NorthSideSox72

Looks like they addressed the two major legal issues with the first one: existing visa holders (which are now exempt), and the religious test (now removed). And they have a phase-in to make it go smoother in implementation. So this one is probably much more likely to pass court muster.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Mar 6, 2017 -> 08:21 AM) Looks like my little rant yesterday paid off. Nicely done guys. Rant? I must have missed that.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Mar 4, 2017 -> 05:39 PM) Obama wiretapping an incoming president adds to his legacy as the most criminal and disgraceful piece of garbage president in our countries history. Anyone who supports the s*** he has done over the last calendar year is an absolute dumpster person. The democratic party is a hypocritical laughing stock. Trump wiretapping Hillary Clinton adds to his legacy as the most criminal and disgraceful piece of garbage president in our countries history. Anyone who supports the s*** he has done over the last calendar year is an absolute dumpster person. The republican party is a hypocritical laughing stock. Now show me even a shred of evidence that either thing happened.

Here's the first Spring Training edition of the Farm Update. We'll do these weekly the rest of the way. Includes league-wide top prospect rankings across publications, transactions, performance highlights, links to stories, etc. This by the way is from Kevin Gabinski (B1GHurt3535 on here), who will be a regular contributor for FS going forward. Feel free to welcome him aboard!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 3, 2017 -> 04:10 PM) He is clearly mocking them. Though I will ask this much. What are the ACTUAL rules here? I ask because a few months ago when PBS was doing the 16 for 16 series, one of the bits of interest in the Gary Hart feature was that he spent a lot of time meeting with Soviet officials during the election cycle, including conducting talks about nuclear missile reductions on his own. In some cases, like Sessions, the issue for me is about perjury. Dude clearly lied to Congress. Follow that trail. Did he lie out of stupidity, or fear? Was the fear founded in something real or just fright about admitting he spoke with a Russian dude? I mean it's not a problem that a Senator speaks with a Russian official, necessarily. But Sessions did it on campaign funds, which is also a big problem. So that's another trail to follow.

Amused as I am that SS2K5 is being called out for being a liberal riot-starter, the politics need to end now, or take it to the Buster. Any further political posts in this thread will be deleted.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2017 -> 03:15 PM) They do it when they have a whole string of signings lined up in one year. They don't do it for one person. They don't do it for a guy who's at the Adolfo or Reyes level (~1M bonus), because it's not worth it. They may very well do it for a Moncada or Soler-level guy.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 2, 2017 -> 02:25 PM) They still will have their pool. They just won't be able to spend more than $300k on any individual player. Yeah exactly, and the Sox have said via Paddy that they like getting a bunch of those few hundred K guys anyway. Yes you miss out on the zero to two guys a year the Sox sign between 301k and a million or so for two years. But that isn't a huge loss, with the way the Sox usually do their signings.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Mar 2, 2017 -> 12:37 PM) I misread what he said completely. For some reason I thought he was saying Sox could sign him early next period and then go ham after. I understand and get everything you said. Misinterpretation on my part in my cubicle haha Sorry, I wrote it strangely, now that I read it again. My bad. What I meant to say was, yes, if he clears before 6/15 (who knows if that happens or not), the Sox have every reason to go big and sign him, and I'm guessing they will be very much in the mix. If he clears after, then the Sox have a very good shot at him in the same way they were able to get a lot better Rule 4 draft picks when those rules changed. Either way, the Sox are in it, and it makes a ton of sense to go get him. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2017 -> 01:25 PM) If he is cleared before the 6/15 cutoff, Every good reason the Sox could have to sign him, someone else out there has a better reason to outbid the White Sox. Even if you want to make the giant leap of faith that the Sox would be willing to break their caps for the first time ever, there are teams who have already blown through their caps who are bigger spenders who are more likely to make large bids, and even outbid the White Sox here. That is without getting into the fact that this would be a 180 degree shift from their history here. I get that Balder is writing something here, but there just seems a lot he is leaving out of the story. The Sox haven't done a rebuild like this since the late 1990's. The amateur scouting department has new leadership that has so far shown they don't do things the old ways - in fact they went into penalty range in the Rodon draft. The Sox have less teams to compete with due to current penalties for some teams. The team is projecting to dramatically decrease MLB payroll in this rebuild. The attitudes in the front office have shifted. While it's silly to say the Sox WILL do it, I think in this case it's equally silly to say 100% they won't.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Mar 2, 2017 -> 12:20 PM) Actually, if you read the article, he mentions the Padres or Cardinals would seem to be the favorites pre-June 15 and Sox would seem to be the favorites after July 2 due to having more money to work in the hard cap period. Which makes sense, as if the Sox want to blow the limit, better to do it at the beginning of a period so you can go ham. My statement still stands though - dismissing the Sox out of hand because of history doesn't really work in this case. Pessimism I understand, but I don't think you can say this is not going to happen.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2017 -> 11:27 AM) That was also before the current signing structure which would have meant losing their international signings freedoms. I'm not saying they will sign this guy, but I think your stance of it being 100% out of the realm of possibility isn't accurate. Heck, when FutureSox interviewed Capra, he made clear they tend to like getting a bunch of guys few a few hundred K instead of a million most of the time, and then just once in a while break the bank. That's pretty much this exact scenario - sign a guy like this and blow through the pool once, then spend two years getting guys for 200 or 300k. Add to that the fact that Badler is more connected in this realm than anyone, and he's hinting hard... I think there's a very real chance it happens.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Mar 2, 2017 -> 11:33 AM) No and nothing. I stopped believing in imaginary friends when I was a kid. Religion is the worst creation in the history of the world. While you are welcome to that belief, this is not OK as a response to someone talking about something they obviously have personal interest in. Let's play nice in this thread, OK?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 1, 2017 -> 02:41 PM) They paid him something like $5 million last year. LaRoche was $12.5 million. There's some cash in the kitty. And this front office has changed a fair amount in personnel and approach around amateur talent in the last few years. I wouldn't dismiss the idea just because it is the Sox, in this case. It's the perfect year to do it if they ever will.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Mar 1, 2017 -> 10:12 AM) General question. Why does anyone think we need greater investment in our military (carve out here - we do need greater investment in the VA and other assistance for veterans, but I don't think that's where Trump is pushing for more money to go)? We already spend more on the military by a massive amount than does the rest of the world. I know that Trump has promised a large influx of cash to the military. But why does anyone think this is necessary? Well I wasn't saying it was necessary - in fact I don't believe it is. We are already so ridiculously ahead of the rest of the world, I use the same excuse I see people hurl at schools: throwing more money at it doesn't fix problems. QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Mar 1, 2017 -> 10:14 AM) Most of it can't be down in less then two months, it takes time. At least he is making steps towards doing the big things he talked about in his campaign. Then don't claim he's achieved much. He hasn't, which isn't a surprise, because as you said it's hard to do in the short run. He's been almost entirely talk so far. No material steps have been made in most of those cases, and even the immigration stuff has been fits and starts and some huge messes along the way.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 1, 2017 -> 08:41 AM) He also blames the previous administration for anything that went wrong, since it was already in the works when he took office. That doesn't stop him from taking credit for anything that went right that was in the works before he took office. I will say, blaming the previous administration is a tradition and all Presidents do it, true or not. What seems different about Trump is that he then also tries to take CREDIT for things he had no control over. That one is a little more novel.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Feb 28, 2017 -> 11:30 PM) Wait, he hasn't done anything he said he was going to do? How bout: 1. We've been spending too much overseas and that's going to drastically change. Making preliminary moves like pushing NATO partners to pay more. Check. 2. Illegals, especially criminal ones will be deported. Check. Already begun. 3. Countries ripping us off with one sided tariffs are going are going to get them slapped on them too. In the works. 4. Lots of progress in his first weeks on the job. Mans a workaholic so get ready for a lot steady progress each month. 5. More investment in infrastructure and military. In the works. 1. Hasn't actually done anything other than say he wants them to pay more, made some vague threats. That's not action, it's a talking point. 2. This is true. 3. Most of the one-sided tariff crap is false to begin with. Rarely does it actually happen, because countries know that trade wars are never won. And again, he's talked a lot about this, but hasn't actually done anything yet (thankfully, since trade wars never end well for either side). 4. The workaholic who got on Obama for playing golf has spent more weekends on vacation in his first month than Obama did in 6 months. OK. 5. His proposed budget does suggest this - true. Though the real work starts when he has to negotiate with Congress. So I'd call this one up in the air. Other than #2, he hasn't actually achieved anything yet. And on #2, most of the work was already planned under Obama, just maybe adding some oomph. He's accomplished remarkably little so far, which mostly is a good thing.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 21, 2017 -> 04:03 PM) So far I feel like it is doing the opposite. The anger directed at not only the Trump Presidency, but more so at his supporters, is really hardening a lot of people's positions into flat out paranoia. These are the people that fully believe there is a plot to steal the Presidency from Trump. While the anger has fired up the left, it has fired up the right too. It looks to me, looking at approval ratings and seeing how people behave, that it is wedging the GOP voters. A smallish percentage of the moderates are going away from Trump, but that base (which is the bigger group) is just hunkering down and getting more hardened to Trump. That doesn't bode well for Trump's future or the GOP in 2018, but it also doesn't bode well for the discourse in the next few years for all of us.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 17, 2017 -> 11:00 AM) The conservative party is going to be around a lot longer than Trump Yeah, Trump will not be the death of a party. He's very much separate in key ways.

The latest FS Podcast is now live. Rob talks with Brian about his SoxFest time, then Dan and I (Matt) join Rob to go around the table about the latest Top 30 prospects. We will do these more regularly in-season.

I just... I don't know. That press conference. How can anyone watch that and say with a straight face they think this guy is capable of doing the job?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 16, 2017 -> 10:40 AM) http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/pen...yria/index.html Pentagon/Mattis to consider more combat troops in Syria...and away we go. And there it is.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 16, 2017 -> 09:18 AM) It would really help his case if he could show off he can play some additional positions. But his speed and plate discipline makes me think he could have a few years if it works out. Really hope he does well in AAA and we see him this year. But Jake Peter will have a strong case too. Yeah Peter is ahead of him too, good call. I think they have been playing Alvarez primarily at short, the same way they have some of their key reliever prospects work as starters for a year or two. It's a crash course. Short is the biggest challenge on the infield, and where he can learn the most in the least time. Now that he's in AAA, I bet he starts playing 2B and 3B as well. Maybe even outfield. They will do that with Peter as well. Best money says that by the end of the year, only two of Saladino, Sanchez, Peter and Alvarez are still with the Sox. They've got no place for four utility infielders, and only maybe Saladino at 3B has a shot to be a starter (and that's a stretch). Wouldn't shock me in fact if Sanchez gets traded during Spring Training.

QUOTE (Carlo Paz @ Feb 15, 2017 -> 08:48 PM) Guys left off list: Jordan Guerrero, Chris Beck, Brian Clark, Courtney Hawkins, Matt Davidson, Luis Curbelo, Corey Zangari) Jeez, Eddie Alvarez didn't even make the list of guys left off the list. Alvarez hasn't appeared on any lists other than FutureSox, even as a mention or extra at the end. There are some valid reasons why. I've talked with people who think his swing won't work at the highest level. He's been pretty erratic at shortstop, improving but still has issues there, which is true but I don't think he's a starting SS in any case. Then there are reasons people just dismiss him that I don't think are as valid. People see a 27-year old, and he is that and it's a consideration, but he's not 32 and developmentally he's only got 2.5 pro seasons after missing out entirely on baseball for 3 years. I've gotten to know Eddy pretty well, and I think the overall package will be a major leaguer as a bench player. Other analysts disagree obviously, but I'll stick with my #22 ranking for him. I think his defense has improved a lot and will improve enough more to be competent at both middle infield positions, he's got plus or better speed, enough arm for either position, excellent plate discipline, and I think he's got just enough pop to keep pitchers honest. Not a starting player most likely, but a major leaguer. The big question is, how or when does he get a shot? He's got Tyler Saladino and Carlos Sanchez ahead of him for those bench infield roles, and the future at SS and 2B is pretty well set for a long while barring injuries.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 15, 2017 -> 10:44 AM) 2080 confuses me. Where is the research? There's some extensive scouting details on this but they're saying Fulmer will be in Sox rotation. Sox have said he's starting in AAA. Didn't mention service time or the Sox rebuild when speaking on any of Giolito/Lopez/Moncada and their arrival to Chicago. There's some good scouting notes, but it could be better augmented by a few minutes of google searching to include what the team has actually said about these guys. They are odd because of their mix of staff. They have some very good writers, and they take their scouting seriously. But they have major gaps in knowledge. That Sox writeup was from multiple writers, and it shows. Some of the capsules you can tell they had good internal looks and make their case in detail. Others it's like they just pulled some bits of info from here and there. That might be acceptable from a blog like FS (because we don't see everyone either), but it doesn't fly well when they are trying to be on par with BA or BP. And as you said, for the ones they don't know, they obviously didn't dig enough. I think they have some scouting types who know what they are doing, coupled with some less stellar writers who aren't good at research, so you get this weird mixed vibe.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 15, 2017 -> 09:14 AM) Nice NS. How much of a storyline for you is the fluff around Davidson's bat? Do you buy it at all? I mean, he definitely improved in 2016 at AAA. And it wasn't just luck, there were actual changes he made in approach that led to them. I talked with him about them last year. That said, even with the improvements he was still striking out about 26% of the time, in his 3rd/4th go-around at AAA. I'm a skeptic, I think he will swing and miss too much to stick around in the majors for long. He won't make enough contact for the power to play. And he won't draw as many walks when no one is afraid to throw him good strikes. I hope I'm wrong though!