caulfield12

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Apr 1, 2017 -> 03:55 PM) Yes. A report came out the other day saying the Sox have the cheapest tickets in baseball. I think that wasn't across the board presale but on a ticket broker or secondary resale market? This one shows the White Sox having the lowest average ticket price at $47, but the Cardinals and Royals are tied for fourth at $99 so it can't possibly be all tickets, just a snapshot of certain sections. Interestingly, the Sox and Blue Jays are the ONLY MLB teams to see prices lower compared to 2011, by around 30% (and the Jays have actually been good the last half decade.) The top 6 doubled or almost tripled...Cubs went from $60 to $119. The White Sox in 2011 were $9 higher than the Cubs at $69. https://www.barrystickets.com/blog/mlb-ticket-prices/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-ident...-080000030.html The Republican Identity Crisis

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 31, 2017 -> 09:14 AM) Gallup (and others) run polls gauging party self-identification. http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx It was an offhand joke based on historic party affiliation levels. That's a little bit different than registered Repubs vs. Dems. The slide in the GOP identifiers since the health care debate and pulled AHCA bill is instructive. Interesting the number of identifying Dems hasn't increased at all over these last five months. My recollection was it was around 31% registered as GOP and 27-28% as Dems. As usual, independent/moderate/centrist voters decide elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverythi...m=.30ccdca413e2 Why Jared Kushner is the wrong businessman to reinvent government.

Only need five combined votes in the KS State House and Senate to override Brownback's veto. Lots of KS hospitals are lobbying hard for passage. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/201...hoo&ref=yfp Score another win for Koch Industries! Brownback’s veto, which was announced Thursday morning on Twitter, had been highly anticipated and comes amid speculation that he will take a job in President Donald Trump’s administration. The Kansas Legislature has 30 days to override Brownback’s veto, which would require two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate. Rep. Susan Concannon, a Beloit Republican who has pushed for expansion for several years, rejected Brownback’s effort to tie the issue to abortion. “It’s not an abortion bill despite some comments that I heard this morning,” she said. “That was out of left field. You talk about moving targets, there’s a new one for us.” House Majority Leader Don Hineman, a Dighton Republican, said he still felt there was a sentiment in both chambers to find a way to make Medicaid expansion happen. “In the end it comes back to protecting those who are in that gap and cannot afford coverage,” Hineman said. “There’s a benefit, not only to them directly, but to the state to have them covered and have them on a path to better health.” Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-go...l#storylink=cpy

Ossoff getting 50%+ of the vote in Tom Price's former district is almost the equivalent of the Scott Brown election in MA...

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Mar 31, 2017 -> 07:31 AM) The (Not-So) Peaceful Transition of Power: Trump’s Drone Strikes Outpace Obama Mass slaughter on a daily basis from this country. There's just too many other daily controversies for that to even get a mention on page 23D. Republican media covering up for Trump and only giving us fake news and zero mentions when Trump attacks the HFC because they don't want to be forced to choose a side.

Yeah, and that's coming from a scouting director, as opposed to a local/area/regional scout or cross-checker. I'm guessing the hyperbole was meant to include only the known universe outside MLB...

http://redbirdrants.com/2017/02/27/st-loui...robert-scouted/ Cardinals definitely have to get him declared before the deadline or they're out of it...guess the NL talent evaluator (see quotes below) is referring to Otani (Japan)? The St. Louis Cardinals are not only interested in Cuban outfielder Luis Robert but have also been scouting him according to Derrick Goold of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Goold states the team had a number of scouts and evaluators at Luis Robert’s workouts in the Dominican Republic. Last month it was reported Robert left Cuba in order to become a Major League Baseball player. MLB.com’s Jesse Sanchez reported that he has become a resident of Haiti since leaving. They’ve also added non-pool players like Jose Adolis Garcia but they continue to explore the international markets heavily. .... MLB.com’s Jesse Sanchez stated that a National League international scouting director believes Robert is the second best international talent in baseball. The reports on Robert state he is already a five-tool player that can crack an MLB roster soon. An American League scouting director told Sanchez that Robert is “the best player on the planet, and that’s no exaggeration.” http://redbirdrants.com/2017/02/27/st-loui...robert-scouted/

Manchin (WV) and Heitkamp (ND) are the only desertions so far. Patrick Leahy might be another. Would need at least 5 more.

Yes, in a way, you're not "mandated" to buy a house or invest in the stock market, but you're HEAVILY encouraged due to tax policy. (Heck, in China you have to pay for EVERYTHING if you have a child without being married, but the opposite results in the government subsidizing almost all the costs, which essentially mandates marriage, which you can argue that brand of paternalism's effects.) Of course, everyone complains about the low rate of return for the Social Security Trust Fund and demands that they be given the opportunity to manage that money independently, until they go through 1997-98, the tech crash, 2001, 2008-09. A lot of people were shell-shocked after all that and missed out on the returns of the last decade because they only stayed even for the previous decade. Heck, some pulled out their money in anticipation of the world falling apart when Trump was elected, only to see the market bounce up another 5-10%. In the end, without a mandate, there's still no solution for all those without health insurance accessing the system (free riders) and driving up the premiums for everyone else. You either have to remove insurance companies entirely from the equation, or get cost cuts (price ceilings) from Big Pharma and reasonable controls over hospital billing. We shouldn't be opposed to subsidizing medical school costs, or taking whatever steps we need in order to increase the supply of doctors, especially in rural or "hard to reach" areas. Since you're unlikely to lower demand with an aging population, we need to make reforms on the supply side (logically).

Another of the many Trump problems is counting the generally rising stock market since Election Day as his exclusive doing. In a way, rising "business optimism" might be his one success (to date), but it's quite difficult to separate carryover from the Obama administration here. Let's not forget Obama didn't come close to 36-38% popularity numbers even when unemployment numbers were nearly double. While something like 62% of Americans are invested in the stock market, the wealth gap is still exponentially increasing and middle class wage and wealth stagnation continues. In the end, what has Trump done for the middle class so far? Pretty much nothing. Well, this week he brought back a few coal mining jobs, maybe, temporarily. On the other hand, removing internet privacy rights in the interests of profiting corporate America and going out of his way in every single decision to destroy science and/or the environment can't possibly be in the best interest of any of our grandchildren. Meanwhile, technology advancement and innovation inexorably trudge ahead in Silicon Valley despite his best efforts to just ignore California completely, outside of Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and Ahnuld/Apprentice ratings.

States' rights!!! Except when it's about marijuana, sexual orientation and women's reproductive health/access to Planned Parenthood. And I thought the root of conservative was "conserve"...something the current brand of GOP is not exactly doing with the environment. Also amusing that Ms. DeVos compared school choice/vouchers argument to the competition from Uber and Lyft. Not sure you want to be hitching your wagon to Travis Kalanick right now.

After Opening Day, will be spending more time following the minor league games this year, unless it's Quintana or Rodon pitching...and hoping for progress/consistency/health from both Saladino and Tim Anderson. Last time we could say that the minors were so interesting was undoubtedly 2009, that Birmingham team the first couple of months of the season. Delmonico is becoming more and more interesting. Hayes has some potential, as well, although it's going to come down to positional versatility.

So we might have another Jose Valentin situation on our hands...well, if Basabe has 85% of the career, it's still a huge win for the Sox because of his speed and defensive tools. Fwiw, 816 OPS career against righties and 598 against lefties (Valentin). Hit: Left-handed, stands slightly open with slight crouch. Has a small leg lift. Keeps hands in good position to hit. Pull approach. Right-handed, stands more square to the plate and crouched. Short stride; hands in good position to hit. Plus bat speed from both sides. Left-handed swing appears more advanced; more length in swing from right side. Very aggressive early in counts; first-pitch swinger; wants to hit. Poor pitch recognition leads to lots of swing-and-miss; will improve with experience. Still in the early stages of developing an approach, but will take a walk if the pitcher doesn’t give him anything. Potential fringe-average hit tool.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/sean...al-habit-236650 If Sean Spicer uses the word "phenomenal" to describe anything having to do with a possible government shutdown, WATCH OUT.

Did anyone actually see how Basabe looks as a hitter in terms of his stance and approach? That was his PA, right?

A spokesperson could also help her figure out how to effectively harness the powerful platform she commands. Brower says every first lady since Lady Bird Johnson has used her position to promote social causes. “Lady Bird Johnson said that, as first lady, you can pick up the phone and change someone’s life,” she said. Americans are unlikely to love a first lady who seems indifferent to the tremendous opportunity she has to do good. Melania Trump, who hasn’t moved to the White House yet because her son is finishing school in New York, has been largely invisible since her husband took office. She did, however, read to kids in a hospital and host a White House lunch about women’s empowerment in honor of International Women’s Day this month. A good press secretary would help Trump research and think through the issues she chooses to champion -- and be sure she follows through. In particular, it’s important to consider how promoting particular causes could invite negative attention. For example, in early November, Trump promised that if her husband were elected, she would use her platform as first lady to combat cyber-bulling. Any good communication professional would have advised her against this. She actually has a 15 percent approval advantage over her husband at the moment. Why not use it to take advantage of the opportunity to temper some of the vitriol towards her husband, unless the rumors are true and she wants to have absolutely nothing at all to do with Trump unless it's absolutely necessary and her absence would create more stories (than those ones already out there). Let's not forget this is the FIRST time in Washington history the First Lady didn't stay with her husband in DC. The second point is that eventually even Ivanka will grow tired of being in the cross hairs (thinking more about her post-Trump presidency plans and brand/s) and she'd take fewer hits in the media if Melania played a more active role.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 29, 2017 -> 05:51 PM) The first daughter/wife will be a government employee after all. Can they get Barron a gig, maybe he would move to Washington. It would more than pay for itself. I actually don't have a problem with Ivanka, and her position is unpaid.I think she has a bit more sense than her father. If Ivanka instead looked like Amy/Billy Carter, Chelsea Clinton or Michelle Obama...the tolerance level would be about zero. Still waiting on the kick off for Melanie's anti-bullying campaign. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/melania-trum...WQDBHNlYwNzcg-- Melanie needs some PR help

QUOTE (raBBit @ Mar 29, 2017 -> 05:35 PM) I didn't do that. 1.) I am not really sure what you're speaking to there. 2.) No true conservative would include an individual mandate in their insurance proposal. Before anyone starts attacking me over Ryan because I am considered conservative around here - I don't like Paul Ryan. That was not a conservative proposal. That's why the republicans, who have the majority in the House and Senate, wouldn't vote it in. Yes, a lot of them voted for it, but that's partisan bulls***. Despite many engaging in the partisan bulls*** that makes our government inept, plenty have a backbone and were above that and shot it down early and often. 3.) I disagree with increasing military spending. I am on record plenty of times complaining about it. I always have. That's just par for the course though. Trump ran on being an isolationist type CiC. While I won't say he has kept all of his campaign promises like some, he's undeniably kept a lot more than others. Military spending is an area he took a 180 on. I think that's pretty scary. Maybe the military industrial complex gave him the JFK video like the Bill Hicks bit. I don't see the wall being financially viable. It's unlikely the budget gets through if that's budgeted for billions of dollars. I won't speak to a non-existent wall's ability to keep people from crossing the border because it's well, non-existent. 4.) They should level all sorts of government agencies. Trump's budget doesn't defund the EPA so I am not sure what you're getting at there. He just shrunk their budget. All government agencies should have their budgets decrease. 5.) You're welcome to feel that way but I didn't bring up his politics affecting people, I responded to someone else's post speaking to it. They said his politics makes everybody's life worse and I questioned that ideal. I also didn't make it about it myself. I said, "the vast majority of people." I guess I am included in that too but I wasn't intending to talk about myself and I didn't say I or me. So your inclusion of the bolded is...ugh, I don't know. Not relevant for one and a cheap rhetorical device for another. If we're giving our own personal opinions about whether about whether we care for others I can say with complete certainty that I care about others. 2) Ryan did create another individual mandate...except the money wouldn't go back into the system to be redistributed by the government. The AHCA was going to create a 30% first year insurance hike for going without coverage and then jumping back on when ill. The difference is all the profits in that case would go directly into the pockets of the insurance industry, not Washington. But that isn't what killed it with the House Freedom Caucus at all. 4) Read Mitch McConnell on this. There's not a single Republican...well, MAYBE Rand Paul, who believes cuts to the State Department should be so draconian. It's one thing to cut bureaucracy and waste and the supposed Deep State. Of course, it's ironic that Jared Kushner was just named to head yet another government program (ironically) in cutting government that will enrich the Trump Family over time. That's not to mention Bannon's setting up a similar shadow program with essentially the same intent. Brilliant. Creating a way to enrich yourself eliminating the jobs of everyone in Washington.

Basically, Joe Lieberman and lobbyists for Big Insurance/Big Pharma killed the single payer public option http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option...p;jumival=18759 WENDELL POTTER: Well, they couldn't pass a public option because the insurance industry is so powerful that it just simply said, that's not going to happen. And all it takes, even with the Democrats with big majorities in both the House (in 2009/10), and the Senate, they couldn't get it through, because the insurance industry knew that they had at least one or two Democrats on their side, and Joe Lieberman was their go-to guy. He was from Connecticut; a lot of insurance companies are based there. They were good to Lieberman over the years, and so he was the guy who really put the knife in the public option. It actually had passed over on the House side, but they couldn't get the votes on the Senate side. That was job Number 1 for the insurance industry. They knew that that was very threatening. They knew –- although they wouldn't admit this -– that they would have a hard time really competing against a government-run healthcare plan that people could enroll in. AARON MATÉ: And you've been among many people to point out that the public option itself was a pretty minimal proposal. It would not have covered everybody, and the coverage it would've offered certainly would've been pretty bare bones. WENDELL POTTER: By the time, yes. By the time it reached the point in the Senate that it might, or might not have been the bill, it had been watered down quite a bit. You're exactly right. There were so many restrictions. It still would've been maybe a start. It would've been the beginning of a government-created, government-run healthcare plan. But the insurance industry just, as I guess you would say, to make sure that whatever passed, if it did pass, it would be as weak as possible. That was what they did. And it's a problem that we need to take stock of, as we consider what happened back then, and going forward. The insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry are incredibly powerful, and they have friends on both sides of the political aisle. AARON MATÉ: As somebody who was formerly on the inside, how does that influence work? Can you take us through the mechanics of how the insurance industry communicates to Congress, "No, a public option to us is not even acceptable, so you have to kill it." WENDELL POTTER: Right. Well, people like me, in my former job, we used to create talking points that we would give to our lobbyist, and every insurance company has a lobbyist on staff. And they contract with lobbying firms in Washington -– and the state capitals, for that matter –- and they... it's something that happens all the time. It's continual. The lobbyists build relationships with staffers, with members of Congress. Insurance companies hire members of Congress, and former staffers. So, you've got these built-in relationships. And keep this in mind, too: because of those... that they're there year in and year out, day in and day out. They are really the source of information that most members of Congress have about how the healthcare system really operates. So, the odds are really stacked against consumers. There is just no equivalent for consumers to counter that kind of influence. The way it works in practicality, is a lobbyist will go into a congressional office, and spend some time schmoosing with the staffer, sometimes with a member, and saying, you know, "Here is what we think you ought to be thinking about," presenting the worldview from the insurance industry's perspective. ..... WENDELL POTTER: They were working behind the scenes very closely, without a doubt, with Republicans on the House side, including with some of the Freedom Caucus members. They thought that there might be a chance that they could get out of this legislation what they couldn't get out of Obamacare, or at least try to get some of the regulations, some of the new consumer protections on them eliminated. So, you can rest assured that they wrote big chunks of that legislation because it would have been a windfall for them. They wanted to be able to charge older people five times as much as younger people, for the exact same policy. They wanted to have the ability to underwrite in ways that would enable them to avoid as much risk as possible, to cull from the pool of potential customers, those who need insurance the most. That's what they did before Obamacare, and they were making more money, obviously before Obamacare in that market, because they were really in charge, and there were really no consumer protections. Because Obamacare, it was perfectly legal for insurance companies to declare people uninsurable because of a pre-existing condition. They can't do that anymore. So, they were looking to try to get rid of some of those consumer protections.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/29/news/jared...deal/index.html Kushners call off yuge NYC development deal with Chinese...Anbang Insurance basically is an arm of the government.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 29, 2017 -> 11:40 AM) I don't know, I feel the offense for infielders has appreciably increased. Not many terrible offensive, good defensive 2bers nowadays. Lots of poor offensive, good defensive outfielders. I think if May is a wizard he gets a lot of rope. Look at Ajax. Except Jackson averaged over a 100 in ops+ from 2010-2014....peaking at 129 in 2012. Not to mention he became one of the top prospects for the Yankees (although a relatively low 8th round draft pick) and had a lot of hype around him based on some stellar minor league numbers.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Mar 29, 2017 -> 11:13 AM) I feel like you are closed minded on this. Q: Would you ever ever praise Trump if he did something in your eyes that was good? Or would you bash him? I agree he's very unlikeable and I tend to disagree philosophically with the very rich who run the country, but I also defer to the zillions of Americans who thought he was the best choice. It seems to me you don't want him to do anything deemed as productive. The two party system IMO has become a detriment to America. More and more (I realize it's been this way for decades) one side hates the other and will not cooperate at all for a better America. Just 67,000 votes flipped in Michigan, Wisconsin and PA would have given Clinton the election....2.9 million spread for HRC in popular vote. Not zillions. The Democrats were not once approached by Trump or Ryan about a health care deal. The final negotiations with the House Freedom Caucus drove the bill so far and hard to the right that the moderate Tuesday Group and the GOP Senate couldn't even vote for it. How was that negotiating in good faith or in a bipartisan way? Republicans had from 1993/94 until 2016 to work with Democrats on health care reform and did nothing but protect insurance companies and big pharma. As a Christian, how do you feel about the biggest humanitarian famine/crisis happening in Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, etc., in the history of the UN and Trump gutting those food programs and the State Department and Meals on Wheels and Head Start to pay for 62 miles of border wall and an increase in the defense budget when his own Secretary of Defense says a 3% increase (as opposed to 10% projected) is sufficient? What about Kansas voting to join the Medicaid expansion and potentially covering covering 150,000 more, some Republican moderates have joined with Dems and almost every hospital to support it. Do you stand with Brownback? Keep in mind, all the extra security costs for 12 Trump golf outings and Melanie/Barron staying in NYC would more than cover it.

Greg, there's a pretty decent chance if he spent MORE time getting involved in the details (I won't use the policy wonkish word minutiae) of the health care reform instead of outsourcing it to Ryan/Price/Pence, etc., then he wouldn't have offended the House Freedom Caucus. He only wanted to make a deal because that's what he does...what he was giving up or compromising on didn't matter to him particularly, and that was very offensive to a lot of career politicians who are really invested in the policy arguments (even if I may happen to disagree with the HFC). Whether it was the travel ban, the health care law, the first engagements in Yemen and Mosul...the fact that he hasn't been fully engaged and aware of the details smacks of him being another version or Jimmy Carter/GW Bush and a failed, lame duck presidency which isn't particularly good for the country to waste four more years when we should be addressing the issues of health care, immigration, infrastructure rebuilding and the environment. Delaying for another four years our preparations for a high-tech, automated, globalized economy isn't going to alter the fact that a tsunami of change and disruption is coming down the pike. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-spr...&yptr=yahoo Trump spreads more fake news on Hillary's 'uranium deal' Uranium One was a worldwide producer. Among its assets were some U.S. uranium mines. The decision was taken by pension-fund managers, other institutional investors and private investors from Canada, the U.S., Europe and elsewhere. The deal had previously been approved by company management and independent directors on the board. This is what’s known as “private property,” “commerce” and “capitalism.” Trump should read up on it. The burden of proof for a U.S. government official to intervene in a Canadian stock-market transaction would have to be pretty high. No, Hillary didn’t “approve” the sale, either. She was just one of 14 — count ’em, 14 — people who sat on a U.S. government committee that might, in theory, have intervened but didn’t.The others on the committee included the secretaries of the Treasury, homeland security, energy and defense; the White House budget director; the attorney general; and the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. So, as far as we know, none of them said peep.