caulfield12

Ventura would have pinch run for Conor in the 8th and replaced him defensively with Beckham.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 07:26 PM) FFS look at his posts. It's possible I'm losing my mind. No, no....Brett is just staunchly hardcore Republican. His posts bait response in an entirely different way than Greg's anti HRC screeds.

Gillaspie and Reed...it's all about the coaching, lol.

But he can throw 98 mph in relief!!!

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 11:41 AM) Conservative judges follow the Constitution, using no level of interpretation whatsoever. Liberal judges ignore the Constitution and interpret whatever they want. Duh. So the Founding Fathers would be for Citizens United, right? Wouldn't that mean African Americans would still count as 3/5th's of a person? Women shouldn't have the same rights as men, or even the right to vote? Only land/property holders would be entitled to basic rights? Sounds like back to the 1950's again, when everything was right in the world. Pretty sure they wouldn't be happy seeing so many children mowed down by gun violence in or near their schools. But I guess school prayer and having the 10 Commandments prominently displayed would fix that. If only we could go back to celebrating Christmas without all those darned PC nuts and agitators trying to ruin it for everyone with their safe spaces!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 08:30 AM) The big idea is that the system doesn't work when a smaller and smaller percentage support more and more of the country. Where they fall on the income ladder is honestly irrelevant. I mean I could just as easily argue that a guy like Trump generates billions in taxes (payroll taxes, gambling taxes, property taxes, corporate taxes, etc) so that any argument that he doesn't pay taxes is silly anyway, but what it comes down to is that the more of a pyramid the system turns into, the more unsustainable it is. The tax code as it is built now has a lot of loopholes for both the rich and the poor to get out of paying taxes. It has turned into an unnecessary bloated government bureaucracy, because no one can clearly figure out what is going on in the code. All of these things shift burdens and cause harmful secondary and tertiary effects to the economy as a whole. I also don't think it is a coincidence that each subsequent recession we see takes longer to recover from, more stimulus to recover from, and is on a lower recovery curve. It is all related to the velocity of money through the tax code. Lowering the capital gains tax certainly hasn't helped. You've got a huge number of Baby Boomers retiring, so you're going to need more "high tech"-skilled/knowledge worker immigration, that's obvious. Educational reform, when and if it occurs, will take 10-15 years before there are any measureable changes of significance. Likely it keeps getting punted down the road, like Social Security/entitlement reform, which all politicians know to be a political third rail.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 09:03 AM) When you count all of the spending done with this recession, specifically the untold trillions from the Fed, the last sentence is almost laughable. Which governments haven't done the same? China and Japan are much worse off from an overhanging debt and negative interest rates perspective. Europe, same scenario...with immigration/Syria, Brexit, Greece and terrorism weakening Germany to the point where the whole EU system is being torn apart. Brazil and Rissia are seriously struggling because of oil export revenue dependence. I honestly don't see ANY G-20 countries that are negotiating this last decade very well in terms of monetary and fiscal policy. You can argue China still has 2+ trillion in reserves, compared to the US debt situation, but at least 80% of US govnt debt is owed to Americans rather than foreign countries. Another positive has been all the venture capital flowing into new ideas that will continue to support the economy. For every 10 Theranos stories, there's an Uber or airbnb. I guess we all need to move to Finland, Sweden or Norway? Maybe Singapore?

Deepwater Horizon has similar critical ratings but still prefer the story-telling of Sully to the spectacle of this particular Peter Berg film. DH at heart is Gravity on the water, essentially a summer popcorn movie two months too late, but the real life tragedy and environmental implications force it closer to the fall/prestige movie season.

Yeah, you can't say you're going for it and have a three year window and then retroactively say you didn't actually go for it due to half measures instead of full ones...they have to own the fact that the "end" of their legit window is 2017, unless they extend Frazier and pull a rabbit out a hat getting equal offensive numbers to Cabrera's 2016 in 2017 and beyond out of left field. As it stands now, Engel and May are not going to come close to those numbers, so that once again means more spending with uncertain results. I sincerely doubt anyone's going to propose a Cabrera extension to go along with Frazier. Collins might be that bat, but putting him in left field instead of catcher, he's going to be hard-pressed to put up a 2-2.5 WAR unless he undergoes a transformation of Alex Gordon or Ian Desmondesque proportions.

Well, that ends that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 06:22 AM) The thing is, if you look at it, they didn't really "go for it" last year either, as they kept all of their top prospects, and they didn't go all in for the free agent market. Who realistically had any legit value other than Fulmer and Adams (at the time)? We knew Anderson wasn't going anywhere.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 06:26 AM) I think the main difference is that Gonzalez has a history of being effective, while Humber had a history of being defective. That being said, if I got a decent offer for Gonzalez, he'd be gone in a heartbeat. http://www.espn.com/mlb/player/gamelog/_/i...miguel-gonzalez Check out his July game logs. That would have been the time to deal him, at the deadline. He's never going to pitch any better than he did in July and September. Do you really believe that KW kept Hahn from dealing him?

http://www.shmoop.com/reagan-era/war.html Foreign policy is more nuanced than adding up interventions and adding up the number of boots on the ground. Reagan gets credit for being the greatest Republican president since Roosevelt...and he had Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua/Iran-Contra and the resolution of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. He is largely credited with ending the Cold War. But he also armed the mujahadeen and put bin Laden on the US/CIA payroll. Those leftover Stinger missiles would be used 20+ years later to kill numerous American soldiers. Obama's "interventions" don't amount to much more than numerous drone strikes and Air Force bombing missions...because he promised not to entangle the U.S. in yet another war in the Middle East. Because there's that lack of will on Syria (how many Republicans would commit to send their sons/daughters to fight in that conflict?), we keep emding up taking the middle route of using sanctions, negotiations and drones/bombing. What exactly should he be doing differently? We have to deal with Assad, Russia, ISIS...it's not like there's a clear cut strategy that everyone but the administration can see. Some Republicans suggested carpet bombing, like the Vietnam War was still going on and that would be an effective strategy. Other than "negotiating better deals," what should Obama have done differently that would have been more effective...and was anyone presenting that plan in real time?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 08:59 PM) My best friend...the man and his father that I named my son after...two very intelligent, rational, reasonable, good people....actually support Trump. It has more to do with the state of our political system than with the candidate they support. At least that's what I keep telling myself. It's the same reason Perot was polling at 30-35% at different points of 1992. Dissatisfaction with Clinton for personal reasons and Bush, Sr. for going back on his no new taxes pledge.

The problem is that Gonzalez (and even Lawrie) will get more expensive...and how much would he actually be worth in trade to other teams? The Humber comparison (with Gonzalez) is a good example. He was effective for X amount of time, but he was too effective for a stretch to trade (see Feldman and Garza) without damaging the rotation and eliminating competitiveness. Humber was even more of a reclamation project like Loiaza, but the point stands as the acquisition of Contreras might have been the best of the KW regime. You ride Humber too long and get nothing in return, or you just suffer "bad luck" like we did with Jenks, Crede, Floyd and Crain and they end up with no or diminished value. A clearly rebuilding team makes those deals 100% of the time, turning rebounding veterans (see how we originally obtained Floyd for Garcia) into younger players with high potential upside but a significant bust rate as well.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 02:31 PM) Lol - comments above. One of the beat writers for the Star Tribune is the one who's so high on Taylor Rodgers. Why bring up Suzuki? Because they need to pay for a new catcher, Dozier's projected increase or extension and Sale's salary...which are all going to expand payroll, although not as much as wasting money on Hughes and Nolasco did. In asking for Buxton and Sano, it's the equivalent of everyone wanting both Moncada and Benintendi for Sale from the Red Sox, which was universally agreed wouldn't happen. Finally, you're going to trust Steverson with Buxton, who has just now in the last six weeks started to figure things out at the major league level? As far as not sending out garbage fifth starters, well that's true of only about 6-8 teams per year. Certainly not the White Sox in 2016.

Bringing back Hector Santiago when the Twins pass on salary arbitration seems quite possible...although the rumor was that Cooper eventually grew frustrated with him after first falling in love with him in 2012. Edwin Jackson in the pen?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 07:58 AM) 10/4/16 Trump Scandal Count: 1 Trump Used Foundation Funds for 2016 Run, Filings Suggest lmao Trump's entire empire collapsing and his brand name becoming worthless is how this is all gonna end, isn't it? Ivanka's pissed because all of this is finally starting to hurt her own brand...much harder to sell clothing when 2/3rds of American women have come to intensely dislike your father. It's not like right wing talk radio where intense loyalty from that 10-15% fringe element of the population can make up for it from a ratings perspective.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 12:34 PM) It just goes to show that the governments track record in business isn't exactly stellar either. And much like bankruptcy, when government racks up losses, the losses are paid by somebody else. That auto bailout paid the government a much higher rate of return than, for example, investing in itself (quantitative easing/buying more Treasuries.). Not to mention the value to the GDP of saving most of those jobs... How have the privatized, for profit prisons run better, for example?

Or they just go with Davidson/Sanchez/Lawrie/Saladino for 3b/2b in 2017 and hope for Trey M. to have a breakout season in AA/AAA. Likely scenario, not really....especially that second part. Skeptical about Frazier having the patience to wait for another long rebuild after how things ended for him and Cincy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 01:05 PM) For how much I'm willing to spend on a rebuilding team - he's out of my price range. Teams that have no warm bodies at catcher and are strong everywhere else should be looking to sign him. Heck the Astros are apparently one of them - signing a guy like him is absolutely necessary for a team like the Astros. They don't sign a catcher - that means they are trading for a catcher because they have a roster that is otherwise loaded. They may look for someone better, but coming away with someone is literally the difference between them being in/out of the playoffs next year. Let's not forget how the injury rehab for Ramos is going to create even more demand for guys like Wieters, Castro...heck, Suzuki would look good considering that would prevent him from beating up the Sox.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 12:11 PM) Right. Polanco is their SS. He's a back end top 100 guy and they like him. If you think they need a SS more than SP, I don't know what to tell you, but clearly you're not up to speed with their needs. I don't disagree that the Twins are unlikely to move Buxton/Sano/Berrios but again, its a team with interesting young offensive pieces that badly needs pitching. With an outsider now running the front office, perhaps he won't be as married to their prospects as the previous regime was. If they don't trade for controllable top of the rotation pitching, they're never going to get it. It's still the same problem the White Sox have...they're not going to have enough offense if they trade Sano/Kepler AND they're not going to be able to afford to keep Dozier by signing him to an extension. Buxton played really well the second half and is untouchable in the sense his value is still lower than it was a year ago, where 75% of it is still potential, like the White Sox return would be for Carlos Rodon today. Let's say the offer was Sano, Berrios and Kepler/Rosario but no Buxton? That's going to do too much damage to their major league roster on the offensive side and only gives you a short window with the unaffordability going forward with Dozier. Santana, Gibson, Hughes, May and Taylor Rogers are likely to be the rotation. In Rogers, they have their own potential hopes for a Sale-like breakout. It's a rotation that's still a bit short even with a Sale or Q inserted. Isn't Suzuki a free agent? Their lineup will be catcher, Buxton, Mauer, Dozier, Vargas, Grossman (will he repeat?), Polanco, Kepler/Rosario and Sano. If you believe that Vargas and Grossman are for real, maybe...but that lineup comes up short without Sano IMO. Do you honestly trust Kintzler as closer on a competitive team? I just don't see a match because Berrios has some serious warts, they won't trade Buxton and Sano together, and they're going to try to push Kepler/Plouffe/Rosario/Vargas to the Sox as the third part of the deal...leaving it Sano, Berrios and Rosario for Sale. Who makes that particular trade? Even sending Nate Jones along doesn't get you Buxton...I just think there's too much downside risk for the Twins to trade Buxton and Sano together for a three year window when that would create too many other holes they don't have the payroll to fill, starting with the expected loss of Dozier after 2017 or 2018 (unless they sign him to an extension, his arbitration numbers will be huge based on this season.)

The US foreign policy is worse than North Korea, Iran, Syria, China, Russia, India/Pakistan...? I suggest living in those countries first...you'll have a totally different picture of the way the majority of people feel about their respective leaders/government. And Trump's foreign policy plan is what exactly? Has his campaign team even articulated one yet, besides isolationism and "winning deals"?

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 07:16 PM) Pedro Florimon hasn't played for the Twins since 2014 when he had 70 ABs. I agree that the Twins probably won't trade Buxton or Sano, but they need pitching and they have peices to trade to get it. The Twins think they're closer to contention than you do (I tend to agree they're still a long way away), but again, that's mainly due to their horrific pitching. Like I said, probably not a fit there, but it's an out of the box trade partner whose needs match up. Polanco was the name...I knew a P was in there somewhere. At any rate, they still don't have a SS unless Nick Gordon undergoes an amazing transformation.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 06:18 PM) I found this comment from Rick interesting when reading the recap story of the press conference today: "You saw this last offseason -- at the end -- we made a couple of smaller moves as a means of trying to plug our holes, some of which panned out better than others," Hahn said. "If we were a little more aggressive, perhaps, from a standpoint of a full measure as opposed to arguably a half-measure in a certain scenario, then conceivably, the results would have been different." Mark Referring here to Fowler and Desmond rather than Jackson...