4uckOffCommieScum

…someone tell Eloy he is now the clubhouse leader

The most recent NL batting champ just signed for less than that per year.

They probably won’t even if he’s not. Odds are though he is going to have the best years of his career somewhere in age 28-32 seasons

Make a recreation of this performance the signature tune of Tiny Tim’s Marching UFO Band:

Bring Nancy back. Resurrect Andy the Clown. Replace Daryl Boston with a double jointed clown. Hire a UFO marching band to play before the game. Get a Tiny Tim impersonator as band leader. Build a roof over the right and left field stands and add a roof shot counter. Evict the White Sox and move the Chicago Dogs in

Whatever the dodgers did with Bauer is what I would expect

Pretty sure that is a sentiment the majority of Sox fans feel, at least to some extent. I was a true believer in the rebuild through 2020, but the org seems to have everything wrong since

Also, Benintendi in itself was a good signing. He could easily be the Sox best player over the next few years. When the Astros signed Abreu, he said the Sox made him a very good offer but he would leave it at that. That tells me it was Abreu’s choice not to return. I imagine he would like to do some winning before he has to retire

Cleveland got a lot of s%*# for dumping payroll, but they actually killed on those trades. I would disagree on Cleveland’s stadium being superior though

Thing is, I don’t believe they are actually required to sing it. They just do it because they’re a couple of goofy dudes

Move the White sox out of it seems the obvious answer

I don’t recall having heard Kasper utter a single interesting thing. And his voice is grating

I always remember Peters by an article he wrote for the Sox yearbook where he said it was more important for pitchers to work out over the winter because they had to be prepared to throw 200 pitches a game.

Wow. Good sox news. It’s a festivus miracle

Again this is not at all a logical statement. My logic is that basics of reason should be followed not that comments pointing out that there are unknowns shouldn’t be made. It is mind blowing you think that somehow is a rational assessment of my point.

I’ll break it down to the simplest, most neutral terms possible. Claiming most A is B, therefore all A is B is not reasonable thinking. And it never will be. Doesn’t matter what side of an argument you are on.

This I consider a reasonable argument. But believing that most people tell the truth, therefore believing a specific individual must be telling the truth, and concluding that is a reasonable thought process? I guess I’ll just say bless your little heart to whoever believes that and leave it at that.

Also my first response in this thread was “good god this org is fucked” so your claim that every post I made is one sided is clearly false

Your claim is essentially that I am on the other side of the argument therefore my statements are wrong. Sorry but that is ludicrous thinking, clearly not a valid counter argument. Pointing this out doesn’t make me a troll. It just makes a person making points you don’t like. As I pointed out stats are irrelevant in relation to a specific incident, no different that assuming someone hasn’t committed murder because the stats say the vast majority of people don’t commit murder. It doesn’t mean Clevinger is innocent, it means that particular argument is stupid. It’s not really a matter of opinion. That is in actual fact a nonsense argument.

Well here is another fallacious response. It is as if you have zero concept of how rational thought actually works

I’m not carrying any water. Just because one person is making illogical arguments in support of a claim doesn’t mean the claim isn’t true. It just means that particular argument doesn’t validly support it

For example if you asked someone if they ever murdered anyone, 99.9% of the time it would be true when they said no. Yet murder does indeed happen. You wouldn’t say well 99.9% of the time when someone says they didn’t murder someone it’s true, therefore in this particular case, the accused said he didn’t do it, therefore it is safe to assume it is true.

I’m not arguing whether it is false or true. Just pointing out fallacious arguments

Odds are irrelevant when talking about specific past events that either did or did not occur. Either it happened or it didn’t. doesn’t matter the odds. If actuality were determined by what is most likely, none of us would even exist in the first place.

Not sure what you mean. The question being discussed was whether Clevinger was a good signing on purely baseball merits. Being in the bottom twenty percentile in numerous key metrics would generally be considered a bad sign particularly when it comes after a second tjs