NorthSideSox72

Just so people have the background color here... The White Sox do not have an a catching prospect that appears anywhere near major league ready. In fact, even in a relatively thin farm system, the Sox probably won't even have a catcher in their Top 25 come January. Here are the catchers in the system that are getting playing time: --Miguel Gonzalez will be the starter at AAA most likely (or split time with one of Phegley/Flowers if they get crowded down). He was once somewhat highly considered, and he supposedly is very good defensively... but he hasn't put up an OPS higher than .675 in a full season since 2009. He'll be only 23 in 2014 so he's still on the radar, but he doesn't look like a major league starter. --Mike Blanke was drafted as an offense-first catcher in 2010, but he hasn't hit anything since his draft year at Great Falls. .642 OPS last year at AA, while splitting time (91 games), and will be 25 in 2014. He's likely a minors bench guy in 2014. --Kevan Smith put up a nice .834 OPS in A+ this year, he's generally hit well for a catcher, and his defense is improving. However, he's going to turn 26 next year, when he's likely to be at AA. He may be the top catching prospect in the system right now (though that is debateable), but he likely just misses the T25 cut. --Sammy Ayala and Jose Barraza were both drafted as high schoolers in 2012 and each have tools, but even if one of them works out well, they are 3+ years away from the majors. Barraza also missed this year of play due to injury. --There were 2-3 catchers from the 2013 class as well, but none of them really stuck out. Basically, there are few if any catchers who look likely to be major leaguers. So whatever you do at catcher, you are better off getting someone for at least 3 years (if going the free agent or trade route). If not, then just run Flowers and Phegley out there again and see which looks like a potential starter.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 4, 2013 -> 01:59 PM) I really cannot believe youd read something like this then continue believing the government is capable of doing anything right. And I really cannot believe you read something like this and assume it means nothing the government does is right. Clearly, they do many things right. And many things wrong. The website rollout for ObamaCare was wrong, wrong, wrong. No one is arguing otherwise. But that is not the same as saying nothing can ever be right, which is absurd on its face.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 4, 2013 -> 11:58 AM) In terms of position and being a switch hitter, Salty really is a good fit. It just worries me that after last year he really has shown no consistency in terms of AVG & OBP. If a healthy Tyler Flowers is given the same opportunity Salty was in 2011 and 2012 would there really be much of a difference between the two offensively? Besides the fact that Salty kills RHP I don't think there is. Again, the fit is there, but whether Saltalamachiia is actually going to be a strong contributor is a huge a question mark. Him killing RHP is pretty huge. He can be your starter, give him a day off here and there against lefties and run Flowers or Phegley out there as your backup and vs-lefty guy where they will be stronger anyway. His value goes beyond what he can do in a full season. It also buys you a few years to try to raise a catcher within your system. But I agree with wite, you decide what max deal you'd give (4/36 seems near the top end), and if he can get more somewhere else... pass.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 03:38 PM) WTF? I mean, I can guess where you're going here, maybe with "trying to solve a problem but has too many handouts to big business" or something like that, but seriously, WTF? I can't even get close. Meaning, it is a transitional setup, whose gains are more or less offset by negative consequences. Still represents, in some fashion, a key step to other things in the future. But as much as you gain in some aspects, you lose at least as much in others. And that is fine, as long as you are headed somewhere with it.

Salty was my prediction as well in one of the roster threads a few weeks back. I think he makes a lot of sense for the Sox. I am just not sure they will win a money battle for him.

ObamaCare is like corn ethanol, policy-wise.

So here's a sort of obscure question I have on this... I've seen odds on the Sox stated variously at 40-1, 50-1, and 60-1, depending on what casino or source it is pulled from. Seems to me that, if the odds really are different at different locations like that, there is an obvious arbitrage opportunity there for the bookmakers. For every dollar you take in selling them at 40-1, you buy a dollar's worth from another casino (directly or indirectly) at 60-1. For every team that doesn't win, you end up flat. For the team that does, you make as much as 50% margin. Netted out over a lot of diff trades, you make significant positive margin. I wonder if they do that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 08:30 AM) Isn't that basically how it happens right now? If a person has no insurance and has a heart attack, they're not going to let the person die if they reach an ambulance. Afterwards, they'll try to get whatever they can from the person, but if the person is uninsured and on minimum wage because they work at the nation's largest employer, the hospital won't be able to recoup anything near the amount spent on the person. That cost gets passed on to whomever it can be passed on to. Under the PPACA, that cost is going to be paid by Medicaid in the states that took the expansion. It's going to continue to be paid by the hospital in the other states, who will of course continue to push their prices higher to everyone else in order to cover those costs. Well first of all, I think I meant pre-PPACA. Second, if what you are saying is true... then before PPACA, those costs were NOT going to the taxpayers. The hospitals had to take them as collection items like any other business does, try to recover as much as they can, and write off the rest. But now with PPACA, the hospital can pass that cost onto Medicaid, or just keep doing the same thing? So in other words, for states that TOOK the expansion, we are now charging the taxpayers, when we weren't before? And for the other states, we will continue to NOT pass it on to the taxpayers?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 05:19 PM) I can already read your "you shouldn't be eating at McDonalds 5 days a week" complaint when someone has a heart attack with no insurance and sticks the taxpayer with a $100k bill for the emergency room. I want to hone in on this point for a moment. Please explain to me, mechanically, how it is that if someone racks up a $100k hospital, and the taxpayers pay for it if the patient cannot? I feel like I'm a piece of the puzzle here.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 11:56 AM) Saturday @ 7p. Kinda lame that it appears the All Stars or whatever weren't picked on their AFL performance. Semien was garbage, Leesman/McCray were better than Bassit(though all 3 were real good), and Mitchell put up better numbers than 3 of the 5 OFers on the team. Wouldn't really make much sense to base it on AFL performance when they've each been in like 8 games at most by that point.

It is indeed a very good site, and FutureSox has contributed some scouting reports to it (pitchers, and our data will be added shortly).

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:39 PM) Meh. It's great that he's having some success, but the AFL is a notorious hitters league. I'll be much more encouraged if he starts hitting in full-season ball. I wouldn't be concerned about the "hitters' league" aspect, as that effect should be somewhat small. More important is that it is only 39 plate appearances. But even then, while it doesn't suddenly return him to top prospect status, it does help his cause. Not just at face value, but having a strong AFL appearance will help him going into 2014, having gotten into a rhythm a bit. He's not yet, to me, reached a point of complete non-prospect. If his 2014 is like his 2013, then he's done. But if he can do well in 2014, he's in the picture. QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 11:35 PM) Should we try and trade Mitchell for anything we can while he may have marginal value, or should we just hold him until spring training and see if he can fight Danks for a 4th OF spot? I guess either way it's not going to impact much. You won't get anything for him. Given his tools, it is a much better idea to give him one more year to put it together.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:13 AM) Speaking of international, this list also doesn't include Micker Zapata Adolfo, or whatever this name is today. He was rated as high as the #2 prospect in LA when signed. Actually he likely is included - he just isn't listed in their early Top 5. He could be below that, potentially. Hard to tell. BA will have their org top 10 lists out pretty soon.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 04:41 AM) Well, The Counselor has turned out to be quite the disaster. It's another example of the theory that you should never allow the writer/author of a novel to get too involved in the cinematic process. Sometimes it works. Other times, like this, it can go terribly awry. Except that isn't what happened here. This was an actual screenplay that he wrote, specifically for the screen. Not a treatment of a previous novel. But it does appear that McCarthy should stick to writing novels.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 04:06 PM) 24th out of 30 teams still very stagnate minor league system wise. Sox have been in the bottom 3rd in MLB for years. System cannot get much worse. Difference between 24th and 30th team in reality is very small. When Sox get to the 15th ranked system then we can talk about being on the rise. Next years #3 pick is huge for the future. If you look at their points system, you will see that they are closer to the 17th ranked team than the 26th - so what is "small" is the difference between teams in the teens and twenties. There is a bigger difference behind the Sox.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Oct 26, 2013 -> 05:18 PM) Sounds like you did some research on previous posts of mine. I can't remember what I said about Early a year or two ago. Black, I remember saying that he should be moved up in 2012 because others here thought he was too old for his classification in 2012. Since he had good numbers then, I recommended he be promoted to see what he has at a higher level. Toby Thomas, I remember saying something like his numbers bear watching, or words to that effect. None of these comments were a crusade on my part to get them promoted to Top Ten status. Regarding Hawkins, I was a bit more expressive, I admit. I expressed surprise/dismay/discouragement over his poor stats in 2013, just like a few others here. The only thing I added was that he should not be ranked in Top Ten with those kind of stats. He was a Number 1 pick in 2012, and that is the only reason he is ranked so high by you and others. I say that once he is signed and thrown into the competitive arena, his prospect status should be determined by performance, not signing bonus. I once asked parenthetically how long he will continue being ranked #1 if he continues to underperform. No answer yet. Part of my negativity is caused by poor drafting in the first round over many years, exception Sale. Still, I am pulling for Hawkins to do well, but I remain very skeptical. It takes more than tools to be #1. I like Micah Johnson's tools much better. Same with Semien. 1. Performance, statistically, certianly plays a role, but there is no absolute. For a guy in his 4th pro year and at AA or AAA, stats matter a lot. For a 19 year old in his first full year (i.e. Hawkins), they mean a lot less. Not NOTHING mind you, but less. When you draft someone (especially a high schooler), you are looking at RAW TOOLS. And you know going in it will take some years to turn those tools into baseball skills. 2. There is no direct answer to your question "how long is he #1". First of all, most people wouldn't have him #1 right now anyway - Erik Johnson at the least, and maybe a few others, will be above Hawkins on most people's lists. So your query is somewhat of a straw man argument. Second point on this, there is no exact timeframe, because the timeframe is dictated in part by things no one can know yet, like what level(s) he'll be at and how he will perform in various measures. 3. I think you confuse SKILLS with TOOLS. Semien doesn't have nearly the arm strength, power projection or speed that Hawkins has - those are tools. On the other hand, Semien is far more advanced in putting barrel to ball, and recognizing pitches - those are skills. Micah Johnson has only one tool that is even close to what Hawkins has - speed - but even that there is only a slight edge. Johnson is successful in part because he has learned the SKILL of stealing bases, not just being fast.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 25, 2013 -> 12:15 PM) And as a GENERAL rule, wouldn't you say the more educated you are the smarter you are? I actually see them as fairly seperate things. Smarter does, all things equal, mean better chances of getting into a college and finishing a degree. But there are so many other factors that dictate those accomplishments as well, that simple smarts gets outgunned in a lot of cases. Income level, lower level schooling, emotional condition and maturity, home life, all sorts of other factors involved. I've known plenty of very smart people who never graduated college, and plenty of morons with degrees. Heck, my own mother never went to college - retired as an executive from a major bank. Worked her way up from being a teller. Nowadays that would be nearly impossible to do, with the requirements jobs often have. Then there are all the smart kids who grow up in crappy homes, in crappy neighborhoods with crappy schools, and college is never in the equation.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 25, 2013 -> 11:03 AM) As compared to people making more money? Yeah, id say as a general rule that's pretty true. Unless all that data about making more money with more education is bulls***. There is a difference between smart and educated.

Any large firm, especially if they are doing government contract work, will have a policy that heavily restricts social media and press/PR statements. Usually, very few people are allowed to say anything beyond their name, job title and who they work for.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Oct 25, 2013 -> 08:43 AM) Well when you are of the belief that players like Michael Early, Dan Black and Toby Thomas are legitimate prospects, then that will happen For the record, I wouldn't dismiss Toby Thomas just yet, the guy was drafted less than a year ago and put up good numbers. He's no elite prospect, probably not even T25 in the Sox system, but he's not in the same mold as the other two.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 24, 2013 -> 06:00 PM) What kind of an idiot thinks it is OK to talk to the media about their company? Yeah, that pretty much goes without saying. Being fired for this, especially when you are so new, should be expected.

I said this before, the "actual cost" is irrelevant here. And I agree it is stupid to provide an estimate without knowing basic details. No estimates are useful until you have the demographic information you need, so why show it?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 10:57 PM) Megan Fox is 5'4", she is far too small for the role. The goal isn't to look like Lynda Carter, the goal is to look like Wonder Woman, a 6 foot tall amazon woman. Dude, I'm right here, and I'm 5'10" of muscle.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 03:41 PM) I wondered about that too, but apparently it is! There's Cabinet and Cabinet-Level, and both require Senate confirmation. A new EPA director was confirmed this year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_McCarthy Interesting - so there are cabinet positions that need confirmation, but also further "cabinet level" positions? Even goofier than I thought.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 01:59 PM) I'm fine with Senate confirmation, but I don't think the minority should be allowed to prevent an up or down vote because of cloture. That's a good start. But I still believe the executive should be able to act more like one, in terms of how his/her departments are filled out, and running the agencies (within the confines of legislated authority).