Balta1701

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jan 4, 2018 -> 06:24 PM) Still forfeit the draft pick, IIRC. There was another a couple years ago, can't remember who. Cespedes?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 4, 2018 -> 04:47 PM) This Sessions news is unreal. Who the hell is even for this, aside from private prison companies? Even the Republican politicians from these states are up in arms. Who do you think it hurts if they go back to the harshest enforcement they can? Jeff Sessions wanted this job for one reason - to harass minorities. This is one of the greatest ways to throw African Americans in jail - you've got a case where all races are breaking the law like 10% of the time and all you have to do is target the African Americans specifically and viola.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2018 -> 02:10 PM) Jerry Crasnick‏Verified account @jcrasnick 10m10 minutes ago The #Rangers have ramped up their pursuit of free agent outfielder Lorenzo Cain, says a source. That makes a lot of sense.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 4, 2018 -> 01:01 PM) I guess the thought would be that there is minimal interest right now and that a team could buy-low on him instead of competing with teams next off-season for bigger guns (Harper/Machado). Maybe there's minimal interest because he's not a great ballplayer...

I'm goin to the gym but just wanted to leave this here in case anything does happen: Baseball reference war, 2017: Yolmer Sanchez: 3.5 Mike Moustakas: 1.8 Fangraphs WAR, 2017: Yolmer Sanchez: 2.1 Mike Moustakas: 2.2

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 4, 2018 -> 12:56 PM) i just cant help but think about McDaniels going to denver, getting the job, and immediately deciding to launch what was then a third year pro bowl QB after he got the job. Could you imagine if that happened in Chicago? Chicago having a pro bowl QB in their 3rd year? No, totally unbelievable. (Quietly goes back to being angry at RH for rumors)

QUOTE (Quin @ Jan 4, 2018 -> 01:55 PM) This would be dumber than trading Gio+ for Machado Honestly, I think that would have been dumber. But it's fair competition.

Would remain a terrible move. Hell it's even a poor risk if the goal is to get the Royals to offer him a better deal, hurting the Royals (he might say yes and the Royals could balk!)

So apparently due to a major security flaw discovered in their chips, Intel and other companies are going to release patches likely to reduce the speed of "ALL" computers on the market by about 30%. Will hit Intel machines hardest first, Linux and Windows, but future patches likely for all OS.

So far, a week out, the police in this case have not identified the shooter, they have not released the body of the unarmed person that was shot, and they continue holding seized possessions from the family of the dead including computers and cell phones.

In the last 3 seasons, Moustakas has had a 4 WAR year, a 0.7 WAR year, and a 1.8 WAR year (rWAR). That's not bad, but it's certainly not great. His defense has been trending downwards the last several years and was a negative last year. We'd be paying him in 2018 to fill a position where we have a much cheaper option in Sanchez, the first year he'll be on a team that could make some noise in 2019 he'll be a 30 year old, and on my 102 win team in 2020 he'll be 31. So we'd be paying the 2018 premium for him when he's useless to us, we'd be saying that a guy who clearly outperformed him last year in Sanchez can't outperform him this year, and spending $15 million a year on that assertion. And then on top of that, that signing basically blocks us from signing Machado or Donaldson next year. Obviously I don't like this at all.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 3, 2018 -> 01:47 PM) Bigger miss wasn't necessarily Mariota and Wentz, that tradeup could have been substantial, as much as not using some 4th rounders on a guy like Connor Cook, Dak or Kevin Hogan in 2016. Brett Hundley in 2015. Less that any of those guys hit, but was just surprising lack of draft capital on any sort of QB. But I'd rather they feel good about a guy than just draft for position sake. And if that guy served as a backup for 2 years, they could still have drafted Trubisky last year and saved themselves $18 million in the process. And maybe they wind up with a guy like Dak who totally takes the job and holds it, or a guy who turns himself into a tradeable asset after a good 2017.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 3, 2018 -> 01:58 PM) Oh yea, that would have been a GREAT idea with Cutler. LMAO Frankly f*** Cutler. He wants to pout because he's being paid $18 million in 2016 while his replacement is on the roster and he's still starting most of the year? Oh darn.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 3, 2018 -> 12:50 PM) i read it all, your premise was flawed because the bears werent gonna eat that cap hit for two years. They did not have to eat any of it, they could have sat a backup behind Cutler in either 2015 or 2016 and still had playing time for that person. They cost themselves an EXTRA $18 million by not attempting to find someone during the 2016 season.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 3, 2018 -> 01:37 PM) 2017 was the first year the Bears were out from under the huge cap hit that was built into his contract and triggered when he restructured his contract. They dealt with it until this year, which was expected Read the rest of the post? They didn't acquire a potential replacement prior to 2017. That left them: 1. Having no developed QB on their roster who they could count on to have any shot at fielding a competitive team. 2. Way, way, way overpaying a backup QB who was totally ineffective - $18 million in cap money that could have been spent elsewhere (WR) 3. Playing a rookie QB in 2017, the year that Fox's tenure was evaluated as success or failure. Had they at least tried to find a replacement in 2016, they would have had playing time for that replacement that year - Cutler always missed some games for injury and if they judged their replacement ready to play no one would have batted an eye if Cutler was benched for his last few games on a losing team. All that together guaranteed Fox would be judged as a failure. No matter what else happened, in the year that they were supposed to be getting better, he was working with a rookie QB needing a lot of work, and he had a ton of his cap space wasted on a crappy backup. Guaranteed failure even if he was doing a great job.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 3, 2018 -> 12:55 PM) I actually think John Fox did exactly what people expected him to do. The team was an utter mess under Trestman, they stopped trying, they were fighting, it was a complete s*** show. The consensus was that Fox was a professional coach, and he would get them together to put out a true effort on the field, and for the most part they did. They loved playing for him. It was rare that they came out completely flat, usually when they lost big it was because of lack of talent, 4 QB turnovers, or his conservative game management. Which many people brought up the day he was hired, so that was never a surprise. Not a single person thought Fox was the next Super Bowl coach of the Bears, he was a placeholder. The results could have been better, but the tenure wasn't a surprise IMO. I will say one thing - I remain totally stunned that the Bears did not try to fill their QB position at all prior to the 2017 season. They knew the date they could Cut Cutler with little cap damage the second Pace took over, even with Cutler around in 2016 there was always going to be playing time for someone else since Cutler always missed a few games, and no matter what John Fox did there was basically no way they were going to turn this franchise into a winner in either the Cutler era or with a rookie, just drafted QB. It cost them $18 million in cap space this year that could have gone elsewhere and guaranteed that Fox had no shot even if he did everything right.

I find that plot to be almost useless because the health care inflation rate was particularly low for a couple years 2010-2013 or something like that, right after the ACA was passed, but then it returned to well above inflation rates the last couple years.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 3, 2018 -> 10:19 AM) The Royals really should be rebuilding. Unless they think they can get bargains to replace the guys they are losing. They already have a couple of guys who made strong impacts last year early in their careers, so they might be able to talk themselves into thinking "we still have a shot at the wild card!", but yeah I totally agree they don't have a shot against Cleveland in 2018 or Chicago in 2020 and that's where I'd be putting my targets after seeing how well the wild card slot competition has worked the last few years.

If it works for him sure, but I'm not sure I like how much his head position changes during the loading before the swing.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 2, 2018 -> 08:44 PM) I would hate to ignore Arizona's DC James Betcher. Arians is lobbying hard for him to be the next head coach of the Cardinals. He is really good and flat out runs an aggressive and exciting defense and his unit has ranked extremely well each of the past few years (since taking over for Bowles). Given that priority 1 is Trubisky I have to think they'll go offense.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 2, 2018 -> 06:38 PM) People have the right to do whatever they want. Nobody is saying Colin and the others can't kneel during the anthem. However it doesn't have to be a popular move. Again ... like I said, can the average Joe "protest" while at work? The answer is no. You'd be fired in many lines of work for calling attention to yourself via protest. I support Colin's right to do whatever he wants. I'm saying it's not a great way to protest something in a team sport. You are off on your own island. Why not attack the issue in a more productive way when you are offending military by the method you chose? Also you are protesting on company time so to speak when most people can't lest they be fired? You want him to protest in a way that allows you to not have to deal with it. You want these protests to go away so that people can stop telling you to do things like "see what the laws are like in your own city for what is required to charge a police officer with a criem". You asked what you could do in a thread about one of the recent riots and that was on the list of things I gave, and something tells me you never did it since you never replied. I think the fact that you're pissed off is a great demonstration of why this is important. You want them to go away so you can pretend it's not happening.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 2, 2018 -> 02:28 PM) My whole thing is you never know what is a "rumor" vs. "fact". But I am not really interested in bringing in a HC who wants total control because more often then not, it doesn't work. I'd say this goes double for McDaniels given his history.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 2, 2018 -> 02:13 PM) I think Brian's point is that you might as well meet with him and have the conversation and then go from there. I have always thought it is best to have a front office and HC who are aligned, but the ultimate say of the roster should rest with the GM. There you go. If he can't work with someone else and he says that in the meeting, that would make me strongly question whether his hiring would end up much like it did in Denver.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 2, 2018 -> 02:03 PM) They employ thousands of people and regularly hire thousands of contractors during outages. There are huge local economic ramifications for closing the plants, so the human element comes into play. For already open nuclear plants - the cost of building them has already been paid. That can be a reason to keep it open. The cost of a new one is something like $10-$20 billion right now, that cost is enormous. There will be other reasons to operate some of them - generation of radioactive isotopes for medical purposes, for example. But, these plants are, for the most part, going the way of coal plants. They are not cost competitive and you as a republican would obviously that governments subsidizing jobs that aren't cost-competitive is not a way to run even a local economy for long.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 2, 2018 -> 12:28 PM) Doesn't McDaniels want control over the 53? Meet with him and ask?