Balta1701

If the downside is that they're here and playing for 75-80 win teams in 2019 and 2020 while we write $25 million dollar per year checks, and then they leave and we have to fill the position again in 2021, I think it's clearly not worth the downside.

Yeah the shots of white people around the ballpark doing that is more than a little cringe worthy. I didn't want to root for the Dodgers but tuned in for that last night and well....go Blue.

Huh?

Kopech was a gut punch, the massive struggles of basically everyone else was another, and the injuries up and down the minor leagues was yet another. Kopech isn't 10-12 extra wins good, but there's more than enough setbacks from 2018 to go around.

I know we can't exactly predict alternate timelines, but I will go with a solid bet that having made that trade would change the Rockies fortune by turning the 2 runs they scored off Milwaukee pitching into...well I'll go with 2 runs.

After Kopech's injury...I'm at the point of saying there's a decent chance that these 2 guys sign for deals that are impossible for us to match, with 2/3 year opt outs. We could have the most money on the table and still lose out on both of them because we won't be ready in 2020, and we can't sign a contract that lets the guy out before year 4. We could "make our move" and still lose both because our situation isn't as good as the one other teams have.

Who? Go check out the contract Eric Hosmer somehow got last offseason. Or Carlos Santana who hits 20 some home runs and got 3/$60. I guess you could be referring to Yonder Alonso?

This thread started with RH saying that sometimes you can't pick and choose when a guy hits FA and that's correct...so if we have to sign them now so that we have the player in 3-4 years I'm ok with that, but we can't do that signing and give the early opt out, that just has to be a deal breaker.

How big is the difference between an Abreu like player and a really dominant player? I'm just pondering a guy like Freddie Freeman, who was a 3-5 WAR, 18-23 HR per year, .800-.900 OPS guy, much like Abreu, but then suddenly in '16 Freeman broke out, hit 10 more HR, pushed that OPS near 1.000 and suddenly was an MVP candidate.

Somehow I doubt there's much evidence that opt-outs keep players performing at high levels, as for example Heyward is a big flashing red sign saying that doesn't come true.

If these 2 players wind up with contracts that have 2/3 year opt outs...it is worth noting that the White Sox could have a choice between going after Arenado next offseason and going after Harper/Machado in 2 years at a better value.

That's a 4 year opt out. I'd be ok with that, but if you're the Phillies or the Dodgers, and you could get him by offering similar money and a 2 year opt out, wouldn't you strongly consider that? Those teams are ready to win right now, we are not, so we can't put one in until after we at least have a shot at competing. The White Sox clearly, utterly, cannot offer a 2 year or 3 year opt out. They would be better off saving their money than doing anything less than 4 years.

You and the Republicans have been totally unwilling to do that with the Yale case where it seems like literally their entire class knew that one went down and there's email chains from the whole summer of former Yale students wondering if that was going to come out.

Well, everyone who counted, white landowning males.

I think it's also worth having someone here add that the thing that carried the Cubs to the best record in baseball that year was their starting pitching, and while they didn't develop all of them it was as good as any other team's starting pitching in baseball that year. Someone's got to develop the pitching. If your team can figure out how to keep pitchers healthier than other franchises, that would become a major moneyball type exploit.

Yeah because the Republicans would have totally followed that rule if the Democrats hadn't changed it. I mean, following tradition and rules, fairness, that's totally an accurate and apt way of describing how they've treated the Supreme Court seats and it's clearly only the Democrats who are unfair. Now that's the kind of honest commentary I expect from an average Republican.

And that's the abuser talking point.

The White Sox were at the bottom of ratings last year in no small part because they're rebuilding, because they made the decision in 2015 and 2016 that they would sacrifice future years to win those years. There were games in ~2014 when the Astros had something like <1000 people tuning in, when they were playing on Sundays and the Texans season had started. Now the Astros are back to getting strong ratings across Houston, because they're a better team. Once Kopech got hurt, how many of us wanted to watch that last week? I tuned in for Hawk's last day. There's reason to believe that viewership should recover to reasonable levels in this market...if the White Sox can turn around their franchise. The worry is that the White Sox have been bad for so long that at some point, the erosion of viewers and interest will become locked in and permanent, and even if they return to winning they'll only be in the middle of the league in ratings and still rivaling the Indians and Rays for ticket sales. I don't think we've gotten there yet, but if the first wave of talent in this rebuild flops, it'll have been >a decade since the White Sox's last winning season by the time the next wave of talent arrives. By then I could legitimately seeing there not being enough people left who care to support the franchise even if they get back to winning, and that's a situation where, when the stadium lease runs out, heading somewhere else makes sense.

Got outplayed = the Electoral College and an angry minority that is ok with people's votes counting less than their as long as they're black/mexican/not currently being raped.

You're missing the point. This is where they've won. The opposing forces have collapsed and been beaten and now they can rape and pillage all they want. Literally everything that Democrats have ever passed or used or believed in will now be unconstitutional. There's a case right now where the Court will get to decide whether the Federal Government can ban insurance companies from denying applicants based on pre-existing conditions, they've won that fight, they can finally kill those weak POS humans off and stop having the important insurance companies foot the bill for their lousy living.

I'm going to miss the clean water act a lot.

I know how good Mack has been, but do go look at JJ Watt's numbers this year. Hard to believe that there would be a defensive MVP when 2 guys are at this level, if Watt stays there/Healthy. Tackles: Watt 20, Mack 17. Sacks: Watt 5, Mack 5. Quarterback hits: Watt 7, Mack 4. Tackles for loss: Watt 6, Mack 3. Forced fumbles: Watt 4, Mack 4.

Usually hung juries only happen when the jury decides they're not making progress, I don't believe there's ever a case I've heard of where a judge sets a deadline. If a jury decides they need the time but they're making progress no one will want to shut them down.

FWIW, I don't believe that comment was aimed at you.

What the?