NorthSideSox72

Sean posted a combo weekend wrap-up of the action in the AZL, including Madrigal's last games with that squad, Steele Walker's debut, Bryce Bush's first hits, Davis Martin's debut and more. Includes video and some insights into how these guys LOOK on the field, not just stats. Give it a read, this in-person coverage is great stuff.

Get your weekly round-up of transactions, performance highlights, news links and more in the Weekly Minor League News & Notes.

Quite a bit going on for the AZL White Sox last night, and our Sean was there for the game. His game report includes video of Madrigal's return and surprise stretch-signee Bryce Bush's pro debut. Ian Clarkin also made his second rehab start.

Julie is back with her weekly column, this time showing us that despite the many (many, many) prospect injuries, there is still plenty of hope and no, the rebuild is not cancelled.

Congress. Can. Change It. If they wanted to invest the effort - but they don't want that set of changes in reality. I said earlier how it (an amendment) could work, and would have no problem with the courts. Don't even need a super-majority - just need some will in Congress. I believe the rest of the process - the vote and the states - would take care of itself. You are hoping for something unrealistic and legally twisted. The court, in my view, decided rightly. You hoping for some miracle court change just won't happen. I'm saying that as hard as a Constitutional Amendment seems - and it is - that path is actually the more realistic one and probably the only one that could ever work.

Funny you typed this while I typed my response just a moment ago. As I said, showing who is spending the money is good - I am all for it. But it is not a meaningful solution to the greater problem. Do you want me to say the people who voted against that bill were wrong? OK, sure, they were wrong. I thought that was obvious. But there are very few in Congress willing to change the fundamental legal problem at play here.

The scale is not orders of magnitude though. The money-linked corruption seems pretty even to me. The reason I am much more angry at the GOP is that in addition to being so addicted to the money stream, they are ALSO (in many but not all cases) outright cruel to those who are not rich, white men. There might be more Democrats willing to fix the money/speech entanglement and related problems. Or not. But frankly that is irrelevant, because the problem is structural. Honestly they all have to play that game to at least some extent. Some do more than others. Have you seen any significant number of legislators from either party make a real effort to change the laws so that politicians aren't constantly chasing the money? I've seen efforts around reporting who spent what, and that's good I suppose, but it's a band-aid on a bullet-riddled body. This has been a problem for years to decades, when there has been unified and mixed control over Congress and the White House, yet no one has stood up to do something real. That is the proof here.

I absolutely did not say the entire Senate is "scumbags". I said the scumbags in the Senate. Saying a drink has ice in it does not mean it is one big ice cube. And frankly, I do think we need more outsiders. But that does not mean we need some buffoon like Trump. Give me a break. I said all along, and it is still just as true now, that Clinton showed poor judgment in doing what she did. Because... she did. I also, for the record, voted for her anyway, because as flawed a candidate as she was, she was worlds better than the alternative. I might have considered 3rd party, except that none were viable and I didn't want to do anything that could encourage having the Orange Menace in office. How on earth does that mean I was "used and abused"? I went in with clear eyes, and frankly the only people who were used were those who fell into the fear traps set by TrumpCo.

haha, what? You are comparing the acknowledgement of what is patently clear about both parties, to a specific and mostly empty political accusation against one person? Come on man, you can do better. And who do you think is being used here? Exactly. What is your point?

The Dash have been and probably still are the most talent-deep team in the system. Certainly hitting-wise. The entire starting lineup are actual prospects, no joke (though the catchers are quite fringy). Really, pick a hitter any hitter there. And you might see Madrigal there sooner than later too, though they keep changing that plan.

Just like the major league clubs, the minor league clubs often use their All Star breaks to rearrange their rotations. So I wouldn't put any money down on any date until things get going again.

Nature of this stage of a rebuild, but there is a segment of fans who don't understand that or don't want to acknowledge it.

I didn't say all politicians are crooks though. I said the parties are both corrupt. Plenty of people are part of companies or organizations that may be corrupt (or something less bad but still unappealing) that they still work for, but not everyone there is a problem. I am not sure why people keep missing this important distinction - maybe I am not describing it effectively.

I am fully on board with doing that. And I should clarify, it is true that to really, truly fix the money/speech entanglement problem, you'd need a Constitutional amendment to make that exemption. I'd be all in favor of that, and that process does start with Congress. I am fairly sure you could get an American voter super-majority and more than enough states to ratify it too. So again, what is really standing in the way is in fact Congress.

I don't agree at all. Saying both parties are bad is acknowledging reality, and illustrating something they have in common. That is NOT the same as saying they are equal, or equally bad. That's not some subtle difference there either - it entirely changes the approach to discourse. And if people are using "both parties are bad" as a reason to be apathetic, then that's really sad and uninformed. It should cause the opposite. Then again, let's be frank, it is the voting public that is giving us this mess too. CU is a decision I don't like because of what it has caused, but which I also have to agree with on a legal basis. It was the only way for it to go. The way to fix money in politics is for Congress and the President to act, which admittedly is a wolf in the hen house problem. But that doesn't make it unsolveable - it means we as a people need to push it.

On your first sentence - that's a straw man argument. No one has said that, certainly not me. In fact the very post you quoted I said the opposite - that right now I have far more problems with the GOP. I cited Trump as the leader of that, but didn't say he was the only issue. The GOP has run quite far to the right as a whole, which has enabled some of the festering racism and bigotry and general hatred that was simmering underneath in part of that party for some time, come to the surface. Also you seem to be confusing "ahh both parties are bad" by assuming that statement always means the same thing. The only thing clear in it, which is absolutely true, is that both parties ARE bad. But you seem to also think it means that people who point out that obvious fact, are equivocating the two parties as the same. That is not what I am saying at all, and if you read my words you will see that. The Dems are indeed pretty inept, but that can be said of both parties really, institutionally. That isn't even the main problem I was getting at. The main problem is systemic involving money and politics, and infects the whole system - therefore both parties (to varying extents for certain individual politicians). If you refuse to acknowledge that, you are forced to defend the indefensible.

That's possible too, but then either way kinda works in the meantime. Another scenario is, since Covey seems to have so much trouble seeing a lineup the 2nd time around, maybe he moves to the pen and Stephens to the rotation.

There are about 4 different arms that could be coming up. Vieira would be my guess, but I wouldn't put money down on anyone. Here's an outside chance alternative that I think might be interesting - Jordan Stephens. Starting as a reliever, maybe spot starter, then if Giolito scuffles badly again (or someone gets hurt), you slide him into the rotation.

I guess I don't consider myself a "centrist", but whatever label you want to use, go ahead. Don't care. But if you really think corruption of any kind is somehow only notably present in one party or the other, you are just not willing to see fact. Right now, today, I have a lot more anger towards the GOP than the Democrats, because the GOP elected the most unqualified moron that either party has even run out for election in modern times. I think I've made that clear, but your focus is now, and always, always, always is, to take offense at the idea that your "side" also has issues. Not the same issues, not necessarily to the same extent in some areas (but maybe others), but still some major issues. This is just reality.

lol, I don't care about "balance", I am just aware enough of how this works to know that most of the people in the Senate in each party are so tied to money and re-election that they care very little for what is best for the country. If you don't want to face that reality because you are busy rooting for Team Blue, I can't help you. I think I've made quite clear that the Garland mess was on McConnell and the GOP, and that it was sleezy, Unamerican, and one of the most cynically partisan mistakes made in US government in decades. I blame who is to blame.

The stolen Garland seat is a sunk cost, it's over. So stick with the new rules McConnell anchored himself to, until you can make something even steven, then go with the new rules like what I suggested. Or do the 2 nominees no matter what like SS suggested. In a way, if the Senate ends up 50-50 after November (which is possible), that might be the best time to make rules like that work. But of course the scumbags in both parties in the Senate who just want to pile up as many short term wins as possible don't have the courage for such a thing.

I'm actually all for the Supreme Court confirmation process in the Senate to get a new set of rules that both parties agree on - 51 votes to confirm, committee hearing and normal process to proceed without procedural delays, as long as President makes a nomination more than (say, maybe, 3 months) before a Presidential of US Congressional election, otherwise it waits until after. That way there is a clear-as-day process in place, no games.

Really? You should re-read this post a few times. Bad people? Who are they?

Regardless of credentials, I agree with the other posters who have said that the Senate has established a precedent that should be followed. No nominee should be confirmed until after the election. And yes, no matter what your party affiliation is or isn't, the reality is that the Senate GOP pretty much stole the Gorsuch seat by setting a new precedent that never before existed in order to win one for their "team". But now that it's the rule, it's the rule.

Thanks, with a hat tip to you for that correction a few weeks ago!