Balta1701

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 02:05 PM) Then it's a clear mistake to give time to guys or trade for guys who are 1/5 shots to turn their careers around. And of course, why we needed to find a different RF for next season, bringing us back to the reality that Ethier's just about the best option remaining. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 02:10 PM) But the Sox gave Avi Garcia a young player a lot of playing time to fight through his struggles, correct? Is he going to breakout if given another chance? Tell you what, you read my post, look at the bolded which you didn't bother reading because otherwise you would never have said that, and then go read a statistics textbook to figure out what the odds are of failure for a guy who I call a "1/5 shot to turn their career around".

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 02:04 PM) Absolutely not. Then it's a clear mistake to give time to guys or trade for guys who are 1/5 shots to turn their careers around. And of course, why we needed to find a different RF for next season, bringing us back to the reality that Ethier's just about the best option remaining.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 02:01 PM) So you agree the Sox should be drawing another 5k a night? You keep acting like they won't be doing that anyway if they miss the playoffs for the next 1-2 years while the Cubs dominate the market, as the teams are set up to do.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 01:55 PM) The White Sox haven't done that? Obviously, not the same result as Arreitta, who was a throw in, and who never really fought through these struggles with the Cubs you speak of, but they certainly have given plenty of young players a shot the past 3 seasons. So you agree the White Sox should be in rebuilding mode?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 01:49 PM) Who are these players the Cubs gave all the time in the world to work things out, and are now contributing to winning? They did trade to acquire talent. But the only significant player they traded was Samardjiza, and they did that after he turned down a decent extension offer. Drops the f***ing mic.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 01:35 PM) The Sox got Rodon, not bad. We will see what Fulmer does. Sale was a 12 pick. Do you know, since Dayton Moore has been the GM of the Royals, the White Sox have more accumulative WAR out of their 1st round picks than the Royals? In fact, all of the Royals 1st round picks since 2007, and they have had 6 in the top 8, 5 in the top 5, don't add up WAR wise to Chris Sale. Yet, somehow they won the World Series. But of course, that silly notion pretends like "drafting high" is the only thing you do when you're rebuilding. Other things include "Trading to acquire talent" and "playing guys who have struggled but have talent and letting them work through their struggles", and sometimes "taking on guys other teams are willing to sell for a pittance because they believe they're competitive and you have playing time to give them". All of which are valid strategies that have been employed by the teams you cite, and none of which can be employed by a team that gets impatient and insists "We'll be right there at the end!"

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 01:02 PM) I think of it more along the lines of "worst" morally rather than "worst" scientifically. Like you said, back then most people didn't know better. I know you're a scientist but I'm just reminding you that "worst" can have other contexts. They absolutely knew better, they just paid enough politicians and people to deny it. It was literally killing people in the 1920s and it took until the 1980s to get rid of it.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 01:27 PM) You should also point out during that time the Cubs drew 11,137,363, the White Sox drew 7,140,999. Close to 1 million fans a year. The only reason to tank is for the first round pick. After that, any player you can select is available to a team that tried to contend but did not as long as they have their draft picks. The Cubs being awful got them Bryant and Schwarber. All the other guys they could have acquired anyway. Um...ok????????

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 01:24 PM) Ergo, we should be getting 40k a night. Since we've built the consensus betting favorite for the 2016 world series I'm sure we will.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 12:59 PM) They never won it all when they were selling out. The White Sox drew less the last time they made the playoffs than the season before when they lost 90 games. Tanking for a few years would require some pretty spectacular results. I don't know why people have a problem watching Chris Sale and Jose Abreu play baseball and hope the guys around them improve enough to win. It isn't like tanking guarantees you anything either. KC and Pittsburgh were horrible for a long time. The Cubs have sucked for years. The White Sox are getting high draft picks anyway. So what is the difference other than the prospects they would get for their better players. At this point, do you really think the prospects they get for Sale will be better for the White Sox than Chris Sale? Maybe when he is a year or 2 from leaving and there is no hope for competing. This is a fanbase that still holds trading Alvarez, Hernandez and Danny Darwin at the trade deadline 3 games out, against the organization. Worth pointing out every time this statement comes up this season: Theo Epstein took over the Cubs in October of 2011. Since Theo Epstein took over the Cubs that franchise has won 297 games over 4 seasons. Since that same date, the Chicago White Sox have won...297 games.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 01:04 PM) Umm...even with those numbers, would you be comfortable paying $36 million over 2 years to a 33 year old who's essentially a platoon player at this point? I'm desperate, but not that desperate. I still feel like they committed to that kind of move when they traded for several other players under control for only 2 years. They have a 2 year window that closes and if it closes without a playoff appearance then they will be a complete mess, with their other major pieces basically forced onto the trading block. They should act like it. But then again they should have acted like it when FA options were available too.

So, without minimizing how heartless the decisions were in Flint, just to point out the headline is incorrect. Compared to the worst case of lead poisoning in U.S. history, the case in Flint is tiny. For half a century, oil companies pumped out lead in amounts that make the flint poisoning seem puny, literally poisoning an entire generation. A couple decades ago, almost every kid in the country, particularly in poor or urban areas, was exposed to more lead than is in Flint's water. By a lot. This includes me, and probably everyone reading this. And it took 2 decades of fighting (led by a scientist named Clair Patterson) and the establishment of the EPA before the government stopped listening to the people from industry denying that lead poisoning from leaded gasoline was a problem.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 28, 2016 -> 12:55 PM) Yeah i'm a little nervous about this. I'm going to Puerto Rico in a month. My wife is half way through a pregnancy. This thing is spread through mosquitoes and not contact, but I read something yesterday that said it may spread through sex. Some researcher got it and then his wife (luckily not pregnant) also got it and she never left the country. At present, the response seems to be: travel as normal, but understand that there's a tiny additional risk out there. If you come home and start showing symptoms of illness, get yourself to a doctor quick, make sure they know your travel history when you get there, and maybe be a little careful on the romantic contact for up to 12 days after your return?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2016 -> 10:10 AM) I miss the old days when the kids were left out of things, both by the media and by the politicians. Well, we do have one candidate who keeps saying he wants to **** his daughter...

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 27, 2016 -> 02:15 PM) These all seem very pessimistic. Sale/Quintana/Rodon/Johnson/Eaton/Abreu should all outperform these numbers. Well, that's a better ERA than Sale put up last year and a higher OPS than Abreu put up last year. That's a little low for Eaton compared to last year but I get why a projection system would be skeptical that he can put up 2015 type HR numbers again in 2016 when he hadn't hit more than 7 in a season since he got to AA then suddenly he hit 14 last year. The youngsters...always hard to project, could be better or worse in both cases and I wouldn't be surprised. And let's not forget the world just hates Jose Quintana.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 27, 2016 -> 11:11 AM) Lincoln wouldn't have hanged every last one of the treasonous leaders of the Confederacy as should have been done, but I'm pretty confident that he would have pushed Reconstruction a lot harder than Johnson did. The way it was taught to me was the exact opposite of this statement, that Lincoln was as far from radical reconstruction as possible, but I'll admit this is one I haven't followed.

QUOTE (glangon @ Jan 27, 2016 -> 05:10 AM) Interestingly enough, the bullpen WAR doesn't include Matt Albers, I wonder if that Pen WAR would increase even more with Albers added to that mix. Also, did anyone else notice that they had a platoon of Olt and La Roche. Quick check around the Central - they have the White Sox bullpen as the only bullpen in the AL Central putting up 4. Including the Royals. Somehow I'm skeptical about a prediction of the White Sox bullpen being more valuable than the Royals as is, so adding Albers doesn't seem like a difference maker there. Quick count shows the Royals coming in at about 34-35 (had to guess for Kennedy and Gordon, done before those signings) and the Indians and Tigers at 37.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 23, 2016 -> 05:39 PM) I know lots of those on both sides of many topics. The same could be said for the "global warming is the fault of people" idea. This is why any credible publications will have a list of all funding. In the current environment (pun intended) what type of research do you think will garner more attention, grants and publications, everything is fine or the world is heating up so we need to spend more money to change it? And by the way, this is an absolute joke and you should turn away now. "It's a darn shame that the fossil fuel industry doesn't have any money. After all, if they did they might actually do research to protect their product." "I just spent 2 months writing a government grant that has a 15% chance of being funded. I'm going to go dump champagne on a stripper!!!" "Every scientist in the world is willing to do bad science for that 12% chance of a grant being funded this year. If only the oil industry would step in and fund our good science to preserve their product! Oh if only that industry had money!" Seriously, this is a pathetic and deliberate misunderstanding of the lives scientists live. A paper effectively challenging the status quo on some issue is one of the best things you can do for your career, as long as it's good science. The problem with the "climate change is a myth" folks is - it's terrible science!

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 24, 2016 -> 03:21 PM) Ifyou readwhat I said, I dont necessarily agree with, but that is one reason why things aren't getting done. There is still that discussion. However, if you want to use that example, there are times you let it bleed a little to clear out foreign substances to decrease the chance of infection.You don't close it up right away because there may be something else going on. Now I have time to spell this out. I absolutely hate that "it could just be a natural cycle" line because anyone who says it should absolutely be embarrassed. It's a complete failure to learn the first thing about the scientific method. The statement "the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles" you gave is fine. It's 100% true. But here's the problem, saying "The Earth goes through cycles" isn't some magical line that shuts down all debate. When we see some behavior is cyclic, we don't say "This unholy magic!!!! and run away. When we see a cyclic behavior, that's a classic "that's funny" moment, the thing that drives science. When we see a cyclic process, we stop and ask "hey why is this cyclic?" It must have a negative feedback. When something goes up there must be a response that drives things the other way. This sets up as a process we can understand. CO2 going up leads to a warming climate which causes increased weathering rates to drive CO2 back down - a cyclic process. This is the basis of science. When you see a process happening, you make hypotheses about why it is happening and then test those hypotheses. When we see a process that is repeating, we don't throw up our hands and say "this is natural and can't be understood". If you place your fingers on the wrist of another person and feel a pressure wave come through somewhere between 60 and 80 times per minute, you don't start yelling "THIS IS THE WORK OF A DEMON AND IF WE UNDERSTAND IT WE WILL ALL BE DOOMED". You investigate - it's associated with movement of a muscle in the body, it seems like it moves nutrients and oxygen, you formulate a series of hypotheses and test them and it turns out that cycle is the heartbeat. The only other thing that saying "the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles" could mean, is that instead you're saying "I can't be bothered to look to see if anyone has done any research on this I'm just going to assume no one has". You can't be troubled with learning the basic physics behind how CO2 and H2O absorb light in the infrared so if you increase their abundance they must as a consequence absorb more infrared radiation. You can't be troubled to learn about the responses in the geologic record or how we reconstruct temperatures. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, a rapid release of carbon that provoked an immediate temperature response - you can't be troubled to learn that exists. You can't be troubled to look into all the work done on the last ice ages and what moderates them. Ocean acidification sounds hilarious. Take your pick. Either you're saying "science shouldn't be done it's cyclic and that's magic!" or you're saying "I can't be troubled with this so I'm going to assert it hasn't been done". Neither one of them deserves respect.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 24, 2016 -> 08:28 PM) Arizona was the best team in football with a good Carson Palmer. Not so much with this version of him. Carolina is completely winning both the offensive and defensive lines in this game. Carson Palmer isn't a miracle worker.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jan 24, 2016 -> 08:12 PM) I don't think Denver will win, but I think their defense is good enough to keep the game within two scores. The difference you might see in 2 weeks is that Denver isn't going to be stopped by the Carolina O-line like the Cardinals are right now. Also if Carolina is missing the LB that just went to the locker room, that's a serious loss.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 24, 2016 -> 08:08 PM) *Tim Duncan In all seriousness, while Cabrera is much better while healthy, I'd still take Goldschmidt over him. Votto, maybe not. Yeah but Cabrera hit that point where there's always something nagging him a couple years ago. He'll still hit, but he'll always be fighting through something sore.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jan 24, 2016 -> 07:28 PM) Nah, when healthy Miggy is #1. Well yeah but he turns 33 this April. When 100% and in his athletic prime Pujols is #1 out of active players but time is undefeated.

Also somewhat important to note - the 2 seasons he was on the juice, he put up nearly 1.000 OPS numbers. Since he (presumably) got off the juice after getting caught, over the last 3 years, his OPS is .825. Still better than what we've gotten...but that's a lot of money for a mid-.800s OPS with some ongoing downside risk.