Dam8610

Thoughts?

I hope so, less competition for the #1 pick.

I wouldn't. They have about 25 pitchers for 12 spots.

There are internal solutions for every need you listed.

Phillies could take Swaggerty as well. Either way, Madrigal has been my top choice all along.

If he adapts his swing and stance the same way Altuve did, the latter. If you look at High A Altuve and Madrigal, their swing mechanics are very similar. Madrigal has to learn (like Altuve did) to stop reaching out with his front foot and instead use his leg kick to load and establish his power base, then use his excellent bat speed and bat control to get that power load to the ball. On the plus side, he already has the perfect example of this to study.

His absolute top to me is Jose Altuve, but 90th percentile range outcomes for me are all star MI or if the Sox decide to position shift him, maybe a rich man's Ben Zobrist? Gives you an .800-.900 OPS while playing all over the field and playing good defense at all positions.

If he really is Bregman 2.0 like the one scouting thing said, 3B.

Not if he can put up 8 fWAR with a nearly 40% K rate. Once he cuts that down (and I think he will, significantly), the sky is the limit for what he'll be able to do on a baseball field.

I know the Sox are not getting Mize, so I just want one of the 4 college hitters. Madrigal is still my preference, but I can't say I'd be upset with Swaggerty, Bohm, or Bart. It's really a nice position to be in.

The last 4 hitters they've drafted in the Top 10 were Zack Collins, Gordon Beckham, Frank Thomas, and Robin Ventura. That list will likely expand this year, but again, we have to be patient. Players can and will have struggles before the light comes on, so if Collins and the #4 overall pick this year bust out, absolutely be critical of the player development team, but we won't know that for at least another 2-3 years, probably longer. Also, Aaron Rowand made an all-star game (first rounder in 1998, Crede was a 5th rounder in 1996). Give it a few years, and Tim Anderson likely will as well.

I think this fails to take into account that you're lucky you get 2-3 quality players out of a draft class, so the majority of the guys you listed will fail. That said, the White Sox need to start having classes where they get 2-3 good players instead of 0-1. 2016 seems to be fairly promising on that front (Collins, Hansen, Burdi). Too early to judge 2017, but it's not looking great at the moment (of course a hot streak from Gonzalez, Sheets, and Yurchak could turn that around very quickly, plus Henzman and McClure are getting good results). Just be patient, it's not going to happen overnight. It's going to take time and there will be bumps.

I still think Hansen is the better bet to be an ace long term. Cease may still end up a pen arm.

The BABIP will normalize and he'll have a much better line. Meanwhile, they should move Zavala up.

He's currently on pace for 8 fWAR with a nearly 40% K rate. He likely won't get there with a nearly 40% K rate, but it just goes to show how much he's doing and how exciting he is when he's not striking out. Halve the K rate, and he gets very interesting.

It's scary to think that if he cut his K rate to 20%, he might actually have legitimate 10 WAR potential. It's also staring me in the face based on his current numbers.

FWIW, UZR and DRS are pretty much saying what people in this thread are saying, that his defense is above average mostly because he has incredible range. In fact, his current UZR score of 1.1 comes entirely from his range score, with DPR (runs above or below average from turning double plays) and ErrR (runs above or below average from committing errors) cancelling each other out. ETA: Most of his value thus far has come from the offensive side, with 3.2 batting runs and 2.2 baserunning runs. If you're worried aboutthat 8 WAR pace being sustainable, it probably isn't, but 6 is and would still blow every prediction out of the water.

Why? None of those things will happen as long as the "pragmatists" prioritize control of the chairs over good policy. You'll never get a Manchin, Donnelly, or Heitkamp to vote for any of that (using the turncoats of the most recent vote for this example), and the Democratic party has decided that they're content to not have learned anything from their 2016 trouncing and actually redefine themselves in any meaningful way. "Big tent" theory will carry the day and nothing will get done, even if the Democrats get supermajorities in both chambers, because the Democrats don't want to force someone with a (D) behind their name to actually take a liberal position. That Democrats are STILL confused as to how Trump's message of an outsider bringing change sold better to the middle class than Clinton's message of an insider bringing the status quo in an election year where the discontent of the electorate was palpable is baffling to me. I can't understand if they're just stubbornly refusing to see the plain answer staring them in the face or they actually can't understand how disconnected their message was from the average American (perhaps you can shed some light, there, Reddy)? They need a Conor Lamb in every red state race, but they don't seem to be interested in finding those candidates or moving toward those policies. Give them their candy on social issues and win on economic issues. Lamb didn't even say he would vote conservative on those issues, just that he held the conservative viewpoint personally. In fact, he outright said on abortion that he was personally pro-life, but would vote pro-choice because he understands the need for abortion as a right, which politically means he has the right position, but didn't get dinged for it by conservatives. I'd take a majority of Conor Lambs in both chambers over a supermajority which includes members like Donnelly, Manchin, etc. The former would get more done.

I didn't think so before Ron made a thread about it. Now I think there's a decent chance he could win Manager of the Year in 2020.

I'll give you a hint. Look at the last three World Series winners. The rebuild isn't to "line Jerry's pockets", it's to get the players the team needs to compete. The high draft picks will hopefully, along with the pieces the team acquired in trade, form the core of the next championship caliber White Sox team.

This all does seem like a bit of overreaction to a bad 10-15 game stretch, which are going to happen with a team full of projects, developmental guys, and has-beens, which is what this team is right now. What I want to see is continued signs or new signs of improvement from Moncada, Anderson, Sanchez, Delmonico, Davidson, Thompson, the Garcias, Giolito, Lopez, and Fulmer and a team that never quits and always puts in high effort. As long as we're getting the latter, I can't really complain unless we aren't seeing any of the former. Development isn't linear and struggles should be expected.

Is there a way to get the old display settings back?

Thanks for the big breakdown, that actually makes me feel a lot better about things right now. It also tells me that this draft and next draft are going to be very important. Still hoping to see an exciting second half team with the additions of Rodon, Kopech, and Eloy and (hopefully) improvement from Moncada and continued improvement from Anderson.

Did the Astros rebuild ever look this uncertain? Just curious.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 09:17 AM) You actually responded to none of my points. You created a straw man instead. Care to actually respond? Or are you sticking to the logical fallacy game? I responded to your 80% comment, care to actually respond to that argument? I'll rephrase here for ease of response: If the 21% of air you're not getting is oxygen, does it make you "ignorant" or "selfish" to seek oxygen by any means necessary? Also, my race isn't nor should it be relevant to the points I'm making, so I instead choseto take your other post as an opportunity to present the actual problems with your strategy. Care to address that? QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 09:29 AM) What's the status of interracial and gay marriage in this country? What's the status of minority and female voting rights? What's the status of abortion rights? What's the status of the strikes for teacher pay in places like OK, WV, AZ, etc? You have a very skewed world-view my friend. Just because we're still fighting for social justice doesn't mean we haven't been winning those battles throughout history - including very recently. To say they don't matter to you is the height of white privilege. You are the prototypical Bernie Bro, and you are why a Bernie candidacy would be disastrous for the Democratic Party in 2020. It would hand Trump or Pence another term easily. But like you said, you'd rather have them in office if it means having a better chance of replacing them with a progressive afterwards, no matter how much damage they do to people who don't have the same privilege you do. Fortunately, you and I get to avoid most of the fallout from a Trump or a Presidency. Aren't we lucky? The difference is, I want to fight to fix that imbalance in the system, and you're fine with it because it doesn't hurt YOU, and you think it'll help you achieve your economic agenda ... at some point. That's pretty messed up, man. Oh look, assumptions about my race and attacks based on it. That's certainly not ad hominem, right Reddy? Yippee we got to the point where we're as progressive on these issues as the rest of the world, and all it cost us was our economic freedom. What a trade! So, again I'll posit, why is it that almost every country in Europe has a better quality of life AND similar or more progressive social policy than the United States? QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 09:56 AM) Dam said social issues don't matter to him. That's what I was addressing. And yes, the Bernie wing prioritizes economic policy over social policy, which is one of the reasons they struggle with minorities and marginalized communities. (As for DOMA/DADT/etc, Clinton did the best he could on that issue at that time, in that political environment. Activists kept working, and eventually, we got to a much better place. But progress is progress and it happens one stepping stone at a time) Now you're outright lying about me. I said social issues do not qualify as "key" to me. That's because we've given economic issues to the conservatives for so long in trade for social issues that it's approaching the point where if we don't fight back on economic issues, they're going to be able to take the little social progress we've made with their economic gains. Social issues are absolutely important to me, that's why I feel they need to take a backseat to economic issues for a while. A more level economic playing field will help everything, even social justice issues, as I've given you an example of before on deprivatization of prisons. QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 10:05 AM) I agree with you. The GOP are masters of simplistic, easily digestible misinformation campaigns. If we want to shift to a discussion about what the Democratic Party can do better, I'm happy to have that talk. There are a number of things. We message terribly, there's little cohesion, and because we're a party of warring ideologies, finding that cohesive message is incredibly difficult. Fortunately, the party has already started implementing a lot of good changes within the past year. Ellison and Perez are doing one hell of a job. Our performance in these specials is a testament to that. But I still would like a response from Dam regarding his prioritization of issues. (Also, a Bernie Bro is usually a straight white guy who prioritizes economics over social justice and doesn't recognize the privilege he has that allows for that perspective. He uses terms like "neoliberal" "corporate shill" and "oligarchy" far too much and incorrectly. He also often criticizes Hillary's personality and equates her with Trump in attacks that he may not recognize as sexist but... they are.) You already have it. "Not priority" means needs to be addressed less. QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 10:06 AM) Of course they're connected. But scroll back. Dam literally said he doesn't care about social issues. It's that to which I'm responding. I'd really appreciate if you'd stop lying about me. Quote a post where I said those exact words, or stop misconstruing "does not qualify as a 'key' issue you me" to be mean that nonsense.