southsider2k5

I can't see Washington giving up any more pitching above all else.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 03:55 PM) While I am clearly upset by how awful Trump is, I have to say (this seemed like the best place) that I've seen a lot of overreaction to some things coming out of the executive. I think people are so angry that they just see red. Some examples: --The financial advisor rule removal. This was a matter of pure practicality. It was well-intentioned legislation when it came out, but it was also wholly unworkable, and did not thing material to help people. Getting rid of it is not OMG THEY ARE GIVING THE BANKS ALL THE POWER AGAIN. --The rule about guns that people are looking at as if the GOP wants to give guns to the mentally unstable, is really not accurate, as was pointed out earlier in this thread. --The rule change to allow payments of more than 5k to the FSB was super-narrow and just allowed a specified set of companies to very specific business, to allow border controls to continue to function in both countries. This was not some sort of handover of control to the Russians, as people seem to think. --While there are some confimation-level nominees that are clearly and entirely not proper for their jobs (DeVos is not in the same state as qualified, Tillerson has massive conflicts of interest, the new EPA guy wants to end it), most of them are not outright jokes. And this is a CONFIRMATION process, not a popularity contest. Trump won, and he gets wide latitude to fill his cabinet, unless they are just ridiculously unqualified. Most of the nominees pass muster, so let's not scream and yell about Dems not planting a flag. Again, I think Trump has shown he's (so far at least) a disaster of a President. But that does not mean every single thing he and the White House have done are pure evil. Another of the interesting things I would mention would be lost in the EO on the pipelines, he is requiring that it be done with American Steel, something that at least the Senators for Indiana had been pushing for a long time now.

Ken Davidoff ‏@KenDavidoff 5h5 hours ago Free agent LHP Jon Niese is holding a workout Wednesday in Florida for interested clubs. #MLB

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 5, 2017 -> 10:10 PM) Felt for a while now he was the replacement for Q if a move is made. It's fine though, don't mind Q staying based on some of these mediocre trade proposals. I don't really think the Sox care about a replacement. No matter who it is, I think the goal is to have a couple of these starters up here for the 2nd half of the season, which means if someone sucks and gets dumped, no big deal.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 09:54 AM) Whitley is 19 years old and has only pitched 18 innings of rookie ball so far in his career. Not knocking him, but his MLB eta is definitely not going to be 2019. 2020 would be the earliest you would see him, likely late season at that. Reed / Tucker is not a good enough headliner to a Quintana deal Sox won't lower their asking price from Musgrove + Tucker + Martes that much Reed Tucker could be a starting point if they are willing to give up a majority of their top 10. It would have to be a quantity deal. But like I have said before, then another team would easily be able to offer quality to beat a deal like that.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 07:05 AM) http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/washing...osenthal-020617 That might change soon; the Nats continue to discuss a trade with the White Sox for closer David Robertson, according to major-league sources. Robertson is owed $12 million this season and $13 million next season, creating an all-too-typical Nats obstacle. The team does not want to absorb Robertson's entire obligation, and does not want to move additional prospects after parting with three young pitchers for Eaton, sources say. Sounds like the sting of the public perception of the Eaton deal is slowing this deal down.

QUOTE (oneofthemikes @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 08:51 AM) Juan Soto is a young guy that that I'd love for the Sox to grab. He's a long way from the Majors, but he would be an exciting player to keep an eye on. I'd be great with that.

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Feb 5, 2017 -> 11:30 PM) You guys don't even let him recover from the all burns he's receiving. He could always quit sticking his hands into the fire.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Feb 5, 2017 -> 10:57 AM) From what I remember and understand, KW wanted Avi and Hahn wanted Middlebrooks. Wouldn't have worked out in either case. That is definitely the story that emerged after the trade.

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 4, 2017 -> 04:34 PM) Lame dunk contest this year. LaVine out with torn ACL I am excited to see Glenn Robinson as a local kid, but that is about it.

QUOTE (Boogua @ Feb 4, 2017 -> 09:41 AM) That play where he just laid on top of MCW and got MCW called for his 6th foul was actually pretty funny. QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 4, 2017 -> 10:42 AM) zipser also had a comical foul with Harden when Harden elbowed him in the forehead and was rewarded the foul, only to get a technical issued after ref review. I understand Harden is a superstar, but there seriously Has to be some sort of similar foul to hockey's embellishment fouls that can somewhat discourage the fouls that he causes Those were two of the worst calls I have ever seen. How the NBA can't fix that stuff during a review is beyond me.

And as an extra step of research, it does appear the Astros are at or above their 2016-17 international spending pool. They only had $2.1 million to start, and I see signings of $1.2 million, plus 450k and 480k along with a decent amount of unlisted signings.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 04:18 PM) I could have sworn seattle just traded bonus pool amounts. Seattle traded a current bonus pool slot (2016-2017, and not 2017-18) to Texas back in July.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 03:12 PM) With things like comp picks or international bonuses possible, it could be a more creative and strange negotiation. To be clear, comp picks can only be traded in season. So this pick from the Cards CANNOT be traded until after the first pitch of the season. Also International money can only be traded during that period of time. The only thing we can acquire now is for the period of time BEFORE July 2, 2017, and that class is pretty much gone. The only use that MIGHT have is if there is someone from a place like Cuba that we like (say like Ralph) and that money made the difference. If we are talking about a trade before opening day neither a comp pick, nor 2017-18 international signing money can be in a deal.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 02:32 PM) Nightengale said that Houston and White Sox are re-engaged on talks. Levine has been saying for weeks that Q goes before the season starts. I don't think it is a matter of "close" or not, but more about who blinks first. Both teams probably know the others demands well by now. It is all a matter of who is going to step down from that price to meet the other.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 12:45 PM) The idea that someone can call themselves a "financial adviser" and sell you high-cost, high-fee investments that are better for their pocketbook than yours seems like a bad idea, though. You can't just "call yourself" a financial advisor and be one. There is licensing and rules that goes with it. As was eluded to before, a decent amount of this is covered in existing rules. What isn't in there could have easily been included in the tightening of existing rules, or clearer clarification of them. This was taking a machete to pop a pimple.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 12:27 PM) I am vividly familiar with the matter (as like you, there are direct impacts to my industry / company). The big issue was the department didn't really listen on those two pain points and how to streamline / enhance the process. That said, there are a lot of really good things that are included within the legislation as well. Another thing that is really odd to me is why should 401K money fall under one-set of rules while other funds don't. SEC is really who should be weighing in on this, imo. FINRA flat out said in the conference that they (as in the regulators) did not ask for this rule, and they did not want this rule. This was all on Congress.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 12:34 PM) It wouldn't be able to. The author of that article of that post also said that they could do a "minor league filler type player" for comp. bal. pick on Opening Day and it would work. That is pretty dangerous. If you have an agreement in place to circumvent the rules, you can get smacked down pretty hard by MLB. Not worth it IMO.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 12:22 PM) I know. It can be traded later on as a continuation of the deal. There's no reason why the Sox couldn't get the pick in the trade. I do not believe that a pick can be a TBA.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 12:22 PM) I'd like to get Reed in there somehow. Looking at Reeds numbers, the name Paul Konerko pops into my head. I am not saying that is what he will be, but that is what those minor league numbers look like to me. it is also interesting because Konerko was also pretty bad in his first run in the majors, and it got him traded for both Jeff Shaw and Mike Cameron.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 12:17 PM) The biggest flaw was two fold...one how do you litigate against it...a total disaster from that perspective, and two, with the increased cost of compliance, etc, associated with it, the lower to middle class consumer will get pushed to the side, because you won't be able to generate the returns to meet the costs for those investors. Huge huge issue with both good and bad parts to the legislation (imo). From a consumer side, there would be no good reason to take on low net worth individuals. That is a great point and one I hadn't even thought about. You are spot on that you would never generate enough in commissions to make up for their added compliance costs.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 11:50 AM) The MLBTR author of that article posted in the Q story comment section mentioning that competitive balance picks can't be traded until the season starts. Not that I think it would have been part of the deal anyway but worth noting for the people including the pick in their proposals. I took it to mean, not that they would trade the pick, but that they would be more open to trading a top prospect as they feel they could replace them in June.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 10:41 AM) Here's an old report from fan graphs on Reed prior to his call-up: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/projecting-...ugger-a-j-reed/ He was a top 30 prospect in baseball and raked in the minor leagues in some good hitters environments. Low A .936 OPS 174 wRC+ High A .911 OPS 141 wRC+ High A .1085 OPS 190 wRC+ AA .1000 OPS 168 wRC+ AAA .924 OPS 142 wRC+ 141 major league plate appearances: 3 homers, tons of strikeouts and .532 OPS. It is somewhere that you have to trust your scouts. If they say go, you go.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 06:37 AM) Bulls have apparently shown interest in Jahlil Okafor. This is the type of target they should be going after, but they'll likely either not get the deal done or acquire him and play him 15 mpg. I don't see how a deal gets done, but I would love to have him. The Bulls front line is just awful.