NorthSideSox72

Before the arguments begin, a public service announcement and reminder - how much the team is worth is not the same as revenue, nor are either the same as money available to pay for things.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Mar 23, 2016 -> 12:48 PM) Actually, I was wrong. Phillips wasn't claimed. He turned down the minor league assignment. I believe you were still correct though that he did not have options remaining.

QUOTE (oneofthemikes @ Mar 23, 2016 -> 12:41 PM) Matt Davidson is having a really nice spring and it got me thinking. Are there any examples that you guys know of where a prospect was having a really nice minor league career, appeared to have lost it, and was able to turn it around and become a good major leaguer? Lots of prospects hit rough patches and are still good players later. But I can't think of a single one that went from consensus T100 prospect, to two straight years of massive issues in AAA, to then eventually becoming a strong player. It's not impossible of course, I just can't think of any.

AZ and UT are done, American Samoa is essentially done (most of its delegates are unbound). Things that have changed are in bold face. BASELINES Total GOP delegates: 2,472 Party-level delegates - unbound: 168 So, voting-linked delegates: 2,304 50.00001% of 2,304 is rounded to 1,153 Total ending delegates to clinch: 1,237 Delegates to clinch a convention-proof nomination: 1,321 CURRENT STANDINGS - total so far: 1,534 awarded (66.6% of voting-linked total) (leaving off the uncommitted/supers for now) Trump: 739 Cruz: 467 Kasich: 144 ---out... Rubio: 169 Carson: 8 Bush: 4 Fiorina: 1 Huckabee: 1 Paul: 1 PERCENT OF REMAINING DELEGATES NEEDED FOR CONV-PROOF MAJORITY (770 voting-linked delegates remaining) Trump: 582 delegates (75.6% of total) Others: mathematically impossible 482 of the remaining 770 voting-linked delegates are WTA, so 288 proportional delegates of some form (though 120 of those are Winner Take Most, which is a hybrid of sorts). Now, using recent national polls from March among the remaining candidates among LV (and I spread the few % points of undecideds proportionally), you get these likely proportional outcomes... DELEGATE COUNTS PLUS REMAINING PROPORTIONAL USING % ABOVE... Trump (applying 46.5% to remaining prop and totalling): 739 + 134 = 873 Cruz (31.5%): 467 + 91 = 558 Kasich (22%): 144 + 63 = 207 NEED TO WIN IN WTA STATES TO CLINCH PRIOR TO NOMINATION Trump: Must win 448 of 482 Everyone else: Mathematically impossible if proportional trends continue So now, Trump is the only one left who can clinch a bullet-proof number prior to convention, and in order for him to do that, if his proportional rate stays about what his overall rate has been and national polling says, he would have to win nearly all the remaining WTA delegates to do it. If he loses any one of WI, NY, MD, IN, CA or NJ, he'd fall short (barring a big increase in his proportional levels). Same true if he loses basically ANY two WTA states. WILDCARDS --Most of the remaining contests are in one of these regions: west coast (which probably best aligns with a moderate like Kasich), northern plains (probably Cruzville), and portions of the northeast (Trump mostly, but PA could like Kasich). Regionality is key now. The south is basically done except WV, and there are a couple midwestern states, and a couple in the mountain west. UP NEXT Hitting a bit of a slow spot now, but here are the next few contests: APRIL 1st to 3rd: North Dakota (28, all UNbound, ONLINE STRAW POLL) This one is bizarre. No current polls either. Apparently they had some sort of conflict with the national party, and now they are running an online straw poll (seriously), the results of which will be taken into the state convention on April 1-3. It's not clear if they will take that result as-is, or override it. APRIL 5th: Wisconsin (42, all bound, WTA) *No polls since late Feb, which had: Trump 30%, Rubio 20%, Cruz 19%, Kasich 8%, Carson 8% Then in late April things really pick up again.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 23, 2016 -> 09:59 AM) If he just got added to the 40 in December, then he had the full compliment of options remaining. They must have really, really not liked him to DFA him before even using up one of his option years. Actually I don't believe he had options left. He was a minor league free agent signing prior to that. So he had no options, and had to pass through waivers to clear for DFA.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 23, 2016 -> 09:39 AM) Zack Phillips got a major league deal with Baltimore. MLB Trade Rumors ‏@mlbtraderumors 46m46 minutes ago New Orioles addition Zach Phillips receives a $510K Major League deal. Details on the signing: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/03/orio...hris-jones.html … It was interesting, he was added to the 40-man prior to the Rule V back in December because he was high risk to be claimed. Then Sox brought him to camp and DFA'd him. He pitched in 5 games, and did get hit a bit. This makes me a little nervous around LH relievers. I don't trust Jennings, and there is very little depth that can remotely be relied upon.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 23, 2016 -> 08:47 AM) Michalczewski and Zangari in the same year? Not sure I agree with that. Zangari could be 2019, or later even. But Zangari's hit tool is far more advanced than Michalczewski's was when he started as a pro. And as a 1B there is less concern about extra time for his defense. My personal view is, he's likely to make big leaps in 2016 and 2017, to be reading sometime in 2018, most likely. Just my view of it, others probably feel differently. I wouldn't begrudge anyone saying 2019 or even 2020.

Instead of the usual focus on prospect tools or skills or future role and value, we took a different approach on this one - we focused on the "when". We look at the likely arrival times for ranked prospects, mesh that with the current contract status for the major leaguers, and find the gaps. It's all detailed here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 22, 2016 -> 12:19 PM) Trump's interview with the WaPo editorial board was...interesting. I can understand the logic behind supporting any of the other candidates. I could understand it with all the others I've seen as well. I can't understand how someone giving it even a moment's actual thought can seriously support a candidate under the logic that, well, politicians have sucked for a while now, so I'll vote for a hyena instead. I mean, yeah, Trump isn't a typical politician to be sure. But this is the definition of cutting your head off to get rid of a headache.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 22, 2016 -> 11:01 AM) Based on the NY Times chart, Garland is as far from the middle as Alito. I don't agree with the Senate summarily rejecting any nominee, but based on Obama's past words and actions, I think it's reasonable to force him to find a nominee closer to the center. Alito is a windsock. I was always fine with Roberts, and still am. But Alito is useless. How far he is from center is simply dictated by Republican edict.

QUOTE (Señor Ding-Dong @ Mar 22, 2016 -> 11:31 AM) I like both May and Jason Coats, and both look ready to see the majors at some point this year. I wonder which OF would get the call first should the need arise. I think when you look at May versus Coats, it's partially a question of time. If the need is during 2016, I'd go Coats - he is just more complete and more ready right now. Longer term, I think they see May having a higher ceiling (though I am not 100% sure I agree). This all also depends on how they perform in the minors this year.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 22, 2016 -> 09:03 AM) Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Harry Reid were four of the 25 Senators who voted against the cloture motion that allowed the nomination to come to a vote. So not nearly the same thing only because of other people, not because of those four. So, those four have made the bed that they now have to lie in. Karma is a b****. Hahahaha, seriously? You think a handful of Senators making a stand they knew wouldn't work, to an entire party in the Senate simply saying we won't even review a nominee? These things are not in the same ballpark. This Senate is saying they won't even review, let alone go to committee, let alone go to a cloture vote. Not to mention that nominee not only got a hearing, but was confirmed. The fact that about half the Dem Senators voted for cloture, and no one was saying they wouldn't even review, should tell you how historically obstructionist the current Senate is. Regardless of your affiliation, the facts on the ground are clear here. It's a new level of idiocy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 22, 2016 -> 09:34 AM) May has made a lot of impressions around camp. He has played a great CF, and he has 4 of the teams 9 SBs in spring training so far. If he wasn't on the radar before, he is now. May has been on the radar for some time. And while his defense is a big asset, as is his speed... his hit tool is a question, he's got very little power, and his arm is fringy. Plus he effectively missed half of last season due to that concussion. He's not major league ready. He'll need all of 2016 in AAA (or AA then AAA) at least before he's ready, and maybe some of 2017.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Mar 21, 2016 -> 06:33 PM) In theory, even if Obama did that, they would have to say "no" or risk looking foolish. They already look foolish. Let's go through the excuses they've used so far... --It's too late, he's a lame duck - nevermind that they have 10 months which is far more time than it usually takes. And it's been done - under Reagan. --The people should decide - they did. Twice. Once when they elected a President, and in every poll a majority of Americans and even a majority of Republicans feel the nominee should get a hearing. --Dems have done the same - no, they haven't. Both parties have made blustery statements, but the Senate has not - in either party's case - ever just say they wouldn't even review the nominee flatly. --Dems started this by threatening filibuster on Alito - threatening a filibuster, which they did not do, and gave a full hearing and eventual nomination. So yeah, not nearly the same thing. I mean, they can't look much more obstructionist and dishonest. Most of them aren't willing to be honest and just say what literally everyone knows - that this is purely because they don't want to do it, for partisan reasons. Which has been pretty much the entire story of what they've done in Congress generally for years, and contributes to their stellar 8% approval rating. They already look like bratty children.

The Week Three stock report, going over the hot and cold players that are either vying for a roster slot or are prospects trying to up their value in big camp.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Mar 21, 2016 -> 04:30 PM) How can giving delegates to another candidate when dropping out even allowed? That is like deciding for the people who they would have voted for if it was Trump and Cruz. Doesn't seem right Well, after the first vote at the convention, that's exactly how it works. The question is, can it happen before even going to convention? And before the 1st vote? Some delegates are unbound, but Rubio can't really control those anyway - they can go to whomever they'd like. Rubio can only encourage them. Also worth noting, some rules are considered untouchable, but many others are essentially set at the time of the convention. That is part of what makes this so potentially messy.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Mar 21, 2016 -> 03:13 PM) Rubio might be reaching a deal to have some of his delegates (in states where it is allowed) to switch to Cruz. Before the convention even? Wow, that's an interesting move. I assume that comes with an endorsement then, because that is the value Cruz gets from having them now instead of at (or right before) convention. Where did you see that?

Now there's an AZ poll out, post-Rubio: Trump: 45.7% Cruz: 33.3% Kasich: 17.1% Undecided: 3.8% Confidence at like 88% for those who chose a candidate. So it looks pretty locked in, with Trump highly likely to win.

Capra has talked up Hickman too though, which is what I thought you were getting at.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 21, 2016 -> 12:13 PM) I asked Nick his thoughts about the former Rice Owl. In true form, Capra replied, “I put him right up there with Fulmer That was from Future Sox. He said the exact same thing at Soxfest when he was asked about under the radar guys. That's Jordan Stephens, not Blake Hickman. Hickman went to Iowa.

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Mar 21, 2016 -> 11:38 AM) erik johnson on a winning team should not be a starter. First guy up from AAA is kind of the ideal slot for him. I don't think that's the case. I think he's either a major league starter, like a 4th starter kind of guy, or he's not MLB material at all. EJ comes in 2 versions - the one that was in his good delivery and relaxed, and the tensed-up version that is all over the place. There is no in-between. And the difference is entirely mental, IMO. QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 21, 2016 -> 11:39 AM) Johnson won't be in the Sox organization much longer, in my opinion. He might be a good candidate for that. But I have serious doubts about his ability to get out of his own way, no matter the org. He's just wound very tight.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 21, 2016 -> 11:48 AM) That's the guy Nick Capra thinks is as good as Fulmer. More specifically, he thinks he COULD be, is what he said. And I really doubt it. But certainly Hickman is one to keep an eye on, though I'd suggest one shouldn't focus on his 2016 numbers. His goal for this season is just to get stretched back out, gain strength back, and log innings. 2017 will tell you what you've really got. Word is, Hickman will likely be with AZL for most or all of this season. Full season ball would come in 2017.

QUOTE (LDF @ Mar 21, 2016 -> 09:36 AM) that is an interesting idea pretty much how the college teams does it, both will share catching duties and one will be a catcher and the other .... well as you mention. the thing that i like now, with that added info on schroeder is the sox may be developing 2 really good prospects at catching and lets not forget that int'l player as well. dang that makes the sox selecting zach collin this yr as not an option. These things are not related. The White Sox aren't going to draft for organizational need any time in the first 10 rounds at least.

Latest polls, with a new batch of contests coming up Tuesday... ARIZONA (58 delegates, all bound, winner-take-all), no post-Rubio polls so showing the full picture with Rubio: Trump 34% Cruz 21% Kasich 12.5% UTAH (40 delegates, all bound, winner-take-most), using the only post-Rubio poll: Cruz 53% Kasich 29% Trump 11% AMERICAN SAMOA (9 delegates, none bound, Caucus) *couldn't find any polls So, with Arizona, Rubio had been running like 20% and he's out now. There's no telling how that will break, but I'd have to think Trump has the inside track in the "build a wall" state. Hopefully we'll see a post-Rubio poll before the primary. In Utah it looks like Cruz should cruise. I'm surprised how high Kasich is and how low Trump is there - probably a religion factor there. Plus Romney and Huntsman have expressed strong rejection of Trump, which may have some pull there. Remember that Trump needs some 72% of remaining delegates to get the bullet-proof number, and 67%+ to even get half of the bound delegates. If he wins AZ and Samoa but loses Utah, that's like 63% on the day so he's not quite running that rate. That means he gets slightly further from the nomination.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Mar 21, 2016 -> 09:02 AM) This is a great profile by Kim. Will Zavala begin the season in Kannapolis this year? That's an interesting question. In addition to Zavala in the 12th, the Sox also drafted Casey Schroeder in the 8th round. On the one hand, Schroeder played in the slightly more advanced league and was taken as a higher bonus pick. On the other hand, Schroeder struggled in Great Falls with the bat, whereas Zavala was a monster offensively. Schroeder is considered the better defensive catcher, but Zavala did OK. Either could start in Kanny, or they may even have the two of them split time there at first and maybe DH some too.