illinilaw08

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 10:22 AM) In other "definitely not a Russian pawn" news, Tillerson is bumbling his way through his confirmation hearing and said that sanctions only hurt American businesses. Also claimed that Exxon never lobbied on sanctions related to Ukraine or Russia, but they absolutely did Good for Rubio asking tough questions to Tillerson on Russia.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 09:38 AM) It is worth mentioning that these are the same intelligence agencies that gave us WMD's in Iraq. It is also worth mentioning that the Republicans investigated Benghazi several times. With the weight of the allegations here, and the fact that the intelligence community considers the source "credible," both sides have to allow this thing to be fully and completely investigated. If Russia has compromising stuff on Trump and it is influencing how Trump interacts with Russia, then that could be grounds for impeachment. If Trump and his surrogates aided and abetted Russia on the DNC hacks, then that is basically Watergate x 1000. I'm not saying that either or any of those are true, but without an opposition party in any real seat of power, this is something that risks being swept under the rug. This is one of those times where we really need to see country over party.

While we're talking about our new jobs President, outgoing Interior Secretary Sally Jewell gave an interview with Outside Magazine wherein she asserts that the outdoor industry is almost as large as pharma, motor vehicles, and motor vehicle parts combined. Because of this administration's commitment to jobs, I fully expect them to take our parks and climate change seriously... https://www.outsideonline.com/2139866/sally...rtment-interior

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 02:46 PM) Isnt the republican party in favor of states rights? State's Rights!* * Exceptions to State's Rights include regulating where you can go to the bathroom, who you can marry or sleep with, and what you put into your body. Remember how awesome it was when Trump saved 800 Carrier jobs? Well Colorado created 18,000 jobs in 2015 in the marijuana industry. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp...m=.4659241ac5c9

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 02:27 PM) Also said that the feds will go after legal pot under the new administration. Well, that's going to seriously hurt Colorado's economy.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 02:35 PM) http://www.baseballprospectus.com/prospect...hp?reportid=358 That is a really good in depth scouting report mid season 2016 on Newman He can flat out hit The rest of his tools are average He looks like he can be a solid, average regular overall. Our system could use a prospect like Newman. Worst case looks like he could be a good utility player, best case an above average middle infielder Thanks. That scouting report does not sound like Juan Pierre...

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 02:17 PM) So they'll throw him more stuff in the strike zone where his 60 hit tool can make solid contact? Sounds good. I think the question with Keller is whether he has the hit tool to hit 30+ doubles. He doesn't need to hit 10 homeruns if he hits line drives all over the place.

QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 01:50 PM) Some blurbs from an Insider article today on the best time to trade Q: Best time to trade him for maximum value: At the trade deadline on July 31. "...However, because they haven’t been able to make a deal at this point, and haven’t had an offer that’s close to their asking price, they might be better off waiting to trade Quintana at the July trade deadline, when there would be more of a sense of urgency and competition from contending teams to land him" "...You only have to look at the returns for pitchers such as David Price, Aroldis Chapman and Andrew Miller over the past two trade deadlines to understand that’s when your best offers in trades normally come in." "...The White Sox should expect to receive a package somewhere between what they got from the Boston Red Sox in the Chris Sale trade and their return from the Washington Nationals in the Adam Eaton deal." They then go on to give some sample trades they think would make sense from the Astros, Pirates, and Yankees http://www.espn.com/blog/the-gms-office/in...r/post?id=13713 Here's the risk: (1) There are a finite number of teams with the headliners and depth of prospects necessary to get a deal done for Q; (2) Buyers at the deadline, generally speaking, are bolstering their team for that particular stretch run. So if the Astros or the Pirates have a bad first half, they probably wait for the next year's FA market to bolster rotations. (3) We take Q's consistency as a given. But if he falls off - even in the slightest - that could lead to a substantial reduction in Q's value. Q's value is based on his uncanny ability to be consistently very, very good. There's less of a market for that than there is for the front end starter with pure stuff. (4) Right now, if a team wants a frontline starter, they have to go to the Sox for Q or the Rays for Archer (whose price tag is astronomical). At the deadline, there's a good chance that the supply on the market increases, thereby potentially reducing the return for Q. Bottom line - the Sox need to maximize the return on Q, and I tend to think they are doing the right thing at the moment, holding out for Meadows. But there's risk leaving a package of (for example) Glasnow/Keller/Newman/Diaz on the table because you want the headliner to be Meadows.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 10:39 AM) The Rockies really need starting pitching and bullpen help if they want a chance of contending against the Giants and Dodgers Q and/or Robertson/Jones would bring some much needed stability to the pitching staff The Rockies have some good young talent in their rotation. If Gray, Anderson, Chatwood and Bettis all improve this year, their rotation is actually probably ok. And this has been mentioned before in this thread, but Q is a curveball heavy pitcher. I think it's reasonable for the Rockies to be skeptical as to how that would play in Coors. He'd have to be fastball/change a LOT there. And with the prospect premium necessary to land him, given the extra risk, I think it's pretty reasonable for them to stay away on Q.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 10, 2017 -> 10:38 AM) McPhee is gonna be a snap count rotational player for the rest of his career because of his knees. If Garrett gets there, you take him and don't think twice. Especially don't think about McPhee And next year will be McPhees third year as a bear This. If Garrett is there, the Bears draft Garrett. Period. I don't need the Bears to draft a QB at #3. I do need them to draft a QB in the first 3 rounds who they like. They have some draft capital they can use to move up and get their guy later in the draft. I will be furious if the Bears leave this draft punting on the QB position again.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 03:59 PM) this is true but the cost is mostly for the large ranches and such. Not a small piece of land with a single home. Also not true. It probably originated with large ranches, but it actually impacts pretty much any plot of land in the mountains in Colorado, and anywhere rural in the American West. For instance, until 2016 it was illegal to use a rain barrel to collect water in the State of Colorado. While that makes no sense when you live in Denver, it makes a lot of sense when you live on a mountain stream.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 03:50 PM) That just comes from the purchase of the land. That's not necessarily true - particularly in the West. Water rights are often sold separate and apart from the deed that gives you ownership of the land itself.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 02:10 PM) The had just as many wins in 2016 as the White Sox. Unlike the White Sox, they won 98 games the year before...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 02:04 PM) The one who has to trade its best player for financial reasons to make a trade for Q? That's a completely different issue. The Pirates payroll constraints have no bearing on future payroll constraints that the Sox might or might not have. The Pirates' contention window, however, is starting Year 5 and looks likely to extend for the next couple years. I'd take that window for the Sox...

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 12:59 PM) I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you totally missed my point. I said: "I'm absolutely okay with the Sox acquiring Glasnow/Keller if they get Bell, Newman, Hayes, etc." They absolutely need to get 2 of the 3 hitters I listed and/or Meadows...and if they don't, it's a failure. I don't want a package comprised of pitching only, which is what you seem to think I want. I also think the Sox will be active trying to acquire a hitter in free agency or through a trade in a couple years in the rebuild is going well. That's the important point that people are glossing over. Newman would be either the 2nd or 3rd best hitting prospect in the Sox system (depending on how you feel about Collins). And Hayes would be either 4th or 5th (depending on how you feel about Basabe). I don't think anyone is advocating the Sox trade Q for Glasnow, Keller and additional arms. I also fail to see how Glasnow, Newman, Hayes, and let's say Diaz is a worse position player package than Martes, Tucker, Fisher and Laureano (the most reasonable hitting heavy package the Sox could expect from the Astros). Unless the Yankees or the Cubs jump in, or the Pirates budge on Meadows, the first piece is going to be a pitcher.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2017 -> 10:30 AM) By this point in the Sox trade journey you have to have a star potential position player headline a deal. More pitching doesn't help this rebuild, instead it only prolongs it and makes the odds worse of this working By that logic, the Sox can't make a trade with the Astros either. Assuming Bregman isn't available, you get a package headlined by Martes and then Tucker. Tucker could be a star prospect, but he isn't there yet. It's basically Meadows or bust unless the Yankees or the Cubs get into the action... Ultimately, I think a Glasnow, Newman, Keller, Hayes deal would do it for me. Newman is a top 50 position prospect. Hayes probably isn't far outside the top 100, and you get two more premium arms back in the deal.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 6, 2017 -> 03:59 PM) Nah, it's really not. My wife and I are near that joint income range and an extra ~1600 bucks over the course of the year is not a huge deal in the grand scheme of our budget/financial plans. Would I like to have that money instead of paying that in taxes? Sure, absolutely. But it's not debilitating to my family's lifestyle. And if he's going to increase other tax incentives or credits, like child care credits, as he said he would, it ends up being a wash anyway. That doesn't mean I agree that a married couple making 225k/year should pay more than a married couple making 1.5 million a year. That's just dumb. And I've said before the right's protection of the rich in this country is nonsensical. I've always been a conservative, even a fiscal conservative, who isn't concerned with more taxes on the rich. I'm also not under the delusion that taxing the rich is going to solve our economic problems and I still think the middle class to lower upper class pays far too much. edit: and i guess more to the point, using someone making 130k/year or a family making 225k/year paying .05% of their annual salary more in taxes as the "victim" isn't going to win you many PR battles. It's an inefficient tax policy though, so it shouldn't be about PR battles. My wife and I are also near that joint income range, and that extra $1600 is more likely to go back into the economy from us than it would from the top whatever percent are seeing the reduction in the top tax brackets (and are more likely to save that money than spend it). For me, I'm happy to pay more in taxes if I get additional benefits (universal healthcare for instance), or if it's strengthening the safety net (God forbid I ever need that). But I'm not real happy about the idea of paying more in taxes to fund a tax break for the really wealthy.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 6, 2017 -> 03:31 PM) Don't get my hopes up. Cause I'd be ecstatic. Merkin's tweet doesn't make sense WITH Bregman involved either. In the event that the Astros included Bregman, I'd be stunned if the Sox landed Martes and 3 other guys as well...

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 6, 2017 -> 01:23 PM) Pirates fans seem most reasonable due to desperation haha when the Sale talks were going on, there was an Astros fan that tweeted at WSD that Bregman is a future HOF. And Sale isn't? (assuming he stays healthy and keeps putting up the numbers he has) Don't want to clutter the new thread, but if Gammons is right that the Astros are coming back with an offer for Q similar to the offer that was turned down for Archer (Martes/Tucker/Paulino + 2 other prospects), I suspect things will start to move quickly. Pirates can obviously beat that offer, but it will definitely put the pressure on the Pirates to make their best and final offer.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2017 -> 11:44 AM) I've mentioned before, but Tyrod Taylor is likely available. Romo may be available. I'd rather draft a qb that we've rated appropriately then giving up a 3rd overall pick and a 4th for garoppolo. Yeah, Jimmy G has thrown 94 NFL passes. His contract runs up after next year, and he's going to get paid. I would hate to give up the 3rd overall pick - or even the 36th overall pick - on a guy who will be an FA after 1 year... even if you ultimately tag him in year 2. I'd much rather the Bears sign a stopgap for a year (Taylor would be fine), and draft someone they like in the 2nd or 3rd round that they have cheap control over for 4 years. Ultimately, the problem with waiting until there's a Luck type talent available in Round 1 to draft a QB is that you also have to be bad enough the year before to be in a position to draft that QB. The Bears can't keep kicking the can down the road at QB - particularly if they are finally going to cut ties with Jay.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 5, 2017 -> 11:08 AM) nothing wrong with that either, most of the prospects won't have any success in the MLB. I agree that he shouldn't be the main piece in a trade but I don't think he would be. Sounds more like Glasnow would be. Glasnow, Newman, Hayes and Diaz would be a pretty good return from where I'm sitting if the Pirates insist on not including Meadows. The only issue I can see with Newman is whether he's ultimately blocked by Anderson and Moncada. I'd love Bell as a second piece, but would be pretty surprised if the Pirates moved him.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 02:47 PM) Who were the playmakers on the 2014 Bears defense? If their players are worse than they were 2 years ago, that's on Pace. The fact is 17 forced turnovers in 2015 set a franchise record low. The 11 this year shattered it. I don't know if it's coaching, what is emphasized, lack of players , luck, or all of the above, but it needs to change quickly. They have had no talent before and forced a lot more turnovers. Pace can draft 6 future Pro Bowlers in April, if the team is 6-10, neither he or Fox will be around for the annual post mortem press conference. That's such a short sighted philosophy. Pace's job right now is to add talent. Pace did that job well last year. In FA he completely revamped the LBs, turning that position into a strength. He added 3 starters - two of whom look like truly impact talent - in the draft. They need to address the secondary, and they need to address the QB position this year, but if Pace has a great draft and they only win 6 games, Pace is still doing his job - adding talent to a bad roster.

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 11:10 AM) I keep seeing this but don't agree with it. Why is it risky just for the Sox? Other teams' players' stocks will rise and fall as well. Just as an example, Tyler Glasnow is more likely to get injured or underperform than Quintana. Do you think the Sox could have nabbed Giolito (plus more) for Eaton at this point last year? TINSTAAPP I hope it gets done soon for convenience sake, but I don't there is added risk in waiting if offers aren't up to par anyway. Plus, teams in midseason pennant races can clearly seeing glaring needs manifest themselves right in front of them, and don't have the luxury of playing the long game of hardball with the trade deadline looming and playoffs tantalizingly close. Q has pitched at his ceiling over the last 3 years. Consistently very, very good is the best case scenario for Q. The pitching market is legitimately awful today. Q's not going to get more valuable than he is today. Compare that to Eaton, whose defense in RF last year pushed his value to the point that the Sox ultimately raided the Nats' system in a trade. The Sox may not get the headliner that they want for Q, but unless they plan to hold on to Q for the duration of his contract, his value will likely never be higher than it is today.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 10:32 AM) Not to mention that public opinion isn't going to stay with this very long. That's probably true as well. For the record, I think the ticking clock works both ways. If the Pirates think they have a window to contend today, they need Q from Opening Day this year. Any missed starts put them further behind the Cubs and the Cardinals in that division.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2017 -> 10:09 AM) Interesting to see that in print. I was guessing that was the truth, but again when you get so far down the road, it is almost more difficult to bring him back. Makes sense given the rebuild as well. The earlier you make the trade, the quicker the headliners are up. Basically, each trade this year has brought back headliners who probably will not be on the Sox Opening Day roster in '17. If you assume that will be the norm at the trade deadline, and next offseason, then you really need to move Q before Spring Training because you are effectively losing time on the rebuild by waiting.