southsider2k5

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Not going to. Could be. Big, big difference.

I don't know. I think broadcasting games this year might qualify as torture under the Geneva Conventions.

Hagen I think will legitimately be ready in a sooner time frame just because he has a decent history of pitching deep into games in college and an innings base. Dutch I am glad they are pushing back on because he is still going to have to learn how to be a starter in reality. Dude has never had to try to harness his stuff for 6 to 7 innings. It's a learning curve. Granted I am sure he has the stuff and physical stature to hold up, but he still have to get there both physically and mentally.

The first pick is a lottery, so no win total locks that in unfortunately. The best we can hope for is the most chances at winning the lottery, and cross our fingers for some Derrick Rose type stuff, and not some Eddy Curry/Tyson Chandler type stuff.

I can help but thinking most of these algorithms are written with smoothing techniques which have problems with outliers. It is a pretty common issue with statistical modeling. Because models don't have an example of any of an extreme of an outlier as the Sox last season, they assume it can't happen again, but with a little bit more consideration to maybe it could, and will spit out a result that is still probably too optimistic based on what has actually happened with this team in the last season in terms of boots on the ground. This was a 121 loss team, which season over season, has seen a pretty decent outflow of talent. Your example in terms of talent actually isn't a bad comparison to what the Sox are seeing. They are fielding a team that models probably can't really comprehend when compared with all of the other examples the model has to base it's historical analysis on. It wouldn't expect 12 year old on a 17 year old team, just like it wouldn't expect what happened last year to the Sox to happen again, even though on paper, today, this team is worse overall.

I never put my total down, but I am in for 45. Hopefully I am wrong, but here we go.

I know people keep repeating "luck", but after dumping two of the best pitchers in baseball, I don't think our "luck" is going to get any better. It looked like bad baseball, by bad players to me, and I don't see anyone on the roster right now that really is going to change that appreciably. Some guys will be up, but we still lack major league starters at almost every single position on the field, and that only gets worse when the inevitable loss of Luis Robert happens to either trade or injury. We may start to get some interesting players as the season goes on, but it will be fighting wildfires with a garden hose.

Kenneth Grant would be wild. Kid is from Merrillville IN. Saw and met him at conference football games with my local HS.

Do a search

Yeah, and I am pretty sure he was already busted for making stuff up.

I mean if you could actually provide an iota of proof instead of 9 paragraphs of rant, that would be a good place to start.

Doing his job for him.

They would first need a free 40 man spot.

Because we roster trash.

And what is has to do with what was never actually said about Jake Eder a year and a half ago.

But we have to hold on to all of the crappy over the hill guys we promised money to!

So totally the same thing as making up what people said.

You put it back up. People said he had potential, and that Burger didn't meet the Sox timeline. No one ever said he WOULD be great. They said he had potential, and could be buying low on a highly regarded lefty prospect.

This is like a game of AI random generated name, or White Sox player.

No one ever said Eder was going to be great. That's a lie.

I thought this dude had been disproven as an actual source of information? Even if accurate, it is wild that somewhere around 15-20% of MLB franchises have interest in a cast off from the worst team in baseball, which should probably make us question our handling of Colas... but won't.

It's wild that this gets held against him, but they have now signed Clevinger not once, not twice, but three times. Both the off of the field stuff, and the on the field stuff.

One more time for those in the back of the room. Also, when I talk about the Sox people running backroom campaigns against their own guys, this is a perfect example.

There's no point in most of this roster.