caulfield12

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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 03:16 PM) Why would someone engaged enough to partake in a caucus for Sanders ever vote for one of those three? What's the ideological overlap there? Kasich isn't very far off from her classical triangulating moderate/centrism. Better personality. Bloomberg is fiscally conservative but socially liberal...he won't get as many from Sanders, although polls stiil how him splitting off 5-7% in a three way race from Bernie. Rubio is just much younger, attractive, hopeful/optimistic and reminiscent of Obama to many. See his speech at Timberland and you'll understand why young voters would be drawn to him.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 03:19 PM) You know...I don't really get it. A lot of what Greg has said is actually true. Have you guys watched a lot of the clips. Most of the time I watch any coverage on the election, I just roll my eyes at the absurd arguments made on both sides of the court. You all do realize the vast majority of people who vote know nothing other than some slight aspects from what the media says and more often are going to go and vote based upon party and likeability. For example, someone just not liking someone because of there look is a total normal reason to not vote for someone or how they carry themselves. History has shown how superficial voters are and yet all of you want to ignore those facts. I have talked to numerous people who like trump purely because they here the media say he tells it like it is. None of them know what he actually is saying, he just "tells it like it is". Thats it. You all give people too much damn credit to be frank. And maybe someone will whine and say, well now we are smarter, no we aren't, Howard Dean's speach ended his campaign (did he have other issues, sure, but that one speech sure has hell torpedoed any remaining odds he had and it isn't like he said anything bad). Plus lets be realists, I could make an argument that Trump (and I think by now, all of you know I don't like Trump) is the most selfless of everyone in this campaign as he's the only one who hasn't been totally bought out (of course I'd also tell you he has a gargantuan ego and that is probably more to do with him running). They are all selfish candidates who have all kind of interests with gigantic egos. Anyone thinks otherwise is delusional. The potential exception to this is Sanders, who genuinely seems passionate about what he wants to do (and I'll give him credit for that) and is an extremely rare candidate from that regard. Kasich strikes you as selfish?

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2015/9/23/9...ctive-mat-latos Some very good info here. Pay particular attention to the last four paragraphs.

Greg, how many of those 84% of women under age 30 supporting Sanders in Iowa 1) will still vote in the general election and 2) wouldn't vote for Kasich, Rubio, Bloomberg instead? As things stand now, she probably loses half one way or the other. Plus, her husband, Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem are polarizing things in a panic just like eight years ago in South Carolina. She's quite fortunate African-Americans can forgive their family after insulting/smearing Obama so openly.

And Dodgers fans in general are a bit more passive than Cubs' faithful...not to mention so many things to do year-round out there compared to the 2-3 month window of reaally nice weather in Chicago.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 02:27 PM) Aaaand he's a Twins fan. One of many teams like the Orioles that could use the starting pitching. Fwiw, a lot of KC fans wanted him over Kennedy but Dayton Moore supposedly nixed it over the character issues and familiarity Dave "Fantasy" Eisland already had from time in NY.

Just to get it on the record, does this move seem more Hahn or KW? Didn't Williams covet Latos at one point or another (in all fairness, everyone did about three years ago)?

Sometimes, there is a conflict between a very open Christian in Adam LaRoche or Fellowship of Christian Athletes group when their diametrically opposed teammates are in the same clubhouse...that's just one example. Sounds like it might have been the case with Fields.

QUOTE (chisox802 @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 02:15 PM) Now we just need to trade for Puig and bring AJ back. Would be the most entertaining team in baseball. Don't forget Cespedes, too.

http://heavy.com/sports/2014/12/mat-latos-...instagram-blog/ Reminds me a little of Kris Benson's wife...seems she loves being on twitter/blogging. https://mobile.twitter.com/dallaslatos

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 02:09 PM) Might as well turn full heel (bad guy) and trade for Braun Better yet, Puig. You have been pretty outspoken about his character issues, what stories are you going on?

http://www.southsidesox.com/2016/2/9/10952...-year-3-million He's got a lot of arm tatts, that's for sure.

https://thedirty.com/gossip/miami/mat-latos...mat-latos-dick/ Here's just one example of what comes up when you search "matt latos is an ass----"

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 01:42 PM) Right, in this case he's not blocking a prospect and he's not taking a 25 man spot away from anyone that's a difference maker so there's not much opportunity cost there. It's three million, which is chicken scratch in today's market and he could possibly bounce back and have a 2-3 WAR season. It's a fine deal, they probably were able to convince him to sign based on playing time and Cooper. Unless you're a huge Erik Johnson fan...because you know Danks won't simply be released or relegated to the bullpen in spring training.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 01:43 PM) Do not confuse risk with price. Risk =/= Price. They're associated, but you also have to factor in the likelihood of different levels of performance. A lottery ticket - a literal, actual lottery ticket - is high risk/high reward because even though it only costs a dollar, there is an overwhelmingly high chance of losing. The potential gain is great. Latos is closer to a lottery ticket than, I dunno, keeping your money under the mattress (which is low risk/low reward). Didn't mean to derail the thread, but I think the chances of Latos being a dud are greater than people are admitting. If this were Paulino, that would certainly be true...