caulfield12

COMPLICIT certainly will be one of the main themes the DEMS will try to run in every contested HOUSE and SENATE rate... But the Democrats need to convince those American families earning less than $75,000 per year that they 1) actually care about them and 2) have a plan that will actually provide something better for them (financially) than the last 25-30 years when Clinton and Obama were in office.

Max Boot: President Trump has already destroyed America‘s reputation Trump doesn’t seem to realize that a great part of America’s appeal abroad has been its role as a paragon and champion of liberal democratic values. https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2...cas-reputation/ Republicans used to bash President Barack Obama for alienating American allies, but Trump is turning off our partners as no one ever has. According to Gallup, “Portugal, Belgium, Norway and Canada led the declines worldwide, with approval ratings of U.S. leadership dropping 40 points or more in each country.” All four of those countries are NATO members — i.e., among the closest allies America has. The situation has gotten so bad that Trump can’t even visit the United Kingdom, America’s closest friend for the past century. ... Meanwhile, Freedom House notes, the integrity of America’s political system was undermined by “growing evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election campaign and a lack of action by the Trump administration either to condemn or to prevent a reoccurrence of such meddling.” Far from trying to stop the Russian interference, Trump seems intent on stopping any probe of what the Russians were (and are) up to. Trump’s assault on democracy at home has been accompanied by a near-total lack of interest in promoting human rights abroad — except as a cynical cudgel against the anti-American dictators of Venezuela and Iran. Not surprisingly, illiberal powers such as Russia and China are rushing into the vacuum America leaves behind. As Freedom House notes, “Moscow and Beijing are single-minded in their identification of democracy as a threat to their oppressive regimes, and they work relentlessly, with increasing sophistication, to undermine its institutions and cripple its principal advocates.” Little wonder, then, that Freedom House found that “71 countries suffered net declines in political rights and civil liberties, with only 35 registering gains. This marked the 12th consecutive year of decline in global freedom.” Britain was said to have acquired its empire in “a fit of absence of mind.” America is losing its global power in the same way. Through ignorance and malice, Trump is destroying the foundations of American influence that previous leaders spent three-quarters of a century erecting. When it comes to “soft power,” he is engaging in unilateral disarmament — and that in turn will have dire consequences for American security and prosperity. Trump is ending the Pax Americana and helping to usher in either a Chinese Century or a new global disorder where there is no international law and life is “nasty, brutish and short.”

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jan 29, 2018 -> 08:23 PM) I'm just going to say DUH to this statement. That BKN pick is behind the Bulls currently at 8th, so Young is likely gone anyways if the season ended today and that pick stays at 8 during the lottery. A poor man's Davis and Boogie, though in the East thats definitely good enough to make some noise. There will always be 8-12 NBA GM's who go for the "off the charts" potential of a Collin Sexton...nearly every draft has 3-5 players like that in the first round (see Frank Ntilikina vs Dennis Scott, Jr.) My point wasn't so much about the Bulls (who I could care less about) rather than Young vs. Sexton, who will be the better pro...not whether Young's going to last that long in the first 10 picks.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 29, 2018 -> 01:36 PM) Scott Baio may not be guilty. He provides evidence. So did Steve Wynn. Blamed it on ex #2 bitterness. That hasn't stopped Wynn Resorts from losing $3 billion and nearly 20% of its market value in the space of two days of trading.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jan 29, 2018 -> 08:06 PM) That pick is 1-4 protected till 2021 (unprotected). And Dan Gilbert with 5-6 of his scouts were at the Oklahoma game a couple days ago to see Young and Sexton so I doubt Brooklyn pick is in the works. Personally, I think Young is the better choice (vs. Sexton) because of his incredible shooting range and quick release. It reminds me of the debate about DeAaron Fox coming into that draft...Collin Sexton's definitely more explosive and a dynamic athlete, sort of a mini-Westbrook, BUT. All things considered, Young has such a wonderful sense of spacing and the floor, and he can always work on building his strength/speed/quickness with trainers at the next level. Up until the Alabama game, he hasn't been pressured so much physically since his high school days in Norman. The other thing is that Young doesn't have nearly the supporting cast that players like Bagley and Ayton have surrounding them. Who's the second best player on Oklahoma? Or the 3rd? Manek? McGusty? James? It changes on a nightly basis. Manek MIGHT have the upside of a 12th or 13th man on a non-playoff NBA roster.

The Republicans are telegraphing this from a mile away. Try to pin the blame on Rosenstein for authorizing FISA "wiretaps" on Carter Page (ignoring what they might have learned to do with the financial intricacies of the Trump/Moscow ties). Fire Rod Rosenstein. Also, continue to press the FBI (McCabe, due to his wife's ties to former VA governor and Hillary bestie Terry McAuliffe) and Rosenstein (despite being a Republican appointee) as "bad actors" conspiring to deny Trump's greatness. Replace Rosenstein with a Trump "stooge" for the GOP who will sacrifice his career by falling on the sword of firing Mueller and starting a constitutional crisis. Or Rachel Brand (would take Rosenstein's place) makes those decisions herself and plays ball with Trump... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix...m=.ff7fd199b907 But while firing Mueller appears to be off the table — for now, at least — this person could also hypothetically make more Trump-friendly decisions in other ways. “He could install someone who would limit Mueller in subtle ways that are defensible,” former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti said. “Under the special counsel regulations, the attorney general (or acting attorney general, in this case) can ask Mueller for explanations of his actions and overrule them.” The immediate question would seem to be whether Brand fits the bill. The other big question would be whether Republicans would allow Trump to pick a more sympathetic deputy attorney general. The Times reported last week that Trump viewed Brand as being preferable to Rosenstein. Whether that's because he knows anything about Brand or simply dislikes Rosenstein — who he's wrongly suggested is a Democrat and has privately said is a threat to his presidency — isn't clear. Rosenstein is a holdover from the Obama administration but was reappointed by Trump and was first appointed in the George W. Bush administration; Brand also served in the Bush administration but not the Obama administration. “It seems like there is an assumption that Brand can be pushed around on this,” Zeidenberg said. “I have no idea if that is true, but she was never questioned on it during her confirmation and, obviously, made no pledges.” But Matthew Miller, a former top official in the Obama-era Justice Department, said he doesn't believe Brand would be a pushover. “She doesn’t have any criminal experience that I’m aware of, and that’s a huge part of the job,” Miller said. “But from everything I know about her, she would follow the law and not be a toady for Trump. She’s fairly well respected.” Which brings us to Rosenstein's replacement as deputy attorney general. This person would be subject to confirmation by the Republican-controlled Senate, which could push that pick through with a bare majority. But given that Republicans only have an effective 51-49 majority and can lose only two votes one vote (uncertainty about McCain), the furor set off by getting rid of Rosenstein would probably make it difficult to replace him with, in Miller's words, a “toady for Trump.”

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 29, 2018 -> 06:43 PM) A concept: if you aren't Native American, you have no right to comment on how the logo is no big deal or is not offensive. Pretty simple. It's an interesting debate. Does that mean no other minority who has faced similar discrimination can comment? That seems a bit absurd. From a business perspective, it's a simple cost/benefit analysis. With Native Americans comprising less than 1% of the US population, and far less than 1% of MLB attendance/revenues, owners feel that the benefits of "being forced to change by outside forces" aren't currently outweighing the benefits of keeping or maintaining that name or tradition. Of course, for public universities, that's a slightly different issue. You also get into the dangerous game of classifying the mascots into "respectful" and disrespectful. For example, the KC Chiefs or FSU Seminoles, Fighting Illini or Runnin' Utes (Utah) vs. the Indians or Redskins. What about the Atlanta Braves or the BlackHawks? The Fighting Sioux? And are the Dallas Cowboys now representative of "white oppression" of Native American peoples? Slippery slope... https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/29/opinions/dro...lman/index.html We're also to the point where it can't just be about the symbolism of removing a mascot...where both sides of the ideological divide are looking at the economics and politics of any decision.

Minimum wage was $1.60 in 1973. In 2018 equivalent, that would be $9.28 per hour. Using that 5.8 multiplier, another way of thinking of it is this...if a worker was making the princely sum of $4.03 per hour in 1973, it would be like earning $23.37/hour in today's dollars. Essentially, any family today earning $50,000 or less (per household, without kids) would be living on the equivalent of $4.03/hr in terms of 1973 buying power. That, right there, explains a lot of what has happened to the middle class from the 1970's through today.

Why don't the Koch's pay for the wall? They're only donating $400 million to the GOP to TRY to maintain control of Congress. We're all about government/private partnerships these days, right? https://www.yahoo.com/news/fearing-democrat...-025913732.html Ironically, they want what amounts to open immigration/amnesty and completely free trade, as it benefits Koch Industries much more than the opposite. Why? Because it provides them a cheap/er source of labor. But the Koch network still diverges from the Republican president on issues such as immigration and trade. The Kochs strongly support legislation that would protect “Dreamers” - people brought illegally to the United States as children - from deportation. Two Koch operatives, Daniel Garza and Jorge Lima, were at the White House on Friday to try to help broker a deal with Congress over the Dreamers. The network issued a statement on Friday disagreeing with a proposal in Trump's immigration blueprint that would set new limits on legal immigration. On trade, Phillips and other Koch operatives are deeply concerned about the administration’s moves to impose tariffs on some imports and ardently support the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, which is being renegotiated and that Trump has threatened to abandon. https://www.yahoo.com/news/fearing-democrat...-025913732.html

Redus A Bedtime Story was a better nickname, lol

A spokesman for House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) said Sunday that he would donate the $1,000 he received from a PAC affiliated with Wynn Resorts to a charity. Rep. Karen Handel (R., Ga.) over the weekend gave Mr. Wynn’s contribution to a charity in her district that helps victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and elder abuse, according to her spokesman. Mr. Wynn and his wife, Andrea, each donated $2,700 to Mrs. Handel last year. The congresswoman’s spokesman didn’t specify the size of her charitable donation. A spokesman for Rep. Greg Gianforte said Sunday the Montana Republican would donate the $2,700 he received to charity. Mr. Wynn donated $6,350 to Mr. Gianforte’s joint fundraising committee with the Montana GOP last May, of which $2,700 went to Mr. Gianforte and the rest to the Montana GOP state party. Mr. Wynn’s wife also donated $6,350 to the joint committee, which isn’t being returned. A spokeswoman for Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R., Fla.) said that he believes he has received a total of $1,000 in donations connected to Mr. Wynn and will be donating those to a nonprofit organization which empowers local girls. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/WYNN?p=WYNN Wynn Resorts Stock down 13.5% since allegations.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jan 28, 2018 -> 11:44 PM) I didn't mean intentionally putting hitches into their swing, I meant working with kinesologists with backgrounds in biomechanics to build their swings, or for teams, hiring them as hitting coaches. I can believe the line of thinking that most hitting coaches are awful, but if some players and teams have found the right people that can help them work with their swing mechanics and make their swing effective, why aren't players and teams flocking to these people? Same reason Tiger Woods went through so many swing coaches. Inevitably, swing changes or mechanical fixes will eventually fail (since that's true 7 out of 10 times)...and players/parents will typically turn to another solution instead of taking responsibility for "fixing themselves."

QUOTE (Tony @ Jan 28, 2018 -> 10:48 PM) What does bunting have to do with this link? Amid otherwise joyous SoxFest, one fan wanted to know how ... www.nbcsports.com/chicago/white-sox/amid-otherwise... Amid an otherwise joyous SoxFest, ... to perhaps the weekend's only negative query — other than when someone complained to Rick Renteria that he bunts too much. The story has apparently been abbreviated/edited, because an earlier version had these lines included. Or when it got carried on yahoo from the original nbcsports story, since national baseball fans could care less about Renteria's propensity for bunting?

In researching that question, I came across a 1980 monograph titled “Racism: A Symptom of the Narcissistic Personality,” by Dr. Carl C. Bell, now an emeritus professor of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Bell has written extensively on racism, and argued, unsuccessfully, for the profession to recognize it as a form of mental illness. With the caveat that he would abide by the “Goldwater Rule” that prohibits psychiatrists from diagnosing public figures they have not personally examined, Bell sent me the draft of a new essay in which he draws explicit parallels between racism and narcissism. Narcissists “are exploitative and they lack empathy,” the ability to take into consideration what another person is feeling. Those are also, Bell told me, “very much the characteristics of racist behavior.” Narcissists and racists “have vulnerable self-esteem issues, which makes them very susceptible to any form of criticism and makes them prone to counterattack impulsively. They are also prone to being denigrating and rageful toward others.” Does that sound like anyone you’ve heard of recently? Belief in the inferiority of certain groups has been a long-running theme in Trump’s public life, going back to his earliest days in business, when he and his father were sued by the federal government for systematically discriminating against black prospective tenants. It is the flip side of his frequent insistence that some people, namely he himself, are superior on the basis of their genetic endowments. And we can infer his views from more recent episodes, such as his response to the infamous Central Park Five case in New York, involving five minority teenagers who were accused of the brutal rape of a (white) woman jogger. Trump’s response — this was back in 1989, long before he had embarked on a political career — was to take out full-page ads in the New York newspapers calling for a return of the death penalty. “Maybe hate is what we need,” he said in an interview with Larry King. The issue resurfaced during his campaign in 2016 — years after someone else had confessed to the rape, the five had been cleared by DNA evidence, released from prison, and been paid a large settlement by the city. Trump, incredibly, refused to retract his original position. Sarah Burns, a co-director of a documentary about the case, wrote in a New York Times op-ed that “we are left with Mr. Trump’s presumption that because they were black and brown teenagers from Harlem, they must have committed a crime.” On the other hand, we have the testimony of someone who knows Trump well, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who defended the president against charges of racism by telling CNN: “You could be dark as charcoal or lily white, it doesn’t matter as long as you’re nice to him.” (“You can be the pope and criticize him, it doesn’t matter,” Graham added. “He’ll go after the pope.”) That seems to speak to another trait that observers have imputed to Trump: narcissism. Could we have been misunderstanding Trump all along? Or could those traits be somehow linked? https://www.yahoo.com/news/narcissism-racis...-234817474.html

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 28, 2018 -> 09:36 PM) You know what, I did watch SNL again. I generally like Will Ferrell. I only liked one skit quite a bit on the show. It was where a bunch of couples were sitting at dinner and were uncomfortable discussing sexual harrasment issues of the day. It was good stuff IMO. I thought the Bush thing was not good. I mean, it's been too long. I didn't see the point of it. Again, I love Will Ferrell. I think I may have smiled at one of the jokes or something but it was dull skit. Again, I thought one skit in the whole show was funny or sort of funny. I really like Kate McKinnon and wish she was in more skits. I will say I do respect Ferrell. He was probably in six skits in 90 minutes, maybe more. That has to be hard to do live with just a week memorizing lines (i realize there are cue cards). In conclusion ... Ferrell on the whole A-plus. Ferrell on this particular show - D, but not through his fault. Bad skits. That was a solid 7.5/10 Opening Skit take GW Bush. Not Ferrell's best work ever, obviously, but it had 2-3 excellent lines that had nearly everyone laughing. Deep State Dem Conspiracy Terrorizes Republicans as Steve Wynn, Rubio’s Chief Of Staff (Clint Reed), Scott Baio and Vince McMahon All Targets of Sexual Harassment Charges...or was the NFL behind it all? Nikki Haley and Donald Trump, Jr., fire back at Hillary Clinton for reading Fire & Fury excerpts during Grammy's https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/28/politics/nik...ards/index.html Christine ����‏ @christi36766871 Replying to @realDonaldTrump Trump epitomizes the spirit and bravery of our Founders. They did EXACTLY that same thing. They were all nobles who were quite set in the Colonies, with large estates and valuable businesses, but risked it ALL because they wanted to do right by their fellow colonists. This is from Trump's twitter feed...the funny thing is she has pictures of George Washington, Lincoln, Andrew Jackson (yuck), Teddy Roosevelt, "not you Obama," Ike, Reagan, Trump, and, wait for it......JFK. Apparently she doesn't realize he was actually a Democrat.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/amid-otherwise...-232909505.html Haber answered on Tatis, Jr.

QUOTE (wrathofhahn @ Jan 26, 2018 -> 09:29 PM) The answer is no those teams have not gotten a good return on their investment and since we have one of these players on the roster ourselves lets just keep things honest. Does Shields sell more merchandise? Does he draw fans? Does he increase advertising revenue? I mean what you are saying is nuts. The other problem is most of these players switch teams so the fan attachment is not there after they struggle Pujols is he beloved by Angels fans? No. Was Fielder beloved by Tigers fans? Ellsbury with Yankee fans? Why would opposing GM's care how much surplus value a player produced for an opposing club? Their job is to produce wins for their club not right some sort of inequality between a player and their old club. Should we sign Jose Bautista to a six year 200 million deal because the Blue Jays were able to extract so much surplus value through his prime years? I mean comeon. It's complicated but that is a large part of the issue. I also think what doesn't get discussed enough as well is the impact of IFA. If you are a rebuilding club would you rather sign someone like Robert or Cain? Lets say your window of contention is three years in the future. Well that makes Cain what 35. Robert was 19 and would be 22-23 and just ready to be called up. Which makes more sense? The other issue that Boras has is once teams decide to forgo traditional FA and instead devote resources to scouting and the draft along with IFA then they also look to at that point sell off their own assets for prospect capital because that allows them to burn through cheap veterans and keep control of their prospects until they are ready to compete. For example for the Q trade. Q had 4 years of control when he was moved but three of those years of control are not valuable to a team that is rebuilding. Eloy on the other hand has six years but you can keep him in the minors for one year or two years and call him up when you feel the team is closer to contention. For us Hahn has hinted at it being 2020 so lets say we call Eloy up in june to keep his clock set back a year. That means when Hahn feels we will be contenders Eloy will have FIVE years of control Q would have ONE year then be a FA. I know it's a little convoluted but the idea is to have as many players become good at the same time to keep your window open as long as possible. Which makes perfect sense. The problem for Boras is these players eventhough under contract are essentially competing with top FA. If you are the Astros why sign Arrietta when you can just trade for Cole on a 1yr deal. I mean if you are going to extend anyone you would probably prefer it to be your own core players over a player whose 30+ with a declining fastball. If you are the Cardinals and you need a corner OF would you rather trade for 27 year old Ozuna with two years of control remaining (4.8 WAR)? Or sign a 30 year old JD Martinez to a six year 200 million dollar deal or if you are lucky maybe he'll settle for 5 years 150 million (3.8 WAR)? So yeah if you managed to get through this wall of text basically what I'm saying it's a combination of things that is causing this but the main reason is teams are just being smarter and rebuilding teams are realizing that while rebuilding their young players who won't be around when they are good have surplus value to teams that are looking to contend, it makes more sense to spend their budget on IFA, and contending teams realize inorder to keep their window open for as long as possible they need to extend the best YOUNG players on their roster and not be tied down to bad longterm deals for 30+ plus veterans. So they are using trades for shortterm upgrades rather then FA. If we still had Tatis, Jr., we wouldn't even have to worry about signing Machado for $250-300 million. Being out of those sweepstakes, we could instead focus on the second tier of FA's (spreading money around) to give you solid 2-3 WAR players around our young core. If the White Sox put all their eggs in the basket of signing Machado or Harper and that FA then went all Albert Belle as an Oriole, that would put a huge dent in their competitive window unless we still hit on as many prospects as the Cubs managed to do. We'd also CLEARLY have the best farm system in all of MLB, not an argument with 2-3 others teams currently staking a position.

QUOTE (mmmmmbeeer @ Jan 28, 2018 -> 08:38 PM) The Yankees are definitely stacked and, if things play out as both front offices expect, Sox and them will likely be the top two teams in the AL from 2020-2023ish. That said, some of the Yankee prospects, as we've learned over the years, are certainly a bit overrated. I don't know if it's enough to put us on top when ranking organization talent Would anyone trade Jimenez for the 2nd place finisher in the MVP race? Jimenez, at best, is a combination of Nelson Cruz and Carlos Lee from all accounts. Do you think any Yankees' fan would be up for that one? Gary Sanchez is a franchise catcher, although there are lots who want him to focus 100% on offense...but that's still one of the most valuable assets in the game today. Who is the White Sox equivalent, Moncada? But catcher >>> 2nd base. If Hansen, Kopech and Luis Robert (in CF) all become something close to superstars, along with Moncada, then you can start making a legitimate argument. The White Sox should have the advantage on the pitching side, especially if Rodon makes it all the way back.

I think you have the biggest factor being the fact that the White Sox didn't have an extended run of excellence. They couldn't even make the playoffs two years in a row with that roster. You can blame it on the 2006 Tigers and Twins, but a really dominant team would have had a longer window. The bullpen results were a bit fluky, and the starting pitching regressed in the following year. There were no Hall of Famers on that roster. Pods regressed from being one of the most impactful players the first half that year. Buehrle, Konerko, Dye...were probably the three best players from a historical perspective. In addition, AJ Pierzynski has never been well-liked, although I'm pretty sure that's not one of the Top 10 reasons, lol. Jose Contreras came out of nowhere to become the best pitcher in baseball at the end of 2005 and beginning of 2006, but that wasn't lasting (injuries/age). They also didn't have a great amount of competition from the Astros in the WS, and it was also kind of a wonder how the Astros were at one point 15 games under .500 and still made it that year to the post-season.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jan 28, 2018 -> 07:42 PM) Why isn't everyone doing this, then? The same reason all pitchers aren't using Trevor Bauer's offseason training regimen of trying to throw 120-130 mph.

TCU is really making things difficult for themselves. Lon Kruger simply got outcoached by Avery Johnson and his 7 different defenses he threw at Young (looked like a high school game where you have one superstar and 4 other stiffs and the entire goal to the defense is to limit the superstar to 15-20 points and force the rest of his teammates to beat you). ISU is officially done. OkState lost a close one...they had two really tough losses after upsetting OU at home last weekend. K-State, on the other hand, is looking better and better. Same with Texas. WVU has now lost 3 games in the last month where they blew 15+ point leads. Pretty inexplicable to lose at home to a struggling KY team, but UNC and Duke both lost at home for the first time on the same weekend since 1973, so anything's possible in college basketball these days (at least until Duke runs out their McDonald's All-American team next year).

QUOTE (Tony @ Jan 28, 2018 -> 07:52 PM) The President was asked if he believes in climate change. This was his answer. The coal industry sees no contradiction in these last few sentences with Trump admin policy. Maybe he's trying to bring back "Trump Water" for a second go-around?

I'm just surprised we haven't seen a comment yet about the Bush SNL impression from Greg... Bill Maher has dissected President Donald Trump’s oft-repeated defense that he’s “the least racist person anyone has ever met.” On Friday’s broadcast of “Real Time,” the comedian said that if Trump kept on insisting it was true then he had to explain “why the single most consistent thing in his whole life is he loves to pick fights with black people.” “Of all his myriad insanities, if I had to pick one line for his tombstone it would be, ‘Here Lies Donald Trump: Picked Fights With Black People,’” quipped Maher. “Think of the list,” he said, before reeling off the names of people that Trump has attacked over the years. “Is it just a coincidence that he’s perpetually pissed off at the NBA and NFL but golfers and hockey players never seem to bother him?” asked Maher, before lightheartedly suggesting another group of people that Trump may like to aim his anger at instead. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-m...4b0ddb658c6a899 Voters of color won't be fooled by Trump's claims on black jobless rate https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/26/opinions/eco...nion/index.html

QUOTE (wrathofhahn @ Jan 28, 2018 -> 09:41 AM) I'm not really forecasting I've just been hearing some conflicting statements. At the end of last year he was talking about 2020 being the earliest where we could realistically be competitive. Now he's talking about trying to make trades for ML players like Machado and Yelich suggesting the window changed. I guess the question what caused him to change his thinking? "Both Avi and Abreu are under control for the next two years, through 2019. I think even under the most optimistic projections of our ability to contend, certainly '18 and '19 don't include the bulk of the time when we anticipate having a window open to us," Hahn said. "So obviously with any player who isn't controllable through the bulk of that window, we have to make an assessment." I think for me if the plan is 2020 which makes perfect sense lets make the 2020 team as good as possible with as many controllable assets as possible. It also gives us ammunition to make a deals if we need to as well. 2019 COULD be the "one year early" that the Cubs and Astros experienced. Of course, that would require landing Machado/Harper/Donaldson (the last one, let's wait on his 2018 season) and Moncada, Jimenez, Kopech, Gio, Lopez, Hansen, Rodon, Anderson, etc., making huge leaps forward. It would also require that offseason investment into the makings of a competent bullpen (there are at least 3-4 elite or close to elite closers on market next year), rather than a "not so terrible it won't destroy team morale" version.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-dirty-war-o...-inside-google/ The Dirty War over Diversity at Google