caulfield12

In one of the debates, someone claimed 27 million uninsured. That's down from the low to mid 40's, not counting illegal immigrants.

Now you're confusing me with Thad Bosley's humor...I don't recall ever mentioning the White Sox being broke when that's vurtually impossible due to all their lease guarantees/subsidies. If they were broke, by the way, there would have been no point to starting this very thread about Desmond and Austin Jackson almost two months ago.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 07:48 AM) They are also just spending a combined $18 million on the front four of their rotation who all have either #1 or #2 starter potential and just $2.75 million on their starting center fielder and lead off hitter whose been a 3.3 average fWAR player over his Sox career. They may have a couple bad contracts on the books but they have way more plus value contracts than they do bad ones. The Sox have made a lot of really good deals over the past few years so I'll let a couple bad contracts slide. If they hadn't have been proactive and signed Sale to an extension early on like they did this would be his last year in a Sox uniform and he would be making double the money he's making this year. I think you have it slightly backwards...they have good or great deals with Sale, Quintana, Eaton, Rodon and Abreu and meh everywhere else. Frazier should probably be added to that aforementioned overperforming list if he's closer to replicating his first rather than second half last year. Finally, Latos, Avila and Lawrie all could end up as bargains as well.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 07:54 AM) How come in your Royals manifesto you said the Royals didn't pick up salary with Zobrist and Cueto? If they didn't pick it up, how is their payroll increased? Not picking up money doesn't equal payroll flexibility. Also, the White Sox did make a run at Cespedes at the deadline. The Mets...

It's important to note both those teams had the payroll flexibility to not only add signifiant pieces at the trade deadline, they also had the more important ability to buy premium talent with surplus prospect depth (Cespedes, Cueto, Zobrist). Both teams ended up much higher in payroll than where they began the season.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 14, 2016 -> 10:54 PM) Excellent post. You have captured my stance on Hillary. Regarding point No. 2, Bill Clinton had so much charisma. He actually still has it. Hillary has no charisma. You either have it or you don't. I can't prove this, but I suspect Bill knows Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton as far as being an effective speaker/politician. Saturday Night Live has a winner in Kate McKinnon, who captures her in such a funny and almost sad way. Hope they keep it up. They know they have a winner and whoever is writing the Hillary skits is dead on every week. The Bernie skits, by contrast, are not funny. It's not enough to get Larry David to sound exactly like him. Give me some funny lines, SNL. Here's a serious question, Greg. What makes Dr. Ben Carson more qualified than you to be president? What has he particularly impressed you with in the debates? Other than constantly referring to his website, where one of his "policy experts" has written out some platform platitudes, there's really not much there. His basic idea in terms of health care is medical savings accounts, which is the same concept as abolishing social security and letting you invest and control your own money...which still isn't going to control any of the costs of prescription drugs or limit insurance company oligopolies. There's just not much evidence that his last month of campaigning has been about anything besides enriching himself and trying to rescue his "brand" name from irrelevance...it's also quite obvious he would like to follow the Gingrich/Huckabee/Palin track of being a full-time media personality/public speaker. Ultimately, the next Supreme Court appointee will have a lot more say in determining the fate of religious expression in the country than Dr. Carson or Ted "My grandfather hid $100 in his undies" Cruz.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 14, 2016 -> 11:41 PM) $120 million is a lot of f***ing money. Yes, Quinarv, compared to a decade ago. As it stands right now, though, that $120 million mark is basically the mode for MLB payrolls, with 50% of the teams above and 50% below. We're also third in the division, right in the middle again. Fortunately, we don't have to worry about the Indians and Twins outspending us, but they both have the luxury (besides Mauer) of being relatively younger and cheaper teams for the next couple of seasons. So obviously you can compete at $120, but you consequently have a razor thin margin of error and have to repeat the nearly perfect health trick again.

The problems with Hillary... 1) Likelihood of her being the one to break gridlock and bridge partisan rancor are about zero. As she claimed, Citizens Unired was aimed at her and her family...this whole right wing conspiracy plot, while partially true, is also quite tiresome. 2) She has an inspirational factor of zero. Speeches and debates, just not her strength. Very few actually like her...I'd even argue more voters passionately like Trump than Hillary, although she's not nearly as universally hated, either. 3) It's very telling that a woman is losing the 18-29 demographic by margins 20-25 points higher than Obama, who was a much more compelling candidate than Sanders. With all the challenges we face, the country needs a younger and more energetic president who is future rather than past-oriented. 4) When the only way to beat Sanders is hitting him over the head with her newfound Obama admiration, it might be enough to hold the African American vote in the South but it's a disaster for the general...then again, so is defending Bush family foreign policy, so both sides are equally lost. 5) No more excuses. She will win SC, but if she loses NV despite large numbers of Hispanic voters, all bets are off. That means there's a war of attrition all the way until the convention. What has she actually accomplished in all of her time as a public servant? Her resume is Rubio-esque as a senator. My biggest concern is that it feels like the Clintons have learned nothing at all from 2008...clearly misreading the electorate both times, and by a wide margin. It feels their time has come and gone.

Have the White Sox ever "doubled down" and increased spending significantly over two consecutive offseasons when they were coming off a below .500 or 4th/5th place finish before that second increase? Where they were increasing spending into the teeth of an expected flat revenue year? Obviously, there's not much conclusive to go on...the LaRoche salary dump rumors, the willingness or not to surrender a pick for a second tier performer, the won't go past three years for fa's and lots of rumors/smoke. Typically in this situation we'd expect to be guided to a "will reassess and adjust at the deadline" way of thinking...but we're in that .500ish no man's land between 18th-22nd in the majors and 3rd/4th in the division that both the fans and front office are forced to sit back and wait on the other. The fans don't feel the front office has done quite enough to be a true contender, and the front office is frustrated with fan support and doesn't want to lose too much money. Realistically, $130-135 million was the range the majority of more "optimistic" fans expected.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 07:21 AM) Maybe not, but my point was that you'd think that a writer might have mentioned that something was cooking. After the weeks and weeks of speculation with the big tree outfielders, it's been dead quiet. I could imagine a signing of an outfielder could pop up without any smoke leading up to it. Not with Fowler, since he played for the Cubs last year. Ian Desmond would probably get a lot more play nationally and in roto league articles than in the Chicago market. Same with Gallardo, who obviously isn't a Sox option any longer. Jackson would also fly under the radar. But you're right, with NFL done and not to March Madness and Bulls plodding along, should be a bit more buzz.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 07:22 AM) Where i place them and what Margulas thinks doesnt really matter. What do the Royals fans think, thats what matters. But the article isn't about that. There is a poll/survey at the end and the "fans" chose the Astros, Blue Jays and Tigers. The individual writer ranked them all and wrote individual summaries. Where is he wrong? You're telling me that the Future Sox writers or mods here would write the same article and put the Royals 10th just to get revenge and couldn't put aside their individual biases to write a fair and balanced appraisal? I'm sure at least ten here could, if not twelve.

QUOTE (L. Ron Paultard @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 03:46 AM) K mini Update: uh-oh, did Marco-pants choke yet again? Presidential pressure is nothing to trifle with; even grizzled old operators like Rick Perry, John Edwards, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and Jeb melt like wax under unforgiving spotlight. Hey Mr. Rubio, turns out there is more to being 'an Obama' than rehearsing a focus-grouped line and flashing that X-Men: Apocalypse robot's giant mouth smile, huh? Hate to break it to all the silly hipsters & political junkies, but Trump is just getting warmed up; learning hard lessons on the fly (what with skeletal staff and a campaign budget of, like, tree-fiddy in totes, haha.) Denying the inevitable will only hurt more. Get ready for 'Morning in America 2: Electric Dildoloo' ("that s***ty little actor who's gonna get us into a nuclear war with Russia".... VERSUS "that Apprentice billionaire with a bad toupee who's gonna deport grandma" ) From the FSA (Free Sh*t Army)...... to Sheldon Adelson, Koch Bros...... from old-fart Chi-Coms in Beijing.... to the Mexican gov and Latin American drug cartels... from the Twelver Mullahs in Teheran... to Megyn Kelly's quivering "whatever" -- all alternating between the state of denial & simmering hysteria. 'Honey Badger's spectre seems to terrify them so. hilar Polls right now don't even reflect the full extent of reality yet. As the bandwagon momentum builds going forward, quite a few surprising groups & demographics, incl. 'Reagan Dems', union rank and file, will come out of the closet 4 Trump. Then as one last desperate move, TPTB will get some Atlantic City waitress or 2 to claim that Donald grabbed her ass the wrong way 20 years ago, or that he screams out "Heil mein Fuhrer!" at the point of climax, or some sh*t like that. aka the manufactured scandal to prove how anti-Woman Trump is, and also to "balance" out the Bill Clinton sexual predator factor.... And it won't work: because after 4 decades in the media spotlight, by now everyone knows that Donald smashed so much prime celebrity p*ssy in his heyday, it'll only enhance his Alpha-cool appeal (also not unlike a certain former President or two Bernie Sanders? The Clinton Foundation is furiously wiring $$$ to the South Carolina black churches' preachers' Cayman Islands accounts, as we speak. Won't help much since, you know, that whole monstrously damaging e-mails thingie that will only get worse. (Not to mention Hillary's rather glaring lack of any semblance of a hint of an iota of a smidgen of discernible human appeal, integrity or a positive accomplishment of any sort. It's so bad that even the perennially fawning MSM couldn't put enough lipstick on that walking Rodham horror-show. Mercy!) If Trump wins both South Carolina and Nevada, it's clear sailing through Super Tuesday and retail politics/ground game gets tossed aside for money/ads/organization (goodbye Kasich) in March and Trump excels there. The GOP should have had sime Western states earlier in the cycle. By that time, it could be too late to trip him up. If Bloomberg runs, he can actual ensure a Trump presidency. Hillary has to win in Nevada on the 20th or the Dems will be in full panic mode and reaching out to Warren and Biden. .

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 07:11 AM) With the Latos signing happening without the local writers even mentioning it before it happened, we could very well see the same thing happen with an outfielder being signed. It surprised me that there was nothing even mentioned until after he signed, and he was in Chicago the day before for a physical. Not high profile enough...

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 06:28 AM) If I'm giving up the pick, I want three years of control. Plus with Frazier, Lawrie, & Melky all scheduled to hit free agency after the 2017 season, not sure another player with two years of control is a great idea. Assuming we don't resign any of them, it's going be tough to replace all these guys in one offseason given how the market looks and our lack of positional talent. Except then he's in his mid 30s hitting that loaded 2018-19 class. Probably not ideal to also lock in for Denard Span's contract when he was aiming for $45-48 million. Plus, the Angels really need to add another bat.

They have the White Sox in fourth, which is the consensus right now. Four teams are behind the White Sox, which is a pretty realistic assessment. Where would you place them as of today? Why would they have an agenda to hype the Tigers or Indians? What in the synopsis paragraph that was written about each team is incorrect? The only obvious error was not mentioning Yu Darvish's comeback with the Rangers. They actually have Texas regressing to 9th, one spot in front of the Sox and also admit the Rays could easily fall back in the pack as well. Does Jim Margalus at SSS have the Sox higher? Going by his tone this entire offseason, it's highly doubtful.

http://www.royalsreview.com/2016/2/9/10911...s-to-the-throne White Sox picked here 10th out of 14 teams, and 4th in AL Central. Angels 14th is the biggest surprise. Says the health of Michael Brantley might very well decide the division. Questions the defense of Lawrie at second, Saladino at SS, Cabrera and Garcia on the corners and the back end of the rotation.

https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/364.html Trump now is back on top again...but still barely trailing the rest of the field as an aggregate pool. Rubio was at 40 pretty consistently after Iowa. At any rate, we could see Trump, Cruz, Bush, Kasich or Rubio all still having viable scenarios to win. Bush or Rubio almost have to finish 2nd in SC. Kasich needs a 3rd place finish or higher to be able to fund his candidacy through SC/NV and into Super Tuesday. Cruz should be on much more favorable evangelical terrain in the South but NV will be a huge challenge. Christie, Fiorina and Carson are done...and Jeb should entice Christie to stay in the race to attack Rubio in the next debate so he doesn't have to do it personally.

Only those able-bodied 18-65 actively seeking work in the past two weeks...

Maybe 50% was pushing it just to provoke a reaction, but 25% of those Sanders supporters 1) not voting or 2) possibly crossing party lines by the first Tuesday in November isn't an impossible outcome. And, yes, it's possible these Republicans will do something during the general campaign (especially Trump) to turn nearly every woman against them regardless of how bad Hillary's campaign is run or how flawed she is as a candidate.

Turner over Johnson? Based on...?

Hillary on Keystone and trade pacts, for example. She rips Sanders about voting yes for derivatives/swaps legislation her husband pushed and helped enact. Gay rights, another example. She claims to be tough on big banks and that she pre-emptively confronted Wall Street about mortgage crisis but zero evidence to support that. A lot of her votes on use of military force have flipped as well, certainly 2002 still haunts her as a Democrat. She has always been more conservative than her husband and volunteered for Goldwater. Trump has flipped on almost every public stance he held a decade ago.

Why is everyone assuming that Rubio won't tack back to the middle on other equally important social issues like immigration were he to be the nominee? Rubio keeps repeating that Obama line for the same reason everyone says certain things in primary season and then differentiates themselves for the general. Finally, what is the actual likelihood Roe vs. Wade is ever overturned?

Plus they could package Putnam/Petricka/Albers with other pieces for another bat.

He obviously wouldn't opt for the public financing/matching box... Actually surprised he's not closer to 15-20%, Looking at the potential right now.