NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 02:23 PM) With the power that some of these positions have, like head of the EPA which essentially makes up laws on its own, they do need some oversight. EPA isn't a cabinet level post though. Also, what the EPA can do is limited by legislated rules and laws as boundaries, and further by legal wranglings if they act in a way that is perceived to be outside those laws (see the lawsuit now pending about certain CO2 regulations). The EPA doesn't make its own laws - it sets guidelines and rules within the confines of their legislated authorities.

By the way, here is what he told me when I interviewed him for FS back in June, about the elbow situation previously: Yeah, my "funny bone" nerve, I think its the ulnar nerve, was pretty badly damaged. It happened on the Cape [Cape Cod League] the summer after my sophomore year. They thought it was tendinitis at first, so they just kept playing me. But it got really bad, to where I couldn't even use a video game controller, that's when I knew it was bad. I started losing some feeling in there. They had to do surgery really fast, because it can lead to permanent loss of use if you don't fix it quick. They removed the tendon to the tricep. I missed my junior year recovering. That sounds pretty bad. Seems hard to believe it is as bad this time, considering how well he was playing. And he missed a season recovering.

QUOTE (flavum @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 01:58 PM) Having surgery to reposition a nerve in his elbow. Had same procedure done while at IU. Source? Also, got the impression his previous surgery was a lot more than just an adjustment, from what he told us when we interviewed him. Said he had serious issues from it, couldn't feel his arm for a while.

And, for the record, I don't agree with the concept that cabinet posts require Senate confirmation at all. I believe the chief executive should be able to choose whatever lieutenants he or she wants.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 01:14 PM) By the way, I should add this. Kathleen Sebelius should be fired for the website errors. Unfortunately I don't know what the succession sequence at HHS would be like or if the President even has the authority to appoint an interim head, and it would probably take the Senate 6+ months to confirm a replacement, but when 20+ states can pull off building a website appropriately and the HHS cannot, then HHS needs a different leader. I would agree with that. This website is the public face of ObamaCare, and if she can't find a way to manage it's implementation reasonably well, then that is her management failure.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 07:03 AM) http://www.boxoffice.com/latest-news/2013-...an-movie-happen Is bringing Wonder Woman to the big screen the best chance for DC Comics to get back in the game? Is this article overreacting to the success of movies like Gravity, Bridesmaids, The Blind Side and The Heat...? How much of Gravity's success is really about Sandra Bullock and how much it is simply the great special effects/CGI/3D/cinematography of Alfonso Cuaron? Who would you get to direct? Is there another version of Megan Fox with stellar acting ability? It can't Anne Hathaway or Jennifer Lawrence, probably, because they're already tied into Batman/X-Men roles. Also a probable no for Scarlett Johannsen. The role would seem to call for someone we associate more with being a brunette. Eva Green? I don't think Emma Stone is quite sexy enough for a role like that...or has the requisite "Marilyn Monroe" figure. Angelina Jolie's perhaps nearing the point where she might be considered too old for that particular role. Is there an actress who looks like Adriana Lima but with the actual ability to act? What about Hispanic or Asian actresses? Is it possible to go for a non-white Wonder Woman? Would that be accepted? If that was the case, I would go with either Eva Mendes, Li Bing Bing or Fan Bing Bing, after giving a moment's consideration to Michelle Rodriguez, but would actually prefer the Israel Mossad officer, Gal Gadot, who was in the last two F&Furious movies (then again, she might be a little too tall/model-like/lithe and not quite strong enough). Most of the women you mentioned should be nowhere near a role like Wonderwoman, who I think should be someone truly strong and athletic - not just skinny and/or curvy. I'll throw a name in there: Gina Torres.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 05:35 PM) You aren't getting Ellsbury & McCann for the same price as Cano. Those guys are each going get anywhere between $16M to $22M a year. I'd be shocked if McCann got that much per year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 04:42 PM) Which is why we passed a fairly large health care law with a number of cost-control measures that will hopefully at least start to fix by far the largest part of the long-term deficit. Now we need to stop ignoring the unemployment part. No need for the melodrama. The health care law has good and bad in it, but yes, some features of it should help reduce those healthcare costs. And yes, ObamaCo has done a few small things to manage costs. But just as there is a lot that can be done to help the employment figures, there is also a lot that can be done to help reduce fiscal risks in the future.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 01:40 PM) A great illustration of why we should focus on the problem at hand now, the continuing unemployment crisis and failure to recover from the 08 crash, rather than focusing on problems that might be the case 15 years from now as we have been. The timeline for problems is a lot shorter than 15 years. And besides, while these efforts do in some ways conflict, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at both the short AND long term. In fact I think that is absolutely necessary.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 09:49 AM) Unless I'm reading that wrong, one of those charts shows it at 1.3%, the other at 6%. That's kind of a massive difference which makes me question the validity of either. But regardless of their accuracy, the point those charts are making is predicated upon everything going to the plan that interest rates will never rise again. Unfortunately, interest rates WILL rise again someday, whether you or Krugman believe that, it WILL happen. I'm not saying it will happen today, or tomorrow, or that they will rise to the levels they were at in the 80's, but it WILL happen, and since this debt will remain on our books long term, being that we never pay down any principal, a day will come when interest rates affect it in a very very bad way. Which goes back to my original point, that SOMEDAY, and I don't know when, but someday, these interest payments are going to be so massive, that a unsustainable amount of federal outlays will be used specifically to pay them. The only way around that is to bring that debt level down before it grows to a point that we can't keep up with it. If we've learned anything about the economy over the last 100 years, it's that it NEVER goes according to plan, if it did, we'd NEVER have recessions or depressions to study. Because he is conflating two subjects again. One is a measure of interest payments as part of GDP, the second one is a percentage of federal outlays (which is what we actually care about here). What he's not showing is that, per the CBO, net interest payments as a percentage of budget is projected to more than double in the next decade and keep going up from there. The idea that interest rates will be low forever is of course a farce. The only reason that would happen is if the economy stays in the doldrums for that long, which is a whole different problem.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 08:17 PM) But the thing you guys are missing is that none of these things are going to happen until the economy gets back somewhere close to full employment, at which time the deficit mostly does close itself. That's why the CBO now says that the deficit as a fraction of GDP is now stabilized for the next decade plus; the interest rate spike prediction (which by the way we've been hearing from the same people incorrectly since 2009 for exactly the same reason, the fact that the economy has a giant un filled hole in it) only matters when people are getting back to work, paying taxes, and leaving unemployment. And also to note...the 30 year treasury rate is under 4% and has stayed there for years now. The actual market thinks that this interest rate spike will not happen in the next decades. (And no, this isn't because of the fed, when they would stop buying things prices barely changed). You keep ignoring the key point here. Nowhere in your posts are you dealing with the debt service as a percentage of federal spending.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 08:25 PM) It's Daniel not Brandon, that's what he's saying. Oy, now I see it, typo. D'OH!

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 12:51 AM) Obviously I've been the captain on the Ortiz train for quite some time now (still believe he's definitely top 25 in this system). Love everything about his make-up, just needs to be more aggressive and believe in his stuff more. I won't say names like Danish, Mitchell, Engel, Beck etc. since they're more known (as well as Jaye) on top 25 lists, so I'll thrown an unknown reliever who might get Santos Rodriguez-like consideration for the top 25 list. (before next year's June draft of course which probably bumps alot of people off, although still maybe sneaks in..) Andre Wheeler. Brad Goldberg was getting more the headlines as the season was winding down, but IMO, Wheeler is the better prospect. He got a mechanical tweak in Bristol, and he was just dominant (especially with his control which was the biggest knock on him.. sounds familiar) after turning pro. I can see him shooting up the minors next year, with AA being his biggest test. Being a LHP also doesn't hurt his chances in the future. Another guy who is unknown, but a bit more polished hitter right now than the big signings overseas (Otano, Cruz, etc.) from the DSL is Antonio Rodriguez. Sox are very high on this kid, and he did finish out the year very strong for DSL. Obviously still a ways away, but he could sneak in if he hits Bristol (which he got a taste of last year) and plays solid. Just exceptional tools he possesses which alone makes him intriguing to follow. I might one of the rare ones actually playing attention to the DSL guys though, so it's probably more of a stretch. Just trying to fit the criteria of this thread. You say the Sox are very high on Antonio Rodriguez... can you elaborate? What have they said?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 03:41 PM) Honestly, I didn't mind Oney when he was playing for the Sox because his clear role was to move from team to team filling a roster spot and getting time on the field only when absolutely necessary. Those kinds of players are necessary. Adam Ricks was good at that too. Sure, again, as long as they weren't taking up significant playing time. Basically, either they are there to assist teams by filling a bench role no one else wants, or they are just being given a brief "tour" of the system. Those cases are fine. When they become KW Jr, it becomes an issue. OR even something in between.

I'm sure they gave up next to nothing, a very small amount of cash. That said, I do dislike these kinds of moves. The guy clearly isn't a prospect. If he is used as minor league bench filler, being a backup 1B for example that plays 20 games a year for some low level club to give a guy some rest, that's fine. I don't care. If he starts taking starting at bats from anyone, then it does bug me.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Oct 18, 2013 -> 08:40 PM) An interesting topic came up today at our advisory board meeting with local clinician's. The popularity of the physical therapy field is always ties to insurance reimbursement. The clinician's as a group said that over the last 3 months there has been a reduction in reimbursement across the board. Earlier in the year there were 10 jobs for every PT. Now, the clinics are getting 10 applicants for every opening as they dry up. Everyone is holding their breaths to see how all of this unfolds and are really cutting back. This seems incongruous with other trends. The lack of doctors problem, and the drive to cut medical costs by having non-Doctoral medical professionals do a larger bulk of the load, as examples. Those trends, I think, will win out in the long run over lower reimbursement levels for physical therapy. I could be wrong of course, but that is my view. I read a great pilot program and study, as an example, some 15 years ago. Not PT, but on the topic of balancing which types of professionals do what work. In a rural area in the mountainous west, they decided to try an alternative to expensive clinics to serve spares and spread out communities for basic medical needs. The basic idea was, the only medical professionals in these areas are often the fire/rescue volunteers - EMT's and Paramedics. So they trained some of them on things like immunizations, some limited medication scripting, therapeutic techniques, etc. And they delivered much of the care in person, in their homes. The results were dramatically increased general health, for relatively low costs, because ovehead was so low. This sort of out-of-the-box thinking could benefit medical costs as a whole.

The discussion of debt load versus GDP/GNP is important, however what I think Y2HH was getting at is absolutely a valid point: debt service as a percentage of federal budget. As interest payments have to increase, the ability of government to spend money productively goes down. That is simple reality. Take a look at the future projections of how much of federal spending is likely to be eaten up by interest payments. That, more than creditworthiness or debt costs, is the key problem with the size of the debt. That of course can be addressed numerous ways - and contrary to what some of the hyper-conservatives think, simply cutting spending itself is not a good idea, especially right now. But there IS a reality there that Balta and SS are apparently ignoring, instead choosing to label such fears as "oh that's a big number!", which no one here is arguing.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 10:24 AM) Brandon Webb?! haha, I said NEXT year, not THIS YEAR. QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 10:33 AM) Ortiz and Hansen are a couple guys a like as well. Ortiz's slider is one of the best pitches in our whole system. MLB bullpen worthy for sure. Another guy I like for '14 is Jefferson Olacio. For anyone who doesn't know Olacio he is a lefty from the DR with the frame CC Sabatahia claims to have in 6' 7" - 270. (no way CC isn't 300+) First half: 6.86 ERA with 28 BB in 59 IP (12 GS) Second half: 2.78 ERA with 29 BB in 77.2 IP (13 GS) Olacio probably has the biggest gap between floor and ceiling of anyone in the system. His mechanics were really messed up this year, in part because the guy was still changing physically in a huge way. He flashes brilliance, but can also be terrible. 3 years from now he could be so busted he's out of baseball, or mowing down hitters in the majors - I could see either one. The most likely scenario is closer to the former, but the latter is intriguing.

Every year, a number of prospects "break out". These are guys who aren't among the top handful of prospects in the system, maybe they are ranked lower or not showing up on rankings at all, but who by the end of the year are right there. This year, Micah Johnson and Brandon Webb would be among the more prolific examples, but also players who were complete unknowns but now look like prospects (i.e. Chris Bassitt). Who are you thinking might fit that bill in 2014? Who do you think is going to pop up the lists? Here are a few for me... Joey DeMichele Adam Lopez Kyle Hansen Braulio Ortiz Jason Coats Mike Recchia Jeff McKenzie Christian Stringer

This depends a lot on how you define "sleeper". If you are in an MLB/MiLB-wide fantasy league with smallish rosters, virtually any prospect outside the top 5 in any given system is a "sleeper". Especially in a relatively thin Sox system, anyone beyond 5-ish is probably off the radar for anyone in your league. But this does give me another thread idea...

As mentioned by others, you should always take the best player available regardless of organizational need. You can start tuning your draft to your org needs in the latter rounds, when they are all lottery tickets anyway and it becomes hard to see value differences.

DR started last night, here is a look at the six Sox playing down there. PR rosters still aren't up, we'll do a quick preview of that league (if the Sox have anyone there) when the rosters are available.

Now with Abreu in the fold, time to revisit. Here's what I'd love to see... 1. De Aza, CF 2. Semien, 2B 3. Dunn, DH 4. Abreu, 1B 5. A. Garcia, RF 6. Viciedo, LF 7. Saltalamachia, C 8. Ramirez, SS 9. Gillaspie, 3B Despite the frustrations with De Aza - and his boneheadedness was awful - he adds positive value and will be relatively cheap even in arbitration. I think Viciedo gets one more year to show it, and I think he can. Saltalamachia can be gotten on probably a 3 year deal. Non-tender Flowers. I'd also be OK with non-tendering Gillaspie instead of Beckham, and Semien plays 3B instead. Phegley, C Keppinger, 2B - 3B (unless you can get rid of him, which would be great, then find cheap filler here) L. Garcia, INF Jor Danks, OF That's not a bad bench. I have some reservations of not getting Phegley every day time, so you could also elect to make Flowers the backup and keep Phegley in Charlotte just as easily. L Garcia will be a very nice defensive replacement, can PR too. Danks covers all three OF spots competently and seems like he may even hit a little. Sale Quintana Johnson Danks Rienzo/Santiago How good the rotation will be will depend on the development of Johnson and Rienzo. I personally think Johnson will be a solid mid-rotation starter or maybe a little better. Danks I think returns more or less to form, maybe slightly off that but more than serviceable as a 3-4 starter. Rienzo has a ton of talent, so does Santiego, but I'm split on which one is better for the rotation. I think one of them will bloom, in which case this is a very nice rotation. If Rienzo doesn't get the job, I want him starting and stretched out in AAA. Reed Jones Lindstrom/Crain Webb Lefty 1 + Lefty 2 (2 of Veal, free agent, trade acquisition, Santiago, Leesman - but not both Veal and Leesman) Petricka/Castro I like the top 4 slots on that list a lot. I think you take Lindstrom's option, maybe re-sign Crain, or get someone else similar if available. I also think both Petricka and Castro have a chance to be average or better as relievers. The lefties is the real problem, they need to go get at least one solid, reliable lefty. The other can be Santiago, also a Long Reliever in this case, or if Santiago is in the rotation then Veal and Leesman can have a who-walks-fewer-hitters contest for the job. That team costs you, depending on the lefty reliever you get and what Salty costs, around $80-85M. Leaves you room to play with if, by some miracle, you are competitive mid-season. This sets you up for, ideally, someone like Micah Johnson and/or Tim Anderson maybe being ready or close to ready for 2015, when you need to replace the remianing Beckham/Gilaspie slot. That team probably isn't competitive playoff-wise, probably wins 80-85 games, but sets you up nicely in key ways for 2015 while not making 2014 a complete disaster. By that time you also have a couple nice pitching prospects who should be knocking on the door of the rotation (Beck at least), and a few more bullpen guys too. And maybe, just maybe, one of the collection of toolsy OF's finally puts it together in 2014 to maybe be ready for 2015. Fire away.

He's 100% ticketed for Opening Day 1B or DH. That said, he is also currently a Prospect, in my view. Until April anyway. He fits the definition by MLB rules. He's rookie eligible, has no MLB appearances.

If the Sox sign Abreu, Konerko is likely gone (except as maybe a coach, but I don't see that happening right away). Hard to believe they'd trade Dunn (which would mean eating some of his salary) to make room for PK.