NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 13, 2013 -> 12:42 PM) Just so it's said...if we're looking over the multi-year horizon, I don't think we should be projecting "how many RH/LH pitchers do we face". It was only a couple years ago that the division was lining up lefties like Liriano, Johan, and Captain Cheeseburger against us. Now it's right handed yes, but Scherzer is a FA after next year, Verlander might be starting to slightly get old we hope, Shields isn't on the Royals for that long, and the Twins are still rebuilding their rotation. Next offseason we might not think this is a RHP dominated division any more. Righties will still be the great majority of pitchers faced. There will be variance, but not HUGE variance. Also, with the current schedules, we play an awful lot of games outside the division.

Sox with 6th largest pool this year. The reason it isn't 3rd largest is the Sox have no comp or competitive picks - some others may have lower APV numbers due to pick order but have sandwich picks to spread the money over. The key thing to understand in this is, the Sox pick 3rd (then 53, 89, and by 30 after that), and their bonus pool per pick is going to be 3rd largest as well. They've got good money to spend.

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Nov 13, 2013 -> 09:45 AM) April .207/.309/.244 May .255/.294/.304 June .253/.308/.333 July .255/.291/.316 August .209/.227/.256 September .250/.250/.250 Fairly consistent splits during May/June/July and certainly no significant improvement over the last 6 weeks of the season. Sanchez was essentially the same player in '13 as he was in '12. The only difference was in the BABIP. In 2012 his BABIP was .385 giving a triple slash of .323/.378/.403, in 2013 his BABIP was .290 giving a triple slash of .241/.293/.296. I don't see where any "major improvement" would come from. I don't think you can expect major improvement by looking at his year's stats. He has been hitting quite well in Venezuela so far, but that is more like A+/AA competition than AAA. I think that he was pushed up very quickly at a very young age, and his improvement will come from simply getting better and stronger with development time.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 08:49 AM) Please though, explain the pregnancy care requirement. Oh come on, you aren't serious with this one, are you? What happens when your wife/common law gets pregnant, and she is on your insurance? Or your girlfriend gets pregnant, you get married, and THEN add her to your insurance? This doesn't even get into the fact that, regardless of ObamaCare, insurance plans are generalized policies to spread out differentiated risk over a pool, and that you can't economically tailor health plans to each individual's exact needs.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 05:42 PM) Anyways, how is he "more conservative" than Reagan? Please tell us, NorthsideSox72. Seriously? If you took the blinders off and looked past the Fox narrative, and looked at policy stances, you'd see it. Fiscal policy? Reagan wanted to cut taxes, and did, but he also increased spending pretty dramatically. Furthermore, he was basically the pioneer of block grants to the states. Huntsman's tax plans called for far deeper cuts in taxes AND government spending than Reagan even ever hinted at. Immigration policy? Reagan was in favor of amnesty, and basically starting over. Huntsman wanted, to a limited extent, to remove lots of people (he was never in on the send-them-all-back train though). Foreign Policy? Huntsman was close to libertarian in his views on this, wanted the US to significantly roll back the war machine. Reagan loved the idea of making the military bigger, to intimidate the Soviets and push them off the map economically through competition (and to Reagan's credit, this actually worked, as part of what caused the USSR's collapse). In the current GOP world, it is hard to say which of those are more "conservative", since the Tea Party has this unspoken alamgam of the Rand Paul's and the Neo-Cons. So draw whatever you'd like here. On social issues they were basically the same on abortion, affirmative action. Huntsman did break ranks on gay marriage, but really, there is nothing to compare with Reagan on that because the issue was never large enough to be on the radar during his Presidency. Regulation? Reagan talked about making things better for small businesses, but that was primarily about tax structures. The amount of new business regulations that went in during the Reagan administration is huge. Huntsman made an emphasis of trying to focus on regulating fewer things, better. The environment? This is a tough one to compare. Huntsman did break ranks again by acknowledging anthropogenic climate change... but his way of addressing it was heavily market-based. Reagan also was more into environmental protection than his cohorts at the time, and he oversaw large amounts of new protected lands being added to the system and more regulation of pollution - both of which are now the more "liberal" methods. Need I go on?

Some of you guys should really read Woodward's books, or other pieces on the Iraq war. First, if Daddy was a factor for W, it wasn't the way you think. HW made a point of staying out of things, and the one time he talked to his son about it, he warned him off of it. Second, I think it is pretty obvious at this point that the thought process that got the Iraq war machine going: 1. Wasn't Bush - it was the people who convinced him (RUmsfeld, Cheney and others) who got things going. 2. Was founded on neo-con thinking for sure, but more specifically, there was a belief that if you could turn a middle eastern country into a shining democracy, you could both bring the war to you AND cause a wave of democracy that would consume the region and make everything OK. I really see no evidence it was "avenge Daddy" or anything of the sort. But I would say that the general thinking in point 2 above certainly does have racist undertones. Basically, we can "fix" you by making you more American.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 13, 2013 -> 07:18 AM) I'm fairly certain Micah Johnson will be starting 2013 in AA. Agreed, I would be shocked if he started at AAA. He may get there during the season though, if he does well in B-Ham.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 01:32 PM) I like Sanchez, too. If he starts the season in Charlotte, which is likely, he should have a big year, making it a choice between Sanchez, Semien, Micah J, and Anderson for 2015. Love it. Middle infield is becoming somewhat of a strength in the system now. But there is a severe lack of talent on the corner IF positions, and at C. And most of the OF prospects are high potential with high bust rate type guys, which is fine, but makes it unlikely you get more than 1 or 2 doing anything in the majors.

Vance doesn't really have any trade value, just to be clear. He puts up good K numbers at an age appropriate level, but he is fly ball-heavy, prone to inconsistency, had control issues this year, and his average fastball so far in AFL is below 90. He may turn into a middle reliever in the majors at some point, but even that is a stretch, and his value in a trade is basically zero.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 12:47 PM) When is the last time the GOP put out a respectable candidate for President? Loaded question of course. But I thought Huntsman was that. He just ran at the wrong time. He's more conservative than Reagan ever was, but he was scoffed at as too liberal in 2012.

It seems there are always a few guys like Dan in the system - players who consistently perform well at each level, but for reasons we just don't know, they are kept from being challenged at higher levels more appropriate to their age. Sometimes they are blocked, sometimes their tools just aren't seen by Sox scouts as translating, sometimes it could even be non-playing issues (personality conflicts). I don't know what the story is in Dan's case. I personally would like to see players like that challenged, whenever possible. If they are dominating their level, then push them off the fence - if they succeed even when being aggressive, hey, maybe you found a diamond in the rough. If not, which is mostly likely, then no loss - now you know. This said with the caveat that you don't promote them at the expense of high level prospects of course.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 08:29 AM) In 2007, few people were thinking about Barack Obama as a presidential candidate. People with political savvy saw him as a 2012 nom if Hillary lost or, more likely, a 2016 guy. Obviously, things didn't turn out that way. What are the up-and-comers you see, on either side of the aisle, that might make a surprise run to candidacy and/or presidency? I saw an article on Politico about Elizabeth Warren considering a run for president. Apparently she isn't considered a serious contender, but this is Politico we're talking about - it was all horse race stuff. As an anti-BigBank person with major intellectual credibility and a good deal of charisma, it really wouldn't shock me if she became more popular and made a run. I think 2016 is probably too soon, but look out for Cory Booker. That dude is seriously charismatic. While he has fairly liberal positions across the board, he is able to frame things in a centrist way, especially in regard to finance. He talks about the economy in a way that might appeal to people. A bit like Bill Clinton in that regard. On the Republican side, there seems to have been a lot more speculation already and thus fewer surprises. However, I think Paul Ryan has been forgotten in all of this. I am no fan, but I think we haven't seen the best of him yet. It wouldn't shock me if he comes out ready for primetime in 2016. At his best, I think he can appeal to people. Christie remains the favorite, it seems, for the Republicans but I feel like all this hype is bound to doom him somehow. I liked Huntsman more than any GOP candidate in the last few cycles. That said, I don't think he runs again. He was never too good at the fundraising end of things, he's looked at as too liberal by the current party (which is hilarious), and he doesn't have that powerful in-the-room presence that others do.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 11:18 AM) Something else noteworthy, no Brandon Jacobs. I look at him as a superior prospect to say, Carlos Sanchez. I don't. Sanchez was 20 when he started AAA last year - 20. After having gone three levels the year before. I think there is still a lot to like there. Jacobs has a higher ceiling, offensively. But Sanchez is much more likely to be a multi-year major leaguer, and a starter, than Jacobs is (IMO). And he plays premium positions.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 10:18 AM) Craziest thing about this list is Abreu. I get that you can consider him a prospect, but if you do, how is he not #1? I thought the same thing. He is technically a prospect, and I'm surprised anyone would put him anywhere but #1. QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 10:19 AM) I think Engel is going to be this year's big riser. I think this because the editor in chief of baseball America is really high on him. I've seen a few scout types speak highly of his tools. He's definitely a guy to keep a close eye on.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 09:47 AM) I don't think those four arb guys are going to average $4m each, are they? There's no way Flowers is going to be there, and I don't think Viciedo will either. I think that is a worst case, probably. A couple million less is good though, adds more headroom.

Fangraphs is apparently celebrating White Sox day today. Top 15 prospects list, a Q&A with Marcus Semien, and a patented looooooong Nathanial Stoltz write-up on Tony Bucciferro.

And you did not just call Saddam the world's most dangerous tyrant, did you? He wouldn't have made the Top 20 at that point in time.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 08:44 AM) IIRC other European countries had similar intelligence about Saddam, but yes, it was still a weak claim. Frankly Bush should have said we're doing this to set up a base of operations in the region to kill AQ and other similar groups while also getting rid of the world's most dangerous tyrant and he would have had more support. You are probably remembering Curveball. Read the book on him, it is worth your time. The Germans thought at first they may have had something, but quickly determined he was full of it. The US bullied Germany into handing him over, he made yet more inconsistent statements... but the CIA was so hell-bent on finding a reason to go into Iraq (so totally backwards by the way), they ignored Germany AND their own lower level analysts in favor of talking him up as knowing things he didn't. By the time the information made it to frat boy at the top, it was a "slam dunk".

QUOTE (flavum @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 09:01 AM) Ok. I've just seen those clips where he's flailing at the hard breakers down and away. Point is, he's not a hitter yet, and considering him #2 seems a stretch. But we'll see where he is a year from now. If it's the same season, he won't be on anybody's list. Certainly if his 2014 is like his 2013, he drops well down the list to fringe status - but still a prospect. We'll see how it goes. I'd like them to keep him in extended ST next year to get extra focus work, then go to Kanny or W-S in like May or June.

Ha! Did my math wrong. Just corrected it. Still, 8M left if they go to arb with all four, AND don't trade anyone - which I doubt they do. I'd be surprised if they didn't cut a few million or more somewhere, which puts 10M+ in play. That is enough to go get Salty, in theory. But I also don't see them making any significant moves beyond that.

It should be noted, it was specifically stated during the Abreu signing news that the Sox were able to do that in part because of the 2013 mid-year trades they made. That makes me think the signing bonus may have come from that budgeted money. So I am not sure that $10M is part of that $85M number, and in fact I'd say it is likely not. Here is what I show for the payroll right now: UNDER CONTRACT 2014: Dunn 15 Danks 14.25 Ramirez 9.5 Abreu 7 Keppinger 4 Lindstrom 4 (I believe they took his option, yes?) Sale 3.5 ...TOTAL: 57.25 ARB ELIGIBLE: Viciedo Beckham De Aza Flowers ...ESTIMATED TOTAL: 12 (if all are signed) ALL ELSE: Assuming all above are signed and kept, need to fill 14 slots at near league minimum, that makes about $8M ...ESTIMATED TOTAL: 8 --That makes the total payroll as it looks today to be 77.25M. That leaves 8M of headroom, and that is assuming they go for ALL those arb eligible guys, and don't trade anyone. Why are people panicking? What am I missing here?

QUOTE (flavum @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 08:26 AM) Lists are lists, but #2 for Hawkins is pretty generous. He turns 20 today, btw. Hopefully Hawkins goes back to Winston-Salem with a clean slate and he learns how to hit breaking pitches. I'll point this out again... he can and does hit breaking pitches. His problem is timing and recognition. When he guesses breaker, he hits them very hard. I've seen this in person, and other times on video. He isn't a dead-red guy. IN fact he struggles with big heat too.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Nov 12, 2013 -> 08:19 AM) Does he expect to be with Charlotte in 2014? When will he be exposed to the draft, since he's had five years in Sox system. Just wonder what he thinks about Sox being the right organization for him....... What reaction did he have when Sox signed Abreu, since they play same position? I know the answer is obvious, but he might have some interesting comments. As far as the Rule V draft, he's got 5 years in the minors (drafted in 2009), so he is exposed to the Rule V now. He is exposed to both the AAA/MLB and AA/AAA portions. A team could theoretically take him in the MLB portion, but I think the chances of that are basically zero. A team MIGHT take a AA/AAA flyer on him though (they'd have to pay 50k, keep him in AAA all season, or else return him for 25k), in fact he's among only a few players that I think have some risk. But even then the risk is fairly low.

By the way, I am not sure why I said Venezuela - he is in the DR. My bad, sorry. Keep the questions coming though!

BA has theirs out in early January. BP looks like they will do theirs sooner. FutureSox will be January.