ptatc

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 11:33 AM) I think it's fair to mention just how young some of these guys are too. They're really a victim of their own success(es) right now. Russell may never be a super star but he's still only 23. Maybe Schwarber is going to be a complete bust but he also just turned 24 and missed a whole season due to injury. I honestly don't believe this year's Cubs team is all that great because their pitching is super mediocre in my mind but if I had to guess, I'd bet Russell and Schwarber will be just fine in the long run. Is that just below Poor superior? (just kidding by the way, I thought the terminology is funny)

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 01:24 PM) Jason just needs to announce like he does college football and basketball games. By that I mean less cornball jokes and more focus on the game. I understand the pace of baseball, over 162 games, leads to a lot of small talk, but at least try and keep the cornball humor down to a reasonable level. An example to follow is Darrin Jackson, who certainly has his oddball moments but in recent years has cut down. I've become a pretty big fan of Jackson and Farmer, they compliment each other well. I agree. That's why I think he'll get better on the sox broadcast. He just needs to get comfortable. Some of it is forced with a new partner and situation.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ May 31, 2017 -> 08:55 PM) That feels as awkward to me as it does to you. Might have to rethink my opinion! I have to agree with you on this topic as well.

QUOTE (StrykerSox @ May 31, 2017 -> 05:16 PM) Great. By 2019, we get to listen to Benetti's boring ass full-time. I think he'll get better.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ May 31, 2017 -> 05:14 PM) When he and Drysdale were together they were one of the best duos in baseball. It was definitely time for a change though. Let the Jason Benetti era begin. Absolutely.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 10:57 AM) Three responses: 1) Seat belts or child safety seats, helmets for motorcycle riders 2) Firearms, 1792 law passed..."Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball..." 3) Broccoli and Spinach (see the article below) http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin...nd_constitution Providing health checks, nutritious food and vaccinations to kids under the age of 12 is really a form of tyranny? How so? And mandatory automobile insurance, at least general liability insurance to protect others (if not yourself): You disagree and think it should be a personal choice to pay or not to pay??? Number 2 is for the protection of the US and it's citizens at the times. Not really applicable now (although I don't have a problem with it, I like shooting muzzle loaders). Most of the rest are money saving measures for the government. The only one that should be a law is the vaccinations as it protects the lives of the other children in school. All of number 1 and mandatory auto insurance are just to save on medical and legal costs. Are all a good idea to protect yourself, yes but they shouldn't be forced on people. Darwin theory, if you're dumb enough to do it, maybe your genes shouldn't stay in the pool. health check and the opportunity for good food. Yes, they should be available. Mandatory, no. Spinach? Only occasionally on pizza. Usually pizza should have sausage and pepperoni.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 02:06 AM) I thought you'd already know given your arguments. I have been taking your greater point here as that we need to mandate governmental health care because there are poor people. Essentially, so there are no situations where an uninsured poor person ends up in the hospital with insurmountable bills and can't get care. I get that your heart is in it and I applaud you. My point is that this is more of a business/operational issue than humanity issue. The business operates in a way so that we don't need the humanitarian efforts. The uninsured and poor get covered when they themselves can't cover it. It's fixed into the industry. This is the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats. The Democratic argument is that it's a fundamental responsibility of government to keep the people of a country as healthy as possible...with better family health leading to better parenting leading to each succeeding generation attaining higher educational levels and more success (at least theoretically). The problem is at least four-fold...those people who don't have the money to pay 1) going bankrupt/family breakdown/divorce as a result of medical bills, 2) family breakdown because of the opioid crisis, not enough funds for treatment/counseling, 3) not being able to pay results in either higher insurance premiums or higher government reimbursements, which come out of tax revenues and mean funding from SOMEWHERE else has to be cut or taxes have to be raised and 4) the incalculable long-term costs of families being hesitant to go to the doctor until the health situation has degenerated into an ER room type of situation, which leads to even more expensive treatments and often deaths that could have been prevented. Health care costs here in China are CONSIDERABLY lower per person because so much money is invested in preventive care, stressing a healthy diet (no soda for kids!) with lots of vegetables and rice/noodles...maintaining a lifestyle leading to a longer life and less health care issues. The US system tends to be MUCH more REACTIVE. And obviously surgeries like aortic bypass will carry the highest price tag possible. Prevention is always the more cost effective way. However, you take away many choices and Im not willing to force that on people. .

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 31, 2017 -> 11:23 PM) That's just the first general summary I googled up. Tort reform has been discussed for years, and the trials in Texas and other states did not show much of a reduction in overall costs or premiums, 1-2% for some plans but no effect for others. These are just some of the top google results, but I used to follow this more frequently. http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/2009no3/w15371.html http://www.statesman.com/news/local/new-st...WdJtVa35WvZCCL/ It's possible that tort reform could help on the margins, but the idea that it's the primary or even a main driver of increasing health care costs just doesn't seem to hold to to the data. I still think the privitazation and cross state issues are more important. However you still haven't addressed the majority of the population with tort reform. All of your studies discuss the margins. These discuss HMO, and medicare not the regular insured But since you brouhht up medicare, fraud inthis area is also a significant burden to increase healthcare costs.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 31, 2017 -> 10:56 PM) this is more of an "obamacare" post but tort reform has been tried in multiple states and it hasn't been found to drive down costs at all, but it did help drive up profits for doctors. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecohen/201...w/#2e4b205263ea There are a few issues with that article. One significant one is that it discusses only ER docs. Of course, they haven't changed their practice by ordering fewer tests, mostbof the time they are dealing with patients who can't tell them what's going on. They are going to practice defensive medicine. I dont think this applies to everyday medicine where you will see savins. Also, your point about driving up profits for doctors is wrong according to the article. It states the one onethe benefits they did find was that the costs in these states had a slower ibcrease than other states. Tort reform may not make too much of a difference in just the ER setting but I think it would make a difference in the others.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 31, 2017 -> 10:41 PM) I've always been told that malpractice insurance is the biggest reason health care has become so expensive. No doubt. But the high cost of malpractice insurance is due to the lawsuits. Limit lawsuits, malpractice premiums go down.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 31, 2017 -> 09:18 PM) The fact of the matter is that hospitals are charging people (entering an ER without insurance) four times as much as the going Medicare rate. That's crazy. Until you also do something to limit hospital charges, as well as the profit margins of pharmaceutical companies and the insurance industry, you're going to inevitably have rising health care costs. There's also a lot of conflicting evidence about cross-border shopping not leading to the automatic "slam dunk" competition gains that many Republicans are banking on. Tort reform? Sure, as long as you don't rebalance the equation so much that patients lose their rights and doctors/hospitals are insulated too much (think of it as the equivalent of those on the right shouting about teacher's unions and lifetime tenure)...there has to be a compromise available in the middle. (Of course, the idea of limiting the "freedom" of lawyers to sue and earn as much money as possible from potential lawsuits goes against the American capitalistic system as well...although it often conflicts, because the victims of those lawsuits are often multinational corporations, so the Dems side with the lawyers and the GOP with the corporations and everyone loses in some way, shape or form.) Depends on how you look at it. Hospitals charge it because they know the insurance companies will discount it and only pay a portion anyway. The hospitals never get what they actually charge. If you go to a hospital with cash there is usually a 40-60% discount. There will be a discount in the prices if they allow the across state lines shopping. My wife is a VP for a major insurance company. They have laid off 10% of their work force in anticipation of the premiums dropping.

QUOTE (maxjusttyped @ May 31, 2017 -> 08:35 PM) Do we think Kopech will spend the entire season at Birmingham or end up in Charlotte at some point this year? He's probably only has about 70 more innings or so. They may just leave him there to finish up.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 31, 2017 -> 08:28 PM) Yes, I know. Sale tried the "pitch to contact" thing last year to go longer into games (compared to his 2015 version) and it really didn't work well for him. You can't ask competitive pitchers like that to let up on the gas and not "go for the kill." They enjoy dominating, and projecting that swagger that goes with being a high octane strikeout guy. Of course, that's also leading to lots of arm injuries. Competitive pitchers and strikeout pitchers are not synonymous. Although your point about sale is correct. He isn't comfortable pitching that way right now.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 31, 2017 -> 06:52 PM) The problem I have is the Republicans don't want to actually expose themselves to providing actual solutions to real problems like poverty. They still don't have a health care fix after 23 years, other than "privatization/buying across state borders." So we just receive these talking points and generalities. Can't Southsider2k5 talk about his wife's anti-poverty program in a way that we can actually weigh the merits of that approach...instead of just going back to the point that Democrats/Reddy "cripple" the future of minorities by paying lip service to helping them but up doing a disservice by making program assistance recipients dependent/reliant and often simply perpetuate stereotypes (the White solutions to non-white community problems, which are well-intentioned but often not constructive in the eyes of the GOP.) Can you quantify or measure its success as an anti poverty program, and how? The above paragraph, just my take and not a reflection on Reddy in particular...just the typical back and forth on govnt social program spending. This as well as limiting lawsuits are actually the two most important thing to drive costs down.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 31, 2017 -> 02:02 PM) It has nothing to do with hatred. How could a son mistake that prop for his dad? Look at it. He isn't 3 or 4, he's 11. It was BS. He was watching his cartoons or whatever and suddenly that came on. OK. Entering your kid into the story is usually not a good thing. Trump seemed to not mind Obama had young daughters at home when he with through all his Obama s***. I work for a company that started a couple of years ago letting people work from home once in a while. You wouldn't believe how often kids are now sick. 40-50 days a year at least. If they took away the work from home, they would be doing the kids a favor with their health. But no one dares question the legitimacy of kids being sick all the time. The Barron story doesn't add up. That is plain to see. Again, what she did was disgusting, but getting the kid involved is for Trump's personal gain. The "Dusty Baker" shield.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 31, 2017 -> 08:18 PM) The boxscore has Giolito down for 8 hits over 4, not 7, fwiw. Lucas Giolito 4.0 8 2 2 0 3 0 5.36 Kopech with 3 walks and 8 strikeouts, almost through 5. 3 hits, 1 UER, but 80 pitches (high count once again) High strikeout pitchers are prone to high pitch counts. Just the way it goes.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ May 31, 2017 -> 12:57 PM) I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Q will be on the Sox until the 2018 trade deadline. They should hold onto him until they get a deal that is worth his value. The way it's going you are probably correct, unless he has a stellar second half.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 31, 2017 -> 11:16 AM) With Trout, they did. He was on pace for like a 12 WAR season. Any team with a player like that can be competitive with filler around him. They were around .500 and in 8th place. There was a chance but it was minimal. One hitter doesn't really carry a team in the MLB. It's not the NBA.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 31, 2017 -> 08:04 AM) I have a feeling we'll be seeing less "Then you don't get Q!" hard bargain posts. But they should stick to that. The shouldn't try to sell him when his value is at his lowest. They may just need to wait.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ May 31, 2017 -> 07:38 AM) Keeping Quintana doesn't make any sense. They need the prospects that they will ultimately get in return for him. People keep talking about 2019 but the Sox don't have many long-term answers as far as position players go. Where are those guys coming from? They are banking on Moncada, Anderson, Robert, and Collins. What if a couple of them bust though? They need to keep adding. Quintana will need a new contract by the time the Sox are good again so I just don't think keeping him makes any sense and I also don't know how this team is playoff ready in 2019. Not if those prospects value are less then his. If they aren't good again by 2020, all of these prospects will have failed so it really doesn't matter either way.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 30, 2017 -> 08:38 PM) Crap, Jose changed his last name?

QUOTE (StrykerSox @ May 30, 2017 -> 08:14 PM) Chris Sale is such a weak-ass headcase. Some are probably saying that about Quintana now.

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ May 30, 2017 -> 07:48 PM) I agree that many people vote against what we would perceive to be their best interests, but I think that's only if we consider people's financial best interests to be the sole basis of casting a vote. I know plenty of union members who are staunch Republicans. Doesn't make much sense to me since the Republican platform is pretty much anti-union, but they have their reasons, I'm sure. If they value guns and believe Republican religious values represent them best, and they cast their votes for the Republican. Who am I to question their reasons? Do we question rich people like Bill Gates, Oprah, Warren Buffet or the "liberals" in Hollywood who vote against their personal best financial interests? I don't ever see that (FYI - I'm not even certain Gates & Buffet vote Democratic, but I know they have talked about paying higher taxes). Mostly because they can afford it. Their finances are their strengths. It doesn't hurt them as much as the taking away the guns and such that others value. taking away some money vs. taking away all of the guns.

QUOTE (Reddy @ May 30, 2017 -> 04:18 PM) There has been mountains and mountains of research done supporting this concept. Put away your ridiculous bias and partisanship and read a f***ing book. EDIT: So much for humility and improvement You may want to look in the mirror. There is plenty of research refuting your views as well. It just depends on which research you prefer to read.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ May 30, 2017 -> 03:21 PM) The one you can make a legit case of him waiting to see if its going to go foul or not as it was right down the line. But still, 3 years later. You wanna show him up? Get him out. Don't plunk him when you're down 3. I'm sure getting him out really would send the message the pitcher wanted to convey to him. Ooooo, I got you to ground to the second baseman, i showed you! I don't agree with what he did as far as the retaliation in this case. however, i don't have a problem with it as long as he doesn't throw a true beanball at his head. If they want to throw at the hitter, it's fine as long as it's below the shoulders.