NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 8, 2016 -> 10:07 AM) One good thing, it's unlikely rubio's constituents move to Trump in large numbers, as Bush/Christies did not appear to. But, as "winner momentum" begins to take hold, it's possible they do. Yeah, momentum is away from Trump and over to Cruz at the moment though. We'll see how tonight, and more so the 15th, go.

Since people seemed to like these last year, we are again doing the weekly stock report for those not guaranteed roster spots in Spring Training. That includes those vying for roster slots, and prospects who are just in camp for other reasons. But we have a new writer on the job this year - Matt (MDL27 on SoxTalk) will be handling them this year. He will also be joining us for in-season recap writing and other posts. Here is the Week One Report.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 8, 2016 -> 09:32 AM) Rubio is facing pressure within his own campaign to drop out before the Florida primary. Some polls have him down by 20 points to Trump, and they argue that this campaign is a lost cause and bowing out now is less damaging to his political future. There are two key dates for Rubio. One is tonight - as he's very close to the cutoff line for delegates in three states (Hawaii is open caucus, but is also very small). He needs to get above the line in a couple of those tonight. The other of course is Florida, where in the latest poll I saw he's down 8 points. He needs to win Florida.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Mar 8, 2016 -> 08:13 AM) For the sake of filling out a lineup, Olt I guess could go to AA to DH of backup 1B/3B. If he has to go to AA as a bench guy, there is no point keeping him in the org. QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 8, 2016 -> 08:17 AM) Find an organization that has a backlog of AAA outfielders and trade Olt there. The team doesn't really need that either though. May, Coats, Sands, Fields and even Ishikawa is more than enough. And I wouldn't want to see anyone take time away from May and Coats, and probably even Sands.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 8, 2016 -> 07:43 AM) If you are going to create a disincentive for companies to do things like this, you have to make the number pretty big to get their attention. $5M isn't going to make that company think twice. That's exactly it. The award isn't about what Andrews deserves, it is about what would make large firms put some better controls in place. And reading about the case, the hotel did some pretty stupid stuff.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 7, 2016 -> 04:32 PM) With Davidson there I can't imagine that's the case come April Yeah, not all of Davidson, Olt, Ishikawa, Delmonico and Hayes will be there for two positions plus some DH time. A couple will be elsewhere or in BHAM, and I don't think any of the first three belong in AA. But Delmonico needs to be challenged or he becomes a 40-man add after the year, and Hayes looks ready for AAA (and age-wise he should be there). My guess is Olt is gone by April, not sure about what happens with the other four.

Always a fun discussion. I think MLB can expand by two more, and I also agree that TB and OAK probably need to move. My list of cities in order of likely success with a team... Charlotte (would need a fully new park, current one is boxed in) San Antonio / McAllen (much better choice than Austin in my view, for this purpose) Portland Las Vegas Albuquerque / Santa Fe Nashville (same as Charlotte) Salt Lake City Montreal (I just don't know that they'd draw in the long run) San Juan, PR Vancouver (way too close to Seattle) Just my .02. Looking at money in towns, scope of fan base, climate, demographics (specifically think getting to places with larger Hispanic populations would be a good idea).

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Mar 7, 2016 -> 02:17 PM) Your allocations of proportional states might be a bit off, as you are going off of historical levels and we have seen recently where Rubio has started to "not get enough" to qualify and thus the split ends up being more along two candidates vs. the multitude of candidates. Don't most upcoming states have like a 20% minimum vote threshold to get any delegates. That wasn't as common in some of the early states (and this is going off of the top of my head). So it could be a little overly punitive to assume a consistent delegate % racked up given current trends. Another wildcard is that Cruz has yet to really prove he can win outside of strong evanglist states (and he has even lost some to Trump). That's all true, it's hard to predict easily, and it probably helps Cruz more than either Trump or Rubio. For the March 8th states, MI and MS both have 15% thresholds, Hawaii 20%, and Idaho none. Hawaii is a caucus, and has a really small GOP population, so there is no telling what happens there. In MI, Looks like Trump and Cruz are both consistently about the 15% in recent polls, while Rubio is just barely above the line and in some polls actually below it - so that will be interesting to watch. Mississippi doesn't have polls from the past two weeks, but in late Feb, Trump was well above and Cruz & Rubio just snuck over too.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 7, 2016 -> 02:09 PM) I have to say, I'm now less convinced that the party will fall behind trump. It looks like there is a decent chance Rubio will stay in race just to take away from Trump. Agreed. The math makes clear that while Trump is still clearly the front-runner, the path to going to convention with the nomination fully in hand keeps getting steeper. The wildcards are A) if Rubio drops out, or B) if Cruz was willing to hand his delegates to Trump at convention.

Update to the math after the weekend results... 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 Add the 168 to that, and the "magic" number is 1,321 to "clinch" a nomination prior to the convention. Other outlets will state 1,237, which is correct in gross terms for a majority of delegates, but I am focusing on what is needed for a convention-proof majority because of the intra-party anti-Trump movement. So, let's now look at where the delegates stand after the weekend contests: Trump: 391 Cruz: 304 Rubio: 154 Kasich: 37 --- Carson: 8 Bush: 4 Fiorina: 1 Huckabee: 1 Paul: 1 TOTAL SO FAR: 901 awarded (39.1% of voting-linked total) After the above, the total remaining number of voting-linked delegates in future states and territories is 1,403. So for each candidate to reach the magic convention-proof number individually, they would have to do the following in the remaining states in terms of delegates and percentage of delegates won: Trump: 930 delegates (66.3% of total) Cruz: 1,017 delegates (72.5% of total) Rubio: 1,167 delegates (83.2% of total) Others: lol If the states were all proportionally allocated, the chances of any of them getting that bullet-proof majority by the convention would be extremely slim. I mean, as well as Trump is doing, even with the help of a big winner-take-all SC he only has gotten 43% so far. So the idea of any of the three managing 66%+ is far-fetched. And even though Cruz and Rubio may not have to get that extra 2 or 3% (because some of the party delegates may actually support them), it's still just too big a stretch for them to reasonably expect. I'm going to assume for the rest of this exercise that none of the big three drop out prior to convention, so they will keep going after delegates. Clearly if one of Cruz or Rubio drops out, the math changes. The wildcard in all this the list of winner-take-all states: FL (99), MO (52), Marianas (6), Ohio (66), V.I. (9), AZ (58), WI (42), DE (16), MD (118), IN (57), CA (172), MT (27), NJ (51), SD (29). Those combine to make up 802 of the remaining 1,403 voting-driven delegates. Let's assume that each candidate wins the remaining proportional delegates (601) at more or less the level they have so far on completed proportional states (all but SC - so 851 total), including Kasich and Carson (because who knows how long they stay, they are pulling smallish numbers anyway). That would put the counts, leaving the Winner Take All states out: Trump (applying 40.1% to remaining prop and totalling): 632 Cruz (35.7%): 519 Rubio (18.1%): 263 Kasich (4.3%): 63 Now, this is similar to a general election electoral college game. For each candidate, which of the WTA states do they need in order to win that convention-proof majority? Here are what delegate counts they need in the WTA states to do that: Trump: Must win 689 of 802 Cruz: Must win 802 of 802 (lol) Everyone else: Mathematically impossible In other words, for anyone other than Trump and Cruz, the only way they can win the nomination outright is to substantially increase their proportional position going forward - probabaly more than is realistically possible. But look also at how difficult that path is even for Trump. If he loses even just CA, or just MD, or FL plus almost any one other state, and he can't clinch before the convention. Put this all together, and it comes down to this: --The only candidate with a realistic shot at going into convention with a bullet-proof majority is Trump --Even Trump's path, unless he picks up more proportional values, is a very tough road to get that majority if trends continue - in fact it looks less and less possible --The party votes won't go to Trump if it's a convention situation, nor would Rubio's delegates or probably most of the stragglers with tiny amounts of delegates in carry --The path above doesn't change much unless either one of the three big candidates drops out, OR one of them make very big moves in their Win% What does all that mean? The nomination likely rests in the hands of Ted Cruz. Partly in an ability to win some of the WTA states. But also if he's willing to back Trump at convention, Trump clearly wins. If he isn't willing to do so, unless Trump absolutely romps the rest of the way, then a contested convention is on the docket.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 7, 2016 -> 10:24 AM) If anyone is curious what some of our minor leaguers look like, Kim Contreras is posting at bunch of pictures on twitter at ‏@FireLeagueKim. Yeah, so Kim is a fairly new writer for FutureSox (she also writes for the A's scout.com site). She will be covering Sox presences in Arizona, including Spring Training, Extended ST, AZL, Instructs and AFL. If you're on Twitter for Sox stuff, you should follow her.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2016 -> 03:13 PM) That assumption sort of falls apart when you look at the policies and budgets he's proposed. Not at all. Policy wonk doesn't mean "policies I agree with". His policy stuff is quite sound, even if I disagree with his approach in many cases.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Mar 4, 2016 -> 02:49 PM) Paul Ryan is a tea party nutter. Romney would be the logical choice but they really should roll with Kasich. Ryan isn't a traditional tea party type. He's actually a policy wonk and takes leadership very seriously. The opposite of Trump.

Beck hasn't pitched in a game since last June. Some rust is expected.

For those unfamiliar, here is a detailed prospect profile on Coats.

I think they'd love Ryan, but I'm not convinced Ryan would do it. I think he wouldn't. My guess is that Plan A is Rubio, or maybe Kasich. If they go outside the current group, if they can't get Ryan, I just don't see anyone that works. Romney again?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 4, 2016 -> 10:40 AM) After thinking about it, I would bet the statute of limitations has run out. May be true. State laws are all over the place on that sort of thing. And as Hickory pointed out, OJ has already been tried criminally so that ship has sailed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 4, 2016 -> 10:09 AM) There has to be a law. Manipulation, hiding or destruction of evidence is most certainly criminal, regardless of being a cop or not.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 10:46 PM) Taking down the GOP establishment sounds great to me. I'm just not willing to vote for a bigot advocating war crimes in order to do it. This exactly. Wanting to take a different road is great, but I'm not going to drive off a cliff. I honestly think many Trump supporters simply don't understand the gravity of the job. Too much media barrage that makes reality shows feel the same as Presidential debates and suddenly some folks equalize them in their minds.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 05:53 PM) Isn't Illinois winner take all? http://abc7chicago.com/politics/why-the-il...atters/1226252/ "There also may be a possibility Trump can win the popular vote in Illinois, but not the delegates. The primary here is not winner take all; Democratic and Republican delegates are chosen by congressional district." ABC says it's not. I'm pretty confindent it is. I get delegates are directly elected here but if it's winner take all it seems they'd still be bound to the winner. The only thing I can think of is it might make a difference at the brokered convention. I.E. Rubio wins district 1 but Trump wins the state. Rubios delegates have to vote for Trump at the conventionn at least the first round. Am I understandino that right? ABC still seems wrong then. There was some conflicting info on Illinois, but the best source seems to be the Illinois Republican Party themselves. Here is their page on this, which explains that there are 15 WTA delegates to the winner, and 54 that are directly elected by district. So it's a hybrid, mostly direct but with a decent chunk of WTA delegates.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 03:47 PM) NSS, I usually agree with your political posts, but the Byrd vs. Duke thing is not silly. It's an intellectually dishonest effort by Trump supporters to paint Clinton and Trump in the same light re: the KKK. Without opining on Byrd, there's a pretty clear difference between affiliating ones' self with Byrd - who spent years apologizing for his prior involvement with the KKK and Duke, who is still a white supremacist. It's also relevant because Trump has said a lot of xenophobic and misogynstic things on the campaign trail. The point here is that people actually believe the "both sides" meme in this instance, even when they are clearly distinguishable. Sorry, to be clear, I meant the obfuscation was silly. Specifically even bringing Byrd into the discussion. It's a distraction. I didn't even give a second's thought to the actual comparison because it is baseless.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 03:45 PM) Debate should be interesting tonight. Fox has stopped supporting Rubio according to reports. They were very complimentary of Trump on Tuesday. They absolutely destroyed Romney for what he pulled today. Are they ready to embrace Trump? For me, the key factor to watch is Cruz and Rubio's interactions. If they completely avoid hitting each other, in favor of hitting Trump only, I think that tells you there is some unspoken (or even secretly spoken) collusion going on there. Odd pairing that otherwise wouldn't hold, so that would probably tell you something.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 03:41 PM) It's not like it's an iron-clad argument or anything, but Trump has shown that he's masterful at messaging and playing the media. Of all the horrible things one can concern themselves with that Trump has done - and there are plenty - this one doesn't even rate. It's silly.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 02:22 PM) The graspsling of all grasps at straws. Regardless of this silly Byrd vs Duke thing, I agree with the this. And that comes from someone who despises Trump.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 12:32 PM) On the original thread subject The core difference in what "Balloon Juice" did and what I did here, is that they are assuming all the polls hold. I didn't even get into the polls aspect, which especially for states more than a couple weeks out are worthless. I looked at from a general trending perspective, without assumptions about the WTA states. Then pointed out (as they did, sort of) that Ohio and Florida are the difference makers, probably. The tone of the candidates and party and others has changed significantly in their statements about Trump in the past week or two, and might make some other shift yet again, so I personally see the polls for non-immediate states to be nearly useless. I mean, clearly if the current polls all hold, he wins outright. Not really a question. But keep this in mind - Ohio has had one poll since September. Florida 3 this year so far. Nothing from California and other big states in weeks or months. Nothing for nearly any of the WTA states since Super Tuesday. Using that set of data is - as you the scientist should recognize - problematic.