Jack Parkman

5 IIRC. It's a year and a half less of control, but fits the window better and removes a bit of the logjam from 1B/DH. Allows for the possibility of Jimenez learning 1B or getting moved to DH. Also fills a huge hole(LH stick, RF) If Houston would be willing to make that deal, it makes sense for both sides. Houston gets more team control, the Sox fill their biggest lineup weakness. Maybe expand the deal a bit and add in McCullers.

My opinion: Kopech, Crochet and Vaughn stay put unless you're trading for DeGrom(unlikely) or someone like that. Lone exception is something like Vaughn+ a small add for Tucker or someone like him. Other young-ish guys(Cease, Dunning, Stiever, Madrigal, et al) are available for the right player.

Would you trade Vaughn for Kyle Tucker? Serious question.

I'd put Crochet in the untouchable category. LHP that throw 101 and have decent command don't grow on trees. I'd move Vaughn in the *Right* deal. Like for Kyle Tucker.

No, but the times were different then. I hate to break it to you, but the American dream is dead for a large segment under 40 years old. It's definitely not everyone, but it's happening to enough people. Even those with decent jobs are struggling under crippling student loan debt. At this point, how well you're doing has to do with 2 things: Decent job? Did your parents pay for your college? If the answer to either is no, then you're in trouble. There are people that have $8-1200/month payments on their student loans alone. It's more common than you think. If you have $70k in student loans that amounts to an $800/month payment. College is both necessary and unaffordable.

That's why you don't give up on him...yet. The Sox are trying to win though and they don't have as much time to mess around with Cease as they did with Giolito and Lopez.

This is indicative of really good luck. He had a FIP well over 5 and an xFIP over 6.

The issue with Cease, and why I'm concerned he might go the Lopez path, is that like Lopez, he doesn't miss as many bats as you'd think he should based on his stuff.

Idk who you are, but I don't want to re-hash stuff that I've been over before. If you want to know, feel free to PM me. I know people who got a DUI in college, were very average and got jobs because daddy knew someone. I also know a few people who didn't and are struggling to get out of entry-level work. And by entry level, I mean retail and stuff like that. Those that did get out had to go into the trades.

You must be a bit divorced from the reality of what's happening to Gen Y and Z. That's definitely NOT happening anymore. That's how it used to be, but 2008 and 2020 changed things. It's a complete coinflip now to remain in the middle class if you were born into it. It's pretty much become nepotism. If your folks know someone that can get your foot in the door to a decent job, you get in. If not, back to the working poor you go. There are more people moving DOWN in the younger generations than there are maintaining. If you were born in the early 80s you're ok. Once you get to 1985 or later(people who graduated from college in 2007-08 or later things change. This is why the country is falling apart a bit. There's not enough opportunity for those who want it.

I'll agree it's not the welfare program's responsibility, but it absolutely is the government's responsibility. With a larger percentage of people who grew up middle class that are ending up working poor as adults, it is destroying the fabric of a heterogenous society like the USA. There always has to be enough to go around. The way the government does this isn't by the welfare system, but by setting the rules for business. Namely a higher corporate tax rate, higher wages, making it easier to create and join a union if you want to, making companies that gut businesses and sell assets illegal, enforcing the Sherman Antitrust act, etc. I'm a proponent of the stuff that Robert Reich puts out there about how the rules of the market don't just exist, they're created by public policy. You put policies in place that encourage a large middle class. Obviously, there's always going to be some that get left behind, some that don't play by the rules, and other things. But those people are few and far between. This has all been done before, it's not that hard. The bottom line is that there shouldn't be people who want to work that are completely shut out from the labor force. Too much of American industry has become mafia-like cartels similar to the 5 families in NYC. They all get together in their business organizations (like the American Petroleum Institute) and divvy up who gets what market share, and where, similar to what the Commission did in the NYC Mafia. The economic terrorism I speak of is not only about the minimization of the welfare state, but also direct rules of business changes that makes it hard for the average person to gain access to a middle class lifestyle.

I agree, but most people work hard and play by the rules, and not enough of them are getting ahead. My parents came from a poor family and one was a 1st gen immigrant. I've seen what happens with my extended family and there were only a few who fell through the cracks. The overwhelming majority on the poor side played by the rules and still didn't get ahead. Basically if you follow the rules, you should be able to be better off than your parents at least.

Not if you can't find a job elsewhere.

The cost of living is way too high in most places that there really is no choice. It's either a decent job or prop people up. I think people would be much more willing to do any job whatsoever as long as it paid a living wage. In a perfect world, people would get off eventually. Nobody talks about how housing isn't affordable these days either. Jobs that used to result in a LMC lifestyle are now working poor because of the lack of affordable housing and healthcare.

What I'm saying is that there's too much competition for decent jobs. I've seen it way too much with my peers. They went to college, got an in-demand degree and then 2008-09 happened. The economy took a shit and companies made a deliberate choice to shut out college grads.

That will never happen, get real. Like I said, there aren't enough decent jobs for everyone, so we have to either create them through a jobs guarantee or expand the welfare programs. We have to have a system where upward mobility is not only possible, but probable.

A lot of the backlash against current policy is because there are people in their 30s and younger who were raised in a privileged environment, followed all of the rules as a young adult, and end up in the working poor or chronically unemployed as an adult through no fault of their own, having to move back home. Then, there's a media attack on these people such that they deserve to get left behind, and that it's their fault.

We have a winner.

Thank you for making my point for me, because we're pretty much on the same page here. I do think that tuition is way too high though. People shouldn't have the equivalent of a mortgage at 7% interest in order to get a decent education. Borrowing $30k at 1% int interest order to get a 4 year education is ok. Borrowing 100+k at 7% interest just to get an education is neither reasonable nor sustainable. With regard to homelessness, there should be free or low-cost housing along with programs to help people get back on their feet. We also need to promote non-college avenues to a middle class lifestyle.

How many people's bad decisions are the result of their environment though? People become criminals because they feel like they have no other choice to survive.

It's the government's responsibility to ensure that people actually have access to those things and that they're reasonably priced such that even the poorest people can afford them. This can be done one of two ways: 1. Higher wages, higher taxes on the rich/Corporations 2. Higher taxes on everyone. The huge issue right now(even before covid) is that there aren't enough jobs that pay a living wage. Those of us under 40 are getting hit especially hard. There are two Americas right now. One for the people who have secured a living wage and one for those that haven't.

Yes it is. If you can't afford to eat healthy, to get the education to better yourself, to have access to housing, etc. The result is death due to homelessness or development of diseases of poverty, such as obesity, addiction and diabetes. Then, they can't afford their drugs or surgeries to keep themselves alive. This is an indirect, deliberate murder of their own citizens by lawmakers. It absloutely is torture and terrorism. Also, Trump's covid "response" is also terrorism. In order to understand this, one would have an understanding of the difference between violent and economic terrorism. It seems you don't.

That's exactly what it is. Policies that result in poverty and homelessness ARE the intentional murder of innocent people. Denial of healthcare IS the murder of innocent people. In fact, it's a slow torture that results in death. The less money one has, the lower their life expectancy. It's absolutely a form of terrorism, but an indirect one rather than a direct one. Terrorism doesn't have to be a mass shooting or a direct act of violence. We've tried the personal responsibility direction for 40 years and it has proven to be toxic to social cohesion in a heterogeneous society. It's fair to say that experiment has failed miserably for the country as a whole. It's bad for the economy, social cohesion, and political rhetoric. The only "good" thing that happened is that 100 people got really rich.

I don't know how you can characterize the GOP economic platform as anything but economic terrorism. Tearing apart the social safety net is quite literally economic terrorism. Also..........I will say this until I'm blue in the face......if social safety net programs pay more money to a person than holding a low-end job, then the onus is on corporate America to raise wages to encourage people to get off.

You do realize that people who stood up for those things and ran on them overwhelmingly won re-election, right? The Democrats who tried to distance themselves from those policies had either lost or had a tough race. Of those who co-sponsored M4A, all won re-election. 99 out of 100 HOR members thant co-sponsored the GND won re-election. Florida(a notoriously purple state) voted for a $15 minimum wage. Policies that help the average American win.