Balta1701

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 03:44 PM) You have to wonder if the owners are questioning just what he provides to them that justifies his $44M salary. His salary is almost certainly based on how much money they're making.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 03:34 PM) Be outraged, but don't act like it's the biggest deal in the world. This criticism of mine applies more to the tone and narrative used by the media than individuals reacting to the story. So you're saying that I should do things that don't matter, like say commenting on it on a message board and social media, while still going about my life and similarly choosing to have it not otherwise alter my day? Done.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 03:05 PM) Try it and you might like it I say. Um, really? That's a pretty awful reply.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 03:00 PM) I'm just repeating stern after 9-11. I really don't want to be kidnapped and beheaded And something tells me that most people around the world don't want to be blown up.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 01:28 PM) This could be true. For some reason, there was a Pirates scout at the White Sox game Sept. 9. What I don't understand is if people don't like Dayan Viciedo or Adam Dunn, why would they like Pedro Alvarez? Well, from the White Sox/Pirates perspective, their handedness helps (The Pirates are holding Ike Davis, a lefty who can play 1b and could use a platoon partner), the White Sox could use a more LH hitting bat. The Pirates also might be more willing to tolerate Viciedo as a backup OF as well than the White Sox would be since they have 3 strong, talented, young OFs, at least 1 of whom is also a lefty that was sent to the minors once already this year to work on his swing and could sit against tough lefties.

So his extension was for 3 years?

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 11:37 AM) I could absolutely see him doing something like this. Lets look at Pedro Alvarez for example. Some people would not want Pedro Alvarez and I understand the flaws but acquiring him could be a realistic possibility. What would the price be? Sanchez/Semien, 1 of the Sox young pitchers, and a lower level type? More than that? It just depends. The Sox have a glut of infield prospects and I'd actually be surprised if the Sox entered the season with all of them. I would imagine that 1 of Semien/Johnson/Sanchez gets traded this offseason. Way way less than that. Go look at his arb status and production this year. 2nd year arb eligible, probably pushing $6 million to keep next year, only 2 more years of team control, rotten and injury plagued season, seemingly can't play 3b any more. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he was non-tendered after 2015. He'd be a decent guy to flip for Viciedo actually, if the Pirates thought Viciedo could fit at 1b for them. Pedro Alvarez is the kind of guy I could see the Sox going after...because I expect them to keep scraping the bottom of the barrel. Pedro Alvarez is scraping the bottom of the barrel right now.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 11:08 AM) I would be shocked if it did, based on the hints that Rick Hahn has dropped. Do you think Rick will switch things up this year and try to trade a package including several young players to try to fill a big league role?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 10:25 AM) I don't know why you're limiting this to the free agent market. I'm not sure the LH bat will come from the free agent market. I don't think I did. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 10:18 AM) If something happens in the trade market to shake this up, spectacular.... Anyway, that's my point. It's extremely messy. To make this team competitive, Ricky needs to pull off something in the trade market to fill some of these holes. If he can't do that, then Wilkins fits one of this team's needs and has a nonzero chance of filling it for several years. If there's a better option, tell me who it is and I'll be game, but I don't like the ones I see right now. If I'm looking at LH bats available on the trade market that I think we can say with confidence are there, we hit guys like Hamilton and Ethier, who we're not even sure are available and need to have a ton of money come with them to have it even be a worthy risk. We may well do that to fill one of these holes, but that's going to either cost talent or money or both and at best one of those guys would be a band-aid based on the trajectories of their careers. You can't tell me that "Oh the White Sox added Hamilton, Masterson, a couple relievers, and the DH will rotate between Semien, Sanchez, Hamilton, and Sierra" is a lineup you believe will compete for this division next year. Beyond that, if you can suggest a player who is available for a decent but not Rodonobscene price I'm listening, but trading away multiple young guys to fill a big league need is the opposite of what Rick has been doing so far.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 09:52 AM) I'm thinking they will sign a RHP like McCarthy or Masterson types. They will look to add a couple of relievers. They will try to add a youngish LH power bat for the middle of the lineup and try to find another starting OF. Those are the needs. And I'm open to suggestions of who fits this profile on the Free Agent market. I've got Pablo Sandoval and that's it. Hence why developing Wilkins into something that is tolerable would be a big score. He won't be Sandoval but he's also not going to be a 9 figure cost with a high chance of breaking down late in his contract due to body size. In 2016, if he's not extended beforehand, you could get my interest in Heyward to fill 2 of those roles, but that's a year away, no guarantee he hits the market, and he's also going to be a $100 million+ player. And of course, if we commit to a couple multi-year deals in 2015, there's no big money coming off the books next year. If something happens in the trade market to shake this up, spectacular. Masterson makes a lot of sense to me as a Rodon placeholder, so I get that and he shouldn't be that expensive. Relievers are a definite need, but to put together a contending team we're going to need to upgrade the expensive part of the pen, which is the very back. We could try to scrape things together again and get lucky next year with cheap fill-ins, but then what's the point of spending $100 million on a Sandoval if Petricka + fillins is all we have at the back end and we are relying on "Masterson returning to form" in the rotation? Anyway, that's my point. It's extremely messy. To make this team competitive, Ricky needs to pull off something in the trade market to fill some of these holes. If he can't do that, then Wilkins fits one of this team's needs and has a nonzero chance of filling it for several years. If there's a better option, tell me who it is and I'll be game, but I don't like the ones I see right now.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 09:45 AM) He apparently pegged Davidson's reality better than anyone else. I really don't understand White Sox fans fascination with busted prospects. KW trades a slew of busts, yet he ruined farm system by trading everyone one away. Matt Davidson hits .199 in his second season in AAA, with 165 strikeouts and poor defense, and he is still considered a future piece to the puzzle just because he made a top 100 list. There are a lot of names on the top 100 lists who eventually show you they really didn't belong. So how close to a fireable offense is this trade for Rick Hahn?

I've heard that joke this week. Colbert?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 09:09 AM) The Nats don't care for his long term value and want to clear the 40-man spot to get a look at another player who is not currently on the 40-man. Or to clear room for someone who was on the 60-day DL to return from. I don't know the Nationals situation, but those are the two likeliest outcomes. They claimed Pedro Florimon off waivers from the Twins. Not postseason eligible so the MLBTR site can't quite explain it but that was the corresponding move.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 07:52 AM) Good thing they are staying in the nation that has Oxford and Cambridge. Looks like they need it. That was CNN. Apparently the people who "need those universities" are us.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 18, 2014 -> 11:28 PM) True, but geezus. This last story really annoys me. So we can be mosey-ing about in our own country and perhaps in future years some ISIS bastards in the USA or when we are visiting Europe is going to kidnap us and we have to worry about having no head in the foreseeable future. Just great. Or they'll hijack airplanes and start systematically beheading passengers. This sounds wild but I agree with Howard Stern after 9/11. It may be time to just start blowing up countries that harbor these types of people. I mean how else is civilization going to continue on with these f***ing animals roaming our world??? One might classify a person who thinks "blowing up countries" is a good idea in general as well described by the last 5 words of that post.

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Sep 19, 2014 -> 03:47 AM) Yep. Saw this on twitta: Chicago Bulls Rumors‏@chicagobullsbot·1 hr Rumor: Chicago Bulls discussing a trade that would send Tony Snell + Mike Dunleavy + 2nd Rd Pick for Kevin Martin. (Source: Nick Borges) Any reliability to that?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 18, 2014 -> 10:46 PM) Fortunately, the Sox have several more options than Andy Wilkins or "spend 50 million this offseason, do everything they can to win a playoff spot, be "all -in" again, and be saddled with 3-4 more losing seasons afterwards if things don't work out." I know you're the resident "rest all the players once a week guy" but I am not sitting Abreu for Wilkins simply because Wilkins is left-handed. Sure, Abreu will need days off but he should still play 150-155 and get plenty of starts at DH. We don't need to carry an extra 1B unless they have the ability to be in the lineup everyday a la Dunn this year. As far as you thinking Wilkins can have an .800 OPS in MLB, I don't even want to touch that. Unless he's going to slug close to .500 that's not going to happen and if the Sox had a guy on the bench with an OPS of .800 would he stay on the bench? This team surely needs players on the rookie contracts to perform but that doesn't mean we give any guy who's had success in Charlotte a role. Hell, let's just make Garcia the DH and have Jordan Danks and Stephan Gartrell round out the outfield! In any case, I don't know what your fascination is with the payroll and all the arbitrary numbers being thrown around but one thing that is certain is the Sox aren't going to come back with a smaller payroll next year. Whether the plan is to compete next year or in 2016, I would take any wager saying the Sox payroll will grow in each of the next two seasons. This year is probably a lower-end starter, a few bullpen arms and maybe a hitter. I think Hahn will address the left-handed hitter void via trade and he will most likely be an outfielder. To be clear, I do hope they have a rotating DH, I just don't want Wilkins to be any part of it. Fortunately, for me at least, the front office isn't going to pencil Wilkins into any 2015 role. I'd rather see the DH be occupied by Abreu, Garcia, left-handed bat and anyone needing rest. Ideally, they bring in two outfielders, one being a left-handed bat with thump and the other being a strong defender. My impression of the "lower end starter, few bullpen arms, and maybe a hitter" format is that it seems to make sense but it's also the opposite of what Ricky said a few weeks ago. That seems like it barely makes a dent in the ground the white sox need to gain on the rest of the league and does so at a fairly high price. Maybe something changes that on the trade market, but that seems to me like the definition of "Spending money to spend money", which Rick said they were not going to do. Given the choice between that and seeing what guys like Wilkins and other scrap heap finds can do, I would lean strongly towards playing the scrap heap game. It seems likely to produce similar results at a lower cost.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Sep 18, 2014 -> 09:34 PM) Now he did. You willed it to happen. Woo.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Sep 18, 2014 -> 09:11 PM) Hester touchdown! not watching, on a return? Did he finally get the record?

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Sep 18, 2014 -> 08:52 PM) This a great post. Seems like there is a misunderstanding of correlation vs causation here. Balta seems to believe that spanking children directly results violent outcomes later in life. However, while spanking and future violence may be correlated, I seriously question that there is any cause and effect to the relationship. In fact, I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned bad parenting skills, which is likely the true cause of future violence, not the spanking specifically. I will argue with anyone that spanking can be a useful tool for parents if used appropriately (mildly) and infrequently. Obviously it should be used as a last resort or in extreme circumstances, but to say it automatically makes someone a bad parent or that their kid will be more violent in life is beyond ridiculous. I want to stress, I also have not said that, or if I did I didn't say this correctly. On the other point...that's one of the things that makes it harder to come up with an answer and why you don't go with just a single study. You do lots and try to control for different things. When they're all piling up on one side and the effect appears regardless of the level of parenting skills, then you start treating it as an independent variable, and most of the studies available (especially the big ones) are trying to do that.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 18, 2014 -> 08:09 PM) I read the studies and they make sense, but I'm skeptical as to the controls and just how you separate a kid that gets spanked frequently with one that gets spanked sparingly or infrequently. One would think frequent spankings are also correlated with lower income, educational level, potential alcohol and/or drug abuse within the family, all of which probably correlate to weaker parenting skills. I just wondering if we're talking about the kid who gets his ass kicked a few times a week or the kid who gets whacked maybe once every three months for kicking the family dog. Or both. Edit: Balta, feel free to comment on your studies. Sparingly or extremely infrequently is going to be something incredibly hard to control for. If you go through those references, one person presents a small study with a not-statistically significant sample size that finds a slightly positive response, but then the same person who conducted the study is quoted as saying that she can count the number of studies who find a positive effect on 1 hand whereas there are hundreds of studies on the other side. That's the issue with probabilities. It's entirely possible that under certain circumstances there is a slightly positive response, but determining those circumstances is going to be very difficult and it may not be possible to know that beforehand. There's probably a finite chance of a positive result from a very occasional thing for extreme behavior and there's probably a finite chance that the same thing turns the kid into a sociopath. The people I have seen at the grocery store where it's just an instinct for them and you debate whether you ask the person not to do that in front of you, that's the kind of kid who is going to be more prone to violence. Under the absolute correct circumstances? We don't understand the brain or its development well enough to answer that or, more importantly, to predict beforehand.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 18, 2014 -> 07:28 PM) I wasn't responding to you in regards to posting studies about spanking when I said I'd like to see others thoughts on the matter. I read your studies and understand what they are stating. I was more interested in the opinions of other posters here, since not many wanted to address that, but rather, actions more in line with Peterson's. In that case I'll drop it, but I will note that you replied specifically to my post with the "now post 100 links on..." comment that I can't figure out how to take any other way than scornful, so I think I replying with that answer was appropriate. Last I'll say.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 18, 2014 -> 05:45 PM) What's with these bastards and the beheadings?? f***ing barbarians. It got your attention. It's working perfectly. They've turned themselves into the hot rebel group and they're getting attention, assistance, and money worldwide. Saudi Arabia does it and no one cares. These guys are making a show for the cameras to get you riled up, because if you're angry at them, then anyone who is angry at the US starts supporting them.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Sep 18, 2014 -> 06:56 PM) Wait what? You're honestly trying to tell us that light spanking and full-on physical abuse lead to similar outcomes in life? If so, I'll call BS on that and any "scientific" study you have that claims this. You're right, that was poorly phrased. Both are extremely bad, neither produces good results, both lead to kids who are more violent and the exact degree to which that occurs probably is obscured by other factors. In either case, Adrian Petersoning a kid and spanking a kid both lead to children who grow up to be more violent, more likely to commit violent crimes, and there is likely a variance between the levels that I cannot see is statistically significant. Is that more clear?