Balta1701

And conveniently...a white minority, which I'm sure happens totally by accident.

The genetic combination between lauri markannen and wendell carter

Sale Verlander on Saturday night if this holds? Yeah I'll have to tune in for that.

Even if they keep them all, they only have about $50 million on the books this year. They have room for a big name if they want it regardless of those 2. If they let both of them go, they have $13.3 million in contracts this year counting Jones's option, and the remainder there is $14.1 million, for a positively Marlins payroll of $27.4 million. I'll be surprised if they let either of them walk, honestly.

I legit can't tell is this supposed to be an insult?

Doing a single $40/$50 million signing would put you back into that penalty box for the next 2 years.

And yet the Bulls aren't on the radar of teams for seemingly anyone who wants traded, as usual. If they want that strategy to work, they're going to need MarkCarter to step up big time this year, or at least to build up enough draft picks where suddenly they look like a reasonable destination for people. No one really wanted to go to Philly, but they got on the list of people because they built up a S*** load of talent. Ditto GSW, although that's to a different extreme.

No one said that paying to keep teachers employed is the "only thing" we should do in response to a downturn, or at least I certainly never said that, only the Republicans will say that. It does not preclude us doing other things, and yes we should do those also. It is definitely interesting that, in the cases of 1991, 2001, and 2008, the recovery from recessions has been getting progressively longer and slower, as each has also been accompanied by so much financial industry turmoil that the layoffs get spread out and then move into global issues.

Andujar for Rodon? Anyone else feelin' this?

- But you have to take into account the interest rate in those costs. If you go into debt to pay for every year bills, particularly at a time when interest rates are going up, that alone offsets a good portion of your proposed revenue increase. - So you're removing people from the eligible workforce at a time when there are no positions available to be filled by those workers, and this is a bad thing because? -The education sector is terrible at scaling? Go look at class sizes during the last recession, go look at employment where, at a time of increasing student populations, employment in the education sector dropped by several percent nationwide, to levels it still hasn't recovered from. They seemed to scale down as well as any industry.

1. Paying to educate people expecting returns over the long term only makes sense as something you'd go into a deficit for if you expect the costs to go down or vanish over time. I wouldn't expect it to be a 1-time or short term thing. Pay the stupid bill. 2. Paying for education during a downturn is an ideal use of resources. It puts money in the hands of people likely to spend it and thus is an economic stimulus, prevents layoffs of skilled workers by states who cannot cover the shortfall, provides options for people who do lose their jobs, and has long-term benefits of a more educated work force.

I would say that is generally a bad thing to run deficits on, particularly in times after a long economic expansion. That's a bill that you're going to spend every year. You're paying to educate people because an educated work force will provide long term economic benefits. If that's a bill, you should pay the bill for it, unless you're in a year when the economy around it is collapsing - then a deficit spending batch is ok.

You’re missing the main benefit of focusing on the small states instead of those icky urban areas. People of the wrong skin color are also over represented in urban areas. By focusing on the small states for both the Senate and the electoral college, we can make sure that at least extra political power stays in the hands of people who have earned it by their important, white bloodlines. If we are going to say Americans aren’t educated enough, and decide that in response we are going to empower some minority, at least if we minimize the votes of the urban areas the minority we empower is the white one.

If a Boras player was the clear best option at #3 I would totally draft one again. If Rodon had actually turned into an Ace, we wouldn't care at all that his agent was Boras right now, having to sign him for extra money didn't hurt the White Sox's ability to target other guys, and Hell, in little Ricky's brilliant maneuvering they gave up their #2 and #3 draft picks that year for the amazing rewards of Robertson and Cabrera. Even though we're terrible, if Rodon was actually a strong pitcher he'd be readily tradeable right now.

Standard corporate fraud response. The higher ups have the organization pay a fine, they fire a few low level fraudsters and blame most of it on them.

Worth noting - The Red Sox raised their ticket prices by 2.5% this year, 2nd straight year they've raised them by that amount.

That's it thanks, i knew there was an elbow somewhere in there.

No that was after he was drafted by the fish, that I'm sure of.

didn't he have TJS right before the draft or am I thinking of someone else?

Also worth thinking about the concept of a "replacement player". A replacement level 1b, a guy who can be pulled up off the scrap heap, might put up numbers just a little bit worse than Davidson. A guy who can be pulled up off the scrap heap to play SS - there aren't a lot of guys who can play SS without making a fool of themselves, so the upgrade if you have a SS putting up a .900 OPS is a lot bigger than if you have a 1b doing so. If you've got a 1b who puts up Frank Thomas numbers you won't really care, but you've got to get a really good 1b to make it worth going for.

The Royals and Astros, I would say absolutely. The Royals waited for years for Moustakas and Hosmer and Gordon and Cain to break out, and even then it took huge bullpen performances from some guys like Wade Davis (a throw-in starter in the James Shields trade) to really make that team title worthy. The Astros had some hope when they broke out early in 2015, but then they had a rotten 2016 before it all came together.

Having Rutherford, Robert, and Madrigal up and struggling in 2020, after the team declared publicly to start the season that they are ready to compete, and then having the org throw their hands up at the end of the season and say no one could have predicted that guys who were raced to the big leagues would put up weak numbers is so White Sox that I struggle to come up with any reason why it won't be exactly what happens.

Won't Fulmer be out of options this year?

Our "Core guys" should not be up by 2020, too many of our core guys are down at Winston-Salem right now and they're A-ballers, they are nearly 2 years away or longer if we do what we did with Eloy for service time, or if they have any setbacks like this season for Robert. Eloy will be a monster and that makes this team better next year if he stays healthier than this year, but what else are we adding? The catchers and Cease should be up by the end 2019, but you can't count on on Collins and Zavala to be difference makers in 2020 since they're catchers. Aside from the young bullpen arms, that's all that will be arriving before 2020. Eloy, Cease, and a couple rookie catchers. That makes this team better than 62 wins, but that's not nearly going to boost them to .500 even if they land a big FA. On top of that, Kopech will at best be coming off surgery, and I don't expect him to be able to produce big time in 2020 when he's re-finding what he worked on this year. I would be floored if Kopech won 15 games in 2020. The only way we can have a good rotation if he's the 5th best pitcher is if Giolito, Rodon, and Lopez all take huge strides forward in health and quality, and Cease continues with no setbacks. Literally your statement "We can have a good rotation" is a different version of my "if nothing goes wrong", and that's a terrible level to aim your short term plans to meet.

With how far away from successful they were this year, any path where this team says that they're going to be competitive in 2020 is relying on the "assume everything goes right from here on out" setup, and we've already seen with Kopech that this has not happened. Furthermore, if they make bets to win in 2020, those bets could actively hinder their ability to field a winning team in 2021 (for example, they might turn down a strong offer for Rodon if they though they could win in 2020, but that offer could make them better in 2021 and beyond if they accepted it).