southsider2k5

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 02:33 PM) It wasn't a twist. You yourself said that Republicans care more about "principles" or ideological purity than Democrats, who prioritize winning. If you're prioritizing winning, then being rigid is less of a concern. If you're prioritizing purging people who don't hold the right principles, then you'll do that ahead of worrying about winning, e.g. Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell being candidates Yes, this is a good response to the guy who said just a page ago that they don't particularly like Hillary and said they were voting for her for "lesser evil" reasons. But you fell into line and are doing everything you can to get her elected, just like Bernie and the rest of the party, even while there are plenty of Republicans who aren't with Trump. There just isn't room for leaving the party line for the Democrats. This whole discussion just shows that again. Even though people don't really like her or agree with her, everyone is in line like good little Dems.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 02:28 PM) You've done an excellent job of completely contradicting yourself here. If it's about winning for Dems, then pushing ideological purity ahead of electoral chances doesn't even make sense. If the GOP is more about principles, then they are more likely (and this is actually backed up by reality!) to punish members for not being ideologically pure enough even if it worsens their electoral chances. You've just gotta find a way to make a "dems R bad" argument no matter the situation, even if you end up saying the exact opposite things within a couple of posts. lol, way to twist that into not what was said, but OK, the Dems never do anything wrong, bad, or anything else. ALL PRAISE HILLARY!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 02:23 PM) Bernie not being an idiot and recognizing that the Democratic Party winning in November is much better for his political ideology than a Trump win isn't buckling under to pressure from the DNC, it's buckling under to pressure from basic reality. In the way you've framed it, any support of the eventual nominee by primary opponents ends up counting as the DNC enforcing rigid ideology, but you don't even consider any other much more obvious explanation. Lieberman was and is an asshole and openly worked against the Democratic party. Why on earth would or should any political party reward that sort of behavior? We're still months out from the election, but there's been plenty of primary threats against GOPers who aren't backing Trump, notably including their most recent speaker of the House. Going back to very recent history, we had their previous speaker forced into retirement by House GOP members who viewed him as a traitor, and we had the House Majority leader lose a primary race for not being ideologically pure enough. There are also many other reps who have faced the same fate for not being pure conservatives, and we'll have to see what the Trump fallout is going forward. Trump is, of course, his own unique phenomenon and not really directly comparable to top-down party enforcement of ideology either way, given that he's made his run without the support of the party. Oh, up until most of the party and definitely the top leadership all bent the knee and have been working with and supporting him for the same reasons Sanders is supporting Clinton, because they realize having a Republican in the WH is better long-term for their interests even if they don't like that particular individual. You hit the difference between the parties right on the head. For the Dem's it is about winning being most important. For the GOP it is about principles being most important. That is exactly what creates this difference in punishments for falling out of lock step march.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 02:02 PM) Enforcement of ideological purity doesn't count if it comes bottom-up instead of top-down, even if that party in the end is much more ideologically pure. Your one example is a Democrat who endorsed the Republican candidate for President and then did everything he could to sabotage their generational healthcare bill. That's not exactly a strong example of how everyone in the Democratic party must be lock-step, it's an example of Lieberman being an asshole. Evidence of this actually happening on the Democratic side is scant, but all of the evidence of it happening within the GOP constantly for years doesn't count because reasons. This is the evidence. Everyone is scared to step out of line, despite there being differences in philosophy. Even a guy like Bernie Sanders falls right back into line to his party bosses, despite his obvious divide. On the other side of the ledger there are all kinds of guys who are refusing to endorse Trump. One guy steps out of line on the Democratic side, and he is an "asshole" and pretty much taken out of an key positions by the party. What punishments is the non-Trump GOP facing?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 02:04 PM) I can accept that, and in fact I could see you getting higher prices in the offseason for the 2 big pitchers given that competitive teams will be unlikely to move their big league players right now. However, I for one don't think that there's any chance this team sells at either of those points, and if that surmise is the case, then given the high price you've outlined for getting better next offseason and the fact that they've already gotten to the midway point of the season above .500 - that logic presents a strong case for trading Fulmer, Adams, and perhaps Rodon right now for guys who are ready to push them into the playoffs this year. While I don't see them selling, I also don't see any of the top prospects going anywhere either. Maybe a guy like Adams or Danish if they have given up on them, but Fulmer isn't going anywhere the way I read the cards. They are prepping him for the team right now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 01:58 PM) You are straight-up delusional if you think ideological purity is more strongly enforced in the modern Democratic Party than in the party that is constantly under primary threats and has sabotaged its own leadership repeatedly in just the last few years. The fact that no one steps out of line because of the fear of reprimand and ostracizing is pretty clear to me.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 01:50 PM) Remind me which party has seen many of its members primaried out of office for not being ideologically pure enough, including the House majority leader and even forcing their Speaker into retirement? And who have since moved on to declaring their replacement speaker a traitor to the cause and even possibly a secret Muslim (because he grew a beard)? There is a big difference between it being done by the party itself, versus the party running other candidates.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 01:51 PM) Seriously. "That one time Democrats did it to Joe Lieberman after years of him openly sabotaging the party" contrasted against dozens of GOP reps getting primaried out, open revolt against their own Speakers and party leaders. edit and this whole tangent started with Bernie Sanders, the guy who has run as an independent for decades and still gets committee chairs from the Democrats. just lol. Because he always falls back into line with the Dems.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 01:38 PM) Turn around and consider the other side of that - that also means that it will be extremely difficult for this team to find assets to get better in 2017 for exactly the same reason. The price for even trade assets to improve the team next offseason will be high, let alone paying for free agents. There may not be a big rush to sell "right now", but if they want to put a playoff contending team on the field prior to 2019, there is a rush to do that right now. If they do only minor moves (bullpen) and that proves insufficient to getting them out of the bunch of average teams, then they may well be forced into the scenario you just outlined. I don't really see the difference between selling in July and selling in the winter in terms of what the final result in 2019 will look like.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 01:28 PM) Before Mike Piazza got drafted. Eh. It happens. The Mariners just drafted Griffey III this year in the 24th round. (KG's number was 24, and being retired this year). The kid hasn't played baseball since Jr High.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 01:13 PM) Yes, if he had actively sabotaged the Democratic Party's chances at winning the Presidency and filling at least one SC seat, the Democrats would not be very nice to him. I fail to see why this is supposed to be a bad thing. Not obeying isn't a part of the Democratic code. Either you fall into line or you get kicked out the club. It is what it is. The Republicans actually tolerate more open thinking in that respect.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 01:20 PM) That summarizes the Hahn regime quite well.... Anyway jokes aside...the organization has 3 contributors who hit free agency at the end of 2017. At the same time, the price of several other guys is creeping upwards, and then Eaton hits FA at the end of 2018. Like it or not, there is a literal clock on this roster - just to tread water, to stay where they are right now, will cost an extra $20 million+ at the end of 2017 and another $15 million+ at the end of 2018. And that's with players getting older too. At some point before July of 2017, one of four things is going to happen. Either they're going to finally get extremely lucky and have everything work perfectly, they're going to have to majorly sell off a number of players to just get something for them, they're going to have to sell everything in their organization's upper levels even guys they don't want to move to try to put a competitor on the field, or they're going to have to be content with guys walking away for nothing. They're an above .500 team right now but they are 4.5 games out of the wild card, and in the middle of a pack of 5 teams all within 1 loss column game of each other, all of whom are behind 3 other teams for those 2 slots. They could sit back and hope things go well in the 2nd half and maybe they're the team that gets lucky, but with that many opponents in the way the odds are low. They could sit back and hope things go well next year, but that's risky too - one bad luck injury could derail the franchise. You're over .500 right now and you've got tradeable assets in Fulmer, Adams, and Rodon. Standing pat right now and hoping things work watches time tick on the clock you gave. If you're worried about that clock and you look at the other things that will happen to this franchise, and you're unwilling to sell guys, the other option is to make your move right now and try to turn it around, a-la the Blue Jays last year. Doing nothing doesn't cost you anything this year, but it also eats away your time and is a high risk move itself. If you're worried about them "continuing to find lower to go", then sitting there and doing nothing big is a great path to that end result. At absolute worst, you are heading into the off-season of the worst free agent market is modern history with a ton of various tradeable assets. If the Sox so desired, they could sell into the biggest dearth of talent we have seen probably since before the reserve clause was ended. They could do everything from selling short term assets, such as Lawrie, Frazier, Cabrera, to the middle term guys with a couple of years left, to the cream of the crop in guys like Sale and Q. If they really do flop this year, and they finally decide to throw in the towel, there will be lots of teams looking for players that the Sox can sell to. There really isn't a big rush to do it RIGHT NOW when they can wait a few months for the off season and have all of baseball to sell to. If you really are going to sell, it would be pretty silly to sell into a market with only a certain number of teams bidding.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 01:05 PM) One thing not addressed - why didn't the White Sox believe in a guy. Why weren't they willing to coach him into a decent player when another team was? Because he got them a #2 starter.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 12:52 PM) Lieberman was ostracized for being a backstabbing s***bag who kept sabotaging his own party's goals. Sanders ran as an independent for years and was still regularly welcomed to caucus with the Democrats in the House and then the Senate. If he had refused to kiss the Clinton ring, he damned well would have met the same fate.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 12:45 PM) Well, I could make the argument that there's literally no further for them to fall. But instead I'll go with: at the very least the current path of 3rd-5th place finishes in the division is by far the most unacceptable. If you're going to bring up the 2019 contract as a worry - they're in disastrous shape with that on the current path. They literally could not be behind any other teams. I don't buy that for a second. I have heard that same argument for years now, and we have kept finding lower to go to.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 11:29 AM) I don't see the Semien/Micah/Sanchez pileup and Timmy as that closely related. Despite the plan clearly being to move Anderson along quickly, we still went and acquired a 2B who ultimately isn't as good as Semien. I think we'd be a better team with Semien instead of Lawrie, especially when you factor in years of control. We'll see if Ynoa and Burdi can bridge the gap. I think it was a multi level decision, and I think they were related to an extent. #1, they didn't see Semien as starting material on a playoff team. #2, they knew whoever played SS wouldn't be there long term as they really liked Anderson and were getting a place ready for him. So why save Semien when they didn't really buy in on him anyways, and he could get them a #2 starter. #3 they figured between the guys they had leftover that they could find a 2B, at least short term. #4 they really liked Samardjiza, especially as a right handed, innings eating RHP to slot in between Sale and Q, and they knew he liked Chicago so they figured that they would be able to extend him, probably below market value. Now obviously not everything played to plan. Samardjiza ended up having the worst year of his career and leaving town. If he pitches like normal, he probably is extended and is still here, thus negating the loss of the player for only the comp pick. Obviously the Sox soured on him while he was here, and weren't willing to stick their necks out for an extension after the initial early talks. The deal looks entirely different is Samardjiza doesn't suck. It is also worth noting that where the Sox were on Semien, they could very well of sent him off in a different deal, for example looking to get Todd Frazier earlier, or another power-hitting OF. If the Sox don't believe in a guy, they sure aren't scared of moving them along for something else that fits their needs better.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 12:10 PM) Just a general estimate based on last year - Arolids Chapman went into Arbitration with a salary of $8 million and 1 year away from free agency, wound up at $11.325 million this year. I think that's probably, plus or minus a million dollars, the range Frazier probably would look at. I want to say there was discussions about a 6/100 deal when he was with Cincy still.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 12:16 PM) Here's the potentially bigger problem. This is a statement on MLB ratings from Forbes last July - I don't have numbers for this year, but in the middle of 2015 they had spent 1.5 consecutive years as the lowest rated team in MLB in prime time games. Sounds like a team that is primed for a rebuild.

It was the most obvious thing ever. Of course Sanders endorsed Clinton. Its either that or turn into the next Joe Lieberman who gets ostracized from his party for not falling in line. These guys are full of s*** on the campaign trail. They all fall back into line when it is said and done. The only shocking thing is how many Republicans are still refusing Trump, which makes me feel better about some of those guys having some morals.

QUOTE (southside hitman @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 11:30 AM) Nick Hostetler said in his interview with FutureSox that he got texts from five different organizations that were ready to draft Call after the Sox grabbed in the 3rd. Funny how on draft day he seemed like a reach but in reality he might of actually been a steal. That was a great anecdote. Sounds like these guys and a fantasy draft aren't that different. We give each other crap about Oh I was going to draft that guy next... And here are scouting directors doing the same thing.

It is worth noting that if the Sox and a prospect were interested, the Sox can exceed their bonus pool by up to 5% by paying a 75% tax on that money. They actually did that with Rodon a couple of years back. For the White Sox who have a bonus pool of 9,416,600, that means they can spend up to $9,887,430 before going over the 5% threshold which would cost them a draft pick. Also the only portion of a bonus that counts against the pool after round 10 is anything over 100k. So for the White Sox they could give any one unsigned player up to $572,930 without losing a draft pick.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 10:10 AM) I remember a lot of people here being cool with the deal because Semien wasn't seen as a SS, so the Sox had a future log jam between Semien, Micah and Sanchez. The way it seemed to break down was... Semien - defense was passable at 2B, would be a solid player but not standout in many ways. Baseball equivalent of a glue guy. Micah - Elite game changing speed, best bat of the bunch, atrocious defense. Team seemingly was banking on him. Sanchez - Top level defense, bat would be serviceable And at the end of the day Tim Anderson at SS has put all of that debate to rest.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 09:40 AM) I get that people don't want sox to be burned by trading away thompson/montas/m.johnson, but the constant effort to trash anyone as terrible as soon as they leave. The constant refrain of how Semein will never make it (newsflash, his defense has improved and he is a good hitter) and oh, how terrible Trayce is. Trayce is better than Austin Jackson. If you would have asked what TT was last year, everyone pretty much would have been happy if he was a .740 OPS CF with dope defense. But on the Dodgers he's awful, terrible. I hope Trayce is great. He deserves time to develop. He may end up as someone who just had three hot ML months, or those three hot ML months show that he can play at this level. Give him time. This is the natural backlash to the group that trashes everything the Sox do, especially their prospects, but then turn them into cult hero's when they do get dealt.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Jul 11, 2016 -> 11:59 PM) I am so bad at remembering what happened on previous seasons of shows. Anybody want to give a quick summary of Mr. Robot (Season 1)? Edit: Nevermind, found a video. For those interested: Mr. Robot Season 1 Recap Decoded also did a good job of tying up season 1, and giving a sneak peak into season 2, along with some good interviews. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BbTUASfrAI

I am happy to see GWB going to Dallas today and appearing with Obama for the 5 slain officers. I like what W has done since he left the Presidency with respecting the office and letting Obama govern as he pleases.