NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 13, 2016 -> 08:27 AM) Can you explain to me how Obama was a disaster of a president? Just off the top of my head: Took on a s***ty economy because of a mistake of a War by the previous president, 5% unemployment currently, gas is cheap, Caught Bin Laden (if you care about that), legalized gay marriage, health care costs have risen at the slowest rates in decades. I don't know if he's one of the best presidents ever but if you think it's a "disaster" you're either racist or very uninformed. Don't feed the troll.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 12:21 PM) I think Heyman is emphatically wrong about that. 100%.

Pinned thread in PHT about J2 and whether or not to go over the pool.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 11, 2016 -> 08:26 AM) We did a full gut of our shared master bath in our old house ourselves. Pretty standard layout so nothing fancy, but we did a full tile surround around a glass block window in the shower. Since I was doing the work myself, I spent a lot of time reading up on the best techniques, materials and tools at places like the John Bridge forums. I ended up putting in a Hydroban membrane for water sealing behind the shower. If you're going with a full tile shower stall or anything like that, something to consider. There's a similar product called Red Guard that's supposed to be good, too, and they both have pre-made shower pans you tile right over with the proper slope and water sealing properties. Think about where you might possibility want additional outlets since you're going to have everything torn down to studs. This includes in adjacent rooms. Always 100x easier to run wire and cabling when there's no drywall to worry about. edit: here's a picture of how it turned out Thanks! I'm nowhere near good enough at these things to trust myself to re-do a bathroom. I do small household projects, but the only large project I did myself was re-doing our garage storage. Because, I mean, it's a garage. Anything like the master bath, I'll pay someone to do it. I know that's more expensive, but I also know my limits, both in skill sets and time available. Good point on the outlets - we will definitely be clear on that with the design.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 09:02 AM) From the sounds of what I have read, and with the system as it is now, most big named guys agree early, and then once they have their handshake, they disappear from workouts until July 2. They quit talking to scouts, and get hidden away by the signing teams. Because the relationships are mostly with the teams and the coaches or buscones, they are more worried about the long term fall out of screwing a team over, so those handshake agreements rarely get broken. I have already read stories about the teams working on the July 2, 17 class. And the Sox are part of that too. So again, it's an ongoing thing. And by the way, lots of those handshake agreements get thrown out in the few months leading up to J2.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 08:37 AM) The biggest problem is that from the sounds of it, most of the top talent is already locked up. It is too late. It's in-stream. The White Sox are, like every other team, already locking guys up too - unofficially. And then based on their unofficial stack, they make a decision if it looks like they could go over. They have to decide if they're going to go big and push others out on some players with more money, or stay back. So it's not too late, nor too early - it's around the time the team will be making a call, just as other teams are. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 08:41 AM) The other thing worth pointing out is that the extra cost comes from somewhere. If we push $26 million out the door, are you willing to give up $26 million worth of talent at the major league level to invest in something that won't be here until well after 2020? We spent $3 millionish down there last year. That's an important question, and one that I think is partially addressed by the big contracts falling off after this season.

Should the Sox go over their pool and "go big" in the 2016-2017 amateur international spending period, starting in July? Lots of people have asked about this. So here's a look at the pluses and minuses of doing so. So what do you think? Should they go for it?

QUOTE (CWSpalehoseCWS @ Feb 11, 2016 -> 05:36 PM) Makes sense. Considering Olt and Davidson are are both out options, there is the possibility that neither of them could even be in Charlotte. In that case I would fully expect one or both of Delmonico and Hayes to be on the team. I'm 90% sure Olt is on another team by April. Davidson could be too. And honestly I don't think the team would care if either of them got picked up on waivers. Davidson is worth giving one more shot to if he sticks around though.

Both rankings about right to me. Sox system has three layers. Solid but not spectacular Top 3, relatively weak 4 through the teens, but a nice wave of (finally) LatAm talent and some apparently good 2015 draft picks bringing up the back. And at least a "normal" 10th slot draft coming up, plus maybe that extra 27th pick. The offseason trades took a bit out of the middle, but there is reason for optimism too. Remember that up until around 2012, the system was 28th to 30th basically every year for a number of years.

QUOTE (CWSpalehoseCWS @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 04:25 PM) I don't see how either Hayes or Delmonico start in Charlotte. They both had pretty lack-luster years not deserving of a promotion. It's not necessarily about the stats. And again, context is needed. Delmonico did have a pretty lackluster year in offensive output. But he's also a guy who's talent is much greater than his output - which is the kind of player the Sox will push. And they sent him to the AFL. And Michalczewski & Barnum are going to AA, the club has said this on both. Add it all up, and I think he's in Charlotte. Hayes had a crappy first 5-6 weeks - which makes sense when you consider he went from Low A to AA (the High A to AA jump is usually seen as the biggest, and he added more to that). Look at what he did the rest of the year. Also look at the fact that he walks more than he K's, and that he's a plus defensive 1B. And Barnum is behind him. Again, that says Charlotte to me. These are just guesses of course, but that's my reasoning.

Future Sox will have an article up tomorrow about J2 and the bonus pool decisions.

So, we're re-building our master bath. It's only about 10 years old, when the 2nd floor was added (we bought the house 5 years ago). But whomever did the work on the bathroom was a whack-job. Shower base improperly slanted leaks water on the floor, bad tile and settle work causes more leaks, lousy cheap fixtures we keep having to fix, poor design with unused spaces in weird places, walls so uneven there are big gaps where counters and surfaces meet the wall, and a light fixture simply fell from the wall. Done pouring money into it just to fix a crappy space. Time to start over. Anyway, we're in the shopping and design phase. Anyone have any general advice on bathroom rebuilds? The design/contractor firms we are working with (2 right now, pre-bid) were both among the highest rated on Angie's List, so these aren't out of the blue. Doing a full-on, gut it down rebuild, since water has seeped out of the bathroom in places. We have a general layout agreed upon, starting to window shop new tub/tile/counters/fixtures/etc. Any experience or stories appreciated!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 03:24 PM) Christie is out. Fiorina is out. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Bush and Kasich got their tickets punched and move on. Carson, no one seems to know what he's doing. Probably including him. South Carolina and Nevada coming up. Kasich and Carson in single digits in polls in SC. No recent Nevada polls to help there. But neither of them look to me like they profile well for those states. I'd say they are the ones in biggest trouble right now. My best guess is, we go into Super Tuesday with Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Bush. But I'm not confident on Bush, and Kasich could maybe continue to rally and stick around. Also - only Carson looks like someone who's supporters could go differentially to Cruz. Christie lines up more with Bush or Kasich. Fiorina I can't tell really. Kasich or Bush would go to Rubio most likely.

Christie is out. Fiorina is out. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Bush and Kasich got their tickets punched and move on. Carson, no one seems to know what he's doing. Probably including him. South Carolina and Nevada coming up. Kasich and Carson in single digits in polls in SC. No recent Nevada polls to help there. But neither of them look to me like they profile well for those states. I'd say they are the ones in biggest trouble right now. My best guess is, we go into Super Tuesday with Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Bush. But I'm not confident on Bush, and Kasich could maybe continue to rally and stick around.

Seems about right. Solid top 3, well below average 4 to teens, but a nice wave of younger guys behind that.

Sanders beats Clinton by 20+ percentage points. But thanks to the super-delegate system, Clinton actually won more delegates, 15-13. Totally messed up system.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 09:59 AM) May had a pretty rough round at Birmingham last year. I guess the AA-AAA move isn't as huge as the movement up the lower levels (considering the number of AAAA players in AAA). Needs context. May was tearing it up at AA, then went down with a concussion after that nasty collision with Tim Anderson. He struggled a little bit on his return, but that's to be expected due to the nature of the injury and just time away from baseball.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 08:37 AM) As it stands (and I know these things change) that Charlotte roster looks rough. I guess Anderson is the only real prospect who figures to be there to start the year. I guess they'll figure a way to shove all of the Olts and Ishikawas into Charlotte. The major league roster doesn't room for a corner infielder bench player. I'd say the lineup in Charlotte should be quite good. Pitching though, should be pretty bad, and they are playing in a band box. Lots of high scoring games for the Knights most likely. Lineup should include Anderson, May, Coats, some combo of Ishikawa/Davidson/Hayes/Delmonico/Olt (all of which should mash in AAA) on the corners, and Smith/Brantly at catcher. That's a lineup that should hit AAA pitching pretty effectively, even though many are not solid prospect-wise. QUOTE (3GamesToLove @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 08:51 AM) One prospect website I read the other day (might've been BA, might've been 2080) mentioned expecting Fulmer to start in Charlotte. That sounds a little aggressive; I think he'll get a few starts in AA first. That was I think Sahadev maybe, and it goes against what the club has said previously. All the indications I've seen are he's in AA to start the year.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 09:20 AM) On the other hand, Romney also maintained that steady 30-35% polling support throughout the primaries until he was the last man standing. Trump is going to continue to pile up delegates. It's not the exact same dynamic as it was in 2012, but I don't think a ceiling of 30-35% is some sort of a death knell for the nomination. I'd have to dig in to the 2012 history, but looking at Trump vs others in the "I'd Never" category, I have a very hard time believing Romney was ever in that territory. Very different situation. But it is true that the longer things stay this wide, the more delegates Trump picks up. I'd hope we would be down to 3-4 candidates by Super Tuesday.

One of the key things about Trump that people need to keep in mind, and that add to the reasons why he won't win the nomination, is that no one is going to "flock" to him as people drop out. When polls ask who people absolutely would not back, Trump's numbers are ridiculously high among those not currently supporting him. His ability to grow his base is almost non-existent. I mean, look at New Hampshire as a data point. Trump's support there was in the low to mid-30's in polls back in December, before Iowa and when there were like 15 candidates. Post-Iowa, and with a bunch of candidates dropping out, he ends up with... low to mid-30's. Meanwhile in that same period, looking at the remaining other candidates in that period, Rubio stayed about the same despite having a terrible debate performance, Cruz went up a little from high single digits to low double digits, Kasich went from high single digits to mid-teens, Bush went from high single digits to 11%, and Christie actually went down (not sure what happened there). This despite NH being predominantly white, lower income and lower education which should be Trump's wheelhouse. Here are some recent polls that indicate the much higher numbers for "I'd never" on Trump than anyone else. Like, many times over, and the numbers are trending up. No one is flocking to Trump. He's alive exactly because there are so many other candidates. As that changes, so will his fortunes.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 04:51 PM) FutureSox.com ‏@FutureSox 56m56 minutes ago Now looks like Ishikawa, Davidson, Delmonico, Hayes will mix for corner INF playing time in AAA. Hard to think they'll all be there in April Add Olt to that mix. That's a big crowd. Delmonico and Hayes are the most prospecty of the bunch, but that's not saying a lot. Hayes had a really nice year in AA when you consider the full picture. Delmonico really didn't and could maybe stay in AA, except that Michalczewski and Barnum will be there so I'd bet they want to challenge Delmonico to finally translate the tools and send him to AAA.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 01:54 PM) "Even if I lose the lottery, I just throw the ticket away at no real loss to my bank account." But a lottery ticket is definitively a high-risk purchase. Again, risk =/= price. I don't really know how else to say but I'm gonna drop it for now. Actually, in the risk/reward spectrum, risk is total value of what can be lost. So in this case, it is nearly 100% made up of price (though one could argue he might cause bad blood in the clubhouse as a side effect, which is a risk). QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 02:03 PM) 40 man is full now, FYI Daniel Fields, Jerry Sands, Mike Olt, Matt Davidson, Brandon Brennan and one of Kevan Smith or Rob Brantly are all good DFA candidates that likely pass through waivers successfully anyway.

QUOTE (BrianAnderson @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 01:58 PM) That doesn't really expand on why ... Just like most people here, I'm sure we are happy AJ was here. I feel like I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt. Not going to say any names, but a lot of these guys aren't exactly saints. I've seen them out and about at bars sans wife before... just saying. Maybe Mike knows something. I'll ask him.

Guys. No, there is no such thing as "low risk, high reward". Does not exist. The risk/reward view is an anticipation of the future - not a look-back on how things performed. That's the first fundamental part I think people misunderstand here. Risk is what is put on the line - what is invested, aka what you could potentially lose. $3M in this case. Which in MLB for a potential starting pitcher is quite low risk. So that is clear. Reward is future value, or otherwise put, present value of anticipated future return. Future value (or risk-adjusted NPV) is a cross-function of two pieces of data: potential payback (in performance), and the likelihood of that payback. Now, Latos has shown enough that there is a potentially big payback. I think that's where some of you are getting confused - you end it there. But future value, which is the "reward" part here, also includes that stubborn part about likelihood. Is it likely that Latos is a mid-rotation starter or better? Absolutely not. If it was, do you really think he signs for $3M? The chances of a good return are low, even though that return COULD be quite high. This is the definition of low risk, low reward. That all said... good signing.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 01:25 PM) It's high risk. There's a good chance he'll be banged up or ineffective. If the chances of him being healthy/good were higher, he would have signed for more than $3M. Its very much low-risk. For $3M he can be awful, and you put him through waivers. He probably clears it. Heck you can release him. Again, understanding how the terminology works... if you buy a stock for minimal money, risk is inherently low. If it dogs, you sell it. No big loss.