southsider2k5

Are you really going to try to tell me that the difference between Andrew Vaughn making $570,500 and $1,000,000 is why the Sox won't be able to sign him to an extension this year? Because that is one of the least believable things I have seen in a long time. No, this is not the reason why these extensions won't get done, and if it was, they wouldn't be talking about extensions in the first place. The two tweets do not agree with each other.

Unless you are making the tweets, don't take it personally. But it is fair to critique the information for what it is.

I will say for someone who had no expectations at all of this Bulls team this year, I have been really impressed by the amount of improvement of the team so far. There are definitely some guys who were left for dead who have made some nice gains.,

That doesn't even make a lick of sense. How would limitations in 2021 prevent extensions from happening when all of these players already have known contracts for 2021? This is the exact line that bothers me about these guys. The information in the first tweet could well be right. But then when you get to the second one, it is either personal speculation, or just making stuff up, because it doesn't pass common sense.

And she knew this was building against here and kept on going.

Going back to the list, there are a few names in there that haven't been talked much about. Danny Dopico popped up out of no where, as did Carlos Perez and Zach Remilard.

I wonder who posted this thread...

The Sox seem to usually invite their top picks to camp years before they are ready to make them team. Maybe this year is different for obvious reasons, but historically it isn't unusual for them to get an invte.

They technically have 14 slots of players they can still invite to spring training without having to remove someone.

At 18, they are "adults".

Evidently we beat the Dodgers for him.

False alarm

Hopefully that doesn't mean what it sounds like it means.

Realize that there are a few different numbers that could be at play here. When you trade on margin, there are three different basic sets of numbers going on. There is your profit/loss, your initial margin and your maintenance margin. In order to enter a position, you have to have enough to clear the initial margin. Typically that is 50% of cash value of your position. Once you are in the position, you have to have enough in your account to be above the maintenance margin. Typically that is 25% of the value of the position. If a position holder falls under maintenance margin, they then go on what is called a margin call. At that point they owe the difference between their cash and that maintenance margin figure. The other option is typically that a person can liquidate positions to both reduce margin requirements and to raise cash. This works unless a user has run into a negative equity, which at that point they still owe whatever amount they are upside down to the firm. In a case like this with short options and a huge rally, I posted a couple of weeks ago how easy it is to leverage yourself into a huge hole. My guess without knowing the details is the kid was probably on a $750k margin call, and thought he had to come up with 750k, and not that he could also reduce his risk by selling positions to cancel his call if he was still positive equity. If he was a A) 750k call, and had 800k worth of positions, he could sell off positions and meet his call. If he was on a B) 750k call, and has 700k worth of positions then he could sell and still have to figure out how to come up with 50k to pay the brokerage back. If he had C) 750k call and worthless positions, then he actually had to come up with 750k to the brokerage. I don't know what the details were in this case, but because of the ambiguous language in the article it would be my guess that it was somewhere between scenarios A and B versus C, which the kid seemed to think. Someone new to trading might not understand that a margin call isn't typically and obligation to send cash. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/033015/what-difference-between-initial-margin-and-maintenance-margin.asp

They NEED OL, BADLY. This team can put Tom Brady himself behind center, but if he doesn't have time, it doesn't matter.

This was really cool to see. A piece of history for sure.

The DH rule is only for this season, at least officially. It would need to be a part of the next CBA to last past 21.

I think with still fighting the pandemic, they want the extra time knowing there will be a ton of these worked into the schedule. Every sport has seen cancellations, and if we build this much into the schedule, and then add to it? That's brutal for the players.

I think the rough part is even if you get most of these guys to take a minor league deal, they are going to want an OK amount of money if they make the team, and they are also going to want a pretty firm opt out if they don't make the team. You won't be able to keep a Rich Hill or Jake Arrieta around for months in Charlotte on a MiLB deal.

Here's the thing. I know everyone is hung up on depth, but let's not pretend that the Sox record last year was all based on everyone being healthy and having career years. The Sox rotation past Giolito and Dallas, was god awful. Nine starting pitchers in 60 games isn't something where the Sox were going with Plan A most nights, and they still found a way to win almost 60% of their games. They saw complete failures out of 3 offensive positions in 3B, DH, and RF, and yet were still one of the top offensive teams in all of baseball. The pen also went through a ton of pitchers, and still has a ton of depth both in top notch relieving prospects, as well as potential failed starters would could be added out there. In no way can you argue that the Sox had an ideal year last year. There is still a ton of room for growth, plus the have some margin for error. Granted, this could have been the off-season where they addressed adding to depth, but they didn't. But 83 wins? As a median result? I still can't see it. The computers don't like one off's, and this Sox team is full of those. They also have trouble projecting kids with no history into spots, and we are loaded with those as well.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/02/09/super-bowl-viewership-drops-to-lowest-level-since-2007/