Balta1701

QUOTE (watchtower41 @ Apr 17, 2015 -> 03:59 PM) You guys are smoking some real good s*** to think that call would have been overturned.....4/20 is not until NEXT week. As far as I could tell the White Sox broadcast did not get that view. Only way it wouldn't get overturned is if NY didn't get that view, which they might not have?

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Apr 17, 2015 -> 03:51 PM) i just uploaded the tag to Youtube. HE WAS OUT You're correct and I'm now convinced the other way.

I think he was safe, but yeah, the manager is pretty much supposed to challenge that.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 17, 2015 -> 03:42 PM) Im seeing it, looks like he clearly tagged him Are you seeing the angle from the camera well down the 1b line with Alexei to the left and the runner to the right side of the image? Because there was a surprising amount of space between the glove and his foot in that shot. Even Hawk thinks Alexei missed him.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Apr 17, 2015 -> 03:41 PM) Alexi felt pretty sure something hit his glove I think he hit the ground.

QUOTE (TitoMB @ Apr 17, 2015 -> 03:39 PM) not watching the game eh? That angle from the 1b box side shows space between Alexei's glove and his leg during the entire slide. Stone keeps referring to it as the definitive angle.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Apr 17, 2015 -> 03:39 PM) What happened. Garcia bobbled ball in LF. Picked up ball rifled to 2nd. Ball beat runner to 2b, Alexei had tag down but pulled up before the tag was clearly on the runner. Ump called him safe. Replay to me shows space between Alexei's glove and the runner's leg, I don't think he tagged him.

Correct call.

7 IP 1 run without his best stuff, that's pretty commendable.

QUOTE (kapzk @ Apr 17, 2015 -> 02:55 PM) Abreu was hitting .200 after game #17 last yr He destroyed the league during the first 10 games though and then during the 2nd his foot was bothering him, that's why his numbers dropped off that week.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Apr 17, 2015 -> 02:28 PM) Stone and Hawk jesus get off your f***ing knees below Beckham. Never seen a 1 WAR player treated with such nut riding. He's had a nice start to the season jesus. It happens. It's called SSS. Then someone else f***ing play better!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 17, 2015 -> 02:26 PM) Sox get 1 run in 4 innings. Offense sucks. Tigers get 1 run in 4 innings. Samardjiza sucks. Remarkable what can happen when someone plays some defense.

I don't know if he hit anything that far in the HR Derby.

That went a long way.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 17, 2015 -> 12:03 PM) LaRoche's numbers since 2013 against LHP are way below his career averages (.590 OPS range). He's 0-7 in his career vs Price, Flowers 0-6. As for the eye test so far this year, LaRoche doesn't seem to be picking up anything offspeed from LHP. Thank you for saving me the time. LaRoche is not the same hitter he once was against lefties, that's clearly hit him as he aged. We should have expected that when we signed him, the manager should treat him that way, but alas.

QUOTE (Condor13 @ Apr 16, 2015 -> 10:05 PM) The Sox will screw this up, I hope I'm wrong though. They will probably wait until mid-late may to call him up, once the Sox are 10-15 games out of the playoff picture. If the White Sox are 10 game out of the playoff picture, Carlos Rodon will not make one Iota of difference. You could convince me that he's the difference between an 87 win team and an 89 win team if the 4/5 guys continue to be bad. But a rookie who has barely pitched above A-ball and never thrown more than 130 innings in a season is not going to be the difference between a playoff team and a sub .500 team. If they're 10 games out in May, then there's literally no reason to call him up until he's 100% dominating every single start and forces you to call him up.

QUOTE (Bruce_Blixton @ Apr 16, 2015 -> 09:36 PM) Very true and I hope they have this philosophy for the first 5-7 rounds, but I wouldn't mind seeing them drafting some high ceiling/big bonus high school position players outside of the first 10 rounds. Much like they did last year with Bryce Montes de Oca but with a position player instead. Unfortunately though the only way the sox are likely to be in position to sign a big bonus guy outside the top 10 next year is if they pull off a solidly under slot 1st round pick.

QUOTE (LDF @ Apr 16, 2015 -> 06:44 PM) you know, this is going to be a tricky draft. as of right now, as the sox system stands, pitching is outstanding, with more than enuf to field maybe 2 teams. so i am really looking at the positional players. there are 2 catchers that i like but mostly all positional players. BPA.... that is a phrase that i am having heartburn over. sometimes and with this draft, i just don't know. outside the 1 rnd. i do not know about any other pitchers, mostly HS kids. There is no such thing as "too much pitching." Pitching is always tradeable. If we have 7 MLB ready starters and we need to restock the lineup, either there's money available or that trade writes itself. If everyone else stays healthy and Rodon is in the rotation, then within a year or so we should be staring multiple top level trade candidates that we could use to fill in whatever gap we have. That is fine.

QUOTE (LDF @ Apr 16, 2015 -> 05:55 PM) i am for only several reasons. first, saving the innings for the main pitchers to carry this team to the playoff. none of these pitchers have playoff experience. second, if Rodon comes up, it will limit his innings at the same time keep getting mlb game experience. Are you ok with the 3 man bench or the 6 man bullpen? Because between Rodon not being ready to take an innings load and Danks and Noesi, it seems like you'd want the 7 man bullpen to have an extra reliever.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 16, 2015 -> 03:59 PM) Out of pocket expenses exploding are also something not being talked about when the premium increases are talked about so glowingly. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 16, 2015 -> 04:00 PM) Yeah, deductibles and co-pays have been increasing for years and that trend unfortunately doesn't show a sign of stopping. Which remains, again, a thing that businesses are able to do because it's a way to cut payroll expenses without actually cutting their employees' salary. It is one version of an employer response to the near destruction of the global economy in 2008 - weak employment, no upward wage pressure, but actually cutting people's take home pay in response has much higher risk of losing the employee than cutting their benefits.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 16, 2015 -> 04:51 PM) Oops. Also the reporters here seem to have missed a huge key question, unless I missed it. Forget for a moment specific training courses - is the guy even state-certified as a law enforcement officer? Was he before, is he currently? Is he academy-trained? Apparently if you have enough money to contribute in that state you're allowed to play law enforcement officer with minimal (no academy) training.

I almost wish they'd held it until the Avengers.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 16, 2015 -> 02:21 PM) No, plenty of people have been voluntarily paying for varying levels of coverage for a long time. In fact, the vast majority were already paying for as much as or more coverage than the new law required. So there really was such a thing as health insurance before. So what happens to the person who gets cancer and then finds out that cancer treatments are not covered by their plan?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 16, 2015 -> 02:02 PM) Yeah, there are better ways to deal with that than forcing a whole bunch of people to pay for coverage they don't need. Actually, health insurance is pretty much by definition forcing a whole bunch of people to pay for coverage they don't need. Otherwise there's basically no such thing as health insurance.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 16, 2015 -> 01:29 PM) That doesn't explain why it was necessary to force people off those plans. If you add requirements to the plan that it actually covers things, the previous, cheaper plan will no longer exist. The "ok we'll let you keep your plan another year" thing that they added in 2014 when people were complaining about that was a political CYA to deal with that but honestly it was a bad thing for health care in general. These plans genuinely shouldn't exist. I don't know 99% of what my health care plan covers but I don't want to suddenly find out that I got the illness it doesn't cover and that's something the market won't correct - without regulation saying "things need to be covered" virtually no consumer is going to know where the holes are in their plan until they need them and find out there's a hole there