NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 15, 2016 -> 01:00 PM) Maybe Trump and Blago can share a cell? Darren Viola ‏@RRepoz 22m22 minutes ago Suspended Congress seems like a fit. Ben Carson: I Didn’t Want To Endorse Trump, But He Promised Me A Position http://tinyurl.com/z8qc7oe I feel stupid having to ask this, but, are we sure that is really illegal? As no money was changing hands? And a President can appoint whomever they'd like for certain positions? The Blago thing involved money. QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 15, 2016 -> 01:21 PM) Kasich will win Ohio, Rubio will lose Florida and drop out tomorrow. Kasich will stay in and earn enough delegates to prevent either of the other two from earning a majority. The problem then becomes how to convince Trump that him backing Kasich is better than Kasich/Cruz aligning together, because if Trump has 40-48% of the delegates and Kasich and Cruz make any sort of deal without him, you'll lose enough Trump voters in November that it will be impossible to win. I've been saying something like this for a while. I'll do an update on the math tomorrow. But unless Trump runs the table tonight, a contested convention is pretty likely at this point.

The Olt release wasn't a surprise, for me anyway. I'd rather have guys like Davidson and Delmonico get time at 3B. And at 1B he'd have to compete with Ishikawa and Hayes. I just don't think he made sense to keep. Also keep in mind, he may have asked for release so he could seek opportunities with a team that didn't have Frazier, Lawrie, Saladino and those other guys to compete with.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 15, 2016 -> 10:56 AM) Here is the link to the whole MLB list. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/03/out-...tions-2016.html This is the White Sox list. Jacob Turner, Dan Jennings, Jerry Sands, Zach Phillips Pretty sure they're wrong on Phillips, as he was signed to a minor league deal despite being on the 40-man roster.

Five of the writers from Future Sox got together to respond to a few questions going into 2016. It's a good way to get some different perspectives on what to expect this year. This is Part One, covering two questions - who will move up prospect lists the fastest in 2016, and who is your favorite sleeper. Answers from Rob, Will, Brian, Matt L and myself. Part two in a couple days. What are YOUR answers, after reading ours?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 15, 2016 -> 10:28 AM) Not really. I think Bernie Sanders, "tells it like it is". I wouldn't call him a bigot. I think SS more meant, people who constantly say that about themselves are sometimes masking bigotry or general jerkiness. Bernie's supporters don't say that, nor does he, because he is what he is. With Trump, he and his supporters want to say "because I think I should be allowed to be bigoted", but can't, so they say "tell it like it is". And of course, no one says "tells it like it is" about Clinton because everyone else would laugh.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Mar 15, 2016 -> 10:12 AM) I'm not quite sure I understand the logic in allowing US territories to vote in the primaries but not in the general election. It's because the electoral college, for both Presidential and representational purposes, is built around the states. For good or bad, that's where it comes from. Territories are separate and don't get the same rights. My personal view is that at this point, the Presidential election should be a straight national vote, since that is the way to equally franchise everyone. As it stands now, the only votes that matter are in a small handful of states in any given cycle. But for Congress it gets more complicated. The Senate is definitely a state-based concept, and so is at least single representative from each state. But beyond that, there is probably some way for non-state US citizens to get representation in Congress, however there is no clean or easy way to do it. I'd like to see it happen, I'm just not sure exactly how.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 15, 2016 -> 09:32 AM) As usual, George Carlin said it best. The bolded is one of my all time favorite quotes. “Goddam there's a lot of stupid bastards walking around. Carry a little pad and pencil with you. You'll wind up with thirty or forty names by the end of the day. Look at it this way: Think of how stupid the average person is and then realize that half of them are stupider than that. And it doesn't take you very long to spot one of them does it? Take you about eight seconds. You'll be listening to some guy...you say..."this guy is f***ing stupid!"” I think an even better description in this case, is about the groupthink aspect around Trump, more than individual stupidity. I'll give you a movie quote... "A person is smart. People are stupid, dangerous animals." The Trump movement is a perfect illustration of this. I am sure some of the people you'd find in his rallies will in fact be individually, truly, stupid. But I also know people who are otherwise not complete idiots that have been sucked into this idea that Trump "tells it like it is", which is hilarious in that he tells it less like it is than any other politician.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 15, 2016 -> 09:58 AM) I 100% believe that. There is zero way he changed pretty much everything he believes in over the course of the last few years. His policy points, where they are discernible, have changed so often and so recently that you really have no idea how he actually sees things. And people's problem with him isn't really about policy anyway. It's because his level of dishonesty makes Hillary Clinton look like a paragon of fidelity, his promotion of violence in his rallies echos fascist dictators, and he's managed to repeatedly insult every group of people that isn't old-white-Christian-men. That's not policy, that's a horror film.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 14, 2016 -> 04:24 PM) A large chunk of the country feels that both Obama and Hillary are "dangerous" to the country. Danger has become a very subjective and loaded word in modern politics. The last thing I want to see happen is for the shutting down of the public political campaign process to the masses for the "protection" of the candidates, and the general public to be even more detached from the political process then they already are, with candidates being kept solely behind closed doors. Well first, the subjectivity is certainly an issue, you are correct. Except no other candidate in either party in my voting lifetime has been telling people at their rallies to be violent against protestors - just Trump. If people can't see he's an exception, then those people are the problem. It's not a Dem or GOP thing, no one is acting this way towards Cruz or Sanders. Also, I honestly don't think protests like that one happening more often is necessarily a bad thing. As long as the fights can be minimized or not there at all, I think it is healthy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 14, 2016 -> 01:15 PM) Yes. If this is acceptable, it is just as easy for another group to shutdown a Hillary event with the simple justification of "They did it to Trump". Remember they don't have to be right, and they don't have to have a common sense justification to now take this as an acceptable form of political action. Other than the sporadic instances of violence (there were very few of those, fortunately), it would be just as legal. For me personally, I feel it is justified with Trump because of just how dangerous he is. It's not about policy. I wouldn't find it useful or justified if it was against literally any other candidate. But that's my personal view, not a legal one. You make a good point on precedent, though. It could start happening more often. There is good and bad in that. I'd like to see people get more involved, to a point.

There have been a few small contests since my last update. So let's do one before the big March 15th set... BASELINES Total GOP delegates: 2,472 Party-level delegates - unbound: 168 So, voting-linked delegates: 2,304 50.00001% of 2,304 is rounded to 1,153 Total ending delegates to clinch: 1,237 Delegates to clinch a convention-proof nomination: 1,321 CURRENT STANDINGS - total so far: 1,071 awarded (46.5% of voting-linked total) (leaving off the uncommitted for now) Trump: 460 Cruz: 370 Rubio: 163 Kasich: 63 --- Carson: 8 Bush: 4 Fiorina: 1 Huckabee: 1 Paul: 1 PERCENT OF REMAINING DELEGATES NEEDED FOR CONV-PROOF MAJORITY (1,233 voting-linked delegates remaining) Trump: 861 delegates (69.8% of total) Cruz: 951 delegates (77.1% of total) Rubio: 1,158 delegates (93.9% of total) Others: mathematically impossible Again assuming none of the current 4 drop out (which may not be the case)... 802 of the remaining 1,233 voting-linked delegates are WTA, so 431 proportional. DELEGATE COUNTS PLUS REMAINING PROPORTIONAL USING % WON OF THOSE SO FAR... Trump (applying 40.2% to remaining prop and totalling): 460 + 173 = 633 Cruz (36.2%): 370 + 156 = 526 Rubio (16.0%): 163 + 69 = 232 Kasich (6.2%): 63 + 27 = 90 NEED TO WIN IN WTA STATES TO CLINCH PRIOR TO NOMINATION Trump: Must win 688 of 802 Cruz: Must win 795 of 802 (lol) Everyone else: Mathematically impossible if proportional trends continue Not much change, Trump is the only one remotely plausible to clinch prior to convention, and even for him the odds are long and getting longer. So now let's look at the states for March 15th, with recent poll averages (in order of biggest prizes)... FLORIDA - 99 BOUND DELEGATES (WTA) March poll % averages: Trump 39.9%, Rubio 25.2%, Cruz 18.2%, Kasich 8.6% ILLINOIS - 69 BOUND DELEGATES (WTA) March poll % averages: Trump 32.5%, Cruz 21.0%, Kasich 18.0%, Rubio 16.0% NORTH CAROLINA - 69 BOUND DELEGATES (PROPORTIONAL) *NO POLLS IN MARCH *Polls in Feb had Trump with a lead in the 9 to 18 point range, Cruz and Rubio around tied for 2nd OHIO - 63 BOUND DELEGATES (WTA) March poll % averages: Kasich 36.0%, Trump 33.3%, Cruz 20.3%, Rubio 5.3% (worth noting here that Rubio has told his voters to vote for Kasich in Ohio recently, may not show in polls) MISSOURI - 49 BOUND DELEGATES ("Winner Take Most" - some odd rules here) March poll % (just one poll, and big 7% MOE): Trump 36%, Cruz 29%, Rubio 9%, Kasich 8% NORTHERN MARIANAS - 9 BOUND DELEGATES (WTA) *I can't find any polls -- So, Trump will almost assuredly win Florida's 99 and Illinois' 69, which is a big boost for him. Kasich looks likely to take Ohio's 63, which helps him and also makes Trump's run at a bullet-proof delegate count much more difficult. NC who knows, MO the one poll has such a big margin for error but Trump appears to have a slight edge. If someone other than Trump wins (most/prop) NC and/or MO, that will nearly guarantee a contested convention. The picture should have more clarity by Wednesday!

An interesting side effect of the protest is the exposure of just how many people don't understand what "free speech" actually means, Constitutionally. Trump knows just fine, by the way, but he plays the game anyway because he knows his backers in great part don't have a clue. Riles them up when he makes them feel like victims. Anyway, while I was proud of Chicago for what happened (protest keeping a bigot from speaking, mostly peaceful, and well-handled by law enforcement all around), I certainly don't think it does much one way or another for Trump's candidacy. His adherents will continue to ignore anything resembling fact and instead elect to hold tightly to the idea that they somehow lost their "free speech rights". His detractors will point out that this was inevitable with the way he encourages his followers to create a toxic, violent atmosphere. The Republicans unsure if they can support him likely won't use this one event as a decider.

Nancy Reagan did a lot of good things. Lots to praise. The AIDS work is not among them.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 11, 2016 -> 10:11 AM) It finally hit me. His campaign is literally Hope and Change 2016. In terms of lack of specificity? Yup. In terms of emotional appeal? Parallel, but playing opposite ends. Both playing to frustration of course. Except where Obama was trying to play up hope and positivity, Trump plays up hate and anger. In terms of honesty (relative to politicians)? Obama lied and stretched here and there like all of them, but Trump does it at an unprecedented level. In terms of political skill? Very similar in many ways, yes, though obviously with different resumes.

QUOTE (daggins @ Mar 11, 2016 -> 10:35 AM) Given Beck's injury he is definitely behind all those guys. This is key. Beck is not capable, probably, of a full season of starting pitching in 2016 anyway. That would be triple the innings he pitched last year. He needs special handling this year. He may see the majors, but he's not a valid starting rotation option right now. Maybe later - maybe.

Triple play and an inside the park HR in the same game. I wonder if that has EVER happened in a regular season game, in modern times.

QUOTE (AustinIllini @ Mar 10, 2016 -> 10:28 AM) South San Antonio makes no sense. Austin is 80 miles from San Antonio, so a team is better off building on the TX130 between Austin and San Antonio or I-35 between Austin and San Antonio. To clarify, when I said "San Antonio / McAllen", I certainly meant the team would be in the former, not the latter. Just citing an influence area for illustration. Just like Albuquerque clearly is where a team would be, not Santa Fe.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Mar 9, 2016 -> 07:53 PM) Who in the hell are you Look who's talkin'.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 9, 2016 -> 02:15 PM) Back from the dead to chime in. . . 88 wins in 2016. Good enough for at least a WC spot. QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 9, 2016 -> 03:50 PM) Where is the 160+ option? Some blasts from the past in here.

87-75, heart-breakingly close to playoffs but just miss. Offense is impressive, pitching not as much so as people thought it would be. Also, given the scramble of platoon options at catcher, SS and OF, with a competent bullpen, a lot of the success rests on Ventura and his game and lineup management. I think that could make the few-game difference between playoffs and not in the end.

Update to the math after the Tuesday results... BASELINES Total GOP delegates: 2,472 Party-level delegates - unbound: 168 So, voting-linked delegates: 2,304 50.00001% of 2,304 is rounded to 1,153 Total ending delegates to clinch: 1,237 Delegates to clinch a convention-proof nomination: 1,321 CURRENT STANDINGS - total so far: 1,050 awarded (45.6% of voting-linked total) Trump: 464 Cruz: 363 Rubio: 154 Kasich: 54 --- Carson: 8 Bush: 4 Fiorina: 1 Huckabee: 1 Paul: 1 PERCENT OF REMAINING DELEGATES NEEDED FOR CONV-PROOF MAJORITY (1,254 voting-linked delegates remaining) Trump: 857 delegates (68.3% of total) Cruz: 958 delegates (76.4% of total) Rubio: 1,167 delegates (93.1% of total) Others: mathematically impossible Again assuming none of the 4 drop out (which may not be the case)... 802 of the remaining 1,254 voting-linked delegates are WTA, so 452 proportional. DELEGATE COUNTS PLUS REMAINING PROPORTIONAL USING % WON OF THOSE SO FAR... Trump (applying 44.2% to remaining prop and totalling): 464 + 200 = 664 Cruz (34.6%): 363 + 156 = 519 Rubio (14.7%): 154 + 66 = 220 Kasich (5.1%): 54 + 23 = 77 NEED TO WIN IN WTA STATES TO CLINCH PRIOR TO NOMINATION Trump: Must win 657 of 802 Cruz: Must win 802 of 802 (lol) Everyone else: Mathematically impossible if proportional trends continue Trump and Cruz's level of difficulty haven't changed materially. It's nigh on impossible for Cruz, and truly for everyone else, barring big changes in their proportional performance. Of course, this doesn't obey that Cruz and Kasich are trending up, and Rubio down. But as Trump is basically running flat lately, the general parameters around him remain unchanged. He needs to win most of the big remaining WTA states and big chunks of the smaller ones as well, to win prior to convention.

Trump and Cruz dynamics didn't change much last night. But it was a terrible night for Rubio, who it appears will get zero delegates on the night. Kasich continues to climb though, and could become more of a story going forward. I'll re-do the math again today, but just show the numbers instead of all the text.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Mar 9, 2016 -> 07:50 AM) You have to remember that results in the beginning of spring training are skewed especially for hitters because the pitchers are often ML guys working on something or AA/AAA bound players getting a taste of the bigs. It is encouraging though to see a bunch of guys putting up good offensive numbers since the Sox need help on that side. Writer says he does not count out Davidson yet but the Frazier trade probably does. Curious if there seems to be any improvement/emphasis on the defensive side. I'm sure Matt is very aware of both the sample size and ST considerations around numbers - but this is what we have to work with at this point (along with watching the games on stream sometimes). No one sees Davidson getting a job right now. I think Matt was saying he hasn't written off Davidson as a prospect overall, which is different. Frazier's presence means Davidson doesn't have a shot at the 3B job in Chicago (barring injury) for the next couple years, but if he actually manages to improve and look like a prospect again, some other team might see value in him. QUOTE (LDF @ Mar 9, 2016 -> 08:52 AM) sorry for not explaining this idea. this rpt was great on players vying for a mlb gig, and notable players who are very interesting to keep an eye on. now, how bout those battles and players performances in AA and even some of the AAA players. how they are doing and performing. esp some of the unknowns and maybe a surprise player like an int'l player making a name for themselves. i like to know how the AA player, i can't remember his name but the olympic player playing for the minors. either way many thanks. Eddy Alvarez is who you are thinking of. There will also be reports on AA and AAA guys, as there were in this article. Also, we will have articles from writers who will be live on the back fields as March goes on, so watch for that too.

QUOTE (LDF @ Mar 9, 2016 -> 05:39 AM) really nice info and great for those who craves sox info, esp from the ST. can anything like that be done from the minor league pov?? i know it is hard work. just asking. Well, most of the article is indeed about minor leaguers. Did you mean a minor leaguer actually writing about it?

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 8, 2016 -> 11:22 AM) Olt is a non-roster invitee, so there are 63 in camp. http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/team/roster_nri.jsp?c_id=cws We updated the text but forgot to update the number - so that now shows 63. Thanks for pointing it out.