Balta1701

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 14, 2017 -> 12:40 PM) That is more than any slot in the draft, and higher than any teams' total international pool. So, as I wrote, the prospect better be special. But in each of those cases you're talking about a price limited by MLB rules/draft slotting. I would certainly pay $12 million for a top 50 prospect. We literally just paid what, 3x that for Robert, and that was under rules with those penalties? The neat thing here is that we could get MLB to chip in about $20 million of the value, give or take what the Red Sox did in future FA years.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 14, 2017 -> 12:36 PM) Prospects that costs 8 figures better be good. Not some 18 year old kid in A ball with a 6 ERA, who may be a stud one day. If the cost to the White Sox was $12 million - that's a good but not great signing bonus for an 18 year old if they were FAs.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jul 14, 2017 -> 12:34 PM) I'm not sure the Red Sox would do that deal. It would have to be the White Sox eating the money to get Groome + other interesting prospects. As written I would have the White Sox picking up the 2017 salary entirely, thus getting the Red Sox below the 2017 tax level and taking them out of the multi-year penalty before the 2018 class.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jul 14, 2017 -> 12:29 PM) Jay Groome please. Frazier For Sandoval & Groome (+throwin or two somewhere?) and the Red Sox pick up Sandoval's 2018 and 2019 dollars entirely. Gets the Red Sox their 3b, cuts $12.5 million off their 2017 payroll, should drop them below the tax level and thus out of the multi-year penalty. Does that work? All I don't know is if there is some version of the money the White Sox pick up being spread across the length of the deal when the tax level is calculated.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 14, 2017 -> 12:24 PM) Why should the White Sox pick up any of Sandoval's money? That's Boston's problem. No one is going to help them out there. If they want to give me an extra player to pick up some of that...and it gets them below the tax level...that's creative GMing.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jul 14, 2017 -> 12:19 PM) The White Sox payroll is going to be so low the next 2 years I don't think taking on most of Sandoval's money will really matter at all. Not an argument to go ahead and do it. Only if the Red Sox offered up something worth adding to make it worth our time. Not quite what I was asking - I want to know if the White Sox pick up $15 million of Sandoval's salary this year, in 2017, and that drops the Red Sox payroll by $15 million (then they add Frazier), does that set of trades drop the Red Sox below the luxury tax level or is there some funny rule in there about teams picking up salary in trades and it having to be averaged out over the deal? Because if the Red Sox get under the tax 1 year and can get out of the multi-year repeater penalty, that's an extra $15 million+ we could hand them as a present from the Baseball Front Office.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 14, 2017 -> 11:01 AM) I mentioned this in another thread, but how about something like Frazier for Sandoval, a ton of cash (say 2/3 of his remaining contract) and a guy like Dalbec or Chavis at the top of a deal? It would save the Red Sox about $20 milllion and probably up the return on Frazier. How do the luxury tax implications work if the White Sox pick up some of that money? If that pushes the Red Sox beneath the tax level then that's a much bigger difference maker, but if that doesn't change the amount viewed for the tax level then the value of picking up the funds goes down. Edit: The BoSox opening day payroll was estimated at $200 mil and the tax level is estimated to be $195 mil this year. Boston is in the multi-year repeater area if they pay over the tax line, so every dollar above that tax line is going to be hit by 40% if I'm reading this right. If they could get themselves down below the line somehow, doing so could be worth an additional $20 million on top of whatever the other team picks up over the next few years. On the other hand, if they simply picked up Frazier without dropping salary, they'd be picking up $5 million of his remaining payroll and have to pay about an extra $2 million in tax for that one trade.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 14, 2017 -> 11:34 AM) I feel like every time Rizzo does something like this he is saying "Please work" over and over From "Moves each team should make in the 2nd half"

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 14, 2017 -> 11:56 AM) According to Nightengales report, the first Robo deal was killed at ownership level, due to cash. They are at high end. They did have that big offer to Jansen but it definitely seems like there's an issue here. So I haven't been able to follow this but it seems worth bringing up - what was the deal with the MASN legal judgment that came down yesterday? Supposedly it was favorable to the Nats. Could that be a difference maker?

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jul 14, 2017 -> 11:44 AM) They still have more than enough if they take off the major league roster. Almora, Candelairo, ++ I'm sure would work. I start wondering about diminishing returns there. Do you really want to pay a high price to make your 5th starter that good for 2 months...when your offense has been the 10th or 11th best in the NL?

I spend 5 weeks in the mountains and a week on the beach and you only come away with 2 top 50 prospects? You're slowing down Rick! Anyway, after the Jiminez deal, I don't think I saw this posted anywhere but it is worth being stated. I cannot come up with, in my memory of MLB history, a single franchise that has ever gone from a bottom of the league system and a team mired at the bottom of its division and wound up within 8 months with a consensus top 2 system, with basically zero damaging long term contracts on the books. It often takes GMs 4 or 5 years to do what he did in 8 months. We have seen it take franchises 2 or 3 GMs to figure this out. Fairly or unfairly, Rick Hahn has just set the standard by which every single future GM of a struggling franchise is going to be judged. Teams like the Mariners, Padres, Phillies - that have been stuck at the bottom of a division for way too long - their GMs are now going to be hit with statements about how the White Sox took a 4th place team and went from a top 25 system to a top 2 system in 8 months and why they can't do things like that. I don't know whether Hahn can take this organization the next step...but if he ever finds himself out of a job for whatever reason, he will immediately get an offer to come in somewhere and handle an organization in that same boat. This is the gold standard. We may never see it done this well again.

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Jun 27, 2017 -> 12:22 PM) Based on his numbers and age, some parallels to a younger Jared Mitchell.. Unless he's going to absolutely destroy his leg and cost himself 2+ seasons of development next year, then Jared Mitchell is a pretty poor comparison.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jun 27, 2017 -> 11:41 AM) This is all great, and I don't mean to take anything away from what he's doing, but haven't we seen this before? He pitches otherworldly for the first 5 months, then falls apart in September. That's going to be the real test for him, especially since he'll probably be pitching in October for the first time in his career. What were his numbers like right at the end of his strikeout run in 2015? That was perhaps the most dominant I'd seen him, but then he hit a wall in July.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 26, 2017 -> 11:08 AM) No. Just f***ing no. Millions and millions of Americans had their health care situation completely ruined by the ACA, but hey, if you ever checked the box next to R once, then you wish for cancer to ruin every American family. Just wow. "We could have made a better health care plan if we had made the subsidies larger and done more to control drug prices." "Replublicans reply: "if you can't afford health care you should get a better job - it's your failure. If you cost more than $2 million over a lifetime you don't deserve to be alive." Frankly, yeah, you're ok with that if you've pushed a button for a R. The ACA could have been improved. Instead, we're going back to where we were in 2009 - 50 million uninsured, uninsurables, lifetime caps, plans that don't cover the things you actually get and you don't realize it until it's too late. They have been saying that for 10 years. They have been saying for 10 years that people on minimum wage jobs don't deserve health care coverage. People who get sick better have money already. They have said that over and over and over and over and over again. They had no interest in helping people access health care, their #1 priority was denying it to anyone who was undeserving. So yeah, if you've voted for an R, you've been voting to deny health care entirely to 10s of millions of people. Not to fix any of the problems you might note, to go back to where we were in 2009 instead.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 24, 2017 -> 10:41 PM) Sure. It's a utopian view that is almost impossible. Making those companies who are having record profits go back to being a non profit service to the people is a huge obstacle. I just believe the for profit model for things like this seem to work out for the very fortunate only. And a large part of me feels it's wrong. I'm a social liberal and a fairly conservative person financially. But I do not think systematically keeping care from the poor is right. There has to be a better way than what we are doing. I've seen cancer treatments ruin families. That's something that should never happen. If you child gets sick and you are on the hook for millions, that's a pretty clear sign we aren't Doing this correctly. Imo. If you have voted for a single Republican at the state or national level in the past 10 years, you have openly endorsed families being ruined for someone getting cancer. Or whatever. A single Republican vote was an endorsement of this. They made this 100% clear. Preexisting conditons, lifetime caps, ending Medicaid - they have said this over, and over, and over again. Remember that.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 24, 2017 -> 05:40 AM) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpo...alth-care-bill/ Five GOP Senators now firmly against... Paul, Lee, Heller, Johnson, Cruz Not counting Murkowski, Collins, etc. Portman, Capito, Gardner, Cassidy....those six will be very tough to convince as well. They'll pass it 51-50 this week. Heller has claimed one of the no votes. The rest are putting on a good show for people who are willing to believe them.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 10:39 PM) Think bigger picture man! Get away from those talking-point statistics for a minute. Just try. Just try to play devil's advocate with yourself. Maybe even google "why the ACA hurts poor people". I've never done it but I bet you'll find some interesting points. The poor are poorer because of the ACA, and it's going to get way worse if something isn't done. It basically said, you will forever be poor. Is that really better than some bulls*** health insurance that a majority of doctors (The good ones) don't even want to accept? "Hey Joe Poor, you can come be an apprentice and make a couple bucks more an hour, but you'll lose most of your health subsidies, so you'll actually make less money. Or you can stick with your under 30 hours a week because your boss only has 1000 part-timers now job. You pick. Meanwhile, vote Democrat and demand a $15 minimum wage so your small-business owner boss has to lay off more people, probably you, to compensate for his increased material and labor costs. And make sure you thank me for that $6 loaf of bread in 2020. But hey go see your Medicaid doctor for free for 5 minutes." -Obama "If the poor are able to afford bread, then bread prices will spike to $6 a loaf. The solution therefore...is to make sure the poor cannot eat. It is what Jesus would have done"

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 23, 2017 -> 12:23 AM) This is an excellent post. I agree with you. We're all getting cancer from the byproducts and we're also f***ed because of cell phones. You can't tell me holding a cell phone up to your head for 20 years isn't AUTOMATIC brain cancer. Yes we're being poisoned every single day. Holding a cell phone up to your head for 20 years is not automatic brain cancer. Jesus Christ cell phones have been common since the 1990s. Brain cancer rates haven't changed in ~30 years.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 23, 2017 -> 09:47 PM) When a business models needs to limit human rights there is a conflict that needs to be addressed. We already have laws that limit allowable interest on loans. Just one example. When the ACA was passed, some guy named Tex wondered why there wasn't some balance that could be struck for this country - creating a system in the United States where we still kept private insurers, we kept what people say are the good things about the private sector, but we got rid of the innovative ways to "avoid paying to treat people" and the true, heartless evil that we'd encouraged. It wasn't my perfect bill, especially when the Supreme Court allowed Republican States to opt out of the Medicaid Expansion and threw 15 million people off of health insurance, but that bill was 95% of what Tex asked for. It was that. It was a way to keep health insurance in the private sector without killing people for being poor or sick. If you wanted to keep private insurance, you couldn't have done better at the time. QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 23, 2017 -> 08:07 AM) Not really. But its true the ACA could be so much better. And the correct thing to do for the people that voted these people into office would be to take on the rising costs and improve ACA to serve the people better. Instead we are going to make life harder on poor people, middle class people and people who are already sick. In return we are giving retroactive tax breaks to the rich and people who dont really need them. Thats what this bill is doing. Also most medical associations are against this bill, so not sure what doctors you are referring to. With the experience of 2014-2017, there are 2 changes that needed to be made. The subsidy level for a silver and bronze plan needed to be something like 10-20% higher, and the tax penalty for not purchasing needed to be multiplied by a factor of 2. It was a kluge. It was a weird way of keeping things in the private sector that the government itself could possibly do better. But outside of the states that turned down Medicaid, it ended the idea of dying because you can't get health care. It ended the idea of people suffering because they couldn't see a doctor. It was a uniquely American way of solving this problem. Would it have worked better or worse long term than what France and Germany have done? I don't know. Which is a remarkable statement from a person who thinks the government could handle this better. But I do know that one party immediately decided that anyone who isn't worth enough money doesn't deserve to live if they get sick and anyone who has voted for them in the last decade at the Congressional Level has at worst said they don't care about that. And congratulations. 50% of the births in this country are paid for by medicaid that won't exist by 2020. So congratulations. You killed a lot of babies, but they were poor.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 10:33 PM) Seriously...you are rebuilding...at the minimum, if you didn't want a player on the roster this year (cause you wanted to play the 18 pg's we have)...at least just take a flyer on a Euro player. Not doing anything and getting cash (for a very rich organization) is a complete and utter embarassment. Are GAR/PAX going to max someone this year and then try for 2 more max guys next year or something? I find it absolutely fascinating that you are more angry about the 2nd round pick than giving up the 16th.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 09:34 PM) But don't you get what the ACA really was? A big flaming pile of s***. It's that simple. The real issue is that what we eat and drink is poisoning us. Everything we use is made out of oil byproducts. Everybody's chicken comes from some Tyson factory. Isn't it 1 in 2 men will develop cancer now, or 1 in 3? The problem is cancer. That's it. f***ing cancer. We're all being poisoned and I have no idea how to stop my poisonong or my son's poisoning. Flint was just the beginning. America is one big Flint. And I don't know what to do to protect my loves ones. Move to a tent by some stream in northern Canada? f*** if I know. If you believe that poor people getting access to health care is a flaming pile of S*** then the ACA is exactly that. That has been the Republican Party Policy since 2008+. Yes, ~38% of people in this country will in fact get cancer. Yes, there are things we could do about that - like strengthening EPA regulations. However, cancer death rates continue going down, because we are expanding access to health care. We are about to kick tens of millions of poor people off Medicaid. More than were added by the ACA. If you think that people dying of cancer is a big pile of S***, then tell us a better way to do this. Otherwise, congratulations, a whole lot of people are going to die of cancer who we would have otherwise saved. But they aren't the important ones. It is that simple.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 08:07 PM) I hope you are not suggesting to sign a max contract type player. We need to tank and tank hard. I hope to god we didn't trade Jimmy to go straight back to NBA hell. Who out of this FA class takes the bulls to anything but that place?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 07:32 PM) For those that said we don't have shooting...we did add 2 3 point shooters (+ Dunn) as well as overall athleticism. I legitimately wonder what happens with Wade. For those who wanted it...Bulls picked a lane.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 07:53 PM) It really is that simple. These are the policy preferences of the GOP. They don't really hide them. They value the wealthy having even more money over anything else. This is primarily a tax cut bill, and it will allow them to cut upper class taxes even more in the near future. Personally, I feel the Republicans believe that poor people have not earned treatment more than anything else. That is their policy. The tax cuts are a side point. They say it explicitly. They believe how well you do in life has nothing to do with anything other than how hard you work, and if you are on minimum wage it's your own fault. If you make the mistake of getting sick while on minimum wage, both of those were decisions you made incorrectly. If you are rich and white and inherited money, you made the right call by accepting that inheritance and you deserve treatment for whatever you come down with.

I just got back from Montana and I just holy S***ted enough to come on here and say that. Trading a guy this good and it seems like they get a number of decent probability lottery tickets. Not a single thing you feel confident in. It could work out great, but does anyone have confidence that it will with this org? Does anyone have confidence that the management will be replaced if LaVine flops for 2 more seasons because their scouting is terrible?