Balta1701

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 02:35 PM) Bucket indicated that Jack Z offered Dustin Ackley for Viciedo, and Hahn countered with Nick Franklin. Maybe this is the year Ackley finally puts it together, but put me in the crowd that has no problem with Hahn turning down a a package that solely includes a glorified utility player. If Viciedo is just going to be a platoon player this year, then the Sox won't even be able to get a glorified platoon player for him next year when his salary jumps again.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 02:00 PM) When hasn't America been a plutocracy? So we should stop striving to be better. I'll remember this the next time you complain about unions.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 01:44 PM) I'm thinking Paulino has a real solid game today. I'll ahead and throw out a line... 6 2/3 IP, 2 ER, 2 BB, 5K. Pitch count will remove him from the game early. He walked 10 guys in 22 innings in ST. I'll at least say i'll be impressed if he can cut down on those BB's now that the regular season has started.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 01:33 PM) And for both of your examples, this ruling didn't change anything. Citizens United didn't change anything. You're talking about money influencing politics. Shocker. This is waste, but at least it's up to the person contributing the money whether it's going to be wasted or not. If you think Citizens United didn't change anything then my God you have had your eyes closed for a long time. Those Super-PACS and the money they suddenly had available anonymously was a remarkable new thing that we haven't seen possibly ever.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 01:29 PM) You still have to pay bench players, and he's making about $3 million which is not a lot of money. De Aza is just over $4 million. That's $7 million to improve value or increase versatility or get production out of LF or however you want to look at it. If those two combine for 2 WAR, the Sox are getting a discount, or however you want to look at it. Trading a guy just because you don't have a lot of playing time for him and taking whatever you can get is really poor business practice. Releasing said player when they are in a very good, cost controlled situation is even worse. That's a great setup if you think the White Sox are out to win the division title this year. It's a perfect setup for 2014 to push for a division pennant. As far as I can tell though the White Sox haven't done that anywhere else. Felipe Paulino is on the mound, for example, today; he's the kind of guy you don't exactly count on to build a title contender. Platooning guys like that is a terrible move if you look at the long term plan as anything other than "win in 2014". In 2015, both of those guys prices go up and suddenly we're talking about 2 guys paid $10 million+ for that production, one of whom is a free agent after the year, and the other of whom you still don't know if he's even worth a bag of balls because you platooned him the previous year. I didn't think he should have been released, but if the choices were between platooning him and not offering him arbitration, you're pushing me close.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 01:25 PM) But I'll say it a different way: Generally speaking, no, it's not ideal. But I also don't think this ruling, or the effect of the ruling, will make that much of a difference. And like I said before, maybe there's a positive to this. If some rich person in Illinois wants to give money to conservative based groups in Illinois to try and break the liberal stranglehold on the city, maybe he/she has a chance now. They're not limited in their efforts to give to multiple groups in multiple races. You're viewing this as a potential shield to democracy, i'm viewing it as a potential sword. I think in part, we're both right. And if, for example, a rich person wants to give a whole lot of money to a particular mayor who he happens to have a business deal proposed with...let's say something like selling off the city's parking meters for pennies on the dollar, a deal that will cost taxpayers of the city billions of dollars...well that's just the rich person supporting democracy too. You complain about waste in government? This is, IMO, by far the biggest reason. And you can feel free to stretch that both ways and throw a public union supporting candidates who will protect their pensions or whatever you'd prefer into the same boat.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 01:19 PM) Unlike Brian Anderson, Dayan Viciedo has 1235 plate appearances in the major leagues, has offered mediocrity at the plate, and offers mediocrity (or worse) in the field, save a cannon inserted into his right shoulder joint. Then he should have been released or traded for whatever was available in the offseason rather than paid solid money to sit on the bench, which was my original post.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 01:19 PM) Why would a platoon be a terrible idea? Putting a young player in a position to succeed seems to work fairly well. how is that by any stretch of the imagination a "position to succeed" for this player? He actually hit righties better than lefties last year, he clearly needed work on defense and pitch recognition, he was showing some signs of improving against righties (and did a lot worse against lefties last year). It's the opposite of what we ought to be doing with him. Would you be in favor of platooning Garcia? I sure as heck wouldn't, play him. Same basic concept. You platoon him, you're setting him up for failure.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 01:15 PM) Which, again, has been the case from the start, from local elections to national elections. You ignored my question. Is that a good thing? Do you feel that plutocracy is better than democracy?

Justice Breyer: "Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard”

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 01:06 PM) yea, quite a large sample size to prove your point So you'll agree with me in a couple weeks when it's clear this is a firm platoon that it was a terrible idea?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 01:05 PM) I'm sure Obama and the Dems had no similar set-up. GMAB. So you admit that the graphic you posted was BS is all I'm saying?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 01:02 PM) you are seriously going to compare this to something that happened 8 years ago, with a completely different coach/team/GM? Are you afraid of the White Flag trade this July too? No because I don't expect the team to be 3 games out in July. I did expect that carrying an extra starting LF would cost the LF we might want to develop much of his playing time. And voila.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 01:02 PM) Because American politics hasn't operated this way from the start? Do you believe it is a good thing or a bad thing that a single man can buy the policy positions of an entire party, regardless of whether or not it has happened previously?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 01:02 PM) For reference, here was the spending in 2012: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance No that wasn't. That only counts the 2 "official" super-PACS and not the dozens of smaller, off the books, should be illegal ones. Karl Rove's hundreds of millions of dollars isn't there.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 01:00 PM) Honestly money hasn't made it any better or worse IMO. You see more s***tys ads I guess, but I can turn the channel. Even before Citizens United there were ways of funneling money into campaigns. This doesn't allow a super rich person to buy an election - the individual limits are still in place. And really, as a huge supporter of changing our system to be multi-party, I hope this is going to help that effort. Hopefully some rich person will funnel money into a variety of elections/a new third party to start changing the current system. However, it absolutely enables the super-rich to have enormous influence over policy decisions. We just discovered, for example, that no Republican candidate will be allowed to do as GWB did and refer to the West Bank as "occupied territories". The Republican Party is only allowed to consider those territories as part of Israel due to the influence purchased by one man.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 12:53 PM) You can't bench the ML homerun leader! Which is a good summary of why I said we needed to move one of them before ST ended, because De Aza is a solid player and he's got a good chance of keeping playing time if he gets it.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 12:53 PM) It's April 2nd and one game in. I'm thinking he will get a shot. I've seen this script before involving Rob Mackowiak.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 12:52 PM) Other than "hey the other side might spend more money than mine," what's the argument in favor of those limits? Do you feel the influx of money in our campaigns over the last decade has been a good thing? For example, the potential Republican candidates just spent the weekend kowtowing to a major donor in Las Vegas to try to get his support. I find that concept repugnant to the very idea of democracy. There is also a legacy of direct corruption a mile long in most areas in this country which continues to be ignored. Of course, a valid point in reply is that "these limits didn't do much anyway since you could just launder the money through a superPAC after Citizens United tossed out the rest of the rules", so in that sense I guess we're just cutting down on behavior that would be called money laundering in any other field of life with this decision.

I don't know if others gave up on it, but I'm really enjoying where Agents of Shield has been going the last several months. Really solid twist I didn't see coming last night.

I guess this is great news for anyone who thought there wasn't enough money in elections.

So why didn't we dump Viciedo in the offseason if he's not going to play?

Um...1 post up?

I want them to succeed except when playing the white sox for the most part...because "teams traded for guys from the White Sox who went on to help them a lot" seems like the reputation I want us to have. It may not help a ton in trade talks, but the reverse seems like a rep we don't want. For example, do we think the Yankees and Mariners really are going to trade talented youngsters again? One blew out the shoulder, the other was on steroids.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 08:50 PM) Any idea if it is an aftershock of the quake a few years back, or an entirely new break? This was on a segment of the subduction zone locked since mid 1800s, seismicity from previous events should have died down. 1.7 and 1.9 meter tsunami waves reported in Chile. Forecast for solid wave hits in New Zealand later today.