iamshack

Well poop.

Tuning in to Price's start today...hoping he gets crushed by the O's.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 11:09 AM) I'm glad we took the lead here. Took some balls. Now let's fix the climate the right way, whatever that is. As a climate activist myself, I feel like the Paris Agreement just kicked the can down the road. The CEOs of the major energy companies are pissed because the money won't be as easy and the idiots are mad because they think this means "pollute, pollute, Trump hates the Earth." Such idiocy. We can do better than "let's each put a filter on a smokestack", which was basically what this deal was. Always hated it, and I'm Mr. Environment. Why do you think this will result in more stringent requirements?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 06:36 PM) Shack, I was talking to some pg&e folks today who were saying that California is "over generating" largely on solar and wind and as a result there aren't a lot of calls for power from fossil plants, even natural gas. That seem accurate from your end? They are swimming in solar! You've likely heard of the duck curve, which is a phenomenon caused by misalignment between the timing of the consumption of electricity in California and the production of electricity in California. As you might imagine, solar production is greatest across the afternoon hours of the day. Unfortunately, these hours do not represent the strongest consumption of electricity, as many people are in communal areas, such as the workplace or schools. Solar starts decreasing in the early evening, right when everyone leaves these communal places and returns home, turning on their tv's, their lights, their ovens, etc. So the peak consumption for electricity coincides with the period when all this solar generation drops off a cliff, basically. This requires other resources, particularly those that can ramp up quickly, to be available - these are usually natural gas combined-cycles and peakers. But to your question, natural gas has definitely been a victim as solar and wind often become the marginal cost resource, particularly during daylight hours. Many natural gas plants are simply not running, and some have basically been completely mothballed. My utility recently tried to purchase a large natural gas combined-cycle plant in Arizona and was denied by the public utility commission, despite the rock-bottom price. It isn't going to get any better, either. There are tens of thousands of MWs worth of solar and wind projects in the queue in various stages of development. It is why some of the other western states are gobbling up California solar energy during the day, as it is better for them to give it away than to curtail it.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 11:06 AM) I'm like Oprah I don't even like to write N-word much less write the full word. It's ugly and awful word. Yet there is an incident worth discussing IMO involving the word. Comic Bill Maher on Friday night has a Nebraska senator on his Real Time show and Bill uttered the N-word during a lighthearted give and take with the senator. The audience groaned and laughed a little and Maher said, "It's a joke." The senator blew an opportunity by not saying a word after Maher uttered the word. Not blaming the senator but he shoulda been ready for anything being on the Bill Maher show. Maher can't laugh this off. HBO today or last night issued a statement condemning Maher's uttering the word and said it would be edited out of the broadcast or bleeped out of the broadcast when it airs again. My question to you is ... How could Maher be so stupid? He said the N-word as punch line to a very bad joke about working in the fields ("I'm not a house xxxxx") And also my question is ... should HBO suspend the show or fire him?? Some HBO executive did say Maher's actions were awful and the word would be edited out of the show for future airings. My guess is he could still be fired depending on his response to the HBO statement on the matter. Kathy Griffin's 15 minute news cycle has about run out on her story as Bill Maher grabs the baton on the "aging comedians relay race" Who will be the next to grab the baton and do something utterly stupid for the third leg of the comic's relay? This is ridiculous. Maher says insensitive nonsense like this every week. Simply because he uses a particular word shouldn't set people off. It strikes me as faux outrage and disingenuous that because he said a certain word that should implicate the audience in something they weren't already implicated in by the same exact substance simply without the N word explicitly used.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 04:59 AM) Why would the Brewers give up Top Rated Brinson for Q? Brinson has been good, but not exactly destroying triple-A pitching recently.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jun 2, 2017 -> 06:49 PM) Like... slavery and misogyny and patriarchy and brutal dictatorships and survival of the fittest and all the s***ty f***ing things about humans are a part of "human nature", but you don't suggest we don't work on those issues do you?? Your argument is "if it's human nature, no point worrying about it!" ?? Not at all...I'm arguing the exact opposite. Encouraging we all become better human beings is great, but that isn't going to cut it. We need more regulation/law.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jun 2, 2017 -> 05:23 PM) that's what civilization has been fighting for thousands of years... We're just supposed to stop trying in 2017? Keep trying it...and it will take thousands of more years. What is needed is another solution.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 09:52 PM) and you can change the way you talk about these issues with your friends and family. that's probably more valuable than your money. This sounds like a campaign for talking to your children about abstinence or something. I mean come on, stop being naive. This is the way of the world you are talking about. It's human nature you are fighting against.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 2, 2017 -> 01:16 PM) Haseley and Burger are for sure, but want to watch more of everyone this weekend. One thing about Kendall is his swing looks like Beltran without Beltran's body control to adjust Given the other options, this might be one year where I would be willing to take a risk on a guy like Kendall more than other years.

Anyone hear how Rodon's sim game went?

It makes me a bit concerned that he will take his struggles in stride as he moves throughout the system.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 31, 2017 -> 09:28 PM) The 2012 Angels went 89-73, which was good for the 6th best record in the AL. However, the Detroit Tigers, at 88-74, did make the postseason, as the 7th best team in the AL, narrowly edging our White Sox, who went 85-77. The 2013 Angels went 78-84, finishing 16 games behind the division winning Oakland Athletics. Mike Trout put up 10.5 fWAR that year. His fellow offensive teammates - those who had positive WARs - combined for 16.5. Outside of Mike Trout, they averaged about 1 WAR a piece. I said you could win if you had decent players. LeBron James wouldn't win with 4 Jo Jo English's surrounding him. BTW, JB Shuck received 478 plate appearances that season. He accrued 0.5 WAR. The 2014 Angels won 98 games, Mike Trout was a total bust in the playoffs (if I remember), and they ran into the buzzsaw that was the Kansas City Royals. That still does not sound right. Ironically, 2014 was the "worst" season of Mike Trout's career. He was worth 7.9 fWAR. The 2015 Angels went 85-77. Mike Trout was worth 9 WAR. His fellow offensive teammates - again, those with positive fWARs - combined for 13.3. For comparison, in what was one of the worst offensive teams I've ever seen, the positive contributors to WAR for the 2015 White Sox combined for 10.4 WAR. The 2016 Angels went 74-88. Mike Trout was worth 9.4 WAR, but this was the first season you could say that they were really bad. The offensive backed it up - positive contributors combined for a majestic 14.2 WAR. The Angels pitching staff contributed 5.9 WAR. The whole staff. Chris Sale was worth 5.2. Clayton Kershaw was worth 6.5 in 149 innings. The Angels combined for 5.9 in 1421.1 innings. The Angels have not done a good job of surrounding Mike Trout with talent. Yes, it is harder for find league average players in the major leagues, but for god's sake, there has been f***-all surrounding Mike Trout. I would give Mike Trout a 10 year, $500 million contract and never think twice. I don't think his comment was meaning to be derogatory towards Mike Trout. I believe it was meant to be derogatory towards the Angels.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 09:55 AM) You support those that don't have the same opportunities that you do - or are treated unfairly because they didn't win the "life lottery." You learn everything that you can about other ethnicities, cultures, and classes in America -read articles, talk to people, get to know them and where they come from. Don't pass it off as someone else's problem and don't jump to conclusions and pass judgement on others that don't live the same life as you do. Everything that we are is a product of our environment and opportunities. Go out of your way to use your connections and abilities to help raise someone else up that wouldn't normally have the same opportunity that you do. Put yourself in someone else's shoes and act upon that experience in a positive way. With all due respect, Jeremy, this is called "being a good human being," and if that was all it took, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 03:11 PM) Oh no, Noesi was Texas. http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TE...201404200.shtml Well I was referring to Ranaudo.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 02:45 PM) You mean Hector Noesi? No, I guess it was Anthony Ranaudo? But we did do the same with Noesi from Seattle.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 12:54 PM) Would the Sox want Sale after they crushed him the other night? Didn't we crush a kid from the Rangers last year and then pick him up off waivers like 2 weeks later?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 09:48 AM) Call me crazy, but I would drive to Wrigley Field to bring either guy back to the south side. I like Russell too, but I am not sure he will become the best ss in the City.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 08:30 AM) Is he better than Sandoval and/or Marrero? That is the question the Red Sox have to answer.

QUOTE (beautox @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 12:59 AM) I honestly feel we're going to get a similar return the red sox got from us when they moved Kevin Youkilis, and I could see us dealing him to the red sox. Frazier for Blake Swihart and Darwinzon Hernandez or Trey Ball it mirrors Brent Lillibridge and Zach Stewart for Youkilis. It was good that Frazier hit a bomb off of Sale, and you know Sale will vouch for him as well. It is a virtual certainty in my mind that he ends up with Boston.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 31, 2017 -> 05:30 PM) I'll admit I'm only speculating based on publicly available information (which isn't much). And you're 100% correct there could have been other factors that constrained the market. But the one fact we do have is there was a limited supply of quality starting pitching available in free agency and a limited amount of teams that had a surplus to trade. The market should have been theoretically great. Again, maybe there were other factors that we're unaware of did hurt Quintana's market. We'll never really know. Regardless, if I were Hahn I guess I'd ask myself why I'd expect those constraints to suddenly go away and if a sudden change in supply of quality pitchers would more than offset them. Outside of perhaps banking on some trade deadline desperation, I don't see how Hahn could have realistically expected future markets to be better with any level of certainty. I just wonder if the market was a bit illiquid as a result of the Red Sox and Nats deals, and the accompanying media narrative from them. I wonder if Hahn had held off on trading Eaton and worked out a framework with Houston or Pittsburgh on Q first. It just seemed like these GM's felt like Hahn fleeced Rizzo and that was "not going to happen" to them. We will never know. But to look at that offseason in isolation and stamp a true value on Quintana or what Hahn perceived his value to be based on transactions that did not occur seems highly speculative to me. But I respect this post above quite a bit.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 31, 2017 -> 01:02 PM) Let me clarify, I personally wasn't trying to gloat and quite frankly it's too early for anyone to gloat. We have wait and see what kind of return he ultimately delivers before we officially say being patient was the right call or not. Right now it's not looking good, but that can easily change over time. I'll end my arguing after this one last point, but ultimately valuation is subjective. Every GM can look at an individual player and come up with a different value. However, in baseball terms, fair value is essentially what your peers would pay for your asset in an unconstrained market. So in this case, if Hahn's asking price was so far off from what all other GMs felt was fair, especially given the favorable market conditions, it screams to me that Rick did not value Quintana appropriately. Sure, it's possible all the other GMs are undervaluing Jose but is that likely? Not in this day & age where GMs are constantly looking for undervalued assets. Again, I know this is all speculation, but it's rooted in common sense. I have no reason to believe that Rick Hahn is the only guy who truly knows Jose Quintana's worth, so I can't automatically give him the benefit of the doubt that offers weren't sufficient. As I've said numerous times, if you can't get fair value in perfect market conditions, maybe you need to reassess what fair value actually is. I'll start by saying you and I often agree on much, and you are one of the more knowledgable posters here. That being said, I think you and others who are pushing this "true market value" narrative are putting WAY too much stock into this notion that trading human beings bilaterally in the offseason or during the non-waiver trade deadline are conditions for a well-functioning, efficient market from which to transact commodities. Cmon. This could hardly be a less-efficient market. There are all kind of constraints, a lack of information, GM's under enormous pressure, Owners vetoing deals that have actually been agreed to, payroll constraints, job tenures that don't align with rebuilding timelines, etc. While that doesn't mean fair deals cannot be made in this environment, this is not some incredibly well-functioning marketplace where one can look at transactions which did take place or did not take place and make rock-solid conclusions about value from them. It just isn't.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ May 31, 2017 -> 11:27 AM) His value will be less at 2018 deadline than the value he was worth this past off-season (2.5 years vs 4 years) so if he is pitching good, maybe a team could meet the adjusted price. I honestly don't think the market really accurately values that kind of difference in control at this point. It seems as though anything over 2 years sort of falls into a bucket of "controllable," while anything less falls into "rental."

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 31, 2017 -> 10:19 AM) Again, you're assuming that being patient was the right approach, but failing to acknowledge all the risk that came with holding Quintana into the season. This isn't about gloating, it's about questioning Hahn's decision & valuation approach. As for what to do, now we have to hold Quintana until the offseason and possibility into next season. There really isn't much of a choice. Hopefully he rebounds before the end of the season and makes his overall 2017 numbers look reasonable. First of all, I was one of the largest proponents of acknowledging that risk, which is why I kept posting about the price increasing come the deadline as compared to this offseason. Secondly, some of the posters literally began their posts with "I hate that I was right about this." Umm, gloating. Irregardless of just how likely this kind of a dropoff was, I don't think it was anywhere near justifying taking a package that was significantly substandard just because you didn't want to carry the risk.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 31, 2017 -> 10:16 AM) Absolutely. And with a healthy Trout, there was no way they did. Now there is actually a chance. They really have very little to sell. They are the least of our concerns.