Balta1701

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 5, 2017 -> 05:34 PM) Jimmy has taken so many steps forward, that I think you can win a championship with him as your best player. Clearly, building a roster better then the Warriors / Cavs will be tough, as they are pretty clearly the two best teams in the association, imo. I think the key is finding your serviceable players via the draft (since you won't have the high end lotto pick) and landing your big fish via free agency. Reality is free agency is the equalizer in the NBA and with the way players buddy up, I think it is going to be hard just to draft yourself a championship team. Technically Jimmy Butler was a diamond in the rough drafted by Gar...although clearly we have struggled to get an impact player out of the draft over the past few years. Also, Pippen practically won a title on his own that one year without Jordan (different era), and if I had Pippen and no Jordan, instead of dumping Pippen and hitting reset, I'd have been trying hard to get the next pieces. Of course, I am different then others in the sense that I value very good teams and don't ultimately view a championship as the definition of a successful season. If we lost conference finals, in grand scheme, I'd be content...sure if we lost 5 years in a row I'd get frustrated, but I wouldn't want to go the inverse where I could end up being terrible for a long time. I think people quickly forget how bad the Bulls were post-Jordan and how long it took to even get back into the playoffs (and even then, it was a really really long time before we ever had any sort of shot at being a championship contender and that window was short thanks to Rose's injury). To me it is easier to get on the short list of contenders when you have a star and need to add a big fish or two via free agency, then it is when you just have some lottery picks and a no star. None of the routes are easy, but I view the first route as easier and also less likely to result in a total long term dumpster fire. My reply to this is...ok...I'm willing to consider that you're right...but you also told me one thing specifically, that if we brought in D-Wade, Wade would be the guy who helped us get over the hump in recruiting FA. So, bringing in Rondo helped land Wade and bringing in Wade both could have helped butler a little bit and is supposed to help us get over that hump. Regardless of how poorly constructed this roster was, and that was obvious at the time - that would all be redeemed if we landed a strong enough FA class. So, your plan is on the clock next offseason. Bring it.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 5, 2017 -> 04:25 PM) I don't think they were aggressive with him at all. They weren't "White Sox" aggressive with him, but they were "aggressive for a normal franchise" with him.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2017 -> 04:21 PM) It's just the White Sox were sooo aggressive with him. Any other team probably doubles him up at AA or gives him a full year at AAA. That he hasn't fallen on his face at any level is encouraging that he improves. I think that Tim Anderson can, especially if his defense doesn't fall off, easily be a 2-3 WAR shortstop in the big leagues without making major adjustments at the plate. I was expecting far worse from him defensively last year and that turned out to be a strength for him even with a moderately low fielding %age (which could improve with work and a different coaching staff). Let's assume that BABIP and ISO both drop mildly into more normal ranges next year - he's still fast so his baserunning won't be bad, and if his defense stays where it is then he's a 3 WAR shortstop, 2 WAR if his defense falls off a bit. Here's the question - he needs to improve with the bats to become an all star shortstop. I have no issues running him out there as a "slightly above average player" which is where he is with his current D. Slightly above average players under team control for 6 years are really useful! When we're talking about him needing to become a more patient player...improving his approach at the plate would give him the chance to move up to a 4-5 WAR player where you're talking about him as one of the top 5 or so shortstops in baseball. I think he has as good of a chance as anyone we've seen in a while to do that, but I won't be convinced until he does that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 04:21 PM) Balta posted that report last month that technically NC no longer meets the standards of a full democracy. We're on to a different thread, but I felt it important to post this - someone at Slate took a more detailed look at how that professor's methods worked and at least to their pass it didn't seem to stand up to scrutiny.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 5, 2017 -> 01:10 PM) I guess I don't see how Hoyer is much different (and at least he has a year in the system and is probably more willing to work to groom another player then someone like Taylor). Hoyer's numbers this year are better than I remembered, but you can't be surprised if a QB who is turning 32 next year gets hurt during the year compared to 27 year old Tyrod Taylor, so basically what is your goal next year - to add a QB to win games or to mentor someone else? You also mentioned Romo a post or two ago, which makes me think your goal next year is to win games, not to get better for 2018.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2017 -> 11:30 AM) If there was a really good qb at 3 i'd be happy to draft them, but just prioritizing "getting a QB" is not worth it. edit: for example - getting Jay Cutler Spending the 3rd pick on a QB does seem excessive when there isn't an obvious Luck, etc., in this group, but that doesn't change the reality that the Bears have to fundamentally overhaul that position this offseason. Basically, out of their top 3 QBs, which one is a valid starter next year and which one do you want back? I'd rather have the cap space than Cutler and Barkley and Hoyer didn't impress as backups - maybe you're ok with one of them as a backup but you could make a case for bringing in 2-3 new QBs based on the weakness at that position.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 5, 2017 -> 11:08 AM) Well we know nothing will happen at least until end of the midterms, so if something WILL happen it wont be till 2019. So far: Drain the swamp - nope Less influence by wall street- nope Repeal Obamacare immediately - nope Did you catch the edit? I realized I needed to add that after caffeine addition. It doesn't have to be deliberate - if the exchanges are ending in 2019 or 2020, or if the subsidies are even reduced starting in 2018, then virtually all companies on them will leave in 2018.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 5, 2017 -> 11:30 AM) Obamacare looks like it wont even be looked at until 2019 so its anyone's guess what he will do and wont do compared to his promises. I'll believe it when I see it. Their #1 priority for years is that health care should be a privilege of the wealthy. So far they have done everything they needed to make it clear they will make that their goal. It doesn't even have to be on purpose - companies have taken losses in the insurance exchanges because of the hope that once the premiums balanced starting in about 2018 they'd be able to recoup them with the people they'd brought on board. If the exchanges are going to end in 2019, then there's no reason to stay on the exchange in 2018.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 04:57 PM) The problem is, the GM / Head Coach can't just wait forever to address QB. You aren't going to win keeping Hoyer and odds only increase of you never seeing your way to success longer term without finding the solution. Kizer has all the tools to be an NFL QB. I don't see how you ignore the position. I think the best move is to trade for Jimmy G or go with Romo and let him buy you time (i.e., allow you to take a guy in the 2nd or 3rd and evaluate and maybe even take another guy a year from now if after a year you don't like what you see from the first pick). Are you willing to give up that 2nd round pick for JG? That was the price for Cassel.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 05:43 PM) What you and a lot of people aren't getting tho is that the buyer never sets the market value. We as fans and even the front office of the Sox can put whatever value on Sale/Q we want, but if no team meets that price it's just an imaginary value. Value is set by the buying teams. Boston's offer was exactly what Sale's value was...obviously because that's the deal we took making it the best offer on the table. Not to mention saying that the deal was a top 20 prospect "light" is absolutely ridiculous. I think you need some editing here because I was a little lost and I think I realize why.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 04:22 PM) Using a high pick on this QB class looks to be pretty darn stupid. I think they will plug that hole while improving the rest of the team. Do you count a 2nd as a high pick? I would be genuinely disappointed if there's not at least a 3rd spent on that spot this year. I totally get not using that first round pick on a QB, but especially if one of the "potential 1st round QBs" falls as we have seen before, picking early in the 2nd could set this team up.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 01:19 PM) Well the Dodgers went and spent $200m this offseason on the likes of Justin Turner and Rich Hill, crushing whatever theory there was of them caring even a little about the tax. I was one of those who thought the Sox could get some of LA's prospects by taking on salary...well that idea is completely shot. The Yankees make a little more sense as they will almost have to sign at least one expensive starter next offseason (Tanaka will opt out) and have ambitions of signing Harper and possibly Machado in 2 years. But even they aren't going to give up guys they really believe in from the farm just for payroll flexibility. The appeal of Quintana for the Yanks is it helps them be sneaky contenders in 2017 and gives them a solid lefty innings eater right through the heart of their championship window. As of right now, the Dodgers payroll in 2018 if Ethier's big option doesn't vest is under $170 million and very few of their contracts substantially inflate where counting the average would matter. They have some room to add players, but it would have to be someone like Quintana or Dozier where their salary for 2018 is under control. The Yankees have a committed 2018 payroll of something like $130 million - low enough that it's safe to say they will still be players next offseason, they might just cut themselves off at one point. For Quintana, he gets them help in 2017 as you said, but he does so without hurting their ability to keep building during 2018 and 2019. So, both teams still have a shot at getting under the tax line next year, Quintana would work for both for that reason, and the Yankees just have to "not buy everyone" next offseason to do it.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 02:06 PM) None of those teams care about money. Even with the luxury tax. With the multi year penalties there has been a lot of talk about both the Yankees and Dodgers trying to get under the tax line in 2018 so that they can binge easier on the big 2018 offseason. Whether that will happen or not I'm still skeptical, but the Yankees at least have put themselves in position where they could do it.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 12:36 PM) That's probably true as well. For the record, I think the ticking clock works both ways. If the Pirates think they have a window to contend today, they need Q from Opening Day this year. Any missed starts put them further behind the Cubs and the Cardinals in that division. I don't think the issue for them is just competition this season, it's that they have 4 outfielders. It's ok to have 4 outfielders in January. They might even be ok with it in May since Meadows didn't tear up AAA last year. But by July, they're going to have more outfielders than they have positions in the outfield, and they're going to be paying McCutchen a pretty solid amount (for them at least) for the privilege. If they're going to pay Cutch this season and not move him, then they have to contend today because they have him for 2 years. If they're going to move Cutch, they don't want to pay him for 3 months this season first.

QUOTE (South Sider @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 12:03 PM) Makes sense that the Sox are intent on finishing a deal due to how much harder it might be to trade Quintana going forward. I highly doubt that if the Sox would get more from another team at the deadline or next offseason. The time to trade Quintana is now. This definitely hurts the Sox position in negotiations as teams can just decide to wait the Sox out until they accept their offers. Which is probably why the start of ST was specifically mentioned - because its an imposed deadline that doesn't come from the White Sox. If the Pirates can't trade McCutchen before then, they have to decide, are they ok with their current rotation that had 0 guys throw 125+ innings last year or not?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 11:58 AM) I agree with this. I just spent an entire season (well I guess half of it was Benetti's, the other half Hawks) and I just realized that there is no one distinct moment I can remember from him. I mean I can remember general ideas like his goofy sense of humor or his jokes that Stone is cheap, but there was no one signature moment that I can remember at this time. Sure Hawk goes off of the rails, but you can always count on him for a signature call at a big moment. That is what is missing with Benetti. He's a funny and quirky guy, and he knows his stuff, but I don't get any of that extra from him. He could literally do anything, and be the background to everything, but never really stand out. Well, to be fair, what big moment did he have to work with?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 03:21 PM) Balta posted that report last month that technically NC no longer meets the standards of a full democracy. Would be really nice for some sort of equal protection ruling mandating nonpartisan districting. I think we're one of the handful of countries that allows politicians to draw their own districts. HA!

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 04:49 PM) Yep, I agree. I think Melky is going to be on the Sox until June or July some time. FWIW, unlike Frazier, Melky isn't blocking anyone that I see as ready to get big league at bats and we still have a CF opening anyway for that alphabet soup of names I haven't yet learned. Since I see his value as basically zero, there is much less harm in holding him - it's basically just finishing up one set of payments due from the successes of the last 2 seasons. *This could change pending a deal for say, Austin Meadows.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 02:53 PM) Melky and say $5 million for a guy like Jeimer Candelario who is blocked for the foreseeable future. Obviously the Cubs wouldn't be interested but maybe they could find a different team to work with. Why would said team not just go sign Michael Saunders?

QUOTE (beautox @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 02:15 PM) All of Melky's value is tied right into contract, if the sox ate all 15m of it then sure i could see them getting a back half 80-100 prospect for him or a recent draftee that lost some of their shine similar to say Dillon Tate, but outside of that if the sox put him on waivers and he was claimed and JR didn't want to foot the bill he would be gone with no hassle. For a quick check, put a name to it and see if it makes sense. Fulmer is someone we're familair with who is coming off a down year and is going to be in that 50-100 range, maybe a bit above your 80-100 but close enough. Melky Cabrera put up 1.6 fWAR last year, is projected for 1 fWAR this year, and was a replacement level player in 2015. Even considering that it's Cabrera's likely last "contract year" and he might have a history of good contract years, would you give up Carson Fulmer for an extra 2 WAR outfielder if you didn't have to pay for it, or would you just go sign Michael Saunders?

Well, at least for now it seems like the backlash worked and that vote seems on the verge of being overturned.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 01:18 PM) How do you know what is being offered? You saw what the Nationals offered for Cutch, not saying we can get that deal, but I think we can get a couple players in the next tier of a Robles. You're going to be holding a Todd Frazier and getting a pick between the 2nd or 3rd round if you think you're getting anything close to a top 25 prospect in baseball. Or maybe having him pick up the QO.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 11:27 AM) It really isn't though. We have seen the Dems rally behind winners like Fidel Castro, Che Guerva, and Iran in recent years. The whole Machiavelli thing is just disgusting though. But that is the overly simplisitic political system we have apparently put into place now. "We don't want to bomb Iran" = "rally behind Iran". Spectacular doublespeak.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 10:44 AM) Saladino isn't a bad player, but it is funny how some act like he is a rising 22 year old. He is older than Brett Lawrie, is injured just as much, and has a limited ceiling. He could be a decent player for a good team, but he is certainly not a must see what he can do guy. Get 135 starts? What evidence is there he could physically do that? How much more does anyone have to see to "see what he can do"? I think we pretty much know. I would be more than happy to be saying the exact same thing about Brett Lawrie...except we have 1 year of team control of him remaining. Brett Lawrie becoming a 2 WAR player instead of a 1 WAR player...doesn't change this franchise at all.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 10:09 AM) Wow, didnt remember this. GOP did same thing in 05 after gaining unilateral control http://mobile.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/polit...=0&referer= If Donald Trump's cabinet has taught us nothing, its that Republican voters do not care one iota about how much politicians loot the government as long as they aren't letting that money go to the blah people.