NorthSideSox72

First up with a Sox list: Fangraphs... 1. Erik Johnson 2. Courtney Hawkins 3. Jose Dariel Abreu 4. Marcus Semien 5. Chris Beck 6. Tim Anderson 7. Micah Johnson 8. Trayce Thompson 9. Scott Snodgress 10. Daniel Webb (they call him Danny, which I've never seen before) 11. Chris Bassitt 12. Tyler Danish 13. Andrew Mitchell 14. Carlos Sanchez 15. Adam Engel Marc Hulet did the list for FG.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 03:08 PM) I'm not changing the game, you said Bush is partly at fault because his policies (on terrorism, 7-8 months into his presidency...a poor claim to start) caused 9/11. How someone can be responsible for something that literally no one could have predicted is beyond me. You're grasping here over your hatred of the guy. And ok, so you're blaming Bush for the failures of constructing levees undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers in what, the 60's? 70's? So for every road accident out there caused by faulty design you're blaming Obama because he didn't spend money to fix it? I mean, I get it, Bush is to blame for everything in the world from 2001 onward, but the 60's? That's a bit much. For the record, in my view... Bush deserves only a very small amount of blame for 9/11, if any at all. The wheels were already in motion when he was in office, and yes he (and more importantly his key security advisors) should have taken some signs more seriously. But it was so unprecedented, so unlikely to see something on that scale, that I can't really place much blame on him. As for Katrina, the key thing that resulted in the destruction was stunningly poor civil planning. Most of current New Orleans simply should not be built upon at all. I WILL however put some substantial blame for the RESPONSE to Katrina on Bush, for making the epically stupid decision to put a political hack in charge of FEMA. That was incredibly idiotic. I mean, you need to give a guy a job? Fine, make him the assistant to the head of FEMA in charge of radishes or something. Don't put him in a position where he may have to lead a response to save thousands of lives, and oh by the way do significant damage to your Presidency.

QUOTE (ChiSoxJon @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 02:53 PM) As do I and I think he will, I've seen a guy named Kelly Dugan in the Philly organization get drafted in the second round in 2009 and struggle until 2012 in the Sally League, patience and hard work pays off Dugan really only had one bad year (as a rookie in 2009), and none of his seasons offensively were nearly as bad as Basto. Also, Dugan doesn't seem to have had a problem with the glove, whereas Basto has been pretty bad on defense as well as offense. Dugan has put up season OPS's of .597, .981, .730, .857 and .858. Basto was .581 as a rookie and then .531 his second year. I don't think that is a great comparison.

Surprised no one started a thread on this. The Braves have decided to build a new, $670M stadium, in suburban Cobb County, and leave Turner Field. Turner, by the way, isn't even 20 years old yet. 20. Best part - Cobb County voters will be forking over $450M in public funding, to be covered by a tax increase (or a few), and they will NOT get to vote on it. If it was an entirely new tax type, they'd get to vote. But instead, the plan goes to the county board without referendum, with a plan to increase some combination of EXISTING taxes, which does not require a public vote. This is a county that, by the way, has been cleaving off teaching jobs and requiring public employee furlough days because they can't afford their budget. It is difficult to describe how many ways I hate this. 20 year old stadium, and they are leaving??? No public input on funding? Building a park in the suburbs, no where near transit? If I was in Atlanta and a Braves fan, I'd be livid. And here is a nightmare scenario: what if there is a huge public outcry over the funding, and the board doesn't vote for it? Or they do vote for it, and lawsuits pop up left and right, and the deal is eventually killed? The Braves have now made enemies of the City of Atlanta (who owns Turner field) and a lot of their fans.

Merkin just published an article with a lot of stuffing, but two interesting tidbits: --The Sox HAVE talked with Saltalamacchia's camp already --The Sox will apparently have a payroll in the vicinity of $85M to work with. I believe they are currently in the high 50's, without getting into arb or pre-arb numbers.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 12:55 PM) Bush also had democratic support on two of his major policy initiatives - Tax cuts and Education. There has been 1 republican vote on a major democratic agenda in 2 terms so far for Obama. And you can't point to that agenda being radical, this goes for stimulus as well. That's definitely a key point. The GOP decided early on it would be a brick wall against Obama, no matter what he stood for, even if it was a previously GOP-held idea. Some Dems were that way with Bush too, but not the majority of the party, and certainly not the entire party.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 12:20 PM) LOL. Kind of my point.

A little analysis of Kyle here from our Kanny visit.

Looking to put together some offseason content, we are probably going to interview 1B Dan Black. He's an interesting case, in that he's at very best a fringe guy, and probably not even that. But, he seems to be a popular guy among people watching the system, he consistently puts up big numbers, and we've had other players mention him as a fun guy (and therefore might be a fun interview). So... what questions would you want to ask Dan? We're taking suggestions. Fire away. Keep in mind though, since he is down in Venezeula at the moment, we may have to do this via email with him (we usually do interview by phone or in person, just not sure it will work in this case).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 09:02 AM) He's been a big business rubber stamp more than anything. That's where he's really made the difference - if you bring a case conservatives might care about against big business...he votes along with the Chamber of Commerce almost every time. I'd say he certainly put a heckuva lot of effort into it, but couldn't get the Congress to go along. I don't agree on Roberts being purely aligned with big business. What he is, is aligned against certain extensions of regulation. By nature that is often pro-business, however, his PPACA decision was certainly the opposite of that. Presidents want, and try for, lots of things. You can get into what plans Presidents have, but I am dealing with what was actually accomplished.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 08:23 AM) Everyone involved with Iraq was stunningly incompetent. Many of his appointments were stunningly incompetent (heckuva job, brownie!). He was bad on social issues, and his court appointments have been disastrous for them (Roberts decision gutting the vra is appalling, and I'm sure we'll see aa ending shortly with s***some upcoming rulings.) His fiscal policy has left us with a permanent gap in basic government funding. His tax cuts left a giant hole, and he even tried to go down the path of privatizing social security. The parallels really aren't there. 9/11 wasn't a pre existing condition for Bush, and his administration completely ignored that potential that in favor of obsessing over Iraq from day one. I was talking inner circle. His appointment of Brown to head FEMA was laughably stupid, no argument there. But you are getting into narrower stuff there. He had two SCOTUS nominees. Roberts, despite your dislike of him, I think has been pretty consistent in how he reads things, and he has not been a conservative rubber stamp. Alito has been, and I've said all along he was a terrible nomination. But I didn't get into SCOTUS with my comparison. Bush's fiscal policy and Obama's fiscal policy have both been heavy on spending, adding in a sprinkling of tax breaks. Both have also overseen big deficits, though Obama has actually done more to reduce them than Bush did. Either way, that is more Congress than the President. But yet again, very similar there. He didn't privatize Social Security, did he? Both candidates talked big games on things they didn't actually do. I'm focused on their actions here. The parallels are quite strong, you are just trying to focus on the differences. Of course there are many. What I pointed out is that, looking at many high level trends, the similarities are striking. I am not saying they are identical.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 06:14 AM) Bush didn't surround himself with incompetent people? edit: also, how was Bush moderate? edit2: also seems odd to give some lenience to Obama for coming in in the middle of a huge economic collapse, but fail to assign any of the blame for said collapse to the guy who immediately preceded him I'd say Bush surrounded himself with generally more competent people in his inner circle than Obama has - just my opinion. However, what Bush also was, was a weak leader who surrounded himself with neo-cons that talked him into things. Different issue than Obama, but similarly bad result. Bush was more moderate than feared - that is how I described it. He was still a Republican, and Obama is still a Democrat. Look at what, at the time, were the big fears Dems and liberals (even centrists) had about a GOP President at the time he took office? Social issues including abortion, affirmative action was big at the time, how big a deficit hawk he may be, etc. Reality is he did almost nothing in terms of social issues, and his spending levels were actually pretty damn high. About the recession thing, to be clear, my post wasn't meant to have anything to do with blame, really. I was just pointing out the parallels. I said BOTH Presidents had a huge shock to deal with, which is true. QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 11, 2013 -> 07:22 AM) Bush also implemented the PATRIOT Act, which will rank up there with the Alien and Sedition Acts in history. No Child Left Behind, which anyone in education knows has had far-reaching and terrible effects on our public education. This was an Obamacare-like law in its scope, but has been far more damaging than just a bad website that will eventually give people discounted health insurance. Obama's Race to the Top Initiative did a very good job of bringing education back, but much of NCLB is still there. Created Guantanamo Bay's prison for terror suspects, which is another international symbol of the loss of freedom. There is so much fear surrounding the people here that closing it is political poison. Slashed taxes, lowering revenue to its lowest since income taxes were first implemented. These cuts added 1.6 trillion to the deficit by themselves. Cutting capital gains in half for wealthy earners was a particularly redistributive measure that led to a troubling growth in income inequality and generally helped lead to the recession that began in 2008. Deregulated the banking industry, another fun and redistributive measure that had an even clearer role in the system failure in 2008. Meanwhile, he vetoed multiple attempts to enact stem cell research and prevented expansion of the children's health insurance program. Patriot Act had a few provisions that were pretty bad, though I think your comparisons to the Alien and Sedition Acts is far-fetched. In any case, I suppose I shouldn't have lumped some of the post-9/11 stuff in with Iraq (Gitmo, Patriot Act). But the reality is, Gitmo was a tool to deal with a new problem - and a tool that the current President continues to use. Yet another commonality to reinforce my point. Your idea that Bush "deregulated the banking industry" is fairly absurd - most of the dismantiling of rules and laws around banking came under Clinton (whether you like them or not). What Bush DID do, which was patently not a Conservative thing and was in fact quite liberal, was attempt to use the housing market in the mid-2000's to "create" wealth by giving out huge incentives financially. Again, this only reinforces my point - this was yet another centrist or even liberal policy change. Good point on stem cell research, I had forgotten that, and he did indeed take a very conservative stance on that which had an effect. Thanks for pointing that one out.

It is striking to me, as time goes on, how similar the Bush and Obama Presidencies are (in current light anyway). Both were elected amidst fears from the opposite party that they would be extremists. Both were/are far more moderate than that, save one Big Thing. Bush's Big Thing was Iraq, Obama's is ObamaCare. Both have shown to be poor executives who don't do the most basic job well - managing the agencies of government effectively. Both don't work well with Congress. Both were re-elected despite historical parameters that seemed to indicate they should lose - both in part because their opponents were awful. Both made poor choices of who they surrounded themselves with - Obama's being incompetent and Bush's being scary warmongers. And to their credit, both were Presidents during particulary difficult times - 9/11 and all that came after for Bush, and the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression for Obama. One key difference though. Bush's One Big Thing (Iraq) resulted in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of foreign citizens, and cost about a TRILLION dollars. Obama's One Big Thing (ObamaCare) will cost a fraction of that and it's failures appear to be not helping enough people and causing higher rates for others. Which is worse? I'll give the nod to Obama, at this point, for being less bad. But I'll add the caveat that it will be a decade before we can look back and really get a complete picture.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 9, 2013 -> 07:23 PM) What happened with Basto? Well, he was drafted as a shortstop. A Sox scout gave me a pretty strong indication that Basto can't actually play SS, apparently he just can't handle it. A Sox pitching prospect, who was running clipboard at a game I was at, concurred (in so far as he could do so). If the stats mean anything, he made 24 errors at SS in 2012 with Bristol, for a .892 FPct. He also posted a .465 OPS with Kanny this year, playing 3B, and his defense in terms of FPct was actually worse (.868). He's going to be 20 so he certainly has time, but I got the impression he's basically out of the picture now. At age 20 for next year he's too young to truly, totally give up on him. He'll likely repeat Kanny. But he's being lapped by other infielders and I think he's just not really seen as a prospect by the Sox at this point. Obviously I hope he turns it around.

QUOTE (ChiSoxJon @ Nov 9, 2013 -> 07:49 AM) Can't wait to see them all in Kanny My Way too early/stupid Kanny Projection: C: Zach Fisher, Trey Wimmer 1B: Dan Hayes 2B: Cleuluis Rondon, Christian Stringer 3B: Nick Basto, Zach Voight SS: Tim Anderson (short assignment), Trey Michalczewski, Tyler Shyrock, Toby Thomas OF: Jacob May (short assignment), Adam Engel, Corey Thompson, Nolan Earley SP: Tyler Danish, Franc Montas (short assignment), Jake Sanchez, Andrew Mitchell, Bullpen: Johansel Delgado, Robinson Leyer, David Putnam, Jeff McKenzie, Kelvis Valerio, ETC Basto will be lucky to even be in the org next year, he certainly won't get in the way of any actual prospects. Sox not happy with him. Michalczewski not going to play SS either, he'll be at 3B most likely. I think Anderson gets the fast-mover treatment and starts at W-S, even though I personally think that's a bad idea. Danish is 50/50 to be at W-S, maybe leaning slightly in.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFan05 @ Nov 8, 2013 -> 04:25 PM) I haven't heard a single rumor about our team since October 28th. Hahn is apparently better at keeping things under wraps. Also, he's new, the "sources" haven't been developed yet.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 8, 2013 -> 03:10 PM) Obama said everyone could keep their coverage and insurance will cost less. People are being dropped and their rates are increasing. Of course the Republicans will make political hay out of that. It's the obvious political move. Well to be clear, I don't remember him saying insurance would cost less. The deal was it would, in the long run, keep cost growth rates lower. I'm not surprised the GOP would use it politically, of course they will. It is just sort of hilarious the WAY they are doing it. The website I get, that just is terrible. People not being able to keep their same coverage I get. I'm just saying it is funny the way it circles back - they moan about these people losing their existing insurance, and how can we do that to them... when the whole deal with ObamaCare is now they can actually get coverage that isn't a disaster. Obama screwed up this whole thing pretty badly. I was just pointing out a certain irony in one of the complaints.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 8, 2013 -> 02:49 PM) You realize if your policy was canceled you can still get other policies right? Which leads to one of the great political hilarities in all of this. The GOP will harp over and over again about how people's plans are being cancelled and how awful that is... but they can now GET coverage in that situation. Without ObamaCare, poorly designed as it is, if private insurers dropped people they may not be able to get coverage at all. Basically, the GOP is complaining about ObamaCare-induced cancellations in a way that calls for ObamaCare.

Plenty of blame to go around, and a lot of it rests with Obama. He is the chief executive, and he is ultimately responsible. The American people shouldn't even have to know who was 4 levels down on this effort. I will point out though, that if he fires Sebellius, and he has to go through a Senate confirmation... well, why bother? So if that is a confirmation-level position, then I wouldn't fire her either. I'd just tell her to go focus on something else and have her direct report on this report straight up. greg's hyperbole is pretty hilarious though.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 7, 2013 -> 02:53 PM) Wonder if the dry heat and the straightening of breaking balls helps Mitchell out in Arizona. He hits down there and doesn't hit anywhere else. Maybe he was hurt and has gotten healthy. He's an enigma. But he was pretty bad in his previous AFL stint, so I don't think that's it.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Nov 7, 2013 -> 08:26 AM) Wonder if his 50 game suspension starts in June when the Rookei League season starts, or in April when the other leagues start? It starts when the season begins for the team he is on the roster for. My guess is that they put him on Kanny's roster, inactive, because they start sooner than the rookie clubs. Then after he's done with suspension, he can pitch once for Kanny, and they can send him down to Rookie ball if they want to. This gets the suspension out of the way faster. They may have wanted him at Kanny anyway.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 10:34 PM) You'd still prefer Beck to Bassit though right? Yes, though not by a whole lot. I tend to be a little lower on Beck than some (I have concerns about K rates), and a little higher on Bassitt. But even then, I'd still take Beck over Bassitt at this point.

QUOTE (flavum @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 04:48 PM) Game winning homer for Mitchell today. 2-5, .353 Jacobs, 2-5, double Semien, 1-4, bb Bassitt k'd 2 Saw Bassitt for the first time in the All Star Game over the weekend. Doesn't look like anything special, but if he's a strike thrower he could be a swing guy. Had a detailed report on Bassitt from that game: FB 91-94 T95, curve 77-78 with a foot-plus of movement. The fact that he is maintaining that level of velocity, despite being over 180 innings (only pitched about 90 last year) tells me his endurance is very strong. He's also posted some strong peripherals despite the doubling of innings. And his AA stats don't include his run through the AA playoffs, during which he was flat-out dominant in his starts. I don't think he's a swing guy. I liked him last year, even more now, and I think he's a starter, or possibly a late inning reliever. As a reliever he can hit mid-90's with some consistency, with a big moving curve, which is plenty to work with for that role.

I umped little league games when I was in high school. Most of the coaches were resonable, but there was a definite percentage that were jerks. I actually had to break up a fist fight behind the backstop, between a manager and a coach on opposing teams. I couldn't believe it. At a little league game with 10 year olds. Grow the hell up. I was pretty good at baseball through little league and pony league. Before freshman year in high school, I went to the summer combine "class", where they train up the new players coming in. It was a big high school, plenty of good players. I was a catcher primarily, but had played OF too. My problem: I was a very late bloomer, physically. When I started high school, I was 5'1", 110 pounds. The main catcher from my combine was already almost 6', strong, natural athlete (who went on to play at LSU and in the minors). I could hit for contact, but had no strength, which made me unusable at catcher or most positions. They tried me at 2B, but I was also not very fast. I just wasn't big enough or strong enough, so I dropped out after playing part of my freshman year. The head of the baseball program and varsity coach, who was legendary in the area, told me to go get bigger, keep practicing, and learn to switch hit. I did all of those things. By the time I was a junior I was in a much better position to play again. But the coach had left, and the new guy told me I'd have to try out for Freshman squad, and that he doubted I'd ever see varsity. So I didn't do it. I'm now 6'3" and, in college, weighed about 185. But it took until freshman year in college to get to my adult height. I was at a DI school, and had no real shot at getting on the team. So the opportunities had passed me by.

The following players are now Minor League Free Agents: RHP Simon Castro RHP Jason Berken RHP Scott Carroll RHP Jhan Marinez 1B Travis Ishikawa INF Steven Tolleson OF Jimmy Gallagher They can be re-signed, if the Sox want to. My personal guess is the re-sign Castro at least. Marinez, Tolleson and Gallagher are maybes, IMO.