caulfield12

Same problem with Archer, Gray and Verlander...he's still a former MVP, but the metrics no longer agree, especially from a defensive standpoint.

What is the insurance policy if Q goes to the WBC or into the regular season with the Sox and gets hurt or suffers a labrum/Johan Santana injury? He should be valued at $100-125 million to the franchise, at least. If not $150 million. Wonder the cost for that amount of risk. 35-40% on the dollar?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-un-ju...--election.html This is rich...the UN is "just a club for people to have a good time" whereas the Trump Foundation, which has been almost exclusively supported not by himself and his family but mostly business associates of Trump jockeying for access/influence...is what exactly? Buying a picture/painting of yourself with hard-earned charity dollars sounds exactly what Trump is accusing the United Nations of being, and completely dismissing many of their positive contributions (such as no World Wars since 1945).

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 26, 2016 -> 11:30 PM) Did O'Reilly get in trouble for something? What did he do? I figure he's a ticking timebomb who could say something to get fired any time. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/bil...e-establishment "Trouble" here completely depends on your political affiliation...maybe he said things too CLEARLY for the tastes of many who are used to the conservatives using more "coded" language, but lots of people (at least for now) assert "honesty/openness" in a Trump sense is better than political correctness.

And taking on the contract of Verlander or paying a "premium/2015" value on Sonny Gray is even LESS risk-averse for middle and low budget franchises. The Rays apparently aren't getting the offers they'd like for Archer, although they have other options for trading like Smyly. Of course, if they starting trading away the core of their rotation, then what's the point of keeping Longoria and any of their core players? You can say the same thing for the Rockies (compared to the Pirates)...who are trying to win now but in the last year of Carlos Gonzalez's contract and probably need to dump one outfielder in order to put Desmond where he can have a much more positive WAR number than at 1B (yet another new position for him). Finally, Seattle is a bigger budget team that has even MORE of a need to compete now since it's all the way back to 2001 since they were in the playoffs, and Cruz/Cano are getting older by the year.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/tru...v253?li=AAggv0m Yet another week with racial fireworks, this time starting with Bill O'Reilly and ending up with the Obamas, Mad Cow disease and Zimbabwe in the same set of comments.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/211983728/ne...ed-farm-system/

Yeah, I'm not quite following how all the other jobs are going to increase 17-25%...what is that based upon? In the example you gave, most of the cost increases are coming from non-minimum wage positions. Fwiw, I think I should have been a baker if 8 guys are making $60,000 per year in that position when I've never made over $44,000 with two Master's degrees. How do Dunkin' Donuts franchises do so well with this type of math? It doesn't add up. As far as Wal-Mart destroying small towns...customers vote with their wallets, right? Isn't the free market supposed to reward the most efficient allocation of capital/resources/factors of production? Unless you have an amazing product, there's almost no way for specialty shops to compete with Wal Mart unless they provide a superior value...or significantly better customer service/expertise. By the argument raised here, those small businesses should be giving up if they can't compete and developing a more value-added product with a more profitable business model. It's why business moves so fast here in China...you come up with an idea or innovation, you'll have 5-10 rival companies copying and then doing it better than you in the span of weeks or even days. Survival of the fittest...corporate Darwinism. Of course, the obvious issue is whether Trump wants to revisit the economies of scale argument and force Wal Marts that closed (after becoming virtual monopolies or oligopolies) to stay open indefinitely and continue to serve those smaller communities that are hollowing out, becoming less and less profitable.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 23, 2016 -> 04:41 AM) I don't think Frazier is going anywhere until at least June. I could only really think of the Giants as a team that could use him if they want to move Nunez into a Baez type role. Maybe the Indians. Edit: if we let him go after the season and offer a QO and a team over the luxury tac threshold signs him, don't we get two draft picks? Jose Ramirez seems to be settling into that role. For a year or two, everyone was fixed on Chisenhall being the man, but they finally gave up and moved him to RF.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 23, 2016 -> 04:14 AM) Quintana, Abreu, Jones, Jennings, Putnam, Holland, whoever else happens to appear on the White Sox roster between now and July 31st? I will also bet you dimes to dollars Jason Castro isn't dealt this year, unless the Twins get a package that far outvalues his worth over the last 2 years combined. You typically don't sign a guy to a 3 year contract and then deal him the summer after signing him. I also don't understand the point of your post and am questionining myself as to why I responded to it. See Post #14

Wouldn't it be easier for the Pirates to just trade McCutcheon directly to the Nats for Robles? They'd still have Meadows, Marte, Polanco, Bell, etc., from an offensive standpoint, so that wouldn't KILL their chances of competing this year if everything went right with Meadows and Bell in 2017.

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Dec 22, 2016 -> 11:19 PM) I really don't remember, but did they ever show R2-D2 at the end of the movie on the same ship as Leia? Maybe he was standing right next to her, I don't remember. Because obviously he has to be on the ship. It was a pretty quick shot, but don't recall either of the droids being next to her...

List of all the AL Central players that might be available at ASB... Dozier (if not traded to LAD first) Erwin Santana/H.Santiago/Gibson/Phil Hughes Jason Castro JD Martinez Kinsler Verlander Jordan Zimmerman Duffy Cain Hosmer Moustakas A.Escobar Frazier Robertson Me.Cabrera

QUOTE (reiks12 @ Dec 22, 2016 -> 09:26 PM) If Abreu is attached we better be getting their 1-6 prospects. We've heard for months that he's fairly valued right now, based on his salary...but nothing approaching the bargain you saw in 2015 and especially 2014. I tend to think his value is higher than most here, but the easiest way to think about this is what would the Pirates give up for Jose Abreu straight-up if Q wasn't involved? Because of their financial issues, I'm not 100% convinced they would even consider trading Bell straight up for Abreu...unless they jettisoning both Meadows and McCutcheon and needed more predictable offensive output. Even then, his defensive value in the NL is going to be an issue, compared to playing in the junior circuit.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Dec 22, 2016 -> 05:40 PM) Yes. This is exactly what I'm saying. When Hillary says "pay their fair share" she's really just screwing over the highly educated & the entertainers. Warren Buffett and other corporate fatkats, who the young and poor love to hate, still walk away unscathed. I will say this, the proposed 15% corporate tax rate would really help small business. Especialy cook county suburbs. Those mom & pop shops are going to be absolutely crushed by the minimum wage hike. We're talking complete decimation. 15% would help many stay alive. Most small businesses in that position will first try to implement more automation (like Amazon Go) to save on salaries...and the majority will simply ask/expect the workers who are getting "raises" to the new minimum wage level to work 50% harder, or they will cut down from 4 workers to 3, etc. There are numerous studies out there ACTUALLY demonstrating that unemployment hasn't risen in those states with minimum wage hikes (recent years)....and a number of studies are also looking at a guaranteed "universal basic income" which amounts to roughly $2,000 per month for most lower-cost of living states. Let's say you earned $7.50 per hour, that would essentially project to a salary of $15,000 per year. You wouldn't pay any taxes on that salary (other than SS and Medicare/Medicaid) and the government would subsidize that family with an extra $750 per month (tax free). Once again, there are tons of studies supporting the idea that this "found" money is plugged right back into the economy, and not primarily on drugs/alcohol/cigarettes as many conservative assert. https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster Minimum Wage Mythbuster

Meadows and Bell would be the winner...and another lower level piece or two. If it's Glasnow instead of Meadows, not sure you still pull the trigger, probably. Then you send Frazier (more likely, with a salary subsidy to help them financially) with Q to improve the 3rd/4th pieces coming back. Or you can do Q/Abreu if they prefer Jose...and that's the single sticking point in getting the deal done, replacing Bell's projected offensive contributions. JR almost never does this type of trade where we eat money to get back talent back (usually the opposite), but there's always HOPING.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 22, 2016 -> 04:11 PM) I'm not really buying Tilson being a capable defender in CF, at least not on an everyday basis. And he does not have the bat for a corner job. His future role is 4th OF and nothing more IMO. Lagares would be perfect...would cost the Sox almost nothing other than salary, as they want to find a healthier player who has a better OPS against RHP to give everyday playing time. They could flip him, and just his defense alone in CF would really benefit the young pitching staff, and make the corner outfielders better by their knowledge he always has the gaps covered.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 22, 2016 -> 04:46 PM) No it wasn't. For year's he drafted safe college players who never had a high ceiling ie, Broadway, McCullough. After these didn't work the sox shifted draft strategies and went with the "toolsy" athlete but not baseball player. Borchard definitely was not the "toolsy" athlete. He was a power hitter only. Anderson was not the "toolsy" athlete he was considered a fairly polished college OF. KW has had many different types of draft philosphies during his tenure at GM becuase it was the organization philosophy at the time. You are just looking at the latest one before this last draft where they switched again to the OBP guys. The Broadway, McCulloch, Ring and Poreda picks will go down as the most questionable...it felt like at that time, because we needed "immediate impact/developed" collegiate players, we almost always went in this direction. And part of it was about saving money, or at least having almost all of the revenues redirected to the major league roster. I guess the Anderson one is arguable. Compared to Kinsler, he was considered the "toolbox" guy, and was drafted accordingly. Torii Hunter Lite, etc. Brian was "polished" from a standpoint that he was able to put up good numbers in the PAC-10, but not at all in the sense that he relied on physical tools and didn't have a refined/professional approach, never mastered the psychological side of dealing with failure, etc.

It was the KW multi-sport star athlete (especially football players) way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Jacobs_(baseball) Here's yet another player who just happens to be African American and has ties to Auburn football (that we traded for.) I suppose I could have included Borchard, Brian Anderson and Engel as part of the same strategy...but, other than perhaps Engel, they don't fit that mold of the past 5-7 years, which also includes Tim Anderson. So...going back to Brian Anderson, what other toolsy white players did we draft? (Josh Fields, by the way, was never close to this definition despite having played football.)

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 22, 2016 -> 11:03 AM) One thing to remember is, that is the amount taxed on ordinary income. The wealthier you are, the less likely your income is "ordinary"...it is far more likely to be in the vein of capital gains, etc....which have a significantly lower tax rate, which is ultimately why the effective tax rates of the wealthy can be much lower then expected. The people who actually have an effective tax rate closer to that 40% rate, are going to be more the people who are making close to those income levels (say 500K / yr)...so maybe a doctor or a good lawyer or a finance executive, strong sales guy, higher up engineers / IT people, etc. Those people are less likely to have anything they can deduct and they'll pay the most (even though at that income level, while they are certainly well off...they aren't what you would consider the ultra wealthy or anything along those lines). Even then, how many professional who average thst type of salary for 20+ year don't end up with a net worth in the $2.5-3 million range, at least? They might not be true 1%ers....but they're still generating most of their retirement income from investments (many shielded from taxes) and real estate. You don't have to run a hedge fund or work for one of the big banks to fall into this category. There was an article weeks ago asserting the average benefit to the 1% would be $300,000 while the average middle class tax payer would get $900 back. With inflation expected to rise eventually, a good chunk of that will be completely wiped out...the deficit will grow to $25 trillion...and those families will still vote for Trump because he "saved" a handful of jobs at Carrier and put a 5% import tax on Chinese and Mexican goods which further wiped out the remaining tax cut benefits by passing added costs onto consumers. It's also a consistent GOP talking point to claim that the estate tax kills numerous small businesses (forcing them to be sold or split up) and small American farms, but that's also been determined to be the case only 3% of the time. But slap the label of death tax and death panels on it...the majority will buy will buy that narrative. The same argument is buried here...those who are being taxed too highly are "good Americans" and hard-working people like everyone else with upper middle class (not elite) values.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 22, 2016 -> 12:29 PM) Lmao. Don't we have like 7,000 warheads or something like that. At one point during the height of the Cold War, it was 29000 for Russia and around 20000 for the US.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Dec 22, 2016 -> 06:55 AM) Being one of the few conservatives that post here, my order. Reagan Bush 43 Bush 41 Carter Obama Clinton I'm assuming you are counting his (Carter's) post-presidential philanthropy...because no other way he finishes above Clinton and Obama. Bush 43 over 41.....how/why?

Q makes a lot more sense if they hold onto McCutcheon...

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 11:19 PM) Get outa here with your trumped up trickle down talk. Nobody named me was proposing that. If i understand the brackets correctly, the top % of wage-earners currently pay 40%? That's a s*** ton if true. Curious what the Bernieites and Hillaryans think it should go up to to make it a "fair share". 50-60%? And these aren't even the rich people of America. These are the doctors, lawyers, athletes & entertainers...who all donate tons of money. But they aren't the rich. I mean rich enough but not the smart super rich running businesses (the charitable corporate bastards). I'm not saying lower it, just wondering how high becomes too high. I'm not saying privatize research either caulfield...because i didn't say that. I'm just saying if you go after the semi-rich mentioned above, which is a super popular talking point to rally the "revolution of the young people", you're not only removing the incentive for those young people to go to school for 10 years, but you're also going to remove 100s of millions, maybe billions, of yearly charitable donations. Uncle Sam will get it instead of child leukemia etc. You really think Uncle Sam can better direct the use of $10M than the rich guy who's kid died from leukemia, who wants to prevent other kids from the same fate. I don't buy it. I feel like $10M is a piece of dust to Uncle Sam, lost in the redtape of some wasteful govt program developing canine soldiers or something. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx $415,000 per year for a single filer at 39.6% is still nothing compared to European tax rates The problem is all those making most of their money through capital gains/investments and paying less percentage-wise in taxes than Warren Buffett's secretary. And the counter is the burn rate and billions lost in companies like Theranos....or, when they do successfully innovate and create a life-changing product, they screw over the middle class yet again. And they still screw over taxpayers by charging the US military huge amounts for the Epipen, which is just one example. There's gouging/obscene profits and then there's a fair amount which incentivizes everyone...but doesn't tax private industry to the point where they see no benefit to invest in research and development. Mant of the great inventions of the past 50-60 years came from government and private partnerships, like the computer or internet, which originally was utilized in academia but monetized as a commodity by businesses.

Mr. Robot is great...love that show. Westworld Mozart in the Jungle (still waiting for a new season) Designated Survivor Shameless (gave up on it awhile, then came back into the fold) Scorpion NCIS (original) and Los Angeles (can't get into the New Orleans one) Homeland SHOULD be interesting (starting in January) because it's specifically about how a new president is planning for foreign policy/security issues over a 72 day period while waiting to be inaugurated, so pretty darned topical The Blacklist Quantico BILLIONS The Man in the High Castle (new season)