iamshack

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Aug 26, 2014 -> 10:01 PM) I think it's more likely it's 2 teams than 4, but who knows. A team in Vegas is a terrible idea. I'd also rather relocate some teams before expanding, but it may be inevitable. Just curious...why?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 26, 2014 -> 12:03 PM) Real simple statement in reply. The only time I want this team spending money in the free agent market is the offseason I think they're ready to compete. If you don't have that, then you're spending money just to spend money. I don't see that yet. Too many holes to fill, too many kids to insert. With the limited number of options on the FA market, you just can't fill out a roster mostly in that way. Free Agency has to fill the last pieces, not be the foundation. Do you think that signing James Shields and replacing Noesi with him makes this team competitive next year if it is teamed with $10 million worth of guys for the bullpen? That's a $30 million+ payroll boost and it still leaves a lineup loaded with kids, holes in the OF, relying on guys like Danks and Rodon in the rotation, and a bullpen that might still be average at best. Given one more year, we might have Rodon ready to go 200 innings, we'll be down to the wire on Danks's contract making him more easily replaced, we might well have filled some of those bullpen holes internally, and we'll hopefully have a better idea of whether guys like Sanchez, Micah, Marcus can hang in the bigs. See, I don't necessarily think you need to sign players based just off of precisely when you're ready to compete. I think you need to be signing players you really like as they become available that fit within your competition window. If someone becomes available through free agency or via trade that you really think fits into what you are trying to build, then you've got to strike, even if you're still a year or two away.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Aug 26, 2014 -> 11:45 AM) You do this to put a good team over the top. This team may not reach 75 wins. Yes, I want the team to get better and I don't care if they spend money to do it, but I'm NOT okay with spending $20m on James Shields' likely Zito-esque age 36 and 37 season in 2018, and/or Matt Kemp's best impression of Cecil Fielder's post-30 career implosion, all just to get this team up to around .500. And if those types of deals are all that's available, then we SHOULD go into the season with a $60m payroll. The time to spend will come, but it's as much a function of the opportunity that exists as it is a function of the incumbent team. Spending just for the sake of spending is exactly what ruined all the teams that are rebuilding right now except for one -- the White Sox. And the reward for this has been (what looks like) a vastly accelerated path to relevance. We may already be 50-70% there, let's please NOT push all the chips in for a hail mary and waste what we've earned. IMO, this is what Balta means and it mirrors what all of us who are advocating caution are trying to say: there will be a time when we will expect the muscle to be flexed, but we will know it when we see it. Surplus value does not win championships, but it DOES build cores that leave room for the expensive final pieces to fit when the time comes. You're right, we don't want to be the Rockies and watch our core crumble while the FO runs in circles, but we also don't want to be the Blue Jays, who have gotten to the red zone only to find themselves maxed out trying to find the final pieces. What are your thoughts on the FA market moving forward, given the very popular strategy of recognizing and locking up core players without letting them hit the Free Agency (which obviously has thinned out the FA market)? How does this change "the time to spend" or does that time really ever come anymore?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 25, 2014 -> 06:06 PM) A lot was written by Daniel, but a lot by me. Nothing got past. Of course, happy to hear feedback like this "result" business. It sounded good to me... There are a few ticky tack things, but overall, it's very well-written. You have a lot of to be proud of and excited about!

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 25, 2014 -> 05:11 PM) Soxtalkers, this is why I've been mostly absent the past month. Due to the success I've pulled off as Marketing Director with my company, the investors wanted me to make the services available to the public. Thus, Marqana was born. www.marqana.com Lots of work, b****es. Obviously, if any of you know businesses in need of legit marketing services, you now have a guy. I promise, no sharing of fake Derrick Rose stories for hits. Any feedback, of course, is quite welcome. Everything I've done in goofing off prior to focusing on work, then focusing on work, has led to this. I am proud of my baby and my team. Give me some love. Congrats, Steve! Did you write the content?

Bradford tore his acl again

Round 2 with game golf today. Drove the ball a little better, hitting 57% of fairways which led to hitting 50% of greens. Didn't hit particularly accurate iron shots though...never had many close opportunities for birdie. Did make a 33-footer for birdie on the first hole, but that was it. Made a few 20-something footers for par. Median average drive is 284 yards, and 1.9 putts per GIR. Overall, I can tell this is going to be a really fun tool. Just have to keep adding rounds so the data becomes more meaningful.

First round with Game Golf. Shot 81. Not a good day driving the ball, and didn't play very well, but nothing horrible. Interesting to see the data. Some of the distances are a bit suspect...for instance, I hit a 9-iron on a par 3 that I paced off at 143, pin was maybe 4 yards back of center, ball ended up pin high. Looking at the round afterwards, the tracker shows the shot went 165 yards. Not possible. But overall, really neat. I'm sure once I get a number of rounds in the data will sort of filter out some of the anomalies. Shows a 262 yard average with the driver, which looked about right...I hit a few really easy drives today and smoked a few...265-270 is right about where I figured I was at. Had one of my worst putting days in a long time...2 or 3 3-putts and the only birdie I made was a 2-putt where I drove the green on a par 4. Jeesh, the more I look at these numbers the more I realize just how much this can really point out your weaknesses and showing you where to devote your practice time to.

So Phil made a wager with a spectator that he would hit a green from the s*** after a poor drive...paid him what looked like $100 after he missed

QUOTE (harkness @ Aug 22, 2014 -> 08:06 PM) melton just commented on the pattern of late season collapses. I'm with you, but the late season collapses were happening well-before a Robin got here...it's like something in the water.

QUOTE (TheTruth05 @ Aug 22, 2014 -> 11:43 AM) He's lucky he's not gone by now. I wouldn't get rid of him yet...no harm in holding on to him until we get an idea of what the rest of the pen might look like next year. I still think the guy can pitch well in the right circumstances.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 22, 2014 -> 09:34 AM) Every department I'm familiar with DOES have civilian oversight. And not saying you can't question things, but you certainly can't question the use of deadly force on an openly armed threat. That's open and shut. This knife situation is not similar at all to the Mike Brown case, which is much more nebulous. The facts still have to come out in Ferguson. This other one is as by the books as it gets. Cops don't get paid well enough to take risks with crazy assholes on the street. I don't particularly care for police officers, to be completely honest. But I certainly don't expect them to mess around with the lunatics they encounter on a daily basis.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 03:01 PM) Thus ends the most disappointing career of a white sox player I can remember. Viciedo is right up there for me.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 02:49 PM) Here's your quote... You are telling another poster you don't think they'll get off their couch to do anything about it, thus invalidating their perspective. And that poster (wasn't me) wasn't taking a position of authority - they were debating the issue. As we all are. I studied this field a bit in undergrad (was sort of an emphasis for me under Poli Sci major and History minor), even wrote my longest paper in undergrad on the Dawes Act, Microfederalism and the Reservation System (and it is thrilling reading I assure you, LOL). It means I know something. But unless the insulting nature of the word impacts me directly, I really don't think my opinion should carry more weight than anyone else's as to whether or not the team name is OK. It only means I am more likely (one would hope) to be in possession of more background information. What I am saying is a few folks seem to want to be condescending (or perhaps very passionate in some instances) towards others and their points of view when it comes to topics like this. I was identifying that as a potential positive if it is used for good rather than spent putting down others on here.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 02:38 PM) More familiar? Of course. Any more allowed or able to take a position? Not in the slightest. No one ever made the statement that someone is not "allowed" or even "able"to take positions. For all the lecturing you are doing above about nomenclature, you sure seem to be putting words in my mouth. It is mainly an issue of credibility, which is important if one takes a position of authority on an issue, which is certainly what some folks in this section of our DISCUSSION FORUM like to do.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 02:15 PM) The above post is strange to me. We aren't allowed to discuss any topic we haven't personally contributed money to? I mean, this is a DISCUSSION FORUM. In case it matters, I have helped causes associated with poor reservations, but honestly I fail to see how that adds any weight to what I say on this. The only thing that would add weight is if I actually WAS an American Indian (which in some very small percentage I probably am based on family stories, but not enough worth noting). That's not at all what I was trying to say. Secondly, you don't think someone who has actually volunteered time and money for a particular cause is generally going to be more familiar with that cause than someone who latches onto it because it just happened become a hot topic in the news? You don't think that adds a little legitimacy to your stance? That you've actually spoken to the people involved as opposed to reading it or seeing it on the news? Fair enough.

Just jumped on Game Golf on ebay for $169...was sort of on the fence but figured I'd pop for it if I found a good price... I'll report back to you guys on what I think once I get out there with it a few times.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 08:50 AM) If that's the issue that's left, I'm sure the world will be a pretty good place. And Greg will still be freaked out as s*** about any news story. Something tells me this statement was uttered 40-50 years ago in reference to changing a football team name because it offends someone

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 08:39 AM) Can someone start a thread for the message board oppressed to finally get a voice? You can start it in 10 years when you start your crusade to stop their oppression!

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 08:24 AM) That's great, but again, what does it matter. Do you think it's wrong? If so, how are you making things better? This is the same as "look at all these assholes giving to a charity they don't give a s*** about." Do I think the name is wrong, or do I think the Moses routine you and some others have employed gets old? To be honest, I spend my time thinking things more relevant to my life than whether a football team name/imagery is offensive to someone. But now that the issue has been brought to my attention, well, I really have no attachment to the Redskins name. If I was a lifelong Redskins fan, maybe that would be different, but I am not. So I would certainly not oppose changing the name. As for the Moses routine, yes, I think that is wrong. I think there is a way to intelligently discuss the issue without getting so high and mighty about it all the time. You and some others have a habit of doing this. I'll admit, I'm not making things better for any American Indians. I have limited energy/resources, of which I expend on causes which are more personal to me. If this is the case with you, is it wrong for you to take this opportunity to show your support for American Indians by opposing the use of the name/imagery Redskin? Absolutely not! Just don't do it in a way which employs more ridicule, more divisiveness, etc. What ultimately pisses me off is those that seem to argue most fervently for those who have been oppressed use those very oppressive tactics themselves that they claim to be fighting against. That, is hypocrisy, in its purest form.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 08:24 AM) This many white academics were certainly up in arms about the Chief. My .02 - more people latch on to causes like this because (1) awareness of the issue; and (2) how easily the issue can be resolved. Poverty in the Native American community is systemic. As a result, alcoholism is a major problem on the reservations. The Native Americans were largely eradicated, pushed to some of the least habitable ground in this country, and, consequently, have some of the worst numbers in America - employment, education, substance abuse. While those issues need attention, they are issues that can't be solved in the snap of one's fingers. So they are more difficult issues to get people to rally behind (and, sidenote, there are plenty of "white academics" pushing those issues as well). The name clearly offends certain Native Americans. Hence, the Washington Post receiving letters complaining about the name as early as 1971. Hence, Native Americans publicly requesting the team name to change as recently as 1988. You want hollow? It's hollow to say that "because no one in my circle of friends has ever heard the term used in a derogatory manner, the word has been co-opted and it's not a slur anymore!" It's hollow to say that people can't speak out about something they perceive as an injustice because they aren't talking about larger issues. The only way to get Daniel Snyder to change his position on the team name is to put public pressure on him. The only way to do that is to have "white academic guy" open his mouth. That's fair enough...and all I am asking is for you to admit that is the reasoning for your taking a stance on the issue, instead of thumbing your nose at everyone else as if you were the one sending the letters to the Washington Post in 1971.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 08:13 AM) From where I sit, there are 3 arguments going on: - It is an offensive word that should not be used for a football team mascot - It is not an offensive word anymore, and it should stay as the team name - It may be an offensive word, but it shouldn't be this big of a deal and you shouldn't advocate for it to be removed unless you've advocated for all Indian Rights arguments because that makes you a hypocrite and aren't there better things to worry about? I think the only valid arguments are 1 and 2. If you believe that the name is wrong, but think people shouldn't advocate to remove a wrong because there are other wrongs, you are arguing in bad faith. You don't actually have a problem with the argument, you have a problem with the people making the argument because you think they are shallow. Hypocrisy is a really fun message board tool in the internet age. I'm sure it makes people feel very righteous to dismiss any argument or policy because the person arguing it. But at some point perhaps we could put the rhetorical tools away and just address the problem at hand. Should this word stand or should it not? I think it should not. Do I put this word removal as the most important change facing the nation? No, but at some point you look down and holy s***, it's been 20 years and we are no closer to removing it, and you start arguing a little harder. I guess what I'm trying to argue for is to use some of that passion you seem to have to go out there and contribute in other ways, rather than to use causes like this to challenge your debate skills...because I really don't believe that you'll get off your couch to do much of anything for American Indians when it really comes down to it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 08:07 AM) The problem is they can't. Because like everyone else who doesn't think it has to be changed, they too were "ok" with it and didn't think twice about it until they needed some cause to latch onto. "Yeah, yeah! That name SHOULD be changed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a racist asshole! I'm clearly not an asshole so...yeah!" If you think it should be changed, I can respect that position. But don't act all high and mighty about it like you're a better person for thinking that way. Well how about changing your mind? People are allowed to change their minds...but everyone is so afraid of admitting they might have been wrong before...I'll admit, I actually think the woman who said she would support Dan Snyder because she believes the imagery used by sports teams keeps her history alive has a very good point...but if the majority of American Indians are offended by it, than by all means, I'll admit I didn't recognize that before and that in my opinion, we owe it to them to change the name/imagery. But at the same time, I'm not going to sit here and claim I've got some huge amount of skin in the game (no pun intended).

Crappy 9 holes yesterday. Was pretty windy out there, but some days I just feel sore enough that I think my body compensates in other ways for what it doesn't want to do and my ball-striking goes out the window. I need to get on a fitness program that allows me to sustain playing golf 3-5 times a week without being so sore. I've been fighting a strained oblique for about a month now that isn't any fun either.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 21, 2014 -> 08:00 AM) Bingo. It became a story this year because Snyder was an asshole about it. That created more media fodder. Now suddenly it's the worst thing in the world and "honorable" and "righteous" people are going to take a stand and not use the word anymore. As if magically there was some major shift within the last year. And if the American Indians are in such a minority position that the one of the only ways for something like this to occur is for others in a more powerful position to take up their cause, then great. I'm not pissing on that fire. But jeesh, just admit it. There's nothing wrong with that.