Balta1701

Same company? Jose Abreu?

Jesus Christ those popups are worse than the Sun Times. Totally unclosable and rendered the article unreadable. My goodness Denver that was awful.

The last 2 North Korean leaders would have accepted exactly what we've seen so far in exchange for what we've given them - a meeting with no preconditions with the US Leader. They'd have gone to this point any time in the last 25 years if the US leadership was willing. They put more on the table than that for Clinton, including a wide range of inspections of their facilities, with the hopes of getting a meeting with him directly. The 2 things that were important - When they were negotiating with Clinton they were in fact cheating on that deal by importing material from Pakistan that could, eventually, have led to development of a Uranium cascade system that could be weaponized (it never was, and all of their bombs have come from the plutonium stockpile that Clinton was trying to get sealed off and removed from Korea). And secondly, in 2001, we declared that negotiation with bad people was something we would not do without them meeting the full set of our requests as preconditions. Barack Obama would have been savaged as a traitor if he had agreed to a meeting with Kim with no preconditions, regardless of the circumstances, because that was the standard we adopted under GWB. The Koreans would have accepted negotiations without preconditions if offered. Donald Trump is able to do that. The outlines of a deal have been there for 25 years: aid, money, and a guarantee of regime stability to protect themselves from a US invasion. The question is whether they'd actually give up their weapons to accomplish that and whether we can trust that they won't cheat on any agreement we make. In the case of the Iran deal, the latter issue was dealt with by making sure that there were intrusive, non-aligned IAEA inspections of all facilities crafted by skilled negotiators at the State Department and UN. I'm not sure the State Department is capable of constructing such requirements right now.

I hate how things few could have predicted are things that I would have predicted. Seriously, it's not hard to reconcile and I have no idea why a person is actually paid to say that. A huge number of people dropped off the rolls after the 2008 collapse and they're slowly being pulled back in as jobs become easier to find. That combined with low business investment is keeping wage pressure from growing despite the low nominal employment rate. I will do that person's job more effectively for the same money. Changing from them to me will improve effectiveness without wage growth.

So NBC, if you're going to run a story saying "The President's lawyer was wiretapped and it collected at least one call from the President", you better damn well have your sourcing bulletproof.

I think it would be nice if Sanchez could hold down 3b well enough for us to feel like picking up an OF on the free agent market this offseason.

I was hoping we could get one DH out of either him or Davidson.

Because the White Sox were unbelievably, ridiculously healthy the few years before this and now they're having a normal amount of injuries, but it seems huge by comparison.

I see no reason why we should be trading for a CF prospect when Robert is in our system. If you want someone on a short term deal for 2019 and 2020 because you're convinced Robert won't be here until 2021 and, like me, you want a trophy before that, I'm ok with that move, but I'm not paying a premium for a long-term controlled CF when I have already paid a premium for a long term controlled CF.

I will be open to packaging guys for a superstar, but not this offseason when there is so much talent available on the Free Agent market. In 2020, we might have a pitching staff already loaded enough that Cease becomes expendable or something like that.

I did not say that we did not have a longer window than that. We may very well be able to win another one after that stretch. However, my priority is those 3 years because those 3 years are the years when the roster is young and cheap. In 2021, Moncada, Giolito, Lopez, and Fulmer are all going to be Arb-eligible, and Moncada is going to break Seager's record for largest 1st-year arb settlement. In 2022, Kopech and Jimenez are going to break Moncada's record for largest 1st-year arb deals if they haven't extended before that. Basically, 2019 and 2020 are the years we will be able to play the free agent market. If we have not won a series by 2021, it will be difficult to add anything major through free agency, and Rodon will be hitting free agency after 2021. Things get tougher from there. Win one in that 3 year period and everything suddenly becomes possible. Miss and everything becomes difficult.

The confederate flags on the way to the airport will be a deeply felt expression of economic anxiety.

well they're also going to make the graph simpler, if you had 50 data points on each of those lines and 3 numbers on each of those lines, for a pitcher making 30 starts it becomes unreadable.

What do you mean by "there are zero data points on them" - are you asking why each individual pitch isn't shown?

I'm ok with giving an opt out, I think the player will expect it, that's just the league we're in and that's what you have to do to write a competitive contract these days. I draw the line at the opt-out being less than 3 years, and I make sure that I can afford the full contract when I sign it.

I've read that post several times and it's a deliberate maneuver by you to serve the purpose of making sure that the point of view of the white person maintains supremacy, that issues relevant to white people are given primacy because we cannot face issues of unfairness. One poster says plainly that social issues need to take a backburner and is called out specifically for the fact that they would not be able to say that if they were not in a privileged position by their own background. You immediately chimed in to attack that perspective, because there is no better way to defend white supremacy than to denigrate those who call for fairness for all groups. It's how the Republicans built their voter suppression apparatus, it's how we built segregation into the fabric of our cities and towns, it's how we wound up with our current immigration policy, and it's how we wound up with Donald Trump, who as you said in the last page or two, got voters excited with the message that Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists and that was the message they were waiting to hear.

If it gets rained out would there be a DH on Saturday? Would probably be better to get the game in, that way Moncada gets an actual day off without having to double up on Saturday.

A demand that a person confront the privilege granted to them by virtue of being white does not mean that no white people can act to help improve a system. You are misinterpreting it that way deliberately so that you do not have to face up to those inequities, as if you did you would feel compelled to act since it is manifestly unfair. By avoiding any discussion of your own privilege and pretending you are above that issue, you can pretend its not your fault that African Americans in Indiana have been systematically disenfranchised, for example, by a voter ID law passed by people you voted for. A demand that a person face their privilege when they are discounting the opinions (and lives) of other races is exactly the opposite of what you are stating it is here.

I'm not ignoring the opt out - I'm saying that it should not factor into how we budget for these guys, because it puts all the risk on the White Sox. We cannot look at a contract for Machado and say "oh it's not going to hurt us holding onto Moncada because Machado is just going to opt out". One of two things will happen in that case - either he doesn't perform well enough and doesn't opt out, or if he does perform well enough then we lose a major contributor when the guy opts out and we have to replace him at the time other guys are becoming expensive. I would call thinking of it as a 3 year deal with an option to be an extremely risky line of thought since all the risk is piled onto the White Sox. Budget for the deal in its entirety. We can afford that deal right now, and it can help put us over the top. Putting us over the top pays for that deal and pays for keeping the other guys later. Thats' the logic.

I'm not going to use the opt-out as a way to make those look better because it leaves the White Sox on the hook, Heyward style, if they get injured or aren't good enough to use the opt-out. I would not sign either of them to a 10 year deal with opt-outs after only 2 years. I need that 3rd year guaranteed from them. That's probably my 1 line i will not cross.

I'm totally ok with this. My priority is winning a world series in 2019-2021. Do that and those deals are balanced out by the surge in season ticket sales - we already saw that with this franchise. And conveniently, they're young enough that committing to them for a decade shouldn't scare us off. You mentioned Pujols a few posts ago - if I could have gotten Pujols for a 10 year deal starting when he was 26, over that stretch Pujols produced an average .946 OPS.

That's not how baseball works. If you have 15 MLB level prospects, you are not going to magically have 1 who fits well at each position, 5 starting pitchers and 1 closer. You are instead going to have guys who arrive in stages (check), a couple positions that don't have someone at a given time (check), and a couple positions where you wind up oversubscribed (see the draft thread where right now we're asking if we should avoid drafting a 2b because of Moncada). Take advantage of these guys while they're cheap to fill a hole with the money you have available. That's why you do a rebuild in the first place.

That was what people said in the thread on the day Abreu sat out, then it turned out Davidson was playing against the Royals and you know how that ended.