Dam8610

Your browser does not support iframes. Quite a shot. Hopefully he's figured out the adjustments he needs to make as a hitter, because he'll be special with that bat if he can regularly tap into that power and hit well. He'll be really special if he can also catch at the ML level.

Some don't believe he can stick at SS because he moved off the position in deference to a teammate (Cadyn Grenier, who will likely also be drafted in the first few rounds of the draft) despite showing plus defense at 2B since. He also doesn't have a cannon arm, so some question his arm for 3B. That said, Yolmer Sanchez started as a plus defender at 2B with an average arm, and he's doing well starting at 3B. I see no reason Madrigal couldn't do the same defensively with a better bat.

You're suggesting drafting Madrigal is not a good idea because he plays a position the ML team already has covered. It's the same concept as need based drafting, just worded slightly differently. Not thinking he's BPA is one thing, but you're arguing that Moncada and Anderson make Madrigal superfluous. I'd disagree with the assertion that he's not BPA if he's there at 4, but your other argument flies in the face of good drafting.

You don't draft for need in the MLB draft.

You can't hit around .400 without having a high BABIP.

He's eligible for 2019 I think.

I don't understand how Adley Rutschman isn't generating more buzz on that front. Switch hitting catchers that hit a tick under .400 with over .200 ISOs and more walks than strikeouts don't come along often. He's doing it as a sophomore.

It wasn't realistic to think Altuve had 20+ HR power until he did. Based on what I've seen, read, and heard, I think Madrigal has a decent shot of becoming the next Altuve. I know no one is supposed to say things like that because can't miss prospects bust all the time and whatnot, but the similarities to Altuve at similar ages is striking to me.

Yep, a guy who could be Pedroia or Altuve is just a terrible result for 4th overall.

So condescending for being so wrong. You claim to be a CPA, so you should know that projections are based on past known data and are meant to be as accurate as possible, accounting for things such as expected growth rate. So it's reasonable to assume that if 1.4 million were projected, something in the neighborhood of 1.4 million went. In fact, that organization later went on to say that 1.3 million Americans went abroad for medical care in 2016. And yes, that's an estimated figure, but you know as well as I do that actual accurate figures on this sort of thing are not going to be available and that reasonable estimates and approximations are used in all things business. If you want to be unreasonable and accept neither a projection or an estimate, you can choose to, but we both know that makes you unreasonable, since I'm sure you've certified audited financials that make use of reasonable estimates. If you read that article, the first listed, and therefore likely the most commonly given, reason is reduced cost. Even the sentence you quoted says "In addition to traveling in order to save money...", meaning that the article is recognizing your reason as secondary to cost savings. In fact, every article I encounter on the subject lists cost as the first or primary reason for medical tourism, with seeking treatments that are illegal here typically listed as a secondary or tertiary reason. Okay, so let's take the lower number for the US. Using your numbers above and the numbers from the articles, we have 0.38% of the US population traveling for health care in 2016 vs. 0.18% of the Canadian population. In other words, US medical tourism more than doubles Canadian medical tourism by percentage of population. Again, the numbers don't add up in favor of your argument. It's not that hard to convert raw numbers to percentages. I even did it for you above. I don't understand why you are trying so very hard to not see the obvious conclusion the numbers are giving you, that's typically the opposite of how accountants work. In any case, here's a graphic showing Canada as the top medical tourism destination in the world:

Since you chose to provide no data beyond this, I looked on my own and discovered that 1.4 million Americans went abroad for medical care in 2016, apparently according to the same organization you referenced. 5 out for every 1 in is a net outflow, not a net inflow. Further, only 63,000 Canadians engaged in healthcare tourism in 2016, so any way you slice it, the original claim of: Doesn't stand up to fact based scrutiny.

To me it's whichever of Mize, Bart, Bohm, and Madrigal makes it to 4.

What a novel concept! Maybe if we share this tidbit of information with the whole 25 man roster, they can still win 90+ games this year! All they have to do is not suck!

Fine, let's just look at net patient migration between US and Canada, since Canada is the only country that meets the criteria.

That's an incomplete data set that neither supports nor debunks his point. The dataset needs things like the number (and percentage) of people who leave their country each year to receive medical care and the number of foreigners that go to each country to receive medical care, preferably broken down into percentages by country of origin. Seeing that would allow a proper vetting of the validity of his claim. ETA: Turkey, Thailand, and India are not adjacent and Thailand does not have socialized medicine, while India has it in name only. I suppose we could just look at net patient migration between US and Canada to test his claim, since it was only about "adjacent countries that have socialized medicine", though that probably wouldn't service his claim well.

Health plays a factor here. McDowell, Ventura, Thomas, and Fernandez were all healthy most of the time. If Rodon were healthy, his stuff and poise would have him right up there with McDowell and Fernandez. Unfortunately it looks like Fulmer seems like a bust and will likely end up a pen arm. Collins is progressing nicely and could be contributing to the ML team in 2019 or 2020. Injuries are a factor with Burger. I feel like the two players the Sox are going to get from the 2018 and 2019 Top 5 are guys who really have to become part of the team's core. That said, those two could be part of it with Rodon, Fulmer, Collins, and Burger. This team is still developing its core, which will come together in the next 2 years hopefully.

3B, LF, maybe CF if you get him reps there on the way up. He could also be the guy to give Moncada and Anderson days off at 2B and SS.

Please provide data to back your claim.

I mean, I guess people can go without health insurance. There ISN'T a choice for affordable health insurance, that's the point. Also, "options" and "scalability" in health insurance terms means buying plans that are so watered down they essentially cover nothing and your money goes to pay for your shiny worthless card. There are no options that "make sense for you", except maybe a platinum plan, and most people can't get access to those. There's a reason the civilized world outside of the United States have gone to single payer, and it's not because it's a bad idea.

Maybe he should try throwing his fastball from the curve release point and his curve from the fastball release point? It would effectively make him a 5 pitch pitcher and dramatically increase his deception. It's worth trying something at this point since he's not been very effective thus far.

The video is from May 9th and before you posted your comment, which was posted today, he had 3 HR this year.

Your browser does not support iframes. Does that make you feel better about his ability to turn on a pitch and launch?

His K rate is really climbing. It's 5% in those 80 PAs.

Why couldn't the Sox sign this guy AND Machado? Or him, Machado, and Kimbrel? Seems like splitting the money it'd take to get Harper into two or three players, which is pretty much the approach you're advocating here.

Is there some small glimmer of hope that the Sox get Mize?