ptatc

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Dec 17, 2015 -> 04:25 PM) Padding the post count while checking for FA news . . . Question not this logic I will. (in my besy Yoda impersonation as I wait until I leave for the Star Wars movie)

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 17, 2015 -> 02:24 PM) I still think Boers and Bernstein is the best radio show in the city. It's weird that it's so Anti-Sox because they have the most Sox fans at their station I believe. Bernstein, Goff, Mully, Laurence, Tannehill are all Sox fans. I think DeFalco is the only Sox fan on 1000. No it's not. Bernstein hates anything that is "sports establishment." He will rip anything by older college coaches because of the control they have. He rips anything people say that isn't stat driven. He is basically trying to "intellectualize" sports and change the talent/scouting driven ideas that he is not part of. He basically wants to turn his version of sports into serious news because that's really where he would rather work.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 05:03 PM) Kris Bryant as well Might as well ask for Mike Trout while you're at it.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 04:37 PM) As long as EJ can continue to do his thing we have our top 4 lined up for a good while on team friendly deals. Could always find a 5th starter somewhere though it'd be great if Fulmer or Adams could be that guy. I was talking long term front end type starter. Neither are going to be ready this year. This year the 4 and 5 are Johnson and Danks.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 04:18 PM) Maybe...maybe not, we'll never know what would have happened had he remained on an all in, win now constructed roster. Obviously Sale was pushed into that role in 2010. Guess we will see with Fulmer, as it stands....with Danish, Beck and Webb on the outside looking in. Danish with his delivery and ability to throw harder in short bursts would be the next logical conversion candidate. Obviously, long-term, Fulmer absolutely has to succeed as a starter and replace Danks or Johnson. I would disagree to the extent that he is the only option. I would throw Adams in there as well.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 03:49 PM) How is it not feasible? Yoenis will cost a pretty penny, but I'd have to imagine that Parra could be had for cheap. Its not feasible becuase the sox are already paying two OFs good money. There is only room for one more, unless he trades LaRoche.

QUOTE (AustinIllini @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 03:47 PM) This is the least important part of the previous argument. Whatever Reinsdorf says, goes. He is, for all intents and purposes, the owner of the Chicago White Sox. Whatever he wants to do, he can do. He has talked repeatedly about being responsible to the rest of the board members. I'm not as confident as Dick Allen is that this is true. He has a history of criticizing JR and his budget statments and esponsibilities. I respect his opinion but he is far from impartial when it comes to opinions on JR.

QUOTE (AustinIllini @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 03:02 PM) He's the majority owner. He can do what he wants on that front. And it's not like one outfielder is what is going to blow up this deal. The White Sox have the money. Don't worry about overspending. 1) There's no cap 2) The 2017 team sheds a lot of weight I don't want to go for it every year. I'm a rebuilder guy, but if you're going to go for, go for it. JR is not the majority owner. He is the elected chairman of the board.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 02:41 PM) This right here is what drives me nuts about these deals. "We gave up so little in this deal. All we gave up is a backup, RH hitting catcher, a right handed hitting infielder who needs work, and a right handed reliever". Then what do the White Sox need to sign the next season? A right handed hitting catcher, they trade for an infielder, and they're relying on a guy you have to worry about a little bit in their rotation as their only righty. "But oh, the White Sox had soured on those guys" you say, well boo-hoo. The White Sox can't work with people, only other organizations can do that? It's like reading that thread all over again. All we gave up is a reliever, the 2b we gave up was someone we had soured on, and the other guy was a platoon hitter. Good thing we won't have any need of those next year, just like we didn't need a catcher or an infielder this year. But its true. If they give up something worthwhile you can complain. The prospects weren't much considering the Sox need for a 3B. Monras may have been needed next year but so would a 3B so you traded a good 3B for a possibly good reliever. You cant deny that the Sox do not have a good 3B ready for next year. Howefer everyone says that relievers are wasy to find and replace.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 02:28 PM) Exactly. But Sox didn't get Ethier as well. Sox overpaid IMO. It's all up to Frazier to excel and shut up the people like me who said they overpaid. I don't know about that. You could look at it the other way. Trayce, Micah and Montas all project to be certain big-league players. Kind of a steep price to pay. We're not down on it. I'm thinking the infield will be awesome (on paper) if we can re-sign Lexi. Some people like me just think we overpaid again. Good post except for the fact our infield was looking shaky with Lawrie, Saladino, Sanchez, Abreu the likely infield. Now it's much better with one swoop of Frazier. You have to admit the infield figures to be much more productive with this one trade. We're concerned (not mad) because it appears the Sox overpaid as they did in the Shark deal. The only prospects of any consequence in either deal were Bassitt and Montas. Both of those are/worth the risks as at the time they were not in the top 2 pitching prospects in the system.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:59 PM) The "defense" point isn't a "wouldn't want him", argument, it's just "is he going to be as good as the language people are using would suggest". Some of that is also me wondering whether I understand the defensive stats enough, because Bryant being right next to Frazier seems to make no sense to me if Bryant is a guy who should be moved away from 3b and Frazier is "Well above average". The "wouldn't want him" part comes from me continuing to think this team is no where near as good as they want to believe they are. So, you have a problem with making the team better. Unless it's a World Series caliber improvement, don't improve the team. This deal did nothing to hold back future success. Frazier is here to hold a spot for Trey M. in two years. In the meantime the team is better. OK

Would a single word really qualify as "using it in a sentence?"

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 08:03 AM) I believe Indiana also supplements costs for local schools with local taxes like sales tax etc. I'm not sure Indiana's spending model is anything that should be used as a model though.. Edit, I take that back. It appears that local governments have approved extra taxes for their schools so areas like Carmel are back to their old tax levels to assure better education. Exactly what I would expect to happen. Part of the illinois legislation (SB 1) also limits local school districts from raising taxes.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 10:19 PM) This state government has proven to me that they give two s***s about kids with special needs. It's gotten progressively worse and when they hit 18 there is nothing available. It's mentioned in the bill as the % of funding going from 13 to 18. Being in education I agree with you but it's in the bill. I don't think any of it will be enacted due to the unconstitutional ruling so it will all be negotiated again. Who knows what it will look like next time. The only reason it passed that time was because it was tied to the pension reform that most wanted.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 10:02 PM) You will see a difference in the state funding for some schools, particularly the ones who have high income per student but in no way is it taking all of my local taxes for other districts. If that happened local governments would be force to defund that avenue of funding and find another way to get money for local schools like sales tax and privatization. There would be a huge uproar. Isn't this the bill that the Supreme court found unconstitutional for the pension reforms? Will that effect this part. Also, you will find a big difference in funding for the schools with few special needs students.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 04:55 PM) Should, but won't. Can, but can't. Would, but... shorn't They really won't let it go.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 09:36 PM) SB1 has the reformed 2015 version of SB16. And what is changing is the amount of state funded allocation that is already in place. I hope you're right but i don't think that is correct. i can't find any information that SB 1 has anything but retirement issue included. I know SB 16 was defeated, that's why I said proposed. I know that it is still a priority in springfield and they will work on it again after the budget impasse. Edit: OK, I found the section that you are referring too. There is a section in SB 1 in which it's described. The keys there are that the ISBE can decide how to determine what a low income student is and that districts with higher % of special needs will get up to 5% more of the funding than before. The biggest change is how local available resources are determined and allocated. This is where you will see the big difference in the school funding. Isn't this the one found unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court? Does that effect this?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 09:26 PM) SB1 (the new bill) will not allocate all of my taxes that go to my local schools out of the district. That's false. SB 1 is the pension reform act not the school funding reform act. Here is a IBHE power point summarizing the proposed bill. It says that the state will raise the % of local property tax that goes to the state to 95% from 44%. http://www.isbe.net/budget/FY15/fy15-sb16-ppt.pdf

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 09:06 PM) They are propaganda sites because when I click the about button that's what it states. There is a current model in place that contributes some money towards a state pool for allocation and the new bill which isn't anything like what you said isn't much different. Your original statement was that most of our money that now goes towards our local schools will now go towards others outside of our districts and that's categorically false. I'm sure not all of the sites said that. Anyway as I said they were just ones I found with a quick search. From my understanding there will be a major shift in how much of the money from local taxes goes to the state. I'm pretty sure it's SB16 is the one. I do not think what I said is false. From all of the discussion of the Bill at the universities and the funding issues from our district these are the issues in the Bill.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 09:00 PM) They aren't going to take all the funds like he stated. They may change the pool that already exists with prior legislation but it will never be total reallocation because it's moronic. Check out other states and the way they fund public school. It is the norm. This is why Illinois ranks toward the bottom in state funding each year. Because the state doesn't fund our schools for the most part it's the local taxes.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 08:51 PM) I don't see anywhere in there where all the taxes that now go to schools goes into one large bucket. Not only would that collapse the school systems but it would destroy the real estate market in certain areas. Chicagos school system would be a vacuum sucking up and burning cash unnecessarily. Do you have sources other than blogs and political propaganda sites? I've never heard of anything like this being remotely considered at any local government meetings. These were just the ones I quickly found online. If you consider them "political propaganda" sites, look around you should find something more to your liking. I believe it's SB16 that is the current version of the bill.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 08:22 PM) That's not going to pass in the way you state. Even in that model most of your local taxes will stay local while some will go into a pool of which special needs and low income schools get the lions share. We have a government in place now that have taken money from special needs programs already so it's clearly not a priority. Second. Won't ever happen. You aren't going to steal from the rich suburbs and give to Chicago in this state. They already do that for the pension system. Chicago has a separate pension system but the rest of the state pays into it.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 08:22 PM) That's not going to pass in the way you state. Even in that model most of your local taxes will stay local while some will go into a pool of which special needs and low income schools get the lions share. We have a government in place now that have taken money from special needs programs already so it's clearly not a priority. Second. Won't ever happen. You aren't going to steal from the rich suburbs and give to Chicago in this state. It's already passed one of them, I think the house. I do think it will pass in some form. It is more the norm for the rest of the country. Everything is on hold due to the budget impasse but eventually it will become a focus again. If you look at the reference about what schools win and lose our school district (Lincolnway in New Lenox/Frankfort) will lose 4 million dollars. This is a district that is closing a school due to financial difficulties (that however is another story)

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 06:05 PM) Can you elaborate on the tax changes? Where did you get this info? There is a proposed bill that will change the funding of the schools. Currently, Illinois is only one of two states that fund the schools by local taxes. Illinois is proposing switching to the national norm where all of the taxes for schools go into one fund and is dispersed to all schools in the state. The priorities for funding go to 1. percentage of low income students, 2. percentage of ESL and 3. percentage of special needs students. I'm not positive that is the order but those are the three priorities in the current proposal. It is currently just a proposal but it has a great deal of support. The unions are sending out info as it really effects some districts. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/201...-school-funding http://www.rebootillinois.com/2015/03/25/e...-formula/35412/ http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/state_edwat...gnificant_.html Here are just a few references but you can find many more just looking online.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 03:39 PM) I'm sorry, but this is ignorant. Are there scary people out there...? Absolutely. But, I can't worry about that every second of every day that my children are at school. I pay my taxes in Oak Park (hi Rock!) and I can not only see where those dollars go, they are tangible. Whether it's the Park District, streets and san, or the schools. We moved here because of the schools. We moved here because we can walk to all three. But most importantly, we chose to forge good relationships with the day care provider/nanny/head mistress/principal/teachers of every place they've been. We still see our nanny. We still see our in-home day care provider. We still see our Montessori head mistress and teacher. We email regularly with both of my son's teachers (Boy #1 is related to his class. Boy #2 has a sensory processing disorder, so we email/talk to his teacher more often). It's just like our parents said to us when we were younger, you take out what you put in. We are in a time now when, even if we are in a good district, we as parents make more time to help with our kids education. The American Dream, at least the way I interpret it is: my kids will do better than me and I will do whatever it takes to get them there. This will be changing soon with the proposed changes to the school funding system. Your taxes will no longer be going to your schools. Most of it will be going to schools outside of your district.