Balta1701

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Jan 15, 2017 -> 03:24 PM) I can't think of any prospects that have ever been rushed and ruined. Is this guy going to say Beckham? LO freaking L if that's an example. When a majority of prospects do fail you can always come up with reasons why they did. It's always impossible to say that a prospect who was rushed was truly ruined by it, but then again it's impossible to say that a prospect who is rushed and fails wasn't broken by that.

Both British and Israeli intelligence appear to have deliberately leaked to press in their countries that they don't trust the incoming administration's security and by broadcasting that widely they're hoping that their partner countries come to a similar conclusion - specifically they're worried that any high level information passed to the US will be passed to Russia, and that becomes a conduit for information to be passed to Iran/Hezbollah in the case of Israel.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 15, 2017 -> 01:54 AM) Yea whatever, its not good that almost 10% of the league is relocating in a 3 year span and its really all for the benefit of one market that could not really give a s*** about the sport. I would not say that this Chargers relocation is for the "benefit" of Los Angeles. That's fair to say about the Rams, the Chargers are just tagging along because of their stadium pouting.

Devin Hester you are ridiculous

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 14, 2017 -> 07:27 PM) Donaldson would be 33 I believe, so obviously older than you'd ideally like. But he's so damn good right now that I'd expect him to remain a very good player throughout his mid 30s. And I think it's way too early to write off Fisher or Call as 4th OFs. Fisher's bat could very much play in LF and it remains to be seen if Call is given a chance to stick in CF. 2017 will be a big year for both of them as they'll finally start facing some more advanced pitching. One thing worth thinking about - with the White Sox's projected 2019 roster, there would likely be some substantial benefit to signing a guy who has been in the league for a number of years, been in pennant races, and been in the playoffs. I wouldn't go into a playoff race with all 24 and 25 year olds, give me someone who has been there before so that they have someone to hear from.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 14, 2017 -> 06:14 PM) Even if you operate under the assumption that the Cubs are cost-conscious enough to avoid a market in which abundant supply is likely to bring costs down, they'll still be able to give up far less for Quintana in a flooded market and they won't simply be upgrading their 5 slot. Don't forget there may also be some value in winning the 2017 world series.

Man did the White Sox destroy Fulmer last year. Hope it was worth it.

QUOTE (heirdog @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 07:08 PM) I think we'll critique the trade first and then say "now what?" Top quotes after trade: #1 (by far): "...one player light" #2: "should have eaten some salary to get another prospect" #3: "Boom! RH strikes again" #4: "Should have traded him this past summer when Bregman was in play" #5: "Should have traded him next summer when Bregman would have been in play" White Sox win 100 games in 2020 and march to World Series. Frankly I don't even know who we could be up against then. Atlanta? Philadelphia?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 07:33 PM) I'm guessing that depends on who you are. As much as I might complain about certain things, life is pretty awesome here in America/Chicago. White Sox Bears Bulls Cubs Trump. Ok, you've got the Blackhawks and better Pizza than me.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 02:38 PM) Could you flesh that out? What do you mean by "barely even covered anymore?" The ACA requires health care plans to provide a threshold level of care that previously didn't exist. Is it just higher deductible? Higher premium? Doctors not accepting the exchange policies? When the Affordable Care Act was passed it actually anticipated this - there would be companies who would come in, underestimate their costs, and take large losses. The ACA included money to offset these losses in order to keep insurers on the markets. Marco Rubio stripped basically $3 billion of that money out of there by inserting an amendment into a budget bill, dumping those losses onto insurance companies when they had budgeted assuming that money would be there. As a consequence, a number of insurers walked away in 2016 after he did that. They took losses that they weren't supposed to take based on how the law was written. Some insurers would have left anyway. United Healthcare pulled out as a protest over the Justice Department refusing one of their merger acquisitions, they literally left money on the table to play politics. But this cute little sabotage was Marco Rubio's way of hurting the President by hurting people.

We're going to have 4 years of this stuff coming out about the President of the United States.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 01:45 PM) Oh well, I think you guys are wrong. I think some of you don't know what category to put voters like me who abstained as they could not vote for either candidate. In your mind I guess, you feel people like me had a responsibility to vote for Hillary as the lesser of two evils. Many Americans could not do that. For some reason you guys don't blame the DNC for giving us Hillary, you blame us for abstaining from voting for two one percenters who do not appear to be good people. Let's say you simply despise ham sandwiches and sloppy joes equally. Somebody tries to give you one of the two to eat. You say "No I cannot eat either. I detest both. Both make me ill." I mean what Trump did to that reporter can be added to the list of reasons I didn't vote for him but it doesn't change the fact both candidates were bad. Now give me Bernie or Biden and we'll talk. Here's the problem. You weren't just turning down that sandwich for you. You were also turning it down on behalf of millions of other people who were desperate for them. You have helped take health care away from people I care about. You may have helped kill people I care about. You didn't just turn down the sandwich, you lit a whole bunch of other sandwiches on fire and now you're confused why starving people are unhappy about it. You asked a while ago what the definition of privilege was? You're not scared right now. When you throw your hands up and say "not my fault", you better darn well be ok with people who are terrified for their friends pointing at you. That's privilege. You're a white male, presumably with stable health care situation. You don't have to fear a loved one writhing in agony on the floor of your living room because health insurers will turn them down. Or you don't have to fear being deported, or put on a list for your religion, or any of the other things he specifically said he would do.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 02:29 PM) Rephrase the question. Do you mean that its entirely Trump's fault or that WW3 occurs on his watch. Cause I think it is almost 0 that Trump "starts WW3." He is a blowhard, not a bully. There is a big difference. The f***?

QUOTE (Mattchoo @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 01:24 PM) I'm no scout, and I have seen almost nothing on the guy other than 1 video... but by stats alone... if the Rockies are giving up Brendan Rodgers + one other, you take it. The other day I stated that I wanted Meadows + 2. But I'm willing to budget on this if everyone in the organization/league figures that Meadows (or Rodgers) are sure players. Meadows + 1 (Bell?) or Rogers + 1 (no idea) I still want meadows + 2 pieces, but those 2 pieces don't have to be Bell (who remains an ideal fit for Pittsburgh's needs) or Glasnow.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 02:17 PM) http://sportsmockery.com/2017/01/mlb-insid...uintana-trades/ Breakdown of suggested deals Astros = Martes + Tucker + Paulino Pirates = Bell + Keller + Newman/Tucker Yankees = Mateo + Judge + Rutherford + Tate Rockies = Dahl + Rodgers Thoughts guys? I know sports mockery is usually trash, but this is from a former GM I don't have down the 'Stros and Rockies names as well yet, but for me both the Pirates and Yankees deals are light and I would probably hold Q in the case of both of those.

Donald Trump has put Rudy 91u1iani in charge of his cybersecurity group. In response, some people who seem to know what they're talking about did some quick checks of the cybersecurity of Giuliani Partners.

Second item of the day...this one less treasonous and instead this is intriguing on an international relations perspective. During Tillerson's Secretary of State confirmation hearings he explicitly called out China for constructing military installations on artificial islands they've been constructing in the South China Sea. The Chinese had a less than thrilled reaction to these remarks: I cannot say that the decision to take a more hawkish line on the Chinese in this area is obviously the wrong one. Tillerson compared it to Russia's takeover of Crimea in his testimony (irony noted moving on) and he's generally right that this sort of militarization is a definite reshaping of international relations that the Obama admin ranked as a lower priority than Korea as long as other issues in that area weren't affected by those constructions. It certainly seems like that philosophy will change next week.

Ok, so first quasiillegal thing published today, someone leaked this to David Ignatius of the Washington Post. Remember how on December 29 the Obama administration announced additional sanctions against Russia and the next day Putin said he'd wait to decide what to do in response until after Trump was inaugurated? So that explains fully why the Russians had no response. Also worth noting on this - how would the U.S. government know who was calling the Russian ambassador? The only way we would legally know that is through one of those wiretap/metadata collection programs, which means that someone in the government leaked knowledge of that tap to the Washington Post, which means some parts of the government are still not ok with being subservient to Russia.

QUOTE (pablo @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 10:27 AM) It's pretty clear the Yankees are not going to deal Torres and/or Frazier. These are the two gems in their system that they will almost assuredly hang on to. If they weren't in on Sale with those two guys, they won't offer him for Quintana. So yes, if Hahn asked for one or both (unlikely) for Q, then fine but the talks shouldn't have automatically stopped there when the Yankees said no. The Yankees have genuine interest in Quintana - there is no doubt about that. Their rotation after this season is a mess and needs someone like Quintana to anchor it in 2018 and beyond. Contrary to popular opinion around here, I doubt the Yankees will go out to spend on pitching this offseason because they have set their sights on Harper, Machado, Donaldson, Kershaw etc in 2018 offseason. Therefore the only way to upgrade the rotation without spending money is via trade for Q, Archer, or Gray (if a rebound happens). A depth deal involving Mateo, Rutherford, Kaprelian/Sheffield as the headliners rivals just about any offers we could get from Pirates/Astros/Braves unless one of those teams ups their offer and doesn't gut the Yankees farm system. Hahn should work hard to keep the Yankees engaged on Q because of that. The Yankees aren't going to pay the price for Quintana right now. If the Yankees say no to that offer, the White Sox shouldn't come back and drop the price. That's not how negotiation works. If the Yankees aren't willing to deal one of those two gems then the Yankees aren't a deal matchup. We can't make them want to deal them.

Last night, Hoiberg gave Paul Zipser, a rookie with 47 career minutes and a career 1-16 shooting line coming into the game, his first start matched up defensively against Carmelo Anthony. He then played him 34 minutes. he was a -16 on the game. Yes, Mirotic and Butler were out with illness. Yes there were other people who were as bad - Taj put up a -20. Yes he wanted better defense than McDermott would bring. Yes that did not decide the game. Just stand back and ask yourself whether that makes any sense to you on paper. The guy has had basically 1 D-league appearance this year and he got 34 minutes guarding Melo. More commentary

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 11:02 AM) I wonder if the citizens of LA are looking back fondly to the days where they had no NFL team. I think they're pretty ok with the Rams, but my sense from a lot of people is that Plaschke summed this up well yesterday on the front page of the LAT.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 09:58 AM) "Elite" is a relative term Every organization evaluates prospects differently The Quintana trade negotiations clearly have gone differently than the Eaton or Sale deals, but that doesn't mean a framework can't be figured out A Pirates blog said Pittsburgh should offer Glasnow/Newman/Craig and get a deal done. I do not think the White Sox accept that offer. No, the White Sox should not accept that offer. "3 elite prospects" doesn't even have to be the truth. You could easily find ways the White Sox would accept less than 3 elite prospects for an elite player - for example, we got 2 elite prospects back for Chris Sale. I've said this a couple times now, when you start a negotiation you're supposed to ask for something a team will say no to, but not something so high they won't come back if there's a deal to be done. If you're the White Sox, you ask the Yankees for "Torres, Frazier, and Rutherford" to start off. Why? Because if the Yankees say yes you want to walk away astonished about what you got. In response to that ask, if there was a deal to be made, the Yankees would respond "We're not doing all 3 of those, but Torres and Rutherford we would do". The White Sox would then respond "We need more than that, add in player x" and a few rounds would go back and forth. You might darn well not call pieces 3 and 4 elite prospects, or heck even position 2 in the deal perhaps. The Yankees leaked or stated the White Sox initial ask and said how that was too high. Of course it was too high, because they never counteroffered. What does it mean that they leaked this but didn't counteroffer? The Yankees want their fans to know they talked about the player so that they believe the Yanks tried to improve the team, but they actually aren't ready to make a move for Quintana and pay a fair price for him. So no, people should stop saying the "3 elite prospects" line, because that's a negotiation line.

The vanishing Role of the Mediocre Veteran Cabrera doesn't perfectly fit that statistic, but he would have if he had only gotten 400 PAs so he's right on the edge of it.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 12, 2017 -> 06:09 PM) He supposedly nailed both the Niners and Rams interview. He gets a lot of credit for Cousins and is supposedly really really bright. Only question is whether he has enough experience yet to handle the big thing or not. Seems like a decent type of guy to have groom Goff. Risky, sure, but if he can get some experienced assistants and isn't overly arrogant it could end out working out brilliantly. He picked up Wade Phillips to run his Defense today which is about as good of a defensive hire as you can make. The one thing I read that seemed like a convincing argument yesterday was a list of the four youngest coaches in NFL history (name, team, age in years-days, record). Lane Kiffin OAK 32-123 5-15 Raheem Morris TB 33-10 17-31 David Shula CIN 33-101 19-52 Josh McDaniels DEN 33-144 11-17 Yes, when a team hires a new coach the team is already starting off bad, but there's also zero cases of someone at comparable age actually turning a team around. That tells me there could darn well be something more systematic here - either ownership that doesn't trust the kid or players that don't trust the kid or coaches who get theirs too early and need to be chastened once or twice. That said, 0/4 becomes 1/5 and the trend looks a lot different.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 13, 2017 -> 03:19 AM) I said if you were right about Trump/Russia you deserved credit. I answered all your questions honestly. Why am I suddenly the bad guy here? I said in response to your first amendment point that I was not against her right to say what she said, but did Streep pick a poor time to say it? I think so. She coulda done it in post-awards interviews or on Ellen's show the next day. No big deal. If she wants to say it in an awards show fine, but I thought it was in poor taste. Of course she has the right to say it. You're the bad guy because you looked at Donald Trump making fun of a pulitzer prize winning reporter over a physical disability and said "yeah but I think Hillary's mean too so I guess we have to put up with that". You're the bad guy because you looked at the kind of person that would make Meryl Streep give that commentary at an award show where she's getting a lifetime achievement award and respond "but Hillary's bad too and I'm glad I didn't vote for either and I have the right to tell her what to say when".