Balta1701

Gracias.

Super 2 is a different deadline than the extra year of control. If the White Sox keep Kopech and Jiminez in the minors through the date in April next year, then they will be free agents following the 2025 season. Their setup will go like this: 2019: pre-arb 2020: pre-arb 2021: pre-arb 2022: Arb1 2023: Arb2 2024: Arb3 2025: Arb4 The super 2 deadline is the deadline where that Arb1 year converts to a pre-arb year. That will probably be passed in June of next year, we already passed it for this year. Because the player reaches arbitration fewer times, they make less money in this case. 2019: pre-arb 2020: pre-arb 2021: pre-arb 2022: pre-arb 2023: Arb1 2024: Arb2 2025: Arb3 If they are called up right now, the schedule is as follows: 2018: pre-arb 2019: pre-arb 2020: pre-arb 2021: pre-arb 2022: Arb1 2023: Arb2 2024: Arb3 (Unless they are signed to an extension).

1. Abreu and Garcia have either damaged their trade value this year, or it has remained low. They are distressed assets right now. 2. I don't think anyone was going to pay the appropriate price for Sanchez. He has many years of cheap team control remaining and that makes him a useful asset even to the White Sox. 3. I could agree in acquiring more distressed assets, but I have no issue with the White Sox passing on Osuna and would encourage the White Sox to continue passing on guys like that. 4. No one was giving up a major prospect for Soria + Fry + Avilan. Fry, for example, might even be a distressed asset of the sort you speak. 5. I don't like the idea of giving up prospects for a distressed asset like Pham, and the Rays actually gave things up to get him. Jake Peter...fine he's not doing anything for us, but the Rays gave up 3 players including the guy who was their #10 prospect coming into the season for Pham. 6. Finally, you need playing time for these distressed assets. It makes no sense to acquire a middle infield distressed asset right now. We could do so in the bullpen, but name some names rather than hypotheticals.

I hate the title of this article from 2005, but this is the difference between being a stenographer and a reporter. The stenographer Woodward got the quotes blaming the CIA and ran with them. The reporter would have taken the fact that those quotes were completely different from what they were saying publicly and challenge them. Any reporter worth his salt would have used these publicly available quotes to — yes, connect the dots — and show Bush’s “make sure no one stretches” comment to be the PR pap it so obviously was. But Woodward just swallowed it.

The most classic example is the WMD case. Woodward basically took the administration at their word that they had no idea and it was all the intelligence agencies' fault. The intelligence agencies weren't going to respond to this because they were intelligence agencies. But what we understand from better sources is that even though the intelligence agencies were saying that, they were saying that because the case was being rigged. They set up their own intelligence agency in the defense department to get versions of the story they wanted, experts who would have said "this makes no sense" were sidelined, they made sure they got the answer "Iraq is building huge numbers of WMD" and then threw their hands up and said "who us?" when the music stopped. Woodward helped make sure they found chairs.

He wouldn't have that access if he wasn't willing to play nice.

I don't want to run Christopher Hitchens's quote even if it's accurate, but I found an equally good summary of Bob Woodward's last several decades: In exchange for access and direct, on the record quotes, he never evaluates those quotes or does anything with them. That was the hallmark of both of his books on the Bush administration - oh they said they believed there were weapons of mass destruction, why should I investigate why they say this? They say it so it must be true. He just reports what Republican politicians say and because they say it, treats it as though it must be true. He'll get one or two juicy quotes to make sure his book gets read by all the people in DC who matter. This willingness to be a stenographer had him actually involved in the Valerie Plame leak coverup, where he was publicly criticizing the prosecutor investigating the case while not publicly revealing that he had received one of the leaks, so he was literally deceiving his readers in order to cover for the administration. He should have no credibility with anyone honest.

:::Holds back involuntary retching reflex:::

Ok, death is not an option. You get 1 of these 2 on your roster next year: Davidson or Palka. Who do you go with?

Pretty soon the unions are going to have much better procedures in place on this, they may even just start hiring people to do it.

Last year after the trade deadline I looked at that roster and couldn't figure out how they were going to win a game. They had an early August losing streak IIRC, but then snapped off an actual winning streak and played .500 baseball for a stretch.

In a vacuum yes, but the strike zone issues probably play into it too. If he makes solid contact on most of his swings in the strike zone but then has issues with being behind in the count and being forced to swing at things on the corners which he can't drive, he might be able to keep a solid average exit velocity while still having a handful of weak, easy ground balls that drop that number.

Still better than the Orioles.

They've got a shot to be within 2 games this series right?

The laughing "I don't really know" when he's asked what boxes need to be checked is kinda hard to square with this unless he's already really good with mind games in the press.

That's not how it works, it's not been a "clock that starts" for several CBA's. That's how it worked in the mid-2000s, now it is instead total number of days on the 25 man big league roster. Even though they'd been called up previously, it was only for short stints, and they could have done the same thing people want to do with Jiminez by keeping those 3 down a short while longer. It might not have been 2 weeks like it would be for Jiminez, but for Moncada for example it would have only been 3 and a half weeks. If he was called up May 1 of this year, it would have burned a minor league option for this year, but it would have given the White Sox control over him through 2024. Ditto the other guys. If this is such a big deal for Jiminez then I can't figure out why it wasn't a big deal for those guys.

Yeah, no.

Someone hide Rick Hahn so Eloy doesn't hunt him down....those bats are gonna want to hit something tonight...

I can still remember 2003 when Paul Konerko was terrible, I thought he should have been sent down, and they played him through it. For a more recent example, 2015 and 2016 Avisail Garcia was not good enough to be a big league player, especially on teams that kept insisting they were competitive. They had him play through it, and that was the right call for his development. They didn't send Anderson down last year either. The only way Moncada is seeing AAA again is via the disabled list or, eventually, after being non-tendered and signed by another franchise if somehow he totally flops. This team is rebuilding, even if Moncada is hitting .200 next July, he's not going to be the difference between us making and missing the playoffs, to the point where you'd send him down.

Lopez or Gio I can understand a tiny bit more because you could option them down next year to convert them into relievers, but I still find that unlikely and worth significantly less than the extra year of control we're now demanding from Jiminez. If they were held down until this year, they could also still have been sent down this year at any point.

So, in reply I would say that the White Sox aren't going to send him down unless he's hurt and there's no way that option is more valuable than the 2024 year of control they gave up. Within a couple years he would have to pass through waivers to be sent down anyway, and if he hits well enough to stay on the team this year (check) there's no way they're going to burn an option on him next year.

I have confidence that he will face the same penalties as Tom Izzo.

Huh? They want to make "damn sure they have to use that last one"? That also makes no sense. They haven't used it, so what do you mean by "make sure they have to use it"? Are you trying to say "Make sure they have one in reserve just in case they have to use it"?

This does not make any sense to me. Being on the 40 man roster does not start your big league service time and does not count towards free agency, only being on the 25 man roster. Had the Sox waited until this May to bring Moncada up, it would have bought them another year with a guy who will probably be harder to sign than Jiminez.

The dialog in that movie is the absolute worst. The fight scene at the end doesn't do much to redeem it, unlike in TPM.