caulfield12

I guess it's up to the front office/JR/marketing department to determine how much more of the fan base they can afford to drive into apathy. We expected going into last off-season to be competitive (like the Royals in 2014, especially 2nd half) at least in July of 2019 and we're already one full year behind that timetable. (Obviously, Machado/Harper/Corbin could change that, with 2-3 "big name" veteran relievers being the more unlikely adds.) It remains to be seen if picking Madrigal instead of the 5th-8th guy (could get you a Fulmer or Buehler) is going to be worth it. That said, we ALL know pretty much beyond a doubt that duct-taping together a 72-78 win team but still not being competitive with the Indians isn't going to move the bar enough to get the fans back. The concern, of course, and a valid one, is how do you jump 20 victories in one year if you're going to be mired in the high 60's or low 70's in terms of win totals? You have to start hitting on some of your high draft picks and also making the right trades and free agent moves. It's that simple.

Trump has an opportunity to do a unifying speech in a Wisconsin rally tonight, or just go on without correcting course or messaging. Can he be a leader for the entire country and not stay on the attack with less than two weeks to go before the election? That’s the question.

No mention of MSFT at all. Notably, the market saw flows into classic risk-off sectors with real estate, utilities, and consumer staples all closing in the green while the newly-formed communications sector dropped almost 5% while the S&P tech sector lost 4.4%. Treasurys also got a bid on Wednesday with the yield on the 10-year moving back to 3.11% and the 5-year falling back below 3% after yields earlier this month hit a seven-year high. The FAANG stocks, some of the highest fliers in the market since the beginning of 2017, were punished especially hard on Wednesday on no major market-moving news in the space, as Netflix (NFLX) shares fell 9.4%, Facebook (FB) stock fell 5% to approach a new 52-week low, while Amazon (AMZN) and Alphabet (GOOGL) shares lost more than 5% ahead of those companies’ reports expected after the market close on Thursday. Chip names were also under pressure all day on Wednesday with AMD’s (AMD) report after the market close putting even more pressure on the space after hours. AMD fell 9% during the trading day on Wednesday and was off more than 20% after hours as the chipmaker’s guidance missed expectations. On Thursday, the heavy earnings flow continues with Alphabet, Amazon, Gilead (GILD), Chipotle (CMG), Merck (MRK), Twitter (TWTR), Altria (MO), Discover Financial (DFS), and Comcast (CMCSA) all reporting on Thursday.

Add Maxine Waters...wonder if the FBI will dare to share investigation information in the last week or ten days before the election. Hopefully not. https://www.yahoo.com/news/cnn-president-tells-trump-words-matter-mail-bomb-found-214004747.html CNN responds to attacks...btw, Brennan’s name was spelled with only one N, whatever that means. Schultz’s last name spelled without a C. Soros was the first name released, and now all are linked together. One purportedly from Wasserman-Schultz TO Eric Holder, but returned. Waters bomb not yet 100% confirmed or linked yet.

Can’t imagine this topic being discussed rationally with no Filibuster...like the immigration caravan plodding across Mexico. I guess it can’t be that surprising with all the hateful rhetoric going back and forth. This is just a natural extension of verbal confrontation. It only takes one or two nuts, like the Scalise shooting at the Congressional baseball practice. Looks like the story is expanding to many other possible targets, including John Brennan/CNN.

They’d want to see Rutherford in AA and still hitting well and with plenty of xbh in bigger parks to value him highly. Right now, he’s at least two years away, which doesn’t help their playoff competitive team very much.

Those summer travel baseball leagues where they travel all over the region/country and cost at least $5000 per summer for parents to fund...that's what is killing youth participation. It's winnowing down the numbers earlier and earlier. It might not be a "white sport" because of the growing influence of Latin America, but no matter how much MLB puts into Reviving Baseball in the Inner City, the Bulls/Sox Academy, ACE...other sports are still drawing more kids, not just the NBA/NFL, but some of the secondary sports like soccer (in America), golf, tennis, etc.

There's no doubt that Sox gear (there was a brief burst for Moncada, then Kopech) simply is almost non-existent except for hardcore fans and random rappers/entertainers. (This is definitely the case a mere 175 miles away, in the Quad Cities.) That said, the real spread in Chicago's probably closer to 60/40 than 70/30, it's just that it has basically been a dormant/hibernating fanbase since the disappointment after the predicted 2006-2009 dynasty fell flat on its face. They have obviously attempted to lower prices significantly from the 2006-2012 era, but now there's simply many more entertainment options, MLB.tv/Extra Innings has improved by leaps and bounds, the incentive to actually go to the park is decreasing in all the professional sports, except for the post-season and All-Star games and post-game concerts, etc. Let's just say the belief/confidence in the organization has gradually withered on the vine. 2008 was great, 2010 was exciting in the middle of the season (the Thome dumping notwithstanding), but then you had Dunn's historic for the wrong reasons 2011 and the 2012 run that nobody expected was going to be able to withstand the Tigers' challenge in the end (losing franchise icon Mark Buehrle also stung). Obviously, 2007/09/11 also had a LOT to do with why the fans started to lose confidence in the front office...zero consistency or predictability in having a good product from year to year kills season ticket sales. In a lot of ways, the fans were absolutely correct, it should be added. Look at the 2012 roster again. It was all smoke and mirrors. What happened to all those rookies and young pitchers, other than Sale/Q/Nate Jones/Addison Reed? Look at the line-up, and compare it with the Tigers that year. Unsurprisingly, the "Ventura Defensive Magic" wore completely off after one season, and 2013/14 were complete disasters, with terrible fundamentals, defense and lackluster excitement/hustle being the commonalities connecting 2013-2016, with the exception of the first five or six weeks of 2016 (yet another mirage that left us shaking our heads at James Shields).

Trae Young might be better than predicted. Seems to be holding his own. We’ll see when he faces better teams that the Cavs. If he can shoot at least 37.5% from 3, he’ll be off to a good start. Can he not wear down the second half of the season? He was constantly double and triple teamed at OU after the sensational start. Doncic and Joe Ingles have been fun watches in the early going.

Not pro Miller, although I hedged when investing into LMVTX by going equal with LMOPX in 2001. Miller was actually one of the original huge institutional holders of Amazon, but dumped most of it in one of the numerous mistakes that led to his downfall...he never grasped that value tech stocks behave quite different from traditional value finds on the market. Putting all there with Miller would have been an absolute debacle. Most of my money went to Oakmark, American Century (disappointing, largely), Berkshire Hathaway, Fidelity and the largest chunk by far to various classes of Vanguard stock indexes and a few bond funds. The other 1/4th is in individual stocks and money market funds (crappy rate of return but need to keep 10% liquid). We have some here in China, two different CD’s through my wife’s insurance company paying 8% and 3%. The guaranteed 8% is a long story. All things considered, the overall rate of return wouldn’t have been much different with 3-5 Vanguard funds over the last couple of decades. My individual stock picking has been around 9-10% during that time. My Chinese holdings were way up until the trade war started, lol...but they will all recover over time. Still in net positive territory, particularly in the large national insurance groups (Ping An). Last time I changed allocations, went to some REITs and small/midcap funds with Fidelity to rebalance/diversify.

Then why don’t they get competitive balance compensation picks like the Cardinals or Tigers?

What possible reason would the White Sox have for being an anomaly like the Cubs, Red Sox or Cardinals that draw consistently come hell or high water? Chicago Cubs 2008 3.3 million 2013 2.643 million 2014 2.652 million 20% drop-off (still not back to 3.3 million despite four playoffs in a row, one World Series title...have fallen last two years, in fact) White Sox 2006 2.957 million 2008 2.51 million 2018 1.61 million (after the worst cumulative record in baseball for the last 6 years) 36% dropoff into the heart of the rebuild from 2008...the Cubs essentially have a 16% advantage due to historic Wrigley Field, the area around the park, yuppies, corporate tickets, grandmothers from Iowa and day baseball in the summer. In fact, the Cubs in 2006 had an advantage in attendance of less than 200,000 over the Sox. That’s the last season both teams made the playoffs together, 2008.

See the first sentence.

The Legg Mason Capital Management Value Trust's after-fee return beat the S&P 500 index for 15 consecutive years from 1991 through 2005 (consistently producing market-beating returns is considered to be very unlikely according to the efficient market hypothesis). Miller once said, "As for the so-called streak, that's an accident of the calendar. If the year ended on different months it wouldn't be there and at some point the mathematics will hit us. We've been lucky. Well, maybe it's not 100% luck—maybe 95% luck."[7] Michael Mauboussin, former chief investment strategist at Legg Mason Capital Management, looked at the historical data on the percent of equity mutual funds that beat the market during Value Trust's 15-year streak.[8] Because the number of equity mutual funds beating the market fell as low as 8% in one year and 13% in another, he estimated the probability of beating the market in the 15 years ending 2005 was 1 in 2.3 million.[8] However, Leonard Mlodinow, in The Drunkard's Walk, notes that Mauboussin's analysis misframes the question and, when framed properly, the probability of occurrence of such a streak is much higher, around 3%.[9] Additionally, Mauboussin's analysis also doesn't consider other possible 15-year windows where similar streaks could have occurred, but did not. When these periods are also included in the analysis, the odds of someone beating the market 15 years in a row at some point in the modern United States investing is around 75%—in other words, it would have been unlikely if there hadn't been such an occurrence.

Bill Miller and LMVTX beat the market 13 consecutive years.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/^DJI?p=^DJI Another bloodbath today. Nearing correction territory. Between American companies exposed to China and the housing industry getting clobbered by rising interest rates, things are looking bleak. It’s starting to sound like the Trump administration wants to force China to capitulate, and they won’t do that as easily as Trump believes. Regime change, in the words of Jim Cramer, is almost impossible to conceive of over here, where the stock market was actually up Monday and Tuesday. In fact, the political pressure will only ratchet up more in the US if stocks continue to fall the next two weeks. No “fake middle class tax cut” talk will be able to save anyone’s hide. Trump doesn’t seem to know only 8% own stocks here (almost all institutional holders, government and corporate shares, not mom and pop in the middle class), not the 58% or 61% or whatever the number is in America whose retirements are tied to the markets.

If he can "fix" Alexei, he can do the same with Moncada. Theoretically.

Do you have any other index funds that you can change to? Target date funds actually might be a better defensive play in this environment...assuming there's going to be correction of 20-25% over the next 2-3 years. Equities (especially emerging markets) are getting battered. Bonds are the safer play to mitigate against risk. The way I think about it is a simple rule. 100 minus your age should be the percentage you have in more aggressive investments, like individuals stocks and "high growth/technology" fields. At this point in my life, I should be relatively close to 50/50. That said, since I won't need the money for another 10-15 years, I'm okaying being 80/20 on the side of stocks versus bonds. I also have about 10% parked in a real estate investment trust (REIT), but real estate is also going to suffer in this future environment. Utilities/telecoms/high dividend or defensive "value" stocks (think Oakmark Funds or Berkshire Hathaway) would be a decent play, if available. If your time horizon is 3-5 years and you're really concerned about taking significant losses in the next 2-3 years of expected recession/falling corporate profits, you MIGHT want to readjust, but you probably shouldn't if you have a decent target year fund. If you were sitting on the Vanguard 500 index for your retirement, we're going into some really choppy waters, but you take your money out and you lose huge gains in the future when it bounces back. That said, it's okay to reallocate now, when things are relatively/comparatively higher than panicking down the line when you're already lost an additional 20-30%. That's when you SHOULD be buying on the dip, dollar cost averaging, etc. You will be rewarded in the future, even if it seems counter-intuitive to do the opposite of the crowd/neighbors/co-workers/your mailperson, etc.

Will this even make the ESPN "ticker" of the top 6 or 7 stories? Maybe there should be an embargo against signings over $75 million during the WS...it's not like anyone is focused exclusively on the Red Sox/Dodgers, with NBA/NHL/NCAAF and soon NCAAB.

Donaldson's potential upside on a one year deal loaded with incentives...then auctioning him off to a contender at the trade deadline, that's the logical play here. Jake Lamb's a decent player, and Escobar's coming off a career year, but Lamb's not going to move the meter much. A contending team like the D-Backs is going to want to go with the player who gives them the best opportunity. That said, Eaton and Quentin both came from over there, probably the two best moves of the last decade in terms of trades. So that whole "can't handle the NL to AL transition" didn't apply to them, for some reason.

Would take Maddon or Banister....

Let's just hope Burdi can get back to the high 90's by next season. At 93-95, he's basically Carson Fulmer. Without an established back-end guy, you're going to be forcing Jones in that role, not to mention everyone is "moved up" perhaps earlier than they're ready (and Jones' health prognosis might be worse than Rodon's)...I'm not sure how wise it is to have Ian Hamilton getting his brains beaten in late, but maybe it will work out slotting 3 young guys and Jones into the back-end that you utilize to close out games. A decade ago, it meant overspending on Dotel and Linebrink for that very same reason, but that was a "win now" mode team back in 2007-2009. The pen was so terrible in the 7th and 8th, they HAD to do something or they were going to blow 16-17 leads from the 7th inning on like this year's team. Then you get into the overspending on a veteran who you might not even really need the first 1 1/2 or even 2 years of what would likely be a 3 year deal.

Not even sure it would cost $35....maybe $27.5 or $30 for 2 years? It's the pitching equivalent of Kendrys Morales, where he was terrible when he wasn't signed until mid-season and never really got started that year, depressing his value. As noted, his velocity finally picked up the second half of the year.

The argument of adding legit starters (Shields traded for Myers/Odorizzi to KC, Lester to Cubs) on multi-year deals is obvious for 2020. This year, it’s all about holding the rotation together. Covey’s fate is still also undecided. The only exception is that unique case of a currently injured pitcher you really believe who would, at the very least, be around for 2020 with at least a club option for 2021 (see Richards).

Don’t see that one very often. Trubisky’s stat line ends up looking decent, except for the interceptions and lack of accuracy, lol. Well, realistically, NE fought harder for those picks.