NorthSideSox72

With a pitching coach like Cooper around, it's a good idea to grab a handful of reclamation arms each offseason. This is a good one. QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Oct 28, 2015 -> 08:27 AM) Thank you. I could see Kevan Smith and possibly Davidson DFA'd as well. Davidson, sure. Smith I think they may still protect - you have to remember how thin the majors are on catching talent. Not just the Sox. And if Smith goes, barring an offseason upgrade at the position (which may happen), your next best bets currently in the org are Nieto (who did poorly in AA) and org guy Jeremy Dowdy who hasn't been a starter most of his pro career. That's frighteningly little depth at the position. There are lower level catchers who may turn into something later, but only Smith and Nieto could maybe, possibly, step in and not be a complete disaster at this point.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 04:53 PM) Where are the best and brightest? The John Kennedys, the Hubert Humphreys, the Bobby Kennedys? Where have they gone? Did you seriously just go on a rant about people wanting a Clinton or a Bush, and then ask where the Kennedys are at?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 04:36 PM) Our country is bizarre. We're fixated on electing and re-electing members of the Clinton and Bush families. In a country of all these people, the masses flock to these families. You guys mock me sometimes, but I'm telling you, Michelle Obama should be gearing up to run in 8 years after Hillary is done. As well as Chelsea. Michelle probably would win in a landslide. Chelsea probably would win if Michelle doesn't run.There have to be some more Bush family members that can run as well. I'm very disappointed in our country. The Presidency shouldn't be so easy to win just cause of your name. Where are the best and brightest? It's all the same familes or rich people who get a kick out of running. I like Carson right now, but he's basically a bored rich guy running. Of course Trump's just doing it to further his brand and feed his ego. All the politician types are too boring or weird to even make a splash. YOU are the only one here fixated on that.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 04:14 PM) Beyond neurosurgery, Dr. Carson seems to be a complete dunce. Smart but ignorant, is what I'd call it. Outside the world of medicine, obviously.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 03:57 PM) and you make a very good point which i was, in a way trying to say the same thing without your command of the king's language. but at the end of the day, it will come down to race. it doesn't matter on what opinion anyone may have on Trump. beyond the race card, Dr. Carson is a brilliant man. i just don't see anyone coming out of the Rep party who could challenge him. ref the the flash and screaming, all that will do is paint a negative picture. he doesn't need to do that. but i don't know, some of his ideas, i am wondering if he is in the wrong party..... just my opinion. I'll say again, your list from earlier didn't even include the guy who I'd bet on winning the GOP nomination. It's not Carson, or Trump, or any of the others you listed.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 02:43 PM) He's been running for a while now. For some media, the media isn't embracing the fact Carson is African-American. I think it's because he's rich and if you read Jason Whitlock's take on such matters, the average African-American voters don't like rich minorites. They think they are sellouts for some reason. I'm not saying "all." Just read Whitlock's historical takes on the matter. The media is more focused on the fact that behind Carson's syrupy prose, the content is quite frightening. He has shown to be full-on ignorant of world affairs, and while Trump's public statements have been abrasive, Carson's have at times been outright offensive. He just doesn't get as much flash and dash out of it because he isn't screaming.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 03:05 PM) Does it happen in the later rounds? The stories I have seen involved guys with leverage and big bonuses. I don't recall seeing with guys who were getting drafted late. I've seen and heard lots of examples of this. We even posted an interview with at least one player who detailed how the game was played (in fact we didn't even publish the full text because it was potentially problematic). There are negotiations all the time, back channel-wise, outside the supposed rules. And all teams do it. It is an open secret.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 02:31 PM) Not at all. Like I said, how many guys are going to tell teams NOT to draft them, because they think they have a shot (at whatever confidence level) at a team being willing to pay them another $20k year, AND be a player that the White Sox couldn't/wouldn't have drafted before that point. Both of those things have to be true for players to fit into being a benefit from this new pay scale. Then the players that fall into those slots have to be better than the $3 million-ish a year that the team would be paying for this new scale. I think we just differ on what the benefit would be for the franchise who did this. I see the upside as very minimal, and probably a money loser in the long run. The most talented players aren't going to be swayed by this. The players that would are going to be minimally talented and/or ceiling limited. On the bolded, that sort of thing happens quite often. Of the pool of say 1000 guys that will be drafted or signed after the 10th round, offering substantially more money relative to their bonus is certainly going to give you more of the guys at the top of that pile than you'd otherwise get access to. Also the international players, and other UDFA's (to a limited value extent), will benefit even more from this. Finally, as illustrated, you only need to get about 0.4 WAR improvement each year from this. Heck, just one player making the majors over another choice each year that wouldn't make it might get you there. You get a whole bunch of improvement from draft stock and better health, and 0.4 WAR is a pretty easy number to hit.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 02:09 PM) I did say earlier that I get the changes for things like food and facilities. Those would/could actually make a difference. What competition is there in the draft? How many players would tell a team NOT to draft them, just because they wanted to get the Sox to draft them for an extra $20k a year? Very, very few guys are going to refuse to sign here, but would because they get an extra $20k a year. Even fewer of them are actually ever going to be good enough to justify the franchise paying out an extra few million dollars a year to find that one player who eventually makes it as something better than a replacement player. As to the first part, this ONLY helps the organization IF they are getting players signed that the COULD NOT sign before. Otherwise, they didn't need to pay them the extra money in the first place. If they would have signed with whoever drafted them because they have no leverage, we aren't improving our farms system anyway. That is entirely my point. I think you are looking at the entire pool of players are a potential benefit, but if we could have signed them anyway, that isn't a benefit. That is wasting money. I think you are working on the assumption that players just wait for their name to be called on draft day. That is how it is supposed to work, but it absolutely does not. Teams feel out virtually all the players they plan to sign, via back channels, and find out who they may be able to get. So the pool of potential draftees is variable on where they sign, for the most part - therefore a team offering significantly more effective money or benefits will definitely get a better pick of the litter. It is hard to say how many players per year that effects - could be one or two, or could be twenty - but the pool is much more players at stake than not.

SS2K5, I think you are missing both key points here. One, the money isn't to get a player in the draft (or Intl market) to sign or not. It is to get guys where there is competition for signing them. For, let's say, the guys in rounds 11 to 30, there is competition for most or all of them. And their bonuses will be only a few thousand or maybe a few 10's of thousands. For ALL of that group, the extra 20k/year is a huge amount, doubling or more their combined bonus plus salary income. So that means the team who did this, would be "the top choice" for far more players, and therefore the Sox get more of the better ones. Two, you are ignoring the health and wellness aspect, which is huge. This is the benefit all players in the organization would enjoy, and you'd get a whole field of prospects in better shape, and better able to focus on skill improvement.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 09:28 AM) That is a whole lot money for an extreme niche market, and a pretty small pool at that. Guys who are getting small bonuses are getting them for a reason. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 11:11 AM) But we are talking about guys who are WAY down the lists. This isn't even guys who slipped due to draft demands, because if they are looking for big money, an extra $20k a year isn't what they are looking for. I am not sure where you keep getting this idea that it is a small pool. As pointed out earlier, it is most of the draft, and most of the Intl guys - that is the opposite of small.

QUOTE (Coach @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 07:27 AM) How is Thompson's arm to play RF? I have never seen him throw long yet. He's got plenty of arm for any OF slot. But his strong skills in routes, speed and glove work mean his value is highest in CF.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 10:14 PM) So if the position is a do-nothing position, I think we should just give it to Carson. He's very intelligent. He's soft spoken and let him represent the USA. You know, personality does matter. There have been enough red-flags on Hillary's temper and rudeness to make Americans fear her being "in charge" of the nation. Greg's quick hits ... • Hillary: Too rude, too mean, too obnoxious to be allowed to be President for 8 years. Please America wise up. Plus her winning would precede 8 more years of Chelsea and do we want that?? • Trump: Too cocky, too intolerant of anybody but himself, too boastful to represent the USA for 4 years (he'd lose re-election). • Bernie: Too nutty with this socialism stuff to be given the office for 8 years. • Bush: Too incompetent in terms of garnering absolutely any support. • Carson: Smart, classy, calm, brilliant, yet not a politico. He'll hire good people in all the key positions and re-energize the country's faith in politics. Give him the office, baby! 8 years. • Florina: Too incompetent in terms of her past jobs. Has a bit of a mean edge like Hillary and is too much of a self-made corporate 'tool' if that's the word. She knows how to impress a room full of HR people. Can't let her rule the roost for 4 years (she'd lose re-election). I would encourage those of you who like politics and have been silent in defending my rants against Hillary or even trying to re-but them to give me your quick hits on the leading candidates. I'm open to changing my mind on Hilly, I really am. I just have a gut feeling from everything I've read and heard coming out of her mouth she is truly a disaster waiting to happen. Leaving aside the hilariously backwards views on Carson, you left out the Republican most likely to win the nomination, in my view.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 27, 2015 -> 07:42 AM) NO SHUTDOWN UNTIL AT LEAST OCTOBER 2017!!!!!!! Not for sure yet. Needs to pass both chambers, which probably happens but not necessarily.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 06:51 PM) Taking the other side of the argument, why would teams really want to push through the financial part of the changes? In baseball, once you draft a guy, you pretty effectively own him for a long period of time. There isn't a big recruiting process where you need to differentiate yourself to stand out and attract talent. The players aren't free agents (unless they are undrafted, but that isn't exactly a booming market) I can get improving things related to performance, such as food and facilities, but as to pay, I see no good reason for it to change without a broader push from MLB to do so. As an organization, you'd be adding a big cost to your bottom line with literally no change in productivity or play. Doing it before MLB forces it is exactly where the value lies. For the performance aspect, as you said... but the recruiting angle too. To wit... QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 07:24 PM) Mathematically, you'd be looking at a few million dollars, to bring in an extra guy or two a year. Even then, for the kid in that situation, I don't think an extra 20 to 30k a year would make the difference. Most of those guys are looking for hundreds of thousands more, if not a million. An extra $30k a year isn't much for guys looking for a big bonus payday. It could be many more than one or two guys. A team drafts about 30 guys a year for bonuses in the low 5 figures or 4 figure bonuses - and you give yourself an advantage on ALL those slots, to get the better available player. You are also not taking into account the Intl guys, most of which are getting 4 or 5 figure bonuses, or low 6. Plus other UDFA signees. The great majority of your signings are getting low enough bonuses that an extra 20k or more per year for 4-5 years even if they don't make the majors is a big deal.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 04:56 PM) I disagree that parents should be expected to help. You are a working professional at this point (I'll caveat this by saying when I got my first professional job, I still lived at home, but I was cheap...but providing free rent to a family member and actually paying for one's rent are two very different concepts...one involves you just keeping your kid at your house more, along with some incremental costs while the other involves you paying for a 2nd place or helping and said minor league has no option but to go to whatever affiliate the big league club wants to send him). To me, it is pretty clearly, it is in the clubs best interest to ensure you are at a minimum, able to sleep in a clean room and get quality food and nutrients in your system. Personally, if I ran a franchise, I'd have state of the art dorm rooms at my minor league facilities, which would include specifically catered meals with organic food and produce to ensure my athletes (if they so choose to) can eat right and put the absolute best stuff in their body. I'd also ensure that the dorm had great work out facilities, etc, again to make it as easy on these young kids as possible to take the next steps in their career (if they so choose). While that doesn't mean you are paying them more (and to be frank, I'm not certain that an organization could actually choose to play players more...not sure what is contractually stipulated as part of the overall collective bargaining agreement(s). But I presume their is absolutely nothing against providing top notch training facilities and health and resources. It is a small price to pay given the overall payroll and I'm truly amazed it hasn't caught on. Just think about what Chip Kelly instituted at Oregon (and again Philly) in terms of the food in the cafeteria's and the training technology. Again, not talking about Chip the personel man, rather Chip the health / science freak (as one makes sense and the other doesn't). But you do that at all your levels and you should have people who appreciate being part of your organization (at a young age) and also get the absolute most out of your players because you are giving them the best chances at succeeding. And if I applied this to real life business, if I were a company hiring a top notch finance MBA from Harvard, would I hire him and say, here's this computer with Windows 98, no, I'd invest in him to ensure he'd succeed. Giving this players appropriate living conditions and ensuring they have a proper diet are just complete no-brainers to me. Stuns me that an owner hasn't thought out of the box to do this. Really, other then being cheap, the only other thing I can think of which could impact things is the distinct seperation between minor league affiliates and the major league team...meaning if the White Sox invested $2.5M in a facility at Winston Salem, the affiliate could walk (when contract ends) and now you have a sunk cost of building the facility. That said, I'm sure if you negotiated a longer term contract with the affiliates (no reason not to), you could still make things work. Plus, cost of land / doing this is much cheaper for a minor league team, given that you normally play in small markets where overall cost of living are less then that of most major league cities. As we were discussing offline, I agree that doing this spending as in-kind instead of salary adjustment is another way to go. The dorms wouldn't necessarily need to be new either - heck you could probably rent blocks of rooms in extended stay places to do this. And if you did have to build it, you could do so in a way that it could be sold later, as an extended-stay hotel or dorm or apartment complex. Also FYI, the White Sox already own not only the AZL affiliate, but now, are majority owners of the Winston-Salem Dash as well. That may be a growing trend. Finally, as for the rules, I think you could uses bonuses and other "tricks" to work around that without running afoul.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 04:00 PM) Odds are more likely that lives would have been saved, not lost, if someone was shooting back. First, I'm not at all convinced that's true. Second, even if the chances of that are 10%, and the chances of others being hurt is only say 5%, that's is far too much risk IMO. Especially when you consider that it isn't just a shooter missing that is the bad outcome - it could cause the shooter to act hastily and actually kill more people. And the biggest danger is people who just do stupid stuff, like that lady who shot at a car running away from a shoplifting at a Walmart or something the other day. You are working from the assumption that people will only shoot when justified. Even if you think the risk in that scenario is acceptable, you are ignoring the many times people will shoot when they shouldn't, and when the target would not have hurt or killed anyone.

I'm on the Julio Vinas bandwagon.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 03:32 PM) Minor league players get financial help in a lot of ways not mentioned, plus many of the younger players are in the 18-21 year age group, and their parents should be able to help, just as many college students get help from their folks. That said, I have long thought that not only should the teams make it better for the young minor leaguers, but also the existing players could help. Of course, it would have to go through the MLPA, which would happen only in fiction, but major league players as a group probably are paid something between $3-4 Billion per year. Tax them a fraction of a per cent per year, match it from the 30 owners, and presto, problem solved. It would be tax deductible. Exclude the players in the first 3 years of service. What financial help was not mentioned? I don't know of any that would actually help them with food or housing, but tell me what you are thinking of. Getting free shoes from Adiddas won't pay the bills. And sure, parents could help, in some cases (but certainly nowhere near all). But that seems pretty ridiculous. You could make that argument about other professions, and would it be OK? I'm also not sure why the players should be forced to help anyway. The teams are in a much better position to pay. Also, the business case being made isn't about rule changes or forcing anyone to do anything - it is about making a choice and trying to improve the model for the benefit of the team and the players.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 03:18 PM) Hitting the target isn't the only good outcome though. Just shooting back, forcing the shooter to take cover and stop shooting could save lives. Or end them. I wouldn't suggest taking away guns, for many reasons. But I do think the reasoning that an armed public is a crime deterrent it weak at best. I think the reality ends up being, as we've seen in the news plenty, that you will get a lot of bad things happening. There MAY be a few more good than bad, but for me at least, the threshold needs to be very high. And the ratio, in reality, won't be.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 03:07 PM) 1) Better to live with yourself for making a tragic mistake than risk not being alive anymore to worry about anything. 2) There have been very few documented cases of this happening. Certainly more rare than said innocent bystander taking down the would-be killer and SAVING lives. There's a growing list of examples of that happening. 2) Assuming someone is unintentionally/accidentally killed, I think you hold the person shooting to the same standard as anyone who fires a gun and kills someone. What's the context? How reasonable was the fear to use the gun? How errant was the shot? (aiming blindly down a hallway, in a crowd of people, etc. etc.). I'm sure it would be tough to hold that person criminally responsible in most situations, but it's possible. There's no reason you can't hold them civilly liable, though. If you're going to use a gun in public you need to be prepared for all outcomes. That comes with the territory, IMO. Just keep in mind, even with some training, people firing a handgun in the heat of a bad situation are really bad at it, as a group. Most shots will miss their target. This has been documented. They may be more likely to hit the bad guy than an innocent bystander, but both are low probabilities. Not good odds if you ask me.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 09:32 AM) Brings up another point. These guys are forced to eat leftover hot dogs. It's not going to max out their potential physically. If they do buy their own food, it probably is fast food. Maybe they should provide decent healthier meals. It would help them become better ballplayers. That's one of the key points in the article.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 22, 2015 -> 02:14 PM) Barring some horrendous gaffe, Trump actually will win the nomination it appears. Bush's numbers remain miniscule. I can't see how Trump will screw things up, unless he's basically blocked out of the spot at the convention with Carson seen as the better of two bad choices. That will be a weird convention if Trump is the nominee cause a lot of Republicans will probably blast him. No way in hell respected Republican pundits will admit to supporting Donald Trump. How the hell is Donald Trump gonna form a consensus that's he's Da Man? There will be people at the convention going on national TV blasting their own nominee. This would be a good time for a third party to enter the scene and make some waves. Remember, again, the people leading polls prior to the first caucus/primaries almost never win the nomination. We forget this because of the media cycle, but we are still very early in all of this.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 25, 2015 -> 11:25 AM) As a cold front blasted through San Antonio and dropping the temps into the 60s from the 90s that we experienced just a couple weeks ago I started thinking about winter. What is on your agenda for the changing of the seasons? As a golf coach it's time to pull out the all weather gear, sweaters, waterproof shoes, etc. I'm building a storage space to keep the plants warm during a freeze. I also need to develop a better system for protecting our in ground plants. My firepit needs a little attention. I decided to pick up some hardwood logs to burn this winter. I have some branches and stuff from the trees in my yard but they really don't burn all that well. You're in San Antonio. You may get "winter", but you don't get winter.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 08:16 AM) I think they should be given a livable wage, and have it increase as you move up a level. As to college scholarships, this has been written into bonus contracts for a long time. Apparently the obligation is very rarely fulfilled. I think Shawon Dunston was suing the Cubs a couple of years ago to honor his contract and pay for him to go to college. I don't know how that turned out. The increases do happen, but with a few exceptions, it never reaches a living wage by any standard I can think of. The college money thing, I do know a number of current Sox minor leaguers are taking advantage of it. It's not new in concept, but what is new with that is that it is present in virtually every (non-graduate) pro contract signed nowadays. Still doesn't pay their living of course, but it is a nice step.