Jake

Quentin was clearly wound tight and while somewhat flukish, the early end to his 2008 season can be connected to that. Still, I don't see good evidence that his mental approach to the game was the reason he didn't reach his potential. He has basically always hit well when reasonably healthy, but his body has broken down.

Paxson and Forman essentially have had one big f***up in their tenure—Aldridge for Tyrus—which we would never recognize as such if we had just decided the draft Tyrus outright. The rest of the criticism is almost solely about things fans assume could have happened but did not happen. They had one big stroke of luck, Derrick, which incidentally turned into some of the worst luck later on. They have an incredible knack for turning chicken s*** into chicken dinner on draft day and have in general avoided big mistakes and overreactions. I don't love the way the Thibodeau era ended, but ultimately it did end at the right time. A front office that can consistently find and retain talent like them is worth far more than a coach, especially one with the kinds of glaring flaws Thibs had/has (and I still think he's one of the most valuable coaches around). I won't pretend to know which of Gar and Paxson is most responsible for what goes right and wrong, so I won't speculate about whether one of them could go and leave us better off.

Ian Desmond is a massive risk, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he doesn't have a job until the draft pick compensation goes away midseason.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 02:58 PM) I doubt he'd less than $8-10m though, which I think the White Sox expressly DON'T want to pay at SS. I would be pretty surprised if he got that much, but I'm definitely not making the claim that he is worth that much or that the Sox are likely to give him that much. My thinking was more in the 5-6 range, though I believe FG projects 8.

I'd see what Jimmy Rollins is thinking for next season. Have to think he's in a position where he'd be attracted to a team like the Sox that has no obvious choice at SS but also doesn't have the bargaining power to demand a promise of a starting spot.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 15, 2016 -> 11:19 AM) If it was like capitalism, Sale & Quintana could leave to the highest bidder instead of being under Sox control for 6 years. Nah, the players wouldn't be unionized and wouldn't make squat

Yes, but can Benetti take the mantle from Swirsky and weave an everlasting devotion to the greatness of Steve Stone into the broadcast?

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 12, 2016 -> 05:03 PM) The FO made the trade so blame it on the the FO. What differnce is it if it was RH, KW or JR. This was the consensus trade. None of them work by themselves. Not to mention that we've gotten pretty decent value out of the other pieces in this trade.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 12, 2016 -> 04:17 PM) And it's not just that the tools aren't above average, they're mostly grading out as awful Yeah, the thing that makes me feel least confident in him is how many different things have to improve. Basically no part of his game graded out as even approaching average last year, with his overall hitting probably being the closest (but not all that close). His defense looks so bad that he almost certainly has to fall back on his bat to provide value, but a close look at his hitting just reveals so many problems. Not enough walks, too many strikeouts, chases way too many balls out of the zone, his measures of power are all piss-poor. It would be genuinely surprising to see him even put up a 1.0 WAR season, IMO.

We got roughly what I expected. I didn't assume he'd have such an up and down year, but I figured his bat would hover near league average and his defense wouldn't be very good.

"Close" is a pretty vague concept

Fun fact. Cesped in Spanish means "grass," thus Cespedes means "grasses." Yoenis Grasses.

I'm guessing Gordon gets at least 4/$80M or 5/$100M and it may be more like 4/$90M. 30 year old, s***ty Melky Cabrera got $14M AAV for 3 years last year for pete's sake. Gordon will get longer and way more AAV.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Dec 19, 2015 -> 06:08 PM) I still think KW's comments about "no plan" were a smoke screen and some honesty. Why people took them as a condemnation of RH is beyond me. People just like controversy and picking at carcasses and stuff. Sometimes the media gets creepy like that. Yeah, I gave little thought to that comment. KW has always been saying these things since forever. The only time he says anything more decisive is when he says we have nothing planned or no money available, which inevitably means we're about to make a trade or signing.

I was raised in a situation in which there were three choices at the pre-HS level: 1. public schools, one for each set of grades 2. local Catholic public school, had 25 students per class (this was the limit, after that you are on a wait list; several cohorts never had anyone enter or leave over the K-8th grade term). I just checked the tuition. If you are have an "active family," then it costs $2400 for the first student, $1900 for the second, and $1400 for each other one per year. Active families must be members of the church, attend nearly all masses, and go to a few other religious functions. If family is non-active, price is $3000/$2500/$2000. You can get a one-time 10% tuition credit if you "recruit" another family. 3. local non-denominational Christian school located 3-5 miles from most people, located in the country. Had about 2-8 students per grade, I don't know much else about it. This is $3400/student, no special discounts. $200 book fee, $300 optional yearly bus fee each way. $80 fee if you want your child to be served lunch at school, which is not required. Once you reach high school, the local public school is the only option. There is a lab school and a Catholic school 35-40 miles away (this school costs somewhere between $15,000-$20,000 per year to attend, depending on a few variables). From what I understand, the HS I attended is poorly rated and was under the gun from NCLB laws for failing to meet standards. 5-year graduation rates around 70%, free/reduced lunch eligibility applied to half of the 800-900 students. Student:faculty ratio and faculty turnover rates were/are below state standards. However, this is the only high school I experienced! While I loved to gripe about local politics and how this or that teacher was a total dunce, I can't complain much about the education I received. I had involved parents and a comfortable home life. I had admissions to the elitest of the elite colleges thanks great standardized test scores. I was able to do well at a college that was very demanding because I was apparently well-enough prepared from the variety of people and institutions that helped to prepare me. There are two reasons that I hope to put my kids in public schools, whenever it comes time for me to have kids (so take what I say with an appropriate grain of salt). I have to manage my own risks, but my overriding preference except in the case that there is something truly terrible or unsafe about the public option is to get my kids into public. One thing is that I think it's important socially to be around the typical hodgepodge of kids you see in a HS. You might get taken up in the wrong crowd, but that's part of my responsibility as a parent to have my kid prepared for that. I feel like it was highly beneficial to me to be at a school and treated equally to people who were in some cases far better off than I was and in many other cases kids who were really struggling in various ways or by some other measure were very different from me. The other reason I want my kids to go to public schools regards my sense of civic duty. Again, I am no martyr and have no skin in the game at this point, but the school system gets a little better when I put my great kid into it. And I know that when my kid is in the school, I'm not going to let certain problems go unnoticed. Generally speaking, my sense of the abundant research on education is that a great school can break cyclical poverty and improve the lives of children at risk. But for those who have the parents/resources/talent package, the quality of the school doesn't play a very big role in their future outcomes. Only anecdotally, more or less.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 12:57 PM) It is courtney883, duh Sounds a lot more reliable than Kyyle23 or Steve9347

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 12:52 PM) Todd Frazier feels like every other guy we get. Low average, low on base skills, destined to come here and fall apart. Hopefully he winds up different. I thought about this as well, mostly applies to Lawrie too. The plus in both cases is that they are defensive contributors as well and can be expected to produce surplus value even if their hitting falls a few notches below expectations.

To me the player who had the best risk:reward ratio in this deal is Montas and considering where the White Sox are, it makes a lot of sense to deal a SP who wasn't likely to start the year in the MLB rotation given how strong we are at the top of our rotation

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 12:30 PM) Saladino, easily It will be an interesting decision if it comes down to that since Saladino is overall a higher risk prospect IMO but from what I have seen and heard is far less of a risk as a defensive SS, where Sanchez could be anywhere from just fine to sub-MLB level. Sanchez's bat being what it was for much of the season last year, the Sox will have to decide if it's worth gambling on. I think the more likely scenario is that we bring in somebody else entirely to play SS or re-sign Alexei

If you're getting Ethier in the deal, why do folks think we'd also sign one of the pricey FA outfielders?

Thank you Trayce for one good month of MLB hitting

If we're giving up Micah/Montas/Trayce/May for Frazier/Ethier, I'm very happy even if we're taking on all of Ethier's salary.

I somewhat agree with Jenks as far as the NRA goes. I don't think it's so much their immediate and deliberate influence that shapes gun policy, though it very well could play a larger role than I think it does. It's moreso the groundwork they have done over decades to reframe the debate on guns, doing things like funding legal scholarship to make the 2nd amendment seem unambiguously supportive of unimpeded home ownership of guns, creating alarm over things like gun registries (which in turn makes so many gun control policies difficult), and things like this. They have created a relatively coherent set of arguments that are easy to understand and repeat and are often highly logical (who is to argue that a gun won't save you in one of many contrived situations in which a gun is obviously an advantage?), which has led us to a point now where the pro-gun base is loud and effective. The gun rights crowd can relate to people and themselves on several levels that are very closely tied to deeply held beliefs. Historically, they can talk about founding fathers (2nd amendment), even if the truth of history is far less clear. Another historical angle is the idea that guns were crucial in the revolution (what war doesn't require guns?), thus making a provocative correlation of citizen gun use with freedoms. Ideologically, they can talk about government control and interference in lifestyles, something lots of people don't like in the abstract. Culturally, guns can be a symbol of a certain identity, whether that's the country/rural person or a Southerner or vigilante badass, etc. And logically, it is easy to imagine yourself in a situation in which a gun is probably your best chance at survival. Most people aren't able to think that their personal ownership of a gun can have a negative effect on the world, but it's easy to think about how it can help you or some other innocent person. Those talking about gun control usually have to get people thinking about society-wide phenomena and things like this that just aren't so easy to grasp and aren't worth the effort for someone who already finds guns appealing.

Seems to me that it's time to raise the rates, would be great if we could manage our federal budget in such a way to counteract some of the short-term negative impacts of the rate "hike."

The problem Rose faces beyond all the double vision, ouchie this and that stuff is the missed time. MVP Rose had been playing relatively uninterrupted basketball for a decade. Missing a year was going to put a dent in that, then big surprise another year. Then last year he misses a lot of time, sprinkled throughout the season so he never gets a rhythm. Another strike comes in the preseason this year, which people were just discussing. It's really difficult to make up for time you spent physically inactive and what he desperately needs is a run of play without any meaningful injuries. I don't know if he'll manage it. I'm sure the time away from the game makes him even more prone to injury, not to mention the wear and tear from over the years and from managing the injuries themselves.