Jake

http://deadspin.com/football-players-hate-...dium=socialflow Pretty interesting piece and one that definitely resonates. I played a lot of sports and playing baseball meant I had yet another new club team virtually each summer. College ball, of course, looked a whole lot like this article. I can definitely see the different people and kinds of people he is describing in this article. In college, I spent a little time as a "Loaf" but I had the good fortune or good sense to be the mysterious guy who does all the team things but socializes with mostly different folks. I imagine everyone has felt that pull to embraced by the team, though, as well as seen different guys become the punching bag. I have a few really fond memories of teams that were extremely cohesive, but it seems that the majority of the time it isn't much different from what he describes. And it isn't really anyone's fault. Maybe it isn't even an inherently bad thing. It is definitely strange, though.

I don't think Cliff has done anything out of line.

I'd give him 3 years and $30 million if he is not given a QO. I don't think that will get him, so I don't think I'd end up signing him. Not only is 2 years going to be too few in all likelihood, it seems contrary to our philosophy, which is only investing in players that are likely to be long-term contributors. He can't be a long-term contributor for two years.

The vacation/golf stuff doesn't bother me either. We want the president to be working hard, for sure. Very hard. Do you think that working on literally world-changing matters every single day for most hours of the day is going to leave you working optimally? I'm happy for these people to take some leisure time. I want them rested, happy, and thinking clearly, not overworked, bitter, unhealthy, etc. I do get great amusement in the fact that the Republican presidents since 1980 have taken many more vacation days just because people freak out every time the Obama family goes on vacation

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/co...recosts_953.pdf In 2006, 34% of people shopping in the individual market said it was either very difficult or impossible to find a plan that fit their needs. 58% said it was very difficult or impossible to find a plan they could afford. 21% were turned away by carriers whose plans they were willing to pay for. 43% of people on the individual market spent 5% or more of their annual income on premiums alone; 25% spent 10% or more. Despite better average health than those with employer-provided coverage, 41% people on the individual market spent over $1000 out of pocket costs (deductibles, co-pays, prescriptions) in a given year versus 30% of employer-based. Median out of pocket costs were $960 for individual market versus $575. 40% of people with plans that had $1000 or higher deductibles had incurred an expensive medical bill not covered by their insurer. 40% had been charged more for a service by a doctor than the insurer was willing to pay. 15% had reached benefits limits and were no longer receiving support from their insurers on bills. 15% overall on the individual market and 22% with high deductibles had taken out debt to pay for medical expenses. This is all within 12 months of the study. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Fi...arket_ib_v2.pdf A couple years later, 73% of those eligible for individual market insurance said they did not purchase insurance because they could not afford the premiums. Of healthy people, 66% didn't buy insurance (80% of people who had a health problem didn't buy insurance). 45% of healthy pepole said it was very difficult/impossible to find insurance could afford. 26% of healthy people (!) were either turned down or charged a higher price than advertised. 64% of adults on the individual market were paying more than $3,000 on premiums alone, 31% more than $6,000. 51% of people with insurance on the individual market were paying 10% or more of their income on medical costs. 72% over 5%. This is with 85% of people who make less than 200% of the poverty line w/o insurance at all and thus not even in these figures. Of those low incomes with private insurance, 60% spent 10% or more of their annual incomes on medical expenses. Of people with $1000 annual deductibles, 69% ended up spending $1000 or more on non-premium medical costs. 24% spent $5000 or more. For $500-999 deductibles, it was still 63% paying more than $1000, but down to 13% paying $5000 or more. Between 2003 and 2007, the proportion of nonelderly adults who are underinsured went from 10% to 18%. For those on the individual market, it went from 17% to 30%. Individual plans are 5 times as likely to not provide prescription drug coverage than employer coverage and four times as likely not to provide dental coverage. 1/3 of all adults with insurance had problems paying a medical bill within that year - that means they either had to "change their way of life," had been contacted by a collections agency, or currently had past due medical bills being paid off. Less than half of adults with insurance say they are "confident" that they can get medical care they need or safe and quality care. 36% on the individual market said that. 41% of those with individual insurance (24% with employer-provided) had done of the four things in the past year: not filled a prescription due to cost, skipped a test/treatment/appointment with a doctor due to cost, had a medical problem but did not see a doctor due to cost, or did not see a specialist they were referred to due to cost. http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/23/6/210.full#R14 Between 1996-2000, only 17% of those with individual market insurance kept the same plan for two years or longer. This is because, as they always do, insurance providers constantly change coverage and thus "drop" people. By law, as they did then and are doing now, they must offer all of their other options as well as the opt-out at the end of the 12-month contract. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/insurance-...tters-obamacare Insurance companies sending cancellation letters are misleading consumers. Many of them are only offering more expensive plans, for sure. However, these letters do not direct people to the marketplace or let them know that they may get subsidies if they make less than 400% of the poverty line. One person in this article was paying $700/month for catastrophic coverage w/ a $10,000 deductible on the individual market. She makes $40,000 per year. She was notified by her insurer that she could have a "best match" coverage for $1000/month and it would automatically renew if she didn't call in. She now has a non-catastrophic plan through the marketplace that costs her $80/month after subsidy with a $250 deductible. How many people are like her? Freaking out, having an already huge burden grow even larger, but not knowing how much the exchange might help? Why share all this information? When you hear people complaining about the insurance market right now, realize that it was completely and utterly f***ed up before. People weren't able to afford insurance, and when they bought it, they were still becoming indebted, settling for less coverage than they wanted, and encountering all kinds of other problems. When people b**** about something in the law, realize it is likely the same problem existed before and it is occurring less now. Realize that there are a lot of people acting and speaking in bad faith. Most of these people aren't the scared consumers being profiled in articles all around - it is the reporters that tell their stories without even finding out if they can be helped or if they misunderstand the process, because being helped isn't a good story.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EB1BY3...=UTF8&psc=1 I was buying another wall charger for my phone, then came across this guy (if I bought it, I got the charger I was looking at for free). I went ahead and bought it. Seems pretty cool. Not entirely sure how I plan to use it, but I have a feeling I'll be really happy to have it whenever I need it.

I tried to allude to this earlier, but check out this article from this past February: The White Sox and Beating Projections More info at link, though some of it is about projections and not injuries

Who's to say the other Chicago team doesn't sign him?

I don't think he was trying to send any kind of message like that. I think he was just saying that he couldn't love the game anymore when it was his occupation. He had other passions pulling him away, as well. He said he envies the guys that can go out there and really love every moment. He found that he had developed a love for another job (in academia) and that his current job (baseball) made him lose his passion for his greatest non-occupational passion (baseball). I don't think he intended it to be some kind of indictment on baseball at all

http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2013/11/03...aved-fans-life/ Just a snippet. Definitely worth the entire read. I figured I'd post it in here since it would probably wind up here anyway.

I feel like our perception of all this is based on the premises of: 1. White Sox desperately trying to dump Alexei and 2. Cardinals only kinda sorta listening With no clear replacement for Alexei and his fair and long-term deal, it seems unlikely that we were actually desperate to dump him. He could easily be a part of a rebuilt White Sox team. It makes even more sense for us to exercise caution while we don't know what we have in Semien (who had hardly broken out at the time of these negotiations). Beyond that, his trade value was unlikely to go down if we waited. The contract gets shorter, we move into the offseason when teams have more money and more teams might bid, etc. He was a guy we had no reason to dump for nothing and I have a feeling we were asking for a lot. The Cards, on the other hand, may have very well been rather desperate for him but were unable or unwilling to pay a very high price for him. Who knows, perhaps after their frustrating finish they'll be even more emboldened to up the ante for a guy like Alexei.

1. Gronk's BACK!!! 2. With 3 guys on bye this week, I had to put in Mike James (fill-in in TB) at Flex. I was hoping he'd just get above 5 points or so. 140 yards rushing through 3 quarters plus a touchdown pass.

I'll go 6.5. Minuses: -Bevy of budget cuts to appease Rs who would never be satisfied, thus hampering our recovery -Letting conservatives bastardize his healthcare vision -Allowing the spying apparatus of his predecessor continue to exist and develop -Failing to close Gitmo entirely -Stance on whistleblowers (not including Snowden) -Failing to institute a system of checks on drone program Pluses: -end of war in Iraq -ending the Where's Osama? goose chase -ending torture programs -acting on financial crisis and preventing a depression -passing healthcare reform, regardless of political consequences -repeal of DADT -becoming the first POTUS to support marriage equality -Dodd-Frank -restoring pre-Bush tax rates on highest earners -reforming NCLB, extending government giving for education, putting universal Pre-K on national agenda -presiding over a major shift in international perception of USA and its leadership abroad for the better -avoiding several int'l conflicts that could have turned into wars That's off the top of my head. Some pluses and some minuses are clearly more important than others. I find many of the minuses troubling, though I also know that they would all almost certainly still exist and perhaps to a greater extent if his opponents were in office, which is even more troubling.

Would be nice to know how much the neck is bothering him.

I think BO envisioned his presidency as being most notable for cooperation. Unfortunately, his attempts to reach across the aisle have been interpreted as weakness and haven't really helped him with anything. Legislation that is more conservative than it should be has definitely made it through, but not in the way it would be if they were reached through compromise. You just have certain things that are highly conservative - sequestration, for instance

I like to think that this just foiled the Cubs' plans again

The question is: are there just some party spots that he likes to hit up or does this mean he really wants to go there? Question 2: does it matter which one of the above it is?

The Sox are in a much better place next year. We have many more real MLB players on our team. Their bullpen and our bullpen are completely different. Ours has several young, established players that have experience in high leverage situations along with several more really talented guys. Don't pat them on the back for trading Soriano, they're paying literally almost all of his salary. That was stupid.

Replacing Kozma with Alexei very well may have gotten them a World Series win. Acting like the Cardinals were smart when they were continually getting f***ed by horrible shortstops doesn't seem like the smart thing to do here. Alexei is better than Pete Kozma at everything

They're saying he was there Friday and Saturday, on his own accord

Larry Sanders has one quarter to break double figures for the SEASON

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 2, 2013 -> 08:56 PM) Yeah, he has produced terribly but as a No. 1 pick he has a lot of time left before he's deemed a total bust. I'd suspect he'll remain a Sox unless Hahn despises his offensive game which is always a possibility.The key here is what does Hahn think of these guys. He's been around and has seen them up close for a long time. Do any insiders know what he thinks of Lexi, Beckham, DeAza, Viciedo, Phegs and Flowers? It'd be nice to know what the GM thinks of these guys' futures. I'm guessing Hahn doesn't expect much from Beckham. He's a safe bet not to be sub-replacement level player, but there doesn't seem to be much reason to think he will suddenly bust out after all this time. I bet Hahn would love to get some value for him on the trade market - if he can get us Brett Lawrie, I don't think there will be a second of his hesitation. If there isn't a market for him, and I doubt there is, Becks gives us flexibility with Semien. We'll feel much freer to leave Semien in AAA for a while and, even if he Semien breaks camp with the big league club, Semien can bat for Becks against RHP at times while Conor plays at 3B. Then, against LHP, you can have Gordon at 2B and Semien at 3B. As for those other guys, I think the FO is cautiously optimistic about Dayan. I think they see a little sunk cost with him, but know that he's a relatively small step forward from being a really valuable player. I don't think they like Phegs and Flowers at all. I think they see Alexei for what he is: a guy making exactly what he deserves, playing awesome defense, holding his own at the plate, and adding a base stealing element to his game. With that said, I bet they're uncertain about his loss of power and are frustrated about the mental errors last year. I'm sure they'd like to see Semien become a SS, which would free them up to get some real value for Alexei.

On the bright side, I like what I'm seeing from virtually everyone else. Even Hinrich. Noah needs work, but I wonder how about his health. I think it's safe to assume that Derrick isn't going to suck forever. The team looks locked and loaded for when he's back to form.

I think I'd prefer just rolling with Leesman, Veal, and whatever scrap heap guys we invite to ST

Gordon quite clearly had unbelievably lucky run of soft hits and bloops when he came off the DL. He didn't produce well all year. I have very little confidence in him going forward. His defense even fell off, and I don't know what that could have to do with his glove hand