NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2016 -> 09:35 AM) This is wrong because it's not a link to No no no . My favorite political ad of all time. Dude was a nut job but also had one of my favorite quotes about politics of all time. Went something like: "When I first arrived in Congress, I thought wow, how the hell did I get here? Then after a while, I thought, how the hell did these other people get here?"

As writers for FutureSox, we sometimes get deep in the weeds. But that's only getting to meaningful analysis of the reader is familiar with how the system works in general. So, following up on a reader request, we wrote a sort of Farm System 101 article. It's a primer for how the minors work in general, with some White Sox-specific information. This starter kit (I hope) gives you the systemic context you need to understand the minor leagues, so that you can put what you read into context. If you know of any related topics we should have covered, comment here and we can always add more!

QUOTE (credezcrew24 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 08:02 PM) I don't think that I've heard of Danny Hayes before, he's certainty put up sold offensive numbers and if his defense is adequate it seems like he's a guy who should be put on the 40 man roster. This is pretty accurate... QUOTE (winninguglyin83 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 09:19 PM) Hayes is a former Oregon State star. Been around a few years. Not enough power to be a big-league first baseman in my opinion. He's got pretty much everything you want in a 1B outside of the power. Gets on base a lot, works long counts, plays above average or better defense at 1B, he's athletic enough to not become a "body problem". He shows the raw power in BP, and some game power but not enough, at least until 2016. In 2015 he skipped High-A to go straight to AA, which is a really big jump - struggled for like 5 weeks then put together a decent rest of the season. in 2016 he opened the year 0-for-24 in AAA, then went on a tear, posting a .927 OPS with 10 HR in his next 50 games. He was at that time probably on the radar for a call-up, but then he got hurt (core muscle injury). Probably he's not a major leaguer, but there are hints that he could maybe be a LHH platoon bat for 1B/DH. Problem is of course, a lot of teams don't have use for that specific role.

I do believe that early child education, pre-K, is hugely critical for development. That said, I don't necessarily think the federal government should be the ones to address that. This is one I think the states and localities need to get addressed. It is something that benefits the entire community, and much like public education in general, should be funded by local and state taxes. If you want to keep the existing providers, then use a voucher system for pre-K levels (and only pre-K levels, because that's where the private structure is already the ONLY structure for the most part). But it is important, and I do think it should be an added tax. Then remove the federal credit entirely, and if people want to pay above what the public structure provides in services or voucher amounts, then don't get a tax break on it. I will probably manage to piss of R's and D's at the same time with that one, haha.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:29 PM) you misspelled 'woman' I am overwhelmed by the staggering profundity of your artfully crafted retort.

Last minute roster change. Connor Walsh removed, replaced by LHP Louie Lechich. Lechich converted from outfield to pitcher during the 2016 season, which is pretty unusual. His 2016 numbers as a pitcher across AZL (5 games) and Kannapolis (7 games): 15 IP, 12 H, 0 ER, 3 BB, 16 K. No idea what his true command is like or even what he throws, but for a converted guy to throw strikes that often (62% in A-ball) and not get knocked around is at least a pretty good start.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 11:11 AM) The GOP has always been aware of those people and it's always made them uncomfortable, they've just been able to keep them at arm's length for the most part with their usual combination of controlling media coverage and big-money fundraising. The impulse for GOP primary voters has always been to want "the most conservative" candidate (whatever the f*** that means) because contenders like McCain and Romney lose by being not conservative enough," not because Obama actually beat both of them. The professional Republicans know that's bulls***, so they prefer someone like Bush or Rubio. Trump was immune to both fundraising being denied and the ability to get media coverage, so they broke through. It's going to be hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube, because his fans (at least for now) are loyal to HIM, not the party. That's why Paul Ryan is twisting in the wind and Cruz is flirting with career suicide. Trump doesn't really need Ryan, but Ryan needs him. This nails it.

I've made pretty clear I despise Trump, but I feel the need to point out two things from the debate. One, the moderators were friendlier to Clinton than Trump, though I was glad they called them both out on a few things. Two, the last question, Trump actually answered, where Clinton gave a complete non-answer. That all said... holy crap, Trump STILL doesn't have the slightest idea how government works, how foreign policy works, or how leadership works. Wow. Continues to amaze. Also, side note - I really, really, really hate that people defending Trump are conflating lewd but consensual conduct with condoning sexual assault. These things are miles from each other. I don't honestly care that Trump had affairs, and that would not be a serious factor in my decision on who to vote for. How are people not getting that?

The AFL opens today. There are eight White Sox prospects playing, and there was a recent roster change, so we updated the league preview. As play is just starting, I thought I'd re-post the updated preview. One nice thing about the AFL is, a lot of prospect hounds go, so there are typically lots of local reports to take in. We will pass some along, especially on Twitter @FutureSox.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 7, 2016 -> 10:46 AM) In Nate Silver's panic-driven forecast for a very brief period, but in the rest of the aggregators, he wasn't. The last couple of days have had increasingly good polls for Clinton, and really the last couple of weeks have pushed her back into the 75%+ column in all of the aggregators. Hm. I do look at 538 periodically - I must have missed that few days or whatever it was.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 7, 2016 -> 10:25 AM) At one point in the past three weeks Trump was leading the Electoral College. He has since the past couple of days closed up some races. I've literally never seen a day when that was true - that he was leading in the electoral college. The toss-up states were, at one point, in a place where if Trump got ALL of them, he'd have a lead. That's the best position he has been in, and he isn't there anymore. QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 7, 2016 -> 10:27 AM) No, what is dumb is that the government is involved in this at all. Yes, but they are. So you want to spend ridiculous amounts of money and create a gigantic issue out of it now? Congress can't even tie their shoes properly, and you want to hand them this mess?

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 7, 2016 -> 09:42 AM) I have stated that Hillary won the debate. Joe American thinks Trump has. Trump's only goal was to look Presidential and for the most part he did that. This Sunday will be very interesting as Trump continues to close leads on Hillary. If you turn Joe American into Joe and Mary American, the majority of them clearly thought Clinton won. Also LOL at "Trump continues to close leads on Hillary". You're about 2 months behind. Clinton has been running away with it lately (though of course that could change). Trump has to try to stop the bleeding. His electoral math, right now, looks really, really tough.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 6, 2016 -> 02:14 PM) Married people should not get special privilege. On this I actually agree with you. I don't think the government should have any connection with marriage. It's a social construct. If you were to start a new country, for me, that's the way I'd do it. No government involvement in that. However, it is now so intertwined with taxes, health care and other things, that unwinding it is basically impossible. Which is why I think you need to err on the side of freedom when there's a choice to be made, which is (along with simply favoring love over exclusion) why I am in favor of same sex marriage.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 6, 2016 -> 10:04 AM) It means there were a lot of people that felt Trump won. You'd have to prove a conspiracy. Of course a lot of people thought Trump won. Millions I'm sure, some of whom probably didn't even watch the debate. But the scientific polls show you that a lot MORE millions thought Clinton won. There is no conspiracy. It's the difference between an actual scientific poll, versus an internet click bait. Are you seriously trying to say they are of the same value for the purpose of evaluating things?

Just because - here is the article I wrote for FutureSox about acquiring Conor Gillaspie for Jeff Soptic, in February of 2013. Soptic, by the way, is still in the SFG system, having pitched his 4th year in High-A. Fun story. I wrote that sitting in a cafe in Datil, New Mexico, at a table under a massive trophy elk head. Stopped on a road trip to write it up.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 6, 2016 -> 07:52 AM) Thanks. Let's try this: http://www.infowars.com/poll-who-won-the-f...dential-debate/ http://fortune.com/2016/09/26/presidential...y-clinton-poll/ https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/0...won-the-debate/ OK. I think you are misunderstanding how polls work. There are internet polls, and direct polls. The articles you linked are all about internet polls - which are simply driven by whomever clicks, which can (obviously) be gamed quite easily. No sampling work is done, no random calls or anything like that. They get linked by people wanting to drive the polls a certain way. The few actual direct polls - ones that follow mathematically valid methods - all showed (as we linked for you earlier) a real sampling of LV or RV (or whatever the subset is). Internet polls carry zero meaning in evaluating anything. They're just for fun.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 6, 2016 -> 07:44 AM) I did provide the links. Hmm. :scratches head: OK, Here you go, the litany of polls: https://theconservativetreehouse.com...on-the-debate/ http://fortune.com/2016/09/26/presid...-clinton-poll/ 30ish polls here http://www.infowars.com/poll-who-won...ential-debate/ Are there other specific facts I have dodged? None of those links works. I think what you did was paste in the link with the "..." in the middle. Try highlighting the text of a word, then clicking the Link button (the one right to the right of the emoji drop-down), pasting in the link and clicking OK. Anyway, there were only a few actual non-internet polls, and all showed that people felt Clinton won. Some by a small margin, others a large one.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 10:46 PM) I simply disagree prefer dramatic anecdotes to actual data. Fixed for you.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 02:46 PM) #Whitesox have outrighted right-hander Jacob Turner to Charlotte… 40-man roster goes to 39. https://twitter.com/CST_soxvan/status/783754772511850496 THAT'S THE FIRST BIG MOVE HAHN WAS TALKING ABOUT!!!! IT'S ON!!!!!!! Seriously though, good, and expected. Though really he should have been gone by August when the team was clearly out of it and had no use for a long man (certainly in September with expanded rosters).

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 02:20 PM) the first political issue we agree upon. Definitely some areas economically that things are not good. We can do better. The idea that Greg has though, that Obama has somehow taken the country massively downhill, is laughable. Not only has that not happened, Obama (or any President) only has so much control over those things.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 01:59 PM) I can't believe so many intelligent people want Hillary Clinton. Would I vote for 4 more years of Obama?? Are you kidding me? Our country is in the worst shape imaginable. Social issues, overseas issues with Russia, China and Korea. The economy? My gosh it is AWFUL. And health care??? Give me a break. He is the Robin Ventura of the USA. he has to go and he's going. That said, I love his personality and the fact he's a big Sox fan and fan of all things Chicago. LOL Violent crime is less than half what it was 15-20 years ago, we're seeing inroads on "social" freedoms like marriage, the economy has done nothing but improve (albeit slowly, that's certainly true) in the last 7 years or so, and far more people have access to real health care now than did before (though prices do continue to skyrocket - that's true). GREG IS HAVING NONE OF THIS!!!!!!! Also as others have pointed out, situations in Korea, China and Russia are not really under the control of the USA, let alone the President themselves. BUT IT'S ALL OBAMA'S FAULT!!!!!!! Seriously, Obama has made some bad decisions and I am all about discussing those. But you watch way too much screamer TV or something, because your idea of what America is today is just not backed by any sort of reality.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 12:21 PM) Please explain to me what you mean by "constitutional court." Oh man, I can't wait for the answer to this. I wonder if he knows there are like 3 lawyers back here too. The phrase "activist" judge is hilarious. It really just means "judge whose decisions I, legal layman, don't agree with". You get that with both parties, by the way.

Having spent a lot of time in the Southwest with family... whatever you put in, make sure you heavily consider shade. Having places to play that aren't in that bright sun will be key with kids, especially little ones. Also echoing that I would never get a pool, especially with young kids. Expense AND risk. Even in a place like Vegas.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 04:52 PM) plus a lot of banks were forced to take TARP money to hide the ones that really needed it. Correct. Most of the banks that took the money didn't necessarily need it, or at least not as desperately. Now onto parsing the below... QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 05:31 PM) I am sorry man but I don't think there are numbers behind any of your claims here. I don't look at the US foreign policy's activity based on administration. StrangeSox brought it up and I brought the info. I didn't make any commentary on who was worse or better I just noted the countries they each bombed and the fact that Obama advanced the scariest parts of Bush's foreign policy. You were clearly saying that Obama had somehow increased things. That's manifestly not true. By using a list of what countries they acted in, you made them seem equal - they are not. A handful of small strikes are not remotely the same as full-on invasions (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq). QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 05:31 PM) Bush started a war in Afghanistan to search for Osama Bin Laden. HRC voted for it too. I think the majority of us understood it after 9/11. Sure. I supported going in there, and still do. But... QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 05:31 PM) In Obama's first year he DOUBLED the highest number of troops Bush ever deployed. Oh, and he ran on taking the troops out of Afghanistan. Whoops. So Bush started it with widespread support but Obama ratcheted it up to twice the level of Bush's worst days. I don't blame Obama for that as the highest military officials in Afghanistan just took advantage of Obama's inexperience but that's a different story (and a great book). http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chart-troop-le...over-the-years/ You are missing what happened here, and I think it's hilarious you think Obama ratcheted things up because of his inexperience. Bush had been ramping up troops, then took his eye off the ball and started the disastrous and illegal war in Iraq. This left Afghanistan under-served and became a quagmire. Obama wanted out, as you said, and that's basically what he's done - he increased troops to get the job as done as they could, then ramped down, just as he promised he would. It's at like 7,000 or 8,000 now I think, which still sucks and is too many of course. But he's gotten as close as he could to truly getting out, but the Afghans just can't take 100% control. That is in no way an expansion - that is taking the scraps of a mess, promising to clean it up, but only doing so partially. While not a great outcome, it is not expansion by any definition. QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 05:31 PM) "Oh and the Yemen and Pakistan stuff, Bush did those too and seemingly more often." - That's entirely false. As I said in my initial post, Obama pushed forward with the harshest parts of Bush's foreign policy. I don't have Obama's second term numbers in front of me in a useful way each of the years of Obama's first term had more strikes than every year of Bush's presidency Yemen numbers: http://securitydata.newamerica.net/drones/...n-analysis.html Pakistan numbers: http://securitydata.newamerica.net/drones/...n-analysis.html True here - I was thinking more about covert actions on the ground, but you are correct there were more air/drone strikes. Of course that was prompted by AQAP's rise, which was a result again of the Iraq War so again it was Obama cleaning up Bush's mess (or trying to). But my statement that it was similar in level was obviously incorrect. Obama escalated the strikes in those places in response to the diaspora. QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 05:31 PM) "And Somalia wasn't bombed by either beyond a couple very small events." Bush never bombed Somalia and Obama has racked up somewhere from 250-400 deaths in Somalia with strikes as recent as last year. They only killed dozens of civilians (they typically don't call adult males civilians) in Somalia which is of the best percentages for countries at war with the USA. You may call that immaterial or a few small events but I don't. I don't remember Obama getting congressional support to go to war which is needed to bomb other countries. In fact, he wouldn't even say the words "drone strike" until his second term. well throughout the entire Obama has more strikes, deaths, civilians, whatever in both countries mentioned, as Middle East. Putting the Somalia specifics aside for a second, the bolded sentence is laughably untrue. Again, you are ignoring the key fundamental fact here - that Bush's administration started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that the results of those wars caused a huge wave of insecurity, civil conflict and terrorism support around the region. Obama's drone strikes are orders of magnitude lower in terms of deaths or any sort of impact than those two wars, which were Bush's responsibility. He broke them, he bought them, and Obama then inherited them. Any discussion on this topic that doesn't acknowledge that is missing the picture. QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 05:31 PM) As far as Bush and Iraq, at least he got congressional support. You said you think he wasn't bad, I think his administration was downright awful. Not so much him but that's at his fault. His advisers gave him bad intel and the USA went to war on it. Bush's admin waging war on Iraq and ruining the most advanced (if not second) arab country in the Middle East. So when Obama put together efforts to bomb ISIS, that falls on Bush as well. So I think Obama's actions in each country mentioned other than Iraq were worse than Bush. Iraq is easily the worst scenario though. That's what the amount of attacks, the amount of deaths and the amount of dead civilians show us. I said I think Bush wasn't that bad OTHER THAN Iraq. And again, you just pointed out why Bush owns Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama is cleaning up the messes. Obama owns Syria and Libya, for better or worse. QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 05:31 PM) However, Iraq had nothing to do with starting the Arab spring. It was regime change in Libya (Hillary's stable regime toppling making a new ISIS stronghold to go along with Bush's work in Iraq), Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. Anything Iraq did in terms of protest pales in comparison. Even when Iraq was stable, the people rarely banned together. There were Sunni, Shiite and Kurds and the Bathists, who are aren't even religious, were in charge. They all lived separately. There was even a pocket of Jews outside of Baghdad that Hussein watched over to make sure nobody bothered them. I am rambling now but Iraq was not a big of the Arab Spring because A.) They weren't unified to being with B.) Bush's admin already ruined their country and C.) The vast majority of the country was happy with their government that the US toppled and didn't want democratization. I graduated with a minor in Islamic studies and my favorite professor grew up in Iraq and he never even broached Iraq when we talked about the Arab Spring that was a current event at the time. The Arab Spring was the result of many things, as I tried to say but perhaps I wasn't clear. But US interventions in the region, mostly Iraq, were one of the main triggers of the wave. There's no doubt about that in my mind. Besides, even if that's not true, the overall thought that somehow Obama has ramped things up is just not factual. You can pick out individual actions he took that Bush didn't of course, and those are true. But Bush invaded two countries, destablized the region, and then Obama had to pick up the pieces and try to keep control over the basically uncontrollable. I don't like some of Obama's decision on the region either, by the way, but he's done a heck of a lot better than Bush and with much less aggression and death.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 04:34 PM) She is supposedly a nice and warm person in smaller groups. Might be true. Might not. Not sure I care, but I'd pick a lot of people to sit and have a drink with before I picked her.