caulfield12

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)

Not to mention the WBC as well.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 08:57 PM) This is speculative. We could tax the s*** out of the rich and wipe out the majority of charitable donations that go to science and medicine and whatnot. Tax those absolute charitable bastards! String em up! Pay your fair share! Quit paying for most of our science and research! Give it to a social program that runs out of money after we get dependent on it! Quit employing people like me! Make the poor poorer! Just messin. I just love idealism vs realism. Isn't that classical GOP thinking? The foundations/churches/non-profit and private sector should take over from the government? That theoretically, the government shouldn't have to pay for any research, because the "free market" will figure out a way to develop it and deliver it to market in the most profitable and efficient way? (Of course, this doesn't work quite so well with "for-profit" prisons, the majority of charter schools or the development of the nuclear bomb.) But where is there evidence that giving the MAJORITY of the tax breaks to the Top 10-20% of wage earners and corporations results in any tangible benefits for the bottom 80%? Haven't we seen this tried over and over again since the 1980's? What has been the result, other than the accumulation of more wealth at the top and less at the bottom (see Thomas Picketty's book for tons of illustrations, looking at countries around the world, not just the US). At any rate, your theories will quickly be tested with the "replace" part of ObamaCare...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/don...iffs/index.html Lots like Trump and his new Commerce Secretary are committed to at least a "superficial" 5% import tariff (compared to the 35-45% proposals we heard during the campaign for Mexico and China). Unsurprisingly, the GOP isn't going to be quick to embrace these measures, although it seems he might make the argument he has executive powers to impose them rather than going through Congress. It's nearly impossible to be for "lower middle class workers" while also satisfying Wall Street simultaneously.

The problem with Q is the same one that Nats/Rizzo have with Eaton. As Sox fans and with most of us aware of even the simplest metrics like WAR, we all know the values of Eaton and Q, and can articulate arguments why Q might be worth the same or even more (rather than the 95% often-quoted) than Chris Sale. HOWEVER, if that Eaton trade blows up for the Nationals or any future trade for Q, the respective fanbases will be even more enraged because at least Chris Sale's a known quantity to nearly every baseball fan...the old, well, Dombrowski really rolled the dice and "went for it" line of thinking. When you're trading the same packages or potentially better ones for "non-star" players that aren't going to draw fans by name recognition alone, it's a dicier game for GM's. Another good example would be Shelby Miller, who was acquired partially because of "attachment/sentimental" reasons by LaRussa. When those trades go bad, they get you fired. With all that said, there will be a ton of GM's interested in Q still because they know his true value, contract, everything...and that doesn't mean we have to lower our trade expectations because of everything I just highlighted. But it's an additional factor to consider.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 08:34 PM) This is the first prospect list I have seen without the name Courtney Hawkins on it since when?? 2012? Yep, seemed we had to deal with Mitchell, K.Walker, Micah Johnson and Thompson hype for nearly half a decade.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 08:37 PM) I don't see that happening unless they dump Peralta's contract first. Peralta, Wong and Adams all (seemingly) have nowhere to go...IMO, it's actually quite amazing the Cardinals were as competitive as they were with the premature death of Oscar Taveras as well as the falloffs from Allen Craig, Holliday, Jay, etc.

The last thing the White Sox need to do is invest MORE dollars into Cabrera in his mid 30's (he would be 33 at the beginning of next year, and there's the unknown factor of his "real" body age due to the PED's). It feels like the only way would be if he lowered his salary demands for his next contract to the $5-7 million range, and you just don't often see players stay with the same organization when their pay is going to be cut by 50% or more...especially if they have a history of playing on winning or playoff teams. I suppose it's POSSIBLE the White Sox could want him back, but the odds are very high he's replaced by a better defensive LF, and do you really want Melky as your DH? On top of all that, but keeping the likes of Q/Cabrera/Frazier/Robertson/Jones around only makes it more likely we don't end up with a Top 5 draft pick. We're not going to compete with them, and they're all (other than Jones) relatively expensive players to carry on a payroll, so just not seeing the logic...unless we're going along with this far-fetched idea that Hahn's going to make a run at competing this year if everything goes right with the development of Moncada, Collins, Giolito, Lopez and Burdi. But then they're not rebuilding, exactly. Hopefully they get the package they want for Q sooner rather than later so this argument can be put to bed once and for all.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/figuring-out-...DlfMQRzZWMDc3I- Breaks down the market of all 30 teams quite nicely...even though it's targeted at EE specifically, you could easily substitute the names Abreu, Frazier and Melky Cabrera into the equation for many of the same teams.

Mark Cuban has been pushing for at least $100 billion of Trump's proposed infrastructure spending going into robotics, where we've clearly fallen behind Asia in terms of design and especially manufacturing.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 6, 2016 -> 02:42 PM) Former Colorado U and Bears RB Rashaan Salaam, 42. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/sports/r...y-cte.html?_r=0 Really good read...

Is there any package out there with more potential upside (with TWO "co-headliners") than Torres and Rutherford? What would that package be? Dahl and Rodgers? Would Colorado even make that type of offer?

The problem is you're not going to get multiple Rodgers/Swansons/Sanchezes in any deal. That's where you have to calculate Rutherford vs. Mateo, or Mateo vs. Rutherford...or Judge vs. both. Do you want proximity to the major leagues/HR mashing potential or to find all-around ballplayers that will fit with Moncada/Anderson/Basabe (potentially) and can play nearly every position on the field from an athletic standpoint. At any rate, both of the deals for Sale and Eaton provided two potential headliners, so one would think that Hahn would follow this same formula in constructing a deal for Q, knowing the even higher bust rate (especially for A ball players compared to AA/AAA).

Isn't Holliday going to be their DH? 1B? He's going to play everyday in the OF? It's hard to imagine a legit contending team relying on the likes of Hicks and Judge in their line-up, but who knows? Also difficult to rationalize trading for Frazier and then leaving him parked in AAA all year unless they have such low confidence in the complementary players.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/50-best-movies...-132637823.html Another Top 50 list with many of the same movies from the Entertainment Weekly Top 20. Moonlight, La La Land and Manchester by the Sea continue to receive the most attention. Brian, what's wrong with Passengers? I'm guessing it doesn't have anything to do with Jennifer Lawrence speaking out after the election? Bad early reviews? 99% Don't Think Twice 95% Tickled 86% Everybody Wants Some! Baseball-themed, cool music and Richard Linklater 98% Hunt for the Wilderpeople Sam Neill/Australian themed story 98% Embrace of the Serpent 93% Paterson (yet another Adam Driver movie, this one looks better) 90% The Witness 94% The Edge of Seventeen 96% Gleason (about former NFL player's battle with ALS, everyone absolutely loves this film) 90% Hidden Figures (coming out in January) 97% 13th (about the Amendment and prison system, promising director who did the MLK movie) 100% OJ: Made in America