caulfield12

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.

Compromising on single payer, for example...is what got the Democrats where they are with this current health care mess. The Massachusetts/Romney plan was so watered down that you got a hodge-podge of different policies intersecting, and you knew it was going to have to be fixed. The problem, of course, is finding the political will to fix healthcare on a bipartisan basis. The GOP has to see it as in their best interests to repair the current system, rather than doing everything constitutionally possible to see it fail so they can use it as an argument (Obamacare/Dems are still to blame) in the 2018 midterms.

to see it rationally/have a fair discussion. There's half of the problem...there's never going to be a fair/objective/unbiased discussion or progress in this area if it's just people screaming at each other and not even attempting to listen to the other side. Of course, the obvious problem here is the idea of "sides," because you have that split on the left already over some of these issues, and then the much larger split between liberals vs. moderate/independents and these women simply won't get anywhere with conservatives (the positions will become even more entrenched). In fact, even with the state of North Carolina losing BILLIONS of dollars over the bathroom issue (and tons of jobs, especially in the service industry related to special events/conventions/basketball tournaments), there's no signs of the right giving in at all. So you're certainly not going to get anywhere by appealing to reason or emotion or the good 'ol compassion argument. Instead of un-friending or de-friending people you seem to care about....why not simply make an agreement not to talk about these specific issues and vow to work together instead on the areas of common agreement which are not so divisive? Eventually, every movement runs into obstacles/roadblocks and realizes they need to adapt and change their tactics in order to see any progress, or they just dissolve like Occupy Wall Street.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 28, 2017 -> 07:04 PM) Smog builds character, makes children tough The Chinese economic situation here is way too precarious for them to make all the changes (retrofitting factories) to comply with environmental standards. They're bleeding GDP, there's way too much debt at the government and "shadow banking" level, and they can't afford to have massive "one off" layoffs in all those industrial production areas such as coal, cement, steel, etc., because the biggest fear for the CPC is for widespread discontent with leadership to spread too quickly or organize itself on the internet/social media. Finally, the solar power cell movement created a tremendous amount of oversupply, and most have already exited that in search of higher profits in other areas of the economy. Not to mention the electric car charging network and general level of trust or reliability has a long ways to go in China, Taiwan and South Korea.

Since when did Hunter Jones (former Indians of prospect) join the Sox?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/28/opinions/tru...nion/index.html Trump's policies have now put China in charge of the world's environmental future

Simple, just tell them you agree with most of their points philosophically....ask as a white man what it is that you can be doing "right now" to help and ask if there's any upcoming projects or events you can participate in as a white male that will involve direct service/action to change things (and that do not require a debate about viewpoints, historical perspectives, etc.)

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Mar 27, 2017 -> 09:42 PM) In any rebuild, you're going to acquire assets that just bust for whatever reason. It's just the nature of the beast. It's why prospects are called prospects and not "Future Superstar". I think many people have to realize that the Cubs rebuild went way better than expected. They pretty much hit on everyone which I can't really recall ever happening. With that said, we are 4 months into a rebuild and it's asinine to me that fans can be calling for the heads of the FO. You can argue Soler underachieved or just plain couldn't stay healthy...and Baez two years ago was a huge disappointment but became quite useful in 2016 more for his defensive wizardry than projected 30+ homer numbers. Other than that, it's hard to express disappointment with any of the higher profile guys. And even then, a (healthy) Wade Davis isn't exactly chopped liver.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/politics/tru...ance/index.html Now the wall ask is just $1 billion for barely 60 miles. Immigration ban: two strikes Health care: one strike Wall costs absorbed by Mexico or Ryan's proposed (even more unpopular than AHCA with GOP) border adjustment tax: one strike Labeling China a currency manipulator from Day One: one strike At the rate he's going, lame duck status will arrive sometime between now and August if tax reform, discretionary budget cuts and infrastructure spending ($1 trillion, good luck!) all are DOA. David Gergen argued that it was the worst 100 days of an president in recent history. Even the Wall Street stock market bump is running into trouble as investors realize things are way overpriced compared to perhaps unrealistic expectations of what Trump would actually be able to accomplish fiscally just a month or two ago. Perhaps why you're not hearing as much anti-Chinese rhetoric these days...? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-chinese...TVfMQRzZWMDc2M- China’s wealthy, using not-always-legal means to skirt capital controls to get their money out and at the same time gain residency in the U.S., are continuing to dwarf all others as the largest participants in the EB-5 program, despite heightened measures by the Chinese government. The initiative channels money to high-profile U.S. real estate projects from New York to Miami to California -- including those by the family of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser. A current plan by the Kushner family to refinance and reconstruct its New York office building at 666 Fifth Avenue is seeking $850 million in EB-5 funding, as well as cash from Anbang Insurance Group (they're the ones who bought the Waldorf-Astoria) and other investors, according to terms of the proposal reported by Bloomberg News. A spokesman for Kushner Cos. declined to comment. At stake if the EB-5 is curtailed is a program estimated to have played a role in creating at least 200,000 U.S. jobs and drawing as much as $14 billion from Chinese investors alone, based on data provided by Rosen Consulting Group and the Asia Society. Past projects taking advantage of EB-5 include New York’s Hudson Yards, Hunter’s Point Shipyard in San Francisco, and a Trump-branded tower in Jersey City. Kushner volunteered to testify over his role in arranging meetings between top campaign aides and Russian envoy to the US Sergey Kislyak. He met Kislyak in December during the presidential transition and sent his deputy, Avrahm Berkowitz, to a second sit down. Kushner also met Sergey N. Gorkov, the head of Russia's economic development bank, at the urging of the Russian ambassador, a senior administration official said. Gorkov has deep ties to the Russian government and was appointed by Putin. The meeting between Kushner and Gorkov is attracting extra intrigue because VneshEconomBank, or VEB, has been under US sanctions for three years, and because Kushner has been trying to attract financing for a building project of his in Manhattan. Trump also said during the campaign that he could lift some sanctions on Russia. http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/28/politics/don...ency/index.html

Gavin Floyd would be a pretty good example, but he didn't go from arguably the top pitching prospect in baseball to "maybe a 4th/5th" starter or Luke Hochevar because of 21+ IP in the majors and a measly 93 (as opposed to 97-98) mph fastball in spring training. (Meaning he had MUCH MUCH longer to prove himself with the Phillies than Giolito had in WASH in the heat of a pennant race.) Sure, it would be great if he was throwing at 97-98 mph, but we should have learned by now that movement and location are equally important, if not moreso. We've all watched pitchers that were throwing in the mid 90's get lit up like a Christmas tree, whether it was location, pitching behind in the count, etc. Giolito will be fine as long as he can get his offspeed stuff across the plate consistently and not get into hitter's counts more often than not. It all comes down to that. For those who remember Jose Contreras at his peak in 2005-2006, he was basically a two pitch pitcher with that forkball and fastball. Of course, his FB velocity was 94-97 and touching 98 that year. It also goes back to that 10+ mph differential on the fastball and offspeed stuff. Giolito shouldn't have to worry as much about that, with a dominant curveball instead of a slider (like Rodon), which tends to inch up closer and closer to his FB velocity at certain times during the season.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 27, 2017 -> 02:53 PM) lol. The budget resolution for the current fiscal year dictates that any reconciliation measure must reduce the deficit, which the GOP's Obamacare repeal was designed to do. Republicans then could draft a new budget resolution for the upcoming fiscal year with easier deficit targets, allowing for more aggressive tax cuts. Technically, tax reform passed through reconciliation still can't add to the deficit. But there are ways for lawmakers to sidestep that rule, for instance by adopting alternative baselines. http://kpcw.org/post/what-failure-obamacar...reform#stream/0 Yes, it's a thing. You really believe potential loopholes are going to protect a huge tax break for the top 10% and corporations in this current political climate? That would require the HFC again...so the only way is giving a huge middle class tax cut to bring Dems on board. Will believe it when I see it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 27, 2017 -> 11:53 AM) Seeing on Twitter that Virginia and Kansas now look likely to take Medicaid expansion. edit: said Nebraska meant kansas. Well, KS pretty much has run out of financing options at the state and local level. The government there is sub Trump level in terms of popularity. http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-go...e141024998.html Brownback's office STILL talking veto if bill passes to get to his desk

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 27, 2017 -> 12:02 PM) Unlike health care reform, the right is pretty unified on tax reduction. That one is a slam dunk. Yes, but they were counting on offsets from the health care reform. The caveat is they ca't add to the deficit, and won't be able to cut enough from discretionary spending to get anywhere close to one trillion. Broad and sweeping tax reform hasn't happened since the Reagan/Tip O'Neill days in the mid 1980's.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trum...ret-pact-236507 How a secret pact made by the House Freedom Caucus brought down ObamaCare repeal