton, Pujols, Nolasco, Garrett Richards (injured) and Huston Street are really soaking up a ton of payroll. That's $80 million just for 2017 alone (those five), and that's not counting another $20 million for Trout. Which is why their payroll is around $150 million, with very few places to cut. Woah! you mean buying the best FA doesn't routinely win you a spot in the playoffs. How can that be? i thought only the cheap owners didn't routinely make the playoffs.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 31, 2017 -> 11:28 PM) The 2012 Angels went 89-73, which was good for the 6th best record in the AL. However, the Detroit Tigers, at 88-74, did make the postseason, as the 7th best team in the AL, narrowly edging our White Sox, who went 85-77. The 2013 Angels went 78-84, finishing 16 games behind the division winning Oakland Athletics. Mike Trout put up 10.5 fWAR that year. His fellow offensive teammates - those who had positive WARs - combined for 16.5. Outside of Mike Trout, they averaged about 1 WAR a piece. I said you could win if you had decent players. LeBron James wouldn't win with 4 Jo Jo English's surrounding him. BTW, JB Shuck received 478 plate appearances that season. He accrued 0.5 WAR. The 2014 Angels won 98 games, Mike Trout was a total bust in the playoffs (if I remember), and they ran into the buzzsaw that was the Kansas City Royals. That still does not sound right. Ironically, 2014 was the "worst" season of Mike Trout's career. He was worth 7.9 fWAR. The 2015 Angels went 85-77. Mike Trout was worth 9 WAR. His fellow offensive teammates - again, those with positive fWARs - combined for 13.3. For comparison, in what was one of the worst offensive teams I've ever seen, the positive contributors to WAR for the 2015 White Sox combined for 10.4 WAR. The 2016 Angels went 74-88. Mike Trout was worth 9.4 WAR, but this was the first season you could say that they were really bad. The offensive backed it up - positive contributors combined for a majestic 14.2 WAR. The Angels pitching staff contributed 5.9 WAR. The whole staff. Chris Sale was worth 5.2. Clayton Kershaw was worth 6.5 in 149 innings. The Angels combined for 5.9 in 1421.1 innings. The Angels have not done a good job of surrounding Mike Trout with talent. Yes, it is harder for find league average players in the major leagues, but for god's sake, there has been f***-all surrounding Mike Trout. I would give Mike Trout a 10 year, $500 million contract and never think twice. The union would love you for an owner.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 05:34 PM) http://nypost.com/2017/05/31/college-melts...-day-on-campus/ Greg will get 2-3 years out of posting material out of this story. After protesters at a Washington state college called for a day without white people, a biology professor says he no longer feels safe on campus — and student activists complain they’re being vilified by conservative media. Evergreen State College students said racial tensions have been simmering in recent weeks, but reached a boiling point when a faculty member disagreed with their plans to protest what they say is institutional racism at the Olympia campus, according to The Olympian. Students were particularly incensed by an email that surfaced on Twitter on May 25 between Professor Bret Weinstein and Rashida Love, director of First Peoples Multicultural Advising Services. Weinstein, who is white, allegedly condemned the “Day of Absence” event that asked white people to leave campus for the day. Anytime there is a gathering to protest any group, it is going to create tension. Change the name to anything, call for a day without one eyed, one horn, flying purple eaters and you are going to create tension. Doesn't matter how right you think you are it's going to create issues.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 04:13 PM) I don't really know that the bolded is true. Granted, it has been hard to keep up with this thread, but there seem to be a lot of people who think that racism - institutional or otherwise - no longer exist and the field is level. Or policy that attempts to level the playing field is, in fact, discriminatory against white males. Or that the factors that create institutional poverty in rural white communities mean that white privilege does not exist. That's why to me, the most important step in this debate is to acknowledge that white privilege is a thing that exists. Only once that has been established can you ever get to the policy question of how you level the playing field... I was referring more to the fact that everyone agrees there are a group of people that are at a socioeconomic disadvantage. I kind of thought that's where the thread had gone to. I don't think anyone said the playing field is level. No matter what way you look at it, no one has come up with a concrete idea on how to help the disadvantaged group without being unfair to the other.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 02:43 PM) Ideally it would be a basis for policy. How do we level the playing field so the privileges that are afforded to white males are afforded to everyone? That is the 100 billion dollar question. I don't think anyone here really disputes the concepts. The issue is how to implement it. So far, many people smarter than me have failed to come up with a way.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 02:11 PM) Everyone deserves equal opportunity. I'm not speaking in a socialistic way; I mean in an "All men and created equal" sense. There are intelligent people out there that deserve an opportunity to succeed in this world. 1. Use your ability and connections to offer opportunity to someone that wouldn't normally have that opportunity. I'm not saying give preference; I'm saying that if someone has the want to learn and deserves a chance, then they should get the chance to use that want to succeed no matter his or her background. 2. There is a fine line between help and enabling someone. If they get help, but choose to not capitalize on the help, I supposed it's up to them whether they succeed or not. Feeling good is nice, but it's done because it's the right thing to do. 3. I was asked what should be done and I'm telling him. This is not just about me - it's about all of us. In any situation, I suppose the simplest way to be a part of the solution is to affect change right where you live. 4. Again, I'm not talking about people that have opportunity. I'm talking about offering new options to people that were never given the chance to even be in a place where they could become qualified. The aim is to not steal jobs from people. The aim is to create more qualified people for those jobs. Give everyone the chance to be eligible. 5. Using what you have for others should not be a selfish act. In fact, I don't see how someone could get anything monetary out of this at all. If you always expect a return every time that you give, how is that healthy or positive? I agree with the overall idea but the practice is difficult. 1. How do you give someone an opportunity who normally wouldn't have it without preference? 3. Again how do you affect the change without the "quota" or "preferential" system? 4. i agree but in most cases the person who didn't have the opportunity, didn't have the grades, support or experiences needed for that opportunity. Therefore, the resume will have deficiencies compared to other. So now do you give them some type of preference to get that opportunity? This is always the underlying problem. Do they deserve an opportunity, absolutely. Unfortunately, they don't have the resume due to many socioeconomic reasons. So, its back to the cycle. They don't have the resume so to get a chance someone needs to give them preference over someone else, which is inherently unfair to them.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 02:12 PM) A bar that wants to maintain a “classy atmosphere” has released a dress code, which some are calling racist. The Bottled Blonde, a pizzeria and beer garden in Chicago, recently posted a sign on its doors outlining a lengthy dress code. Here are a few examples from the list of banned items: “No Excessively Baggie, Sagging, Ripped, Dirty, Frayed, Overly Flashy, or Bright clothing. No Hawaiian, tie dye, floral, skull prints, or anything else obnoxious. No gang attire (leather cuts, colors, or insignias) and no camouflage. No Embellishments or Statement [attire]. No plain white tees, long tees, denim, flannel … or zippers on shirts. … Tank tops before 6 PM only. … No Jordans, Nike Air Max, or Air Force Ones. … Hats must be worn forward at all times.” https://www.yahoo.com/style/bar-fire-racist...-214551970.html If it's racist, it's racists against all races. You have the gang attire as well as the flannel and camouflage. You have the Hawaiian vs. skulls. You have denim vs. white tees. Even zippers on shirts. Sound like they want only the well to do CBOT and business crowd.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 01:46 PM) You keep playing him, IMO. At the deadline, you simply move him for the best offer you receive, even if it's disappointing. There is plenty of time after the deadline for Davidson to get everyday ABs. Yes. He is not one they really need to hold on to. Unlike the Quintana situation, you take whatever you can get for Frazier.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 11:55 AM) You support those that don't have the same opportunities that you do - or are treated unfairly because they didn't win the "life lottery." You learn everything that you can about other ethnicities, cultures, and classes in America -read articles, talk to people, get to know them and where they come from. Don't pass it off as someone else's problem and don't jump to conclusions and pass judgement on others that don't live the same life as you do. Everything that we are is a product of our environment and opportunities. Go out of your way to use your connections and abilities to help raise someone else up that wouldn't normally have the same opportunity that you do. Put yourself in someone else's shoes and act upon that experience in a positive way. 1. What type of support? Just give them money? Give them preference for jobs over others? 2. Will this really help them or just make you feel better? 3. True but what are you going to do about it. 4. Do you do this over other more qualified people? 5. See 2.