southsider2k5

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.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 07:28 AM) It almost seemed as if they were shaving points. The delay of game penalties were very very strange. When you have guys who have in the game for 5/6 decades saying that they have never seen that before...

QUOTE (reiks12 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 10:01 AM) Rizzo wasn't so good when he was promoted either. I would be happy with Reed as a 3rd piece Look no further than our most recent manager and his 0-41 to start his career.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 09:55 AM) Ah, did not know that. The industry I work in is similar to that in some ways (nuclear), though I would argue that at least in that case it's for a very, very good reason. I guess my advice to everyone is to listen to John Bogle; invest in low-cost index funds like those offered by Vanguard or Fidelity. My main retirement stock investments are always low cost index funds.

Perfect example from experience. I spent most of my time working on order desks. For any order which could not be placed by computer and time stamped in that manner, we would write an order by hand on to an order form. Regulations require that each order got three time stamps. One when taken, one when confirmed, and one when placed with the floor. Because of that FINRA has rules in place requiring the regular checking of the time clocks to ensure they are within such and such time of the actual time it is. Because of that rule we had to keep a log that proved that at least once per shift that someone checked all of the time clocks on the order desk, and which ones were changed, by how much, if they were inaccurate. We had to note if a specific time clock was inoperable and who was informed about it. The burden was not that FINRA could walk in the door at any time and check our clocks. It was that we had to prove that our clocks were in compliance the whole time.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 09:43 AM) Aren't there already forms of 'fiduciary duty' rather than 'suitable' that are enforced in the industry through industry-adopted standards? And how is the 'suitable' standard enforced? I thought CFP's were already held to the fiduciary standard? I'm obviously not nearly as familiar with this stuff as you guys, but I'd imagine that the enforcement would be along the lines of say wage discrimination. It's something that would have to be shown retroactively in a large group of people rather than zeroing in on a specific individual client being steered toward a higher commission product. No. I actually spent time in examinations and enforcement. The regulatory structure of financial products is nothing like this. You quite literally have to be able to prove you are obeying the rules. Even not being able to prove that is against the rules for the people in charge. You have to have a well detailed system of showing how you are following the rules, and have a system of proof in place to show how you are doing it. The detail that goes into these logs already is expensive and onerous. You get fined for not having logs to prove whatever rule is being talked about. Again the burden here would be that advisors would have to be able to prove that with every single customer interaction in an advisory role that they acted in the best interest of the customer, and NOT that FINRA would have to prove they didn't. That is not how financial regulation works. It is exactly why it is so damned expensive for compliance in this sector.

QUOTE (pablo @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 09:31 AM) Reed is quite possibly nothing more than a 4th piece to an Q deal. I'd view him in the same way as Joey Gallo, which is basically a lottery ticket. Tucker, Perez, Fisher, Laureano/Stubbs/Reed is the deal I would take. Reed and Gallo only have their power in common. I get he bombed in his debut, but Reed has 243 K's in 1203 MiLB PA's. With Gallo you are talking about someone who had over 700 K's in 1700 ABs. In order for Reed to match him he would need to go to the minors and essentially strike out in 500 straight at bats. Reed also averaged 60 points higher BA, and about 35 points higher in OBP. Reed is much more of a professional hitter than Gallo ever will be.

QUOTE (striker @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 09:24 AM) If the Rays turned down Martes, Tucker, Paulino, +2 prospects for Archer, then that would be my starting point for Quintana, except I don't want Paulino. I listened to the TalkingStros podcast with Jim Callis. Callis called Quintana underated one moment, then called him a solid #3 another. And his job is to evaluate players for a living. The host suggested Fisher, Paulino, Moran and the #75 pick. Q would out perform that. I'd lose my mind if the White Sox made that deal.

QUOTE (juddling @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 03:10 AM) I know there was a few of us here who watched Vikings...I have to ask...... I will admit the only interest I had was to see how they took care of that situation. Now it will be interesting how they pick up those pieces going forward. I mean I get that is the history here, so you really couldn't change that part, but at the same time, he is the center of the show until now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 09:31 AM) Fair enough, and that's a heck of a lot better of an explanation than "people should be free to be gouged on commissions and fees they might not understand!" the administration has put forward. Yeah, honestly I don't really care what the Trump admin has to say about it, but the rule was going to be a disaster. Think about it, how do you prove with every single customer interaction that was taken in an advisory role that you acted in the customers best interest, because that is the regulatory burden here.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 02:10 PM) Thankfully they have this wonderful tool called google in the 21st century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...hutdown_of_2013 QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 02:12 PM) Way to ignore all the times they passed on that idea. Are there any intellectually honest liberals? Any? QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 07:38 AM) Provide one post where I said that, else I would suggest you change your handle. Too easy.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 07:39 AM) You are clueless. Conservative but clueless. It's not why I post here. The only thing that is clueless is trying to rationalize that the GOP didn't try to obstruct Obama. Don't that person who tries to justify everything that your party does. Don't be a drone. Use your mind and see past the marching orders.

Having been to the most recent FINRA conference last year this rule was a big topic of discussion. FINRA basically said that Congress had no discussion with them about this rule, what it meant, and how to enforce it. It was a gigantic clusterf***. I understand the idea of what they were wanting to do here, but they basically put together an unrealistic and more importantly an unenforceable jumble of legalese to paper. It was basically going to run smaller firms out of business, and leave only the Goldman's of the world standing in the advisory roles because the compliance costs for small firms trying to prove something that is unprovable were going to produce a cost structure that was impossible for them to overcome. Realistically it wasn't going to what Congress wanted because they have no idea how this structure actually works. And that was what the body responsible for enforcing it had to say about it.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 09:41 PM) What was Avi's in 2015? I believe the technical term for it is LOL>

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 08:52 AM) That would be a bad trade. Need one more piece like Reed or Perez. I really think the start of an Astros trade needs to be Martes, Reed, and Tucker if Bregman is off of the table. Then fill in from there.

QUOTE (New Era on South Side @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 05:05 PM) What is the far left and how are they different than "a liberal" or just your average democrat? Anyone to the left of Pence has been labled as a Liberal by a certain poster that set of this discussion.

I love how two months into the rebuild fans are already taking trades personally

CSN Chicago ‏@CSNChicago 1h1 hour ago Blackhawks change lines again ahead of matchup with Coyotes - http://bit.ly/2kZ7Cm4

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-best-an...-team-defenses/

QUOTE (shipps @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 02:55 PM) If we can get him for our second and a third next year I would be pretty damn excited. You could still draft a defensive beast with the third pick and add Jimmy G? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiit. If we sent then our second, and next years second, plus added a top D stud at #3? This might actually be a playoff team. The Bears have assloads of cap space too.