Jake

Hey man, I love some Crazy Bread and/or Italian Cheese Bread from Little Caesar's

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 07:42 PM) Davidson now at least 3 for his last 38 with no homers. Hard to get excited about a prospect that has hit under .200 in 3 out of 4 months this year. Luckily, our current third baseman is hitting like a superstar and we have several MIF prospects doing very well. Lots of time (like, years) for Davidson to get things worked out without any noticeable damage to the big league club.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 07:00 PM) Noesi is not afraid of a big inning. He's been a pleasant surprise, but I will be disappointed if he is in the rotation next year I hope he pitches well enough to be in it. He's been very solid this year and overall has been remarkably good for a guy who hadn't worked out as a starter in a very long time before he got here. Will be interesting to see what Sox think of him considering that big factor - that he's without the proper physical prep for a season-long workload as a starter. As far as today goes, the delay of the game is probably related to the outcome. He's had several times where it seems like he has reached the mound ill-prepared for the game. It only figures that he'd get mindf***ed by the rain delay. Hopefully he bounces back strongly for the next one.

People are trying their best to say things that make it sound like more than fluff. Not just "he looks good," but he looks amazing and better than before and his game is going to the next level yada yada

There's no way the Indians would have made him a QO anyway.

How many tools do you want a first baseman to have? 2 will cut it for me and I'm interested in which one the respondent thinks Wilkins has. The book used to be that he had a very good hit tool but lacked power, but suddenly that power looks very much present (and the standards for power around MLB have dropped).

Whenever a decision made by Robin backfires, it's wrong. When a decision that goes right may have defied logic...still wrong! Boom. Robin = always wrong, no matter what

I find it doubtful that the Marlins would want any portion of Danks's contract

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 01:54 AM) LOL. Why "please no?" He's not a bad righty. Probably cost 13 mill a year though for 3-4 years. Free agent contracts to in-demand starting pitchers are among the worst investments one can make

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 11:22 PM) I can see us signing James Shields this offseason Please no

Dunn can hit. All Beckham can do is turn double plays. He doesn't he do other defensive things well. The one thing that Beckham has over the likes of Barney is the fact that he is actually more talented. Some teams might perceive some value in just rolling the dice. The problem is that Hahn can't look someone in the eye and say we aren't going to no-tender him. Everyone would like to roll the dice with Gordo, but why pay for it when you can wait until he's released?

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 10:59 PM) If/when the Sox let Beckham go, none of us should be mad at the organization if he goes elsewhere and succeeds. The Sox have given him every possible chance to prove he's MLB starting caliber. Who knows, he might go to a team like Toronto next year and his 25 home runs based on their power hitting approach. If so, good for him...no regrets about going in another direction with Semien, Sanchez or Johnson. For the record, I said this same thing when he was hitting .350. The White Sox have seen enough and if you can get rid of him, you do it. Maybe hold on to him for the rest of the year to see what happens, and certainly trade him if there's an opportunity, but the Sox can't be held responsible for anything good he does elsewhere.

He better not steal the triple crown from Abreu /rampant homerism

Ideally we won't bat the rookies that high in the order until they hit their way there. This is particularly true when you want to insert a lefty that struggles against lefties (Micah) right after or before another lefty (Eaton, who doesn't struggle against lefties luckily enough).

Re: walks, those don't have to be at the expense of the hits. He looks to be doing a better job of recognizing when he's being pitched around, though, which is key. I think he'll walk an adequate amount ultimately.

My position was to unload Keppinger and find Gillaspie platoon at-bats around the field by forcing him to learn a corner OF position and trying him at 2B as well.

The safeguard that Google put into place is they alert you if an extension asks for new permissions. The malware extensions came from the Chrome app store. It's a tough situation because they don't vet extensions like Mozilla does (Mozilla's system has its own drawbacks, most notably slower updates).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 11:41 AM) I think another fair idea would be that you only get a pick that that is equal to the slot value you offered. So if you offer $3mil, you get a pick in next years draft that was slotted for $3mil. So that way if the Astros want to play around, its their loss. Too anti-team. The idea is that you lower your offer because of injury. You can't be compelled to offer damaged goods full slot value

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 07:54 AM) A few things... Firefox actually uses less memory than Chrome does, it just appears to use more because it lumps all of it's memory usage into one process. If you add up all the processes of Chrome, with the same websites open and the same extensions running (if any), you'll see Chrome uses slightly more memory in both cases (with or without extensions), however, it's advantageous to split the processes and sandbox them as Chrome does. Opera is Chrome, so you may as well just use the real thing -- Opera dumped their own proprietary engine and started using Google's Blink engine, which is a fork of Webkit2, so ... essentially Opera offers nothing not in Chrome, since it's running on Chrome's codebase. Out of the box, Chrome is the most secure browser there is, however, if you want to go through the hassle of using Firefox + NoScript, that would easily make FF the most secure. A few things for you, too... If you are getting malware, it's not Chrome's fault, it's yours. Stop browsing untrustworthy websites. And if you refuse to do that, download Adblock Plus (and add in the Malware domains list), it will protect you from that issue. For Firefox users, use Adblock Edge. As stated above Opera is Chrome, so there is no point in using it anymore. I know about Chrome's sandboxing. What I was saying is that the base memory usage is lower in Chrome vs. Firefox because I've tested it. For instance, browsing with just one or two tabs open is consistently lower in memory usage. That said, I use lots and lots of tabs so Firefox works out for me due to lower memory usage and just better overall responsiveness. What they're saying about malware is something that has been going on a lot with Chrome lately. Semi-popular extensions will get bought out by malware peddlers and start injecting ads. So it isn't sites or poor browsing habits that are getting these people in trouble, it's once trustworthy extensions. Things as seemingly harmless as an RSS feed subscribe button were turning into ad injection plugins.

I've tried several times to switch over to Chrome, but it just doesn't work well for me. Particularly because I'm a person who likes to use a lot of tabs at once - across multiple machines, my experience is that Firefox handles heavy use better than Chrome. Chrome uses less memory with a lighter load, though, so that's something to think about. What has led me to try to work with Chrome a few times is that I use Google Hangouts and its extension basically makes it a desktop app. Likewise, there are several useful Chrome desktop apps. There are a couple extensions, like Pocket, that don't work well for me on Firefox but do on Chrome. I never can make the switch, though, because Chrome just runs slower on my machine and doesn't offer the same kind of tab management features and overall add-on library that I'm looking for. I'm also always keen to not just give Google carte blanche access to my web browsing habits, though I have configured Chrome to prevent that (includes not using Google Search, obviously). Keeping FF alive and well in an of itself is a nice motivating factor if you're not sure. If you're looking for other alternatives, I don't mind Opera at all and it's easily my second place choice. It's speedy, fluid, and configurable. It now supports Chrome extensions, too (but not apps, and not the Hangouts extension). While it is not for everyone, you can take a look at Maxthon Browser as well. I used it for a while and it's not bad at all. Very quick, low memory, and inexplicably has as good of compatibility with different web elements as any mainstream browser.

The one thing about Boras's system that you'd have to address is the possibility that players intentionally become uncooperative so that they can choose their team. An Eli Manning situation, basically

Also, while we're on the subject of Cuba, this is a patently outrageous statement given that it came from the US State Department: Not only are the particulars of that statement factually false as Cuba's defense spending fell dramatically while healthcare stayed stable, it's coming from the United States of America that spends on the military at the expense of anything and everything, including the dire need for healthcare improvement

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 26, 2014 -> 05:33 PM) It's just a bad documentary because it's filled with so many lies I don't have time to go over them. And he completely falls off the rails when he does his whole fake Cuba thing. If Cuba was so awesome, people wouldn't be leaving there under the risk of death...which they are...so he should have used a better example. Michael Moore is a hack, and he's been exposed by many of his works of fiction by bending reality so it agrees with him, instead of just presenting facts. When I said there were "several problems" I was specifically thinking of Cuba - mainly because there are some dark sides of their healthcare system though his posse received a pretty authentic experience of what outsiders should expect. The whole point of the Cuba escapade was that despite how s***ty and supposedly evil Cuba is, they have no problem having low healthcare costs and far better access than what is the case in the USA. For instance, they have far better infant mortality rates in Cuba than USA. Why? Because they don't f*** over the poor people who have children, leaving them at risk to experience infant death. The same is true of under five years old mortality rate. Cuba also generates tens of million dollars (a huge amount of money in their deflated economy) in healthcare tourism every year, so it's not a fiction that people, including Americans go there to get healthcare services that are otherwise unavailable (usually due to cost barriers in home country). Kofi Annan had this to say about Cuba in 2000: "Cuba's achievements in social development are impressive given the size of its gross domestic product per capita. As the human development index of the United Nations makes clear year after year, Cuba should be the envy of many other nations, ostensibly far richer. [Cuba] demonstrates how much nations can do with the resources they have if they focus on the right priorities - health, education, and literacy." Of course, the problems of Cuba in general extend into healthcare as well. You have very little right to privacy as a patient and different healthcare issues can be highly politicized (that's not unfamiliar to us). The poverty of the country extends into healthcare too, with many facilities in shoddy conditions and doctors very underpaid. The US embargo makes things much more difficult, considering the manufacturing of healthcare goods in the USA. But the entire point was not to say that you should move to Cuba or install Castro as the head of HHS. It's that a country with so little could compare so favorably to us. The film highlights many of the shortcomings of the US system, most notably many of the problems which were remedied just over two years later in the ACA. Details are missed and there is an obvious focus on negatives in the USA and positives elsewhere. You could also criticize him for completely ignoring the huge uninsured persons problem in the USA that existed at the time, since he just mentions it at the beginning and says he'd rather reveal what happens to people who think they are insured. What the movie has going for it is that the USA indubitably has a terrible, inefficient, and unequal healthcare provisioning scheme that pales in comparison to most of the rest of the developed world and is shamefully poor when considering the vast resources available to the USA that other countries lack. There is a limit to how untruthful you can be when you are making that argument in some way, shape, or form. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 26, 2014 -> 06:50 PM) Here is another in a long line of anti-fact "documentaries", though this one isn't by Michael Moore (who pretty much started the biased/lie filled "documentary" fad), http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gmo_omg/ Nothing scientific backs any claims made by this docu, yet people eat it up. These being called documentaries seriously needs to stop, it's like labeling fiction as non-fiction in a book store. There is no objectivity to strive for. You can't present facts that are absent of bias. Of course, you can try to reduce bias, account for it, not outright lie, etc. I am, however, with you in that the alarmism over GMOs has become very tiresome. Still, with the corporatization of the food industry and the countless illegal and morally questionable tactics of groups like Monsanto, I understand why people would be skeptical of mainstream messages about these things.

How many thousands of dollars would you turn down if all you had to do was kiss a man and perhaps simulate some humping?

I would admit that FIP is highly contestable but that's not an insignificant difference there