NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Mar 1, 2016 -> 07:14 AM) They can be sent down if they stay on the 40 right? Each year you are on the 40-man roster but spend time in the minors, you burn an option year. Davidson used options in 2013, 2014 and 2015. He's out of options. Olt is too. I agree with an earlier post that said if they send Olt and Davidson through waivers, probably one makes it through. Maybe both do, in fact.

The thing that amazes me the most about the support for Trump is that people who like him seem to say some versions of "he tells it like it is" or "he's honest". I mean, how do these people live with that kind of cognitive dissonance? He is, far and away, the least honest candidate in either party in this cycle or any other cycle I can remember. For virtually every talking point and policy suggestion he has, he's been on the opposite side at some point in recent years. He pulls falsehoods out of his ass more often than the rest of both fields combined. How are people this stupid? And I shouldn't have to say this, but again, it's not a GOP thing. You don't see me saying anything like this about any of the other candidates in either party.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Feb 29, 2016 -> 10:32 AM) Nate Silver tweeted Trump will win the primary, and has a very good chance at actually becoming President. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/704324162639290368 Not what he said. Said probably the nominee, could be President. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 29, 2016 -> 10:45 AM) I'm suddenly reminded of a steady stream of articles from Silver about how there was no way Trump would ever win the nomination. He's still saying he likely doesn't win the Presidency in his articles. But he's now saying he's got a good shot at the nomination.

It does seem as if Trump is finally starting to crumble lately, between his latest foot-in-mouth moment (which was a doosie even for him) and people seemingly consolidating more behind Rubio. Again, just a question of time - Super Tuesday is tomorrow. If he really doesn't start to fall apart until after then, that could make things really complicated. And I've now seen guys like Nate Silver and Bill James harping on the incredibly, historically high disapproval and not-ever-for-him numbers Trump has. He just has no shot in a general, even if he manages to get the nomination (which I still think isn't the likely outcome, but is certainly possible).

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Feb 29, 2016 -> 06:38 AM) I don't see Olt at all. He plays one position (and Saladino have Sanchez can play that position as well) and hasn't hit very well. I could see Sanchez as he showed improvement with the stick. But it would help to see him play other positions. I wonder if you can play the outfield some. I know he doesn't have the arm but he's reasonably athletic . The greatest need for that spot is someone who can hit a little bit as insurance/cover for Abby, Laroche, or Melky. In fact it looks to be like charlotte's going to have a logjam at third. Saladino has played some outfield, but that's also where he tore his UCL so I'm not sure the Sox would want him out there again. And yeah, the Charlotte stack for 3B/1B/DH is quite a thing: Davidson, Ishikawa, Olt, Delmonico, probably Hayes. My best guess is that Olt isn't even with the Sox come April, and one of Delmonico or Hayes will stay in AA. In terms of readiness I think Delmonico is best to keep back in AA. So you'd have Davidson at third, with Ishikawa and Hayes at 1B and DH. Plus Ishikawa can also play some OF.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 28, 2016 -> 04:58 PM) I don't see them carying two utility IFs. There is a much greater need to have a guy who can platoon with LaRoche than two guys who can cover the entire IF. Right now, I'd go with Saladino, Schuck, & Sands or Olt, but I'm still expecting another OF to be added which would force Avi into that last spot. I fully expect Sanchez to begin the season in AAA if he's not traded beforehand. Honestly I think Sanchez will hit as well as Sands or Olt would (neither of whom I feel offer much value), plus Sanchez gives you more defensive flexibility and speed as a PR. I'd rather have Sanchez if that's the competition.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Feb 28, 2016 -> 09:28 AM) I have no idea why the writer put 80% chance of Sanchez being the utility player. That should only occur if Rollins is released which he didn't assume with his starting SS projection. I think Sanchez goes back to minors for one more year w hope of his offense improving or worse case building some trade value. There are likely 4 bench spots. One goes to a catcher, the other a 4th OF (almost assuredly JB Shuck). That leaves two open utility roles. Sanchez won't likely win the starting SS job, but if you add up the chances of them carrying 2 UTIL INF's (which is substantial) plus the chance one of Saladino or Rollins is gone and/or hurt (which are smaller but possible), I'd say 80% is a good number. That was my approach, anyway.

Surprising. But then again, crass gonna crass.

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 26, 2016 -> 10:08 AM) Rollins- 70% Saladino- 15% Desmond- 7.5% Anderson- 7.5% Not sure if serious.

There are four candidates for the starting job at shortstop on Opening Day. Who gets the job? Who gets a bench role? Will there be a split presence at the position? We take a look at the candidates here, and try to place percentage odds on each of their chances for a job. What numbers would you put on each?

QUOTE (gosoxgo2005 @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 12:56 PM) I'm of the opinion that at this juncture you must grade the Sox 2015-16 offseason on a pass/fail basis. Either they pass by having made every move possible to contend for a Central Division title and World Series with their world class core, or they fail by not surrounding said world class core with the necessary personnel and complementary pieces that can help lead them to the Promise Land. At this juncture, and especially after having whiffed on one more quality upgrade multiple times this offseason, I'd have to agree, they've failed. But there's still time to "pass", in my less-than-adept opinion. Unless baseball rosters become 1 player each, I don't understand how it can ever be pass/fail.

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 12:29 PM) Not based off of what Hahn said today David Kaplan ‏@thekapman 1h1 hour ago Rick Hahn on @ESPN1000: "I fully expect that we'll make another move for 2016. But, until it happens you never know if it will get done." That's telling. For him to say he expects it, there has to be something very close.

People saying this is some awful offseason aren't dealing in reality. They made quite a few substantial improvements. That said, what is so frustrating to me is that it WAS a pretty good offseason, and they left themselves just one major hole short that would have made it a really good offseason. That makes no sense. Why go most of the way? When Fowler was obviously so affordable? That does piss me off.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 10:47 AM) He sounds like he was a great guy, however wasn't he the main cog behind the Sox going with the Sportsvision fiasco years ago? Yes, but that was one part of his larger effort to get many sports on paid TV that never were before. He was a pioneer in that space, and mostly successful at it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 25, 2016 -> 11:25 AM) We had a 90% top rate for a while in the past. It would also have zero chance of passing with a Republican controlled house anyway. 90% would have a zero percent chance of passing regardless of who controls the House. And Sanders isn't even suggesting that in his plan, he just hinted he'd be open to it.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 24, 2016 -> 03:59 PM) I think Trump is a buffoon. He'd be a terrible, terrible president. But so would Cruz. And probably Rubio. And so would Sanders. And as much a slimy human being I believe Hillary Clinton, she's actually fairly moderate and would basically be an extension of Obama, which is not this terrible thing most Republicans like to convince themselves of. But when you compare Trump to the rest of the clowns, there's not much separating them. I know I've lost all respect for those I know who I see touting Sanders on facebook every single day. On a policy basis, Sanders is actually further from his party's current center than Trump. But I don't think differently about friends or family based on political policy differences. I do, however, think much differently of Trump supporters, and it has zero to do with policy. I'm sorry, but people who support that clown are morons. I'm with Bill James on this (yes the baseball Bill James, who recently wrote a piece about this). The guy can really bring in the idiots, especially angry ones. But that's all there is to his entire platform and campaign - anger, bluster, intimidation. This is not about policy - I don't feel the same way about friend who like Cruz, or Sanders, or Clinton, or Rubio or anyone else in either field. Or in any field I've ever seen as a voter. Literally, Trump is the only one I feel that way about. Which says something.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 24, 2016 -> 04:00 PM) Glad you brought up turnout. That's a huge story that no one seems to be talking about. Republican turnout is absolutely shattering the previous records across the board. Is it Trump? Anti-Trump? Simple hate for the Dems? Democrat turnout on the other hand is way down compared to 2008. I guess there's no inspirational candidate there. The Republican field is, if nothing else, far more exciting than the Democrat one. It was a huge field, still pretty big, with candidates swigning wildly to the right and a carnival barker standing atop the pile. Not surprising at all their primaries are getting big numbers. The Dems have been a 2-person race basically all along. And one of them is old hat to everyone. Sanders has some novelty and excitement, but he's really just the guy trying to keep the Dems from sliding right to fill the void left by the now ridiculously far-right GOP field.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 24, 2016 -> 03:46 PM) I think the wall street costs, etc, are something that Trump would rail on Hillary to the tee and people have a general distaste for wall street, etc. He'll hit on the moderate issues. I never thought I'd say this (even a week ago) but I see more momentum and signs for him actually being president than I ever did before. Nevada gave more reason for that where Trump really grew his overall pull (as well). The old theory was everyone jumping off the falling candidates was going to gravitate to non Trump candidates, but the reality hasn't been so set and as I pointed out previously, as he continues to build momentum more of those "swing" voters or potential non-trump voters will either not vote in the primary (because they realize Trump has already won) or turn their vote to Trump. And those non-primary voting conservatives who, as pissed off as they are with Trump, are not going to sit back and vote for Hillary or Bernie. They republicans are livid with the democrats and the turnouts in the primary are evidence for how irate and motivated the actual base is (and this more than anything should be what really gets the DNC worried), the vote and turnout will ultimately be their for the republican and as people go out, Trump is going to do what he can to bring back in those anti-trump conservatives by throwing him a more experienced VP candidate (imo). Lets just hypothetically say it is Kasich or even Rubio, do you really think those people are going to vote independent or democrat vs. voting for a Trump / Rubio or Kasich ticket? Would Rubio or Kasich turn down the VP bid, I don't think so. Oh I agree that Trump likely pulls in the GOP quite well, even (mostly) the ones who claim they'll never vote for him. But I don't think he'll pull very well on the ones in the middle at all.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 24, 2016 -> 03:09 PM) Conversely, she'll come off as the stiff, boring, entrenched politician that she is (an image she can't shake and is a problem even with liberal voters) while Trump continues to beat the more fun, outgoing, anti-establishment drum, a drum that is resonating despite all the dumb stuff he says. Either way, it'll be fun to watch. I still think if a lot of Dems just say screw it and don't vote because they don't like Trump or Clinton, he's got a shot. He's not going to pull a lot of people from the left, but he'll attract some undecideds and it's pretty clear something about him is getting voters interested and out there voting. And it's not just "he says racist s***." Eh, in the end, Trump will draw a lot of angry people. Frankly, right now, the Dems are only angry at Republicans. I mean, from a voter point of view, the Obama administration has been pretty damn good on fundamentals - economic recovery, health care, etc. The ultra-liberals won't be super-happy, but they'll vote Hillary without hesitation. The only way Trump pulls in angry Dems the way he does the GOP is if they are angry at their own party, which as a whole they won't be.

Hard to say much, other than the change in stance. He's taking soft hacks for now, like all the rest of them. Not using much leverage, which was one of his problems before, but that may be because it is early BP.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 24, 2016 -> 02:39 PM) She's going up against a complete unknown. He could say literally anything at any time. Whether she gets flustered or not is beside the point. I want to see her reaction when he accuses her of not being able to control her own house, let alone the country, etc. This is actually where I think she'd do far better than Sanders. She wouldn't get angry. Angry plays right into it. She'd just give him rope, and let the people who are deciding the election (those not pre-selected based on party) see him for what he is. THat's among the reasons I'm quite confident he loses vs Clinton, if he gets the nomination.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2016 -> 02:22 PM) That is the problem with Trump. We literally have no idea who he is. It's one of many problems with Trump. Not the least of which is his communications, whether genuine or not, are patently offensive to large swaths of the world that the US has to work with.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 24, 2016 -> 01:24 PM) The one reason I think this might go against historical trends is that there is so much anti-Trump sentiment that Cruz/Rubio/Kasich might all stay in longer than they normally would just to keep Trump from getting to 50% of the delegates and thus pushing the decision to the convention. Normally, the other candidates would not hate the front-runner so much that their resistance would fade once one guy has won 3 of the first 4 contests. That's what I've been saying, and what I think ultimately keeps Trump from it. I don't see him going to convention with a majority of delegates, one way or another, because the anti-support around him is just too strong. And I'm pretty sure every other candidate would pick anyone else but Trump. The X-Factor in that, if it does go to convention without a majority leader, is ego - which of, let's say, Cruz or Rubio would be willing to back down.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 24, 2016 -> 12:46 PM) Not ignoring history at all. In fact, looking at past results is exactly why I came to the conclusion that it is over. Last night Trump got votes in Nevada than everyone combined in 2012. People are coming out for him. Every man to win in South Carolina except one to get the nomination. He's doing better than McCain and Mitt at the same juncture. It's not super tuesday, right, but that's in a week and it's going to be a bloodbath for Trump. He leads 10 of 14 states and a lot of those by double digits. His "closest" lead, hes still up 7 points. He's pulled within 1 point of Cruz in the big one, Cruz' home state of Texas. He's -300 at the sportsbook and that's about to go way up next Tuesday. If you truly dont think hes winning the nomination, you can go make a lot of money. He's going to get the nomination short of him killing someone on live tv. Considering he got the pope to back down to him, that may not be enough. As for Hillary in the general, he beats her in the most recent national poll. Now, national polls this early mean nothing, but figure I'd point it out. His plan vs her will be simple, take her down like Bernie has by painting her as corrupt. The difference is Trump has 1000x the ammo. Every time hes on TV, he's going to shout from the rooftops I bribed you and you accepted them...over....and over....and over...and over again. That will never stop once they're 1 on 1. History does cut both ways - I shouldn't have been as dismissive about that, you and Jas are right there. There is precedent to say either/or. Trump has remained strong much longer than I thought he would, that's for sure. Super Tuesday will tell us a lot. What do you mean by the bolded though? Because from what I saw, it was Trump who backed away from his initial reaction, not the Pope. I might have missed something though.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 24, 2016 -> 10:13 AM) Carson voters will all go to trump. They're besties and both anti-establishment. Trump already besting cruz and Rubio combined. It's over. Cruz voters aren't going to Rubio either when he drops. Kasich staying in helps Trump, but Cruz and Carson hurt him. True on first sentence, mostly at least. The idea that "it's over" though is uninformed based on history and math. Not even Super Tuesday yet. Far, far from over. QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 24, 2016 -> 10:41 AM) Trump is moderate on a lot of issues so they are not the problem. The problem is making sure the hard right gives him support as they are the base. Republicans ultimately show up to vote no matter, so I don't think it'll be a big deal. First sentence ignores reality about why people vote for a certain candidate. The reason people have historically high numbers of "anyone but this candidate" against Trump isn't policy points, since as you said he's relatively moderate on the whole compared to the rest of the GOP field. It's that he's a crass, racist asshole. Moderates will see that the same way anyone does who isn't a deep-cut conservative that will vote GOP no matter what. I'd still be against Trump winning the nomination, though it is becoming more and more possible. But I'd bet the farm he'll get trounced by Hillary if he goes to the general. Hard-right will show up for him because, as you state, they always do. Moderates on the whole certainly will not.