Texsox

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 05:05 PM) Did anyone see the rapid collapse suddenly hitting? No matter how much I doubted this team even I didn't think that "lightswitch off" moment was possible. It seems way easier to have it turn off than on.

Confidence, momentum, expectations, bad luck. It can change in a blink of an eye. But usually not, and I just don't see it right now with this team.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 04:55 PM) Drinking to the point that your judgement is impaired beyond the ability to consent isn't a crime and doesn't inherently pose risks to anyone else. I agree. But isn't it interesting that if the person places themselves in a dangerous position (behind the seat of a car) we assign blame to them. If they place themselves in a dangerous position, (Making out with someone) we do not blame them. Again, it feels like the right thing to do, and there really isn't a better public policy, but I do see a contradiction. Perhaps to close the perceived gap on my part, the people who are around the drunk and allow them to drive should face a similar consequence as does the rapist. They have some control over the drunk who is too impaired to exercise sound judgement.

BTW, I prefer to think of free college more in terms of expanding public education from 13 years to 15 or even 17 years. A good start would be 15 years. That would then include either two years extra of remedial K-12 years, a couple years of trade, tech, or community college, or if you do enough concurrent enrollment or AP classes, it would get you pretty darn close to a bachelor's degree. And that is really what is being proposed, extending the 13 years that we already provide.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 04:43 PM) DUI has nothing to do with consent, though. That's the difference. I'm trying to point out the difference in the personal responsibility. My point is in the case of driving the person IS responsible for their actions, in the case of having sex the person is not responsible for their actions. Same level of drunk, same person. While drunk we are responsible for some things, but not others. Am I making sense? I know this is my explanation, not your ability to read and think.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 04:32 PM) How is consent relevant in the case of drunk driving? Yes. Drunk driving presents a grave risk to others. Being too impaired to consent is about your own personal safety. That is the inconsistency I am trying to explain, but not very well. A person is charged with DUI. We agree they are responsible for their actions. Now do we also believe that they are too drunk to consent to having sex and if someone has sex with them the other person would be charged with rape?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 04:28 PM) I'm not seeing the inconsistency. If I'm walking down the sidewalk while heavily intoxicated and get hit by a drunk driver, there's no question who's at fault there. The drunk driver is responsible, as is the drunk rapist. Agreed. Can that drunk driver also be too drunk to give consent to sex?

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 04:23 PM) Interesting point. Are you stating this in general or as it pertains to this case? In general. A drunk gets in the car and causes a crash. After staggering out of the car the drunk has a sexual encounter. They are responsible for the crash, but too drunk to give consent to the sex?

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 04:19 PM) Brazil -2.5 over Haiti? O/U 3.5? Ecuador over Peru? O/U 2? I like the under in the Brazil game. I also think Brazil will have a challenge to cover. I'm thinking a 2-1 or 2-0 game. Brazil has to find a way to get some better shots.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 12:43 PM) Who says no in the case that you're giving? Are both parties actually able to give or deny consent? Hypothetically its whoever says no. In a solely legal sense what you present is a tough case because at some point both parties could be intoxicated enough to be unable to actually consent. In that case now you have to figure out whether someone actually denied consent with very little evidence and probably no one able to testify about how things actually happened unless there was some other witness. Isn't that part of the issue? Neither person really can say no, but that is different than giving consent. In other areas, such as driving, we tell the drunk driver, you are responsible for your actions while drunk. Then we might tell that same person that they aren't responsible for having a sexual encounter because they were too drunk to consent. We have this patchwork of responsible and not responsible when drunk. I don't have a solution, but it seems like we are not consistent.

I'm looking strongly at a 3rd party candidate. For me it will be easy to vote for someone else. I know Texas will go to Trump. The Aggie crowd in College Station (the epicenter of Texas conservatism) will drown out the UT Austin liberals. As much as I would like to help close the gap, I'm not certain Hillary is my first choice.

Will they allow the next manager to bring in an entirely new coaching staff? Some of these guys have been around since Ozzie. Isn't it time to really clean house?

In the past week I've run past people Wearing ankle weights and jogging Wearing a rubber looking suit while jogging in 90 degree weather Doing giant windmills while holding weights. Do you say something or just let them be stupid?

Of course a lot of posters also wanted Ozzie's head in 2005 during the September slide. We could have two or three managers a year based on some fans opinions.

The idea that it could have been consensual is just ridiculous. Dad's letter was horrible. The sentence is a throw back to the 1950s and the judge made a huge mistake. There is an issue here that isn't neat and tidy. It is obvious that at some point a woman has had too much to drink and can't consent. And we really should not hold her responsible for drinking too much and having something bad happen. We also shouldn't treat people differently based on sex. If a guy is raped by another guy or a woman, the same consequences should apply to the rapist. The issue that I struggle with is at some point is the other person too drunk to be responsible for their actions? Being drunk shouldn't be an excuse for rape. Not in this case but given an example of two drunks having sex, who has raped who?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 09:11 AM) I should have made the thread you're Rick Hahn, you want to fire Robin. You have to make your case to JR. JR is going to want some logic that says a guy like Rick Renteria will produce more wins. The Ron Washington line, that's how baseball go, won't work. Would you be willing to put your neck and job on the line that a guy like Renteria would translate into more wins? What's your ammo? And how are you going to measure more wins? Based on this (temporary) slump that the team would have played out of anyways (no way to predict one way or another)? Based on year to date? Based on the hot start? There just isn't any objective evidence after the fact.

Ventura has had his opportunity. This offseason he should be replaced. It may only result in a couple three more wins but it is the accumulation of all of those small improvements that make the difference. I believe he could be a very good to great manager in the right position. This just isn't the right time nor position.

I think the vast majority of people here will agree that JR is among the owners that are the slowest to change and never make moves based on current events. There are also some owners who are way too quick and meddle way too much. Where is the balance? Overreacting to good or bad usually doesn't result in your best decisions. Waiting until all hope is lost is equally damning.

Was he the start of the polarizing, made for TV, sports celebrity who managed his career with a knack for publicity or did he just perfect it? I was a big fan even though I never was a huge boxing fan. He transcended the sports world like few athletes have.

Does anyone remember how he tanked his last season here to get fired and take another position?

I was just about to post the comment above. Hmm LH power hitter from the NL, where have I heard this before? For it's one, two, three strikes you're out . . . Just punch me in the throat instead.

QUOTE (SonofaRoache @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 10:12 AM) I was under the impression managers actually conducted and oversaw events called practices where they went over hitting, fielding, pitching, bunting, and real game situations to help the players get better. Guess I was wrong. Very little actually. During the regular season there just isn't any time. That's what they have been doing before getting to the show. From there coaches take over.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 08:32 AM) http://nypost.com/2016/06/06/theo-epsteins...it-rock-bottom/ Good read. Thank you for posting.

QUOTE (Scoots @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 07:08 AM) Those with the louder personalities typically are the ones that are heard the most because, well, they are loud, and want people to do loud things. Not everyone is loud, however. The true art of managing is behind the scenes.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 07:18 AM) Yes he did, but that's not my point. What I said was just having White Sox ties does not "automatically" qualify you to be manager of the team. As for the Cubs getting "lucky" to get Rizzo, Bryant and Arrieta, that's just sour grapes from a Sox fan. They run a good baseball operation over there, plain and simple. That wasn't the case for three+ decades when the Tribune Company owned the clubover 100 years, but it *maybe* is now. They have shrewd baseball men at the top of the house who have done quite well in several trades and in the draft. Give the devil his due - they've put together a team that is now in the throes of achieving sustainable success for *1/3rd of a season*. Oh for the day when we can make a similar claim for our Sox! Fixed. After a few decades you realize that sustained success isn't that easy to predict. I remember the string of Bear's Super Bowls in the 1980s. I believe they were going to be the dynasty.