caulfield12

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 04:35 PM) In the platoon role he's played, his offense has been worlds better than any of the other players. He's been an above league average bat practically every year. Flowers has never even sniffed that. Soto used to be that, but it's been a little while. Nieto is an okay prospect who is bad defensively, too. I wouldn't be surprised if any combination of Flowers/Kottaras/Soto ends up as the starter and backup. IMO, those guys are all about the same and the best two performers should get the jobs. Check out his 2013 offensive numbers with the Rangers. Very solid.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 28, 2015 -> 08:16 AM) Wow. Possibly the most liberal poster in here likes a flat tax? Kinda surprised. You may not be aware, but the (primary) argument against a flat tax is that it functions as regressive due to the difference between necessities and everything else. The lower someone's income, the larger percentage goes to true needs - food, clothing, housing, utilities for example. So if the tax rate is flat, that means the tax burden is actually greater on those of lower income. There are ways to combat that of course while still having a flat tax - exemption on income below a certain level (the Forbes model if you will), changes in sales tax structure to lower or remove it for store-bought food and some other necessities. Not agreeing or disagreeing by the way, just was curious if you thought it through. Not only that, but then how do you make a "fair" flat tax out of property taxes so that the poorer pockets of the US don't always end up with substandard schools. Even with the massive subsidies and reallocation of state and Federal funding, "inner city" schools are nowhere close to performing adequately. Imagine if that funding was cut by 25-50%. If it hasn't happened already, it would essentially be creating a permanent underclass of citizens with little to no chance at upward mobility. Maybe we need to look at the Finnish solution, which is only allowing the Top 10-15% of the top universities in the country to become teachers...and allocate them "evenly" across all the public schools.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 11:44 AM) You clearly didnt watch the previews for next week, pretty clear what happens to Lip Of course not, it's because I have to use watchseries.ag here in China and it always cuts off the commercials and trailers/previews for the following week.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-critic...-055732036.html Alibaba and the Chinese government are fighting...this is virtually unheard of. Guess Jack Ma is getting too big and too much attention.

Year Exclusion Amount Max/Top tax rate 2001 $675,000 55% 2002 $1 million 50% 2003 $1 million 49% 2004 $1.5 million 48% 2005 $1.5 million 47% 2006 $2 million 46% 2007 $2 million 45% 2008 $2 million 45% 2009 $3.5 million 45% 2010 Repealed 2011 $5 million 35% 2012 $5.12 million 35% 2013 $5.25 million[26] 40% 2014 $5.34 million[27] 40% Source: wikipedia Also, the yearly (tax-excluded) gift amount has increased from $10,000 to $14,000 (per individual).

QUOTE (flavum @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 09:32 PM) Dumb. Baseball is local and regional, not national. Therein lies the rub. Baseball is extremely profitable now, but not as popular (nationally) as it was in the 1950's and 60's. Which is more important to the long-term growth of the game? How much more can the World Series tv ratings dip before it becomes a more serious concern? It's hard to imagine the Cubs winning their first World Series in centuries in Tokyo or Mexico City.

There's a difference between "spending" and spending wisely. The White Sox had some pretty huge payrolls from 2006-2013 without much to show for it. Look at the Yankees, Dodgers, Angels, etc. They can afford to have 2-3 bad long-term contracts and still contend most seasons. The White Sox, and about 2/3rd's of MLB, cannot. If all the teams followed the minor league development-driven examples of the Rays, Cardinals and Rangers, they would be much better off than seeking external solutions via trade or free agency. Finally, a lot of players will be available the last two weeks of spring training. It's up to Hahn and Co. to decide if Micah/Sanchez are ready, and if not, the best option for 2015 that won't impact the club adversely in 2016-18.

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/boras-plan-...&ocid=yahoo

Interstellar was a "pretty good" movie that had grand ambitions and strived to be great but got lost somewhere along the way. In particular, bringing in Matt Damon 2/3rd's of the way in was kind of jarring to the viewer...and then the whole series of "Inception-like" scenes at the end that attempted to explain the logic behind the events taking place, maybe it's just too difficult to make a movie based on a physics book accessible to the same "Middle Americans" who are swarming to American Sniper, or it was just a flaw in the screenplay/adaptation. I've always liked Anne Hathaway, but, for some reason....I really disliked her performance in this one. Michael Caine wasn't particularly likable, either. There's just something detached about the cohesive whole...McConaughey and Jessica Chastain were good, but the ending lacked a certain "oooomph" to me.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 05:35 PM) You specifically mentioned that the Corporations and Billionaire's should pay their fair share. I would argue that they would all say they are in compliance with current tax laws, so the question is, what do you think that fair share is. I obviously took an extreme stance but I'm curious. I'd argue that in this country it is the higher end of the middle class and the upper middle class that probably are impacted the most severely by taxes. The poor today are probably better off than any other decade (from the perspective of benefits received) and the wealthy, well, they are wealthier than ever. However, I never find the solution to be, well tax everyone else more, because at different points, you create pockets where you are better off being dependent on the government or where the law of diminishing returns due to taxes / tax incentives, etc lost, that you might not benefit from taking another step forward (or said another way, the benefit might not be worth the cost (e.g., more hours of work, additional stress, etc), etc. What's the average net worth of Congress and the leaders of the PAC's that donate to them? They are essentially the ones (like the Kochs and Grover Norquist) determining what's a fair share for us, except it is under the guise of coming from the government/people and not an elite group or faction within that government. The Republicans, for most of the last 20-30 years, have been much more successful at getting the middle class/upper middle class to break their way on wedge/social issues and drawing attention away from what is in their economic best interest. The only problem is that they're growing older and whiter and the rest of the country is breaking younger and non-white, and not voting in lock-step with their religious beliefs (and, of course, fewer and fewer are attending church as well each generation).

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 05:25 PM) Where did I suggest that? We should all pay an equal proportion. Kinda simple. So you're for a flat tax, then? (I wouldn't mind it, IF IF IF there were protections in place from the accumulation of individual and corporate wealth offshore, capital gains, etc.) We all know the example of someone like Warren Buffett (because most of his wealth growth is in the form of capital gains from Berkshire-Hathaway) being taxed at a much lower rate than his upper middle class administrative assistant.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 05:18 PM) To be frank, the estate tax might be one of the most unfair taxes in the world. You made it, lets just retax it and make it a burden on your families. And that's where we get into the utilitarian "greatest good for the greatest number" argument. Why should I benefit unduly because my parents were successful in saving/investing money? What did I do to earn it? Isn't giving me even more money (tax free) an incentive NOT to be a "job or wealth" creator but to instead sit on my money and enjoy my life? Aren't the 2nd and 3rd generations of inherited wealth more likely to "hoard" money than to grow it or create enterprises with jobs that bring in many others under the "wealth umbrella"? Hasn't it been shown to the contrary that once people accumulate money, they want to protect their money/status and PREVENT others from joining them in prosperity? As we all know, there will come a tipping point (the same as with climate change) where the Top 1-3% has accumulated so much of the wealth that it creates an unhealthy balance for the entire economy (in terms of where consumption will actually come from)...not just the US, but the world economy. This point has been argued over a lot recently, but more specifically with the Picketty "Capital in the 21st Century" book. In the end, GREED wins. (See Gordon Gekko in Wall Street...the union laborers lose their jobs and Scott Walker becomes president, haha). In all seriousness, look at a company like Apple. 42% of their Iphone 6 profits are coming from here in China, which is now the largest smartphone market in the world. How much greed is acceptable before it corrupts? I don't know how much an Iphone costs in the US (maybe around $700-750 and a lot are given away for free with service plans), but here in my "average" second tier city of 10 million, the list price is over $1000 and even higher for Iphone 6+ and 64K memory compared to 16 or 32 (all the way up to $1,200). Now the assembly-line workers in Shenzhen for Foxconn (when they're not committing suicide at a rate which caused the company to erect netting to prevent suicides) are making something like $250-300 USD per month. The average family in China is right around the $1200-1500 USD per month salary range, and yet the price is 25-35% higher in China (without all the same service and protection/repair/replacement guarantees like US consumers receive). Essentially, the REAL cost is 3X what it costs in the US. How is that kind of system, in the end, sustainable for workers or for Apple? Eventually, they will run out of consumers (and workers) in emerging markets like China, India or Brazil to buy their high-end phones.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 05:04 PM) I was just about to make this argument. For Jenks to be targeting the poor is horribly misplaced, when the impact on America's taxpayers is much, much higher from the rich and powerful taking advantage of tax loopholes, etc. The government wouldn't need to raise taxes or create these incentive programs if they were getting the money they should be in the first place from corporations and billionaires. And we don't even have to talk about billionaires. There are also a ton of "middle class" families or family-based businesses that have net worth/s between $700,000-$3.5 million. I'll just put it this way. In 2000, if that money were transferred to me above that $700,000 or 750 K figure (I can't remember exactly, it has been too long), the tax rate was incredibly high, something like 37-55%. Since then, the bar has been moved upwards and upwards to the point where it's not really a concern that $10,000 should be transferred on a yearly basis (to avoid potential taxes) because the trust could never catch up, even with a 10% annual rate or return (which has been unrealistic now under the new economic paradigm since the dot com crash and 9/11) so even $2 or $2.5 million would be inherited tax free. (Of course, a new administration might change this, yet I have zero belief that the Clintons would revisit the estate tax issue since they are precisely the type of family to benefit from this policy/protection directly.) I'm going to posit a guess there are a LOT more Americans in this situation than law school graduates taking advantage of student loan deferrals or high school and university teachers "ripping off the government" with their exorbitantly-high salaries.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 03:52 PM) Funny you mention that. I know two people in that exact situation, with oh, 200+K in law school debt. Now they don't want to practice law cause they don't like it, etc, and want to do very blah work which won't pay much anything. They'll pay pretty much the minimum while getting the rest forgiven. And by forgiven, I mean, let other people who were responsible pay for it. It is a complete case of people taking advantage of things. The real purpose was to relieve people who really did get in way too over their heads. All this said, the answer shouldn't be, well, we'll just punish everyone who did it right and make them pay more. That's not the only example. I know someone who graduated from Harvard Law, and she realized that corporate law simply wasn't for her, there were a couple of suicides at her downtown law firm (at least one jumped through the window) and she chose at that time to work teaching law (writing) at a major university. There's a built-in incentive for those who attend law school to work in the public sector/non-profit, places like the Southern Poverty Law Center, for example...resulting in a "greater good," presumably, for society. Also, and this isn't directly about your comments but preceding ones....if we have our family money in a trust (father passed away previously) and the whole trust is transferred to my family and I instead of my mother having to pay an extreme amount of her personal funds for long-term care to the point where all the trust is drained away and then she can finally qualify for Medicare/Medicaid to pay for a higher share, isn't that also wrong? Yet how many rich parents transfer $10,000 per year to their children (tax free)...or go out of their way to avoid paying any estate taxes? Isn't that even worse than paying a lower percentage of your student loans, because transferring wealth to the next generation through a trust costs the government a lot more money in lost revenue, does it not? Not to mention the government under Bush moved the benchmark number from the high hundred thousands to around $5 million before taxes would kick in on estates/trusts for wealthy individuals.

Just trying to think of some more reasons... 1) The way the Blue Jays treated Frank Thomas at the end of his career (not that the White Sox have a lot to be proud of there, either). 2) Signing Melky, although it seemed to be a near-certainty after some of Toronto's earlier moves in the offseason. Dave (Appleton, WI) What do you know about Jose Abreu? How much should he thank Puig and Cespedes for the contract he is going to sign? Klaw (1:04 PM) Puig, Cespedes, and Soler were all younger when they signed and they're all better athletes. Abreu can hit, but I don't think he has the high impact of Puig or Cespedes and won't have the defensive value. www.espninsider.com At least he didn't throw the whole "slider speed" bat comment out there into that analysis.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 03:49 PM) i will not discuss #1 with you.... my problem with shield is his performance in the playoff. he is requesting how much and then look at his performance....... Nobody seems to hold that against Mr. Kershaw, haha. The Royals were smart all along to realize it would be better to go with someone with more upside and less wear and tear in Edinson Volquez. Of course, it could end up in disaster, but they do possess a lot more internal rotation options than they did 2 seasons ago, not to mention Hochevar will coming back as well as a swing man. When a team coming out of the World Series doesn't make ANY effort to keep such an integral player to their playoff run, it does make you wonder a bit.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 01:59 PM) I think the Sox are pretty deep in the pen myself. Though if you have deeper questions about Putnam and Petricka, that could change your opinion. I wonder if the Sox feel both of those guys are not pieces going forward. You've got all those guys like Ynoa, Webb and Sanburn on the outside looking in right now, not to mention the looming possibility of Montas or Danish in the 2nd half of the season. Petricka's back to improving his slider so he will have three pitches to attack hitters with. I think there has to be some internal concern that Putnam's a one-year wonder, but they have a lot of depth compared to a year ago. Don't forget Nathan Jones as well.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 03:41 PM) i been wanting and waiting for the right time. i am also not here to talk about the monetary ability of the owners of the sox team to add majorly to the team's payroll and budget. i am not for signing any of the remaining FA's b/c that will really put this team and screw up the ability to maneuver with in the realm of adding necessary pieces in the future b/c the team may be burden with contracts that can not be easily dispose of. the only recourse, if any further additions are needed is to get a short term contract for a pitcher, no more than 2 yrs in duration. this farm system is ready to start producing important pieces, hopefully to help the team, if all projections develop as hoped. this team can lead the fans of chicago back to the winner circle of the world series, i believe the sox now have the right person at the helm. the system has some really good prospect at the top and may have promising prospect in the 3 rd tier developing. so the precious salary budget, cannot be stretch to anything more than 2 yrs. now lets look at Philly, Dodgers, Bos and etc... they had salary problems b/c they invested and invested for yrs, not allowing players to be replace thru attrition. if they had a nucleus, it needed to be able to correct itself to continue to maintain. look at the dodgers last yr, with 4 outfielders. they had to buy and pay other teams to take those cumbersome contracts that i am talking about..... one more, lets look at Wash, 4-5 fa next yr and not having the ability to sign them all. that is a huge turn around of establish players. that is why i am and have been lecturing on short term players. money not with standing for this post. peace. That's exactly why Boston was able to rebound so quickly to win a World Series. They ditched most of their long-term players over a 2-3 year period and invested in relatively shorter-term contracts for guys like Victorino, Napoli, Tanaka, Gomes. The three hitters, in particularly, were notorious lefty killers. It worked, for at least one year, when their pitching came around to match the hitting.

http://www.csnchicago.com/white-sox/report...&ocid=yahoo To join the ongoing list with Sirotka/David Wells, Marco Paddy, Sergio Santos, Keith Law, etc.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 08:46 PM) lol I just read the first 5 pages of this thread and was like IMMA JUMP IN WITH THE NEW MEDIA DEAL STUFF HOW HAS NOBODY MENTIONED IT. old thread is old. Yea, as said, with the new TV money everyone is MLB is making bank. This isn't even factoring in the MLBAM profits, which every team gets a cut. I'd guesstimate the Sox are gonna clear 50 million this year, as will most teams. The real shame is teams like Oakland refusing to up their payroll for a year or so, now that is stingy ownership. Well, on one hand, with that stadium situation out there and being held hostage by MLB and the Giants, it's hard to blame them. I'm guessing that this roster shakeup has a lot more to do with Beane's desire to reshape the roster than it is purely for financial reasons, but it's probably a combination of both. If you look at the NL West, you have the Astros (who some are projecting for the World Series in 2017 and 2018), the Rangers with all their tv money, the Angels with their market and nearly unlimited payroll and the Mariners acting as if they have an unlimited payroll, there's no way for that franchise to outspend their competition anyway, so they just have to work smarter and harder, like Friedman with the Rays for all those years.

Well, Kottaras is a walk machine...with shoddy defense. Soto has the most upside, but can he stay healthy? How much is left in the tank? He's only one year removed from a very solid season with the Rangers in 2013.

QUOTE (South Sider @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 11:45 PM) It's been interesting to see how many are opposed to an idea such as this! Very enlightening for me. What I am grasping is that the rulebook says that position players can play anywhere on the field, regardless of "designated position". So, designated position is almost an arbitrary thing to have. To me, it would be just as meaningful to say to an umpire "hey, this is the order my guys are batting and this guy is my DH or pitcher, and the rest of them are out there playing whatever position. Primarily they will stick to what they are good at, but sometimes you might see them move around out of their designated area." These are the rules as we know it... but don't they seem a little... odd? Lets be real, perfection is not always achieved on your first go around, or your second, third, etc... Take a look at double switches. A legal substitution tactic because of one rule. That a player can play anywhere on the field. So you can actually replace the pitcher with a position player, replace a position player with a pitcher, and then just have them "trade" defensive roles without consequence, all the while allowing the team double switching to gain an advantage in their lineup. To me, if this commissioner wants to abolish extreme shifts, you also have to abolish the double switch. And I assume that would meet even more criticism then this suggestion because eliminating the double switch would probably hinder offense as much as abolishing extreme shifts would help offense. Honestly, I'm really surprised that 99.9% of people not only hate this idea, but call it stupid, dumb and idiotic. I appreciate those that appreciate that a subject like this can be discussed, because frankly, in my mind, it's a topic that merits discussion in the very least. I don't find it to be stupid. I find it to be an intelligent thing to discuss and throw out into the community. I think that those who so vehemently oppose and resort to insulting the commissioner for even suggesting should take a look in the mirror. You can never be afraid to change the rulebook. Our sports as we know them are constantly evolving and rules that were made decades or centuries ago deserve to be revisited, whether they need to be changed or not. Think of it this way. Would you like to see the baseball field with X's painted at seven positions on the field...with the fielders having to start each play in those positions? Well, then you'd also have to outlaw the bunt, right? Because the suicide squeeze would work every time. Just like in Little Leagues, you'd have faster teams who could take advantage of this setup to steal second base at will because the fielders wouldn't have quite enough time to cover. The 1B woudln't be able to cover the bag to hold the runner, either. Middle infielders couldn't deke to the 2B bag because they'd have to remain in their positions. Satchel Paige couldn't send his entire defense to the dugout with the exception of the catcher. A new generation of hitters would be dunkers/dinkers like Boggs, Gwynn and Ichiro who time after time elude the infielders with their pinpoint placement of singles to the opposite field. Outfielders wouldn't be able to cheat 5-10 steps in during the 9th inning to cut a potential runner down at the plate. Pull hitters like Dunn and Ortiz could go back to playing their game, I suppose, and pick up 25-50 points on their batting averages. Heck, you could go so far as to say the catcher couldn't set up on the inside or outside corner as he would have to start in the middle, directly behind the plate, yes? And he couldn't cheat up on a steal...etc.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 08:46 PM) all that is shear profit..... sweet. http://news.moviefone.com/2013/10/04/hobbit-trilogy-cost/ Not exactly, Hobbit An Unexpected Journey ended up costing over $500 million, which is supposedly more than the first three LOTR movies combined.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 07:57 PM) Ugh... that did NOT have to be so big. Fail. Dream big, achieve big!

QUOTE (WilliamTell @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 07:53 PM) Uhhh Noooo Mr. Bill?