NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 04:12 PM) Another of the interesting things I would mention would be lost in the EO on the pipelines, he is requiring that it be done with American Steel, something that at least the Senators for Indiana had been pushing for a long time now. Yeah but as I recall, it was left with a caveat of "where possible" or something, which makes it basically unenforceable.

While I am clearly upset by how awful Trump is, I have to say (this seemed like the best place) that I've seen a lot of overreaction to some things coming out of the executive. I think people are so angry that they just see red. Some examples: --The financial advisor rule removal. This was a matter of pure practicality. It was well-intentioned legislation when it came out, but it was also wholly unworkable, and did not thing material to help people. Getting rid of it is not OMG THEY ARE GIVING THE BANKS ALL THE POWER AGAIN. --The rule about guns that people are looking at as if the GOP wants to give guns to the mentally unstable, is really not accurate, as was pointed out earlier in this thread. --The rule change to allow payments of more than 5k to the FSB was super-narrow and just allowed a specified set of companies to very specific business, to allow border controls to continue to function in both countries. This was not some sort of handover of control to the Russians, as people seem to think. --While there are some confimation-level nominees that are clearly and entirely not proper for their jobs (DeVos is not in the same state as qualified, Tillerson has massive conflicts of interest, the new EPA guy wants to end it), most of them are not outright jokes. And this is a CONFIRMATION process, not a popularity contest. Trump won, and he gets wide latitude to fill his cabinet, unless they are just ridiculously unqualified. Most of the nominees pass muster, so let's not scream and yell about Dems not planting a flag. Again, I think Trump has shown he's (so far at least) a disaster of a President. But that does not mean every single thing he and the White House have done are pure evil.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 02:06 PM) Yes thank you I found it , figuring it would be on FS. But wasn't there supposed to be a thread on it here with a link to the article so we could discuss it here on Soxtalk lile there was for the 16-30 prospects ? It was in PHT, just like the others. But the main final list was never migrated back to the FS area, it's still in PHT.

If you want to learn a little more about the rebuild, you can hear it directly from the horses' mouths. Here are exclusive interviews from SoxFest with both of them. Some of it was high level philosophy, but there are also some deeper detailed questions answered here.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 09:43 AM) This all looked pretty great except for Birmingham's lineup. Yeah, that's a crowd of Moment of Truth guys. Either because they are repeating and starting to fall, or are fringy and have a last shot at showing they belong. You hope one or two of them make a leap, just on odds, but as a whole they will probably not be good.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 09:35 AM) Yeah, honestly I don't really care what the Trump admin has to say about it, but the rule was going to be a disaster. Think about it, how do you prove with every single customer interaction that was taken in an advisory role that you acted in the customers best interest, because that is the regulatory burden here. Thing is, those rules already exist in other ways. For example, brokerage rules cover Best Price for customer in execution. That's easy to prove out, because you can just look at the order book at that time and see if it's within the spread. There are also conflict of interest rules in banking that cover things from another angle. This specific rule was setting an unproveable and unworkable standard. Like you said, the aim was good, but you can't prove something this dynamic or soft. It's a well-intentioned rule that was botched in legislation.

QUOTE (MnSoxFan @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 08:48 AM) Just a nit, but on the major league staff, Holland s/b listed as a LP Oops, good call, I forgot his asterisk. I'll add that now. Thanks!

QUOTE (Dubzinski rules @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 06:34 PM) I had Lowry and Banks in Hi A and didn't have Lambert or Fry. I liked Fry until the arm injuries. Did he have two TJSs or just one? I don't know much about Lambert. I had Burdi in my AA rotation thinking the Sox wouldn't need him in 2017 and he could get more reps that way. What do you like about Lambert? oops Lowry had a pretty good 2016 in High A and actually made 4 starts in AA to end the season, so I kinda doubt they send him back down a level. Banks could very possibly be in that High A rotation, I just forgot to include him in my very large list of players accidentally. Fry has had 2 TJS', but he's a guy the Sox are still very keen on, so I put him where he ended before the injury. The Sox have made pretty clear they see Burdi as a reliever. Lambert was a 5th round pick and signed near slot last year, so he's going to be a priority arm. Question is, Kanny or W-S? He did get in 11 starts in Kanny, some of his peripherals were good but he got hit a little bit. He'll be in one of those rotations. QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 07:11 PM) Nice job as always. Only have three comments: 1) Davidson is very likely to be on the major league roster, not sure Sanchez makes the cut 2) Sounds like Victor Diaz may be starting next year based on some comments from SoxFest 3) I hope to god that Adolfo doesn't start the year in A+, would be bad for his development IMO Thanks! You could be right on Davidson, and Sanchez seems like the kind of player the Sox might trade for a B-level flier prospect during ST. Diaz I've heard both sides on his starting or not, but this team does like to have key relievers start for a year or two early on - he could very well fit that profile, it wouldn't surprise me. If that happens, you might see Thompson go to the pen, which I think is his ultimate home. Adolfo as well as Antonio Rodriguez are tough calls for me, Kanny vs W-S. Rodriguez is older (going into age 21/22 season) and got in 120+ games in KAN, but he struggled pretty badly and actually got worse as the year went on. Adolfo is about a year younger and only had 60+ games in KAN, but that was due to injury and actually got better as the year went on, with his overall results and K-rate improving to their best in August/September. Honestly, you can flip a coin with both of them on which A-ball club they open at. Given that Jackson Glines will turn 25 during the 2017 season and hit PIO pitchers hard, they might have him double-promote to W-S.

QUOTE (Dubzinski rules @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 04:16 PM) I had banks as one of the Hi A starters. Is he too old to be given those innings? Not too old, but good call on me forgetting him. I can't imagine replacing any of the A+ starters (or AA ones) with him though. Who in those rotations would you drop in favor of Banks? QUOTE (CWSpalehoseCWS @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 04:25 PM) According to RosterResource, the following guys are out of options: - Carlos Sanchez - Rymer Liriano - Michael Ynoa - Matt Davidson - Leary Garcia The options only affects guys on the 40-man, ST invitees don't get affected by them unless I am mistake. Yeah, I think that supports the choices of Ynoa and Liriano, but not sure what to do with Davidson. Leury Garcia is just not a major league ballplayer in my view and I think he goes to Charlotte or gets traded/claimed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 10:03 AM) We stopped here on our way up to Acadia/Bar Harbor. http://www.maine.gov/ifw/education/wildlifepark/ Lots of rescue animals, so you get a chance to see some brown bears, foxes, moose etc. up close. Like a mini-zoo and worth the quick stop. Good call, thanks.

We did this last year and it was surprisingly popular, so here we go again. Here are my best guesses as to which players will end up assigned where, along with lists of players that just don't seem to fit anywhere. I covered the minor league teams a little more heavily than the MLB club, but every player in MLB and stateside affiliates is listed in this article. Unless I missed someone. Who did I miss? Who do you think will be somewhere else, and why?

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 06:25 AM) Your former VP Joe Biden disagrees with you. I can't watch YT from here, but... what does what Biden may have said some time ago have to do with anything?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 04:30 PM) And in more depressing news, 49% of Americans actually support Trump's Muslim Ban. I'm actually going to say that this isn't depressing news, but is good news. Stick with me here. What do you think that percentage was a century ago, if you asked about Italians? Or more so, immigrants from Africa or the Middle East? Or Chinese? I guarantee you the percentage of people who would have supported a ban of some sort would be much higher than 49%. This is where I hate that people say the country hasn't made progress. It absolutely has. Does racism and blind fear still exist? Hell yeah, but it's not as dominant a force as it was. We are making ground. Now I don't like that 49% still fall for all of this while ignoring the hundreds or thousands of things that create more material risk. But I do like that the we have become better.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 09:51 AM) Show me where I said the Republicans have never been obstructionists please. You said what the GOP did to Garland was to get the "will of the people". No, it was obstructionism, pure and simple. Question now is, what do the Dems do?

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 09:34 AM) What the Democrats are threatening is obstructionism. This isn't a point of negotiation and the Republicans need to finally grow a spine and stop bending to whatever the Democrats want like they did thru the eight years of President Obama and make a stand. Garland was not selected. Get over it. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You don't actually believe the Dems are obstructing here, but that the GOP wasn't with Garland. You know 100% it's both, but are unwilling to acknowledge it. I refuse to believe you are so blinded by partisan bias to actually believe it's only this (possible) Dem action that would be obstruction.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 07:40 AM) Other than the two Somlian refugees who committed terrorist attacks in the past 5 months? They only had knives and a Honda Civic instead of guns and a lorry, so nobody died and nobody noticed. But when you actually look at those cases, one kid had been here for two years, but he was recently radicalized over the internet. And the other guy had lived here for 20 years since age 2 and became a US citizen 9 years ago. So a "better" vetting process would have done nothing to prevent those attacks, and in fact the #MuslimBan is more likely to piss people off and create more lone wolf attacks like these. Sorry yes, I mean deadly attacks. But I think you and I agree on the overall point - this is a solution looking for a problem, and causing more problems along the way.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 08:00 AM) I literally can't believe people fall for these arguments. Scalia didn't die a week before the election, during the transition period afterwards. He died with nearly a full year remaining in Obama's term. Republicans said they were going to hold out through Clinton's term if she was elected too. It was 100% a power grab. The Constitution doesn't have a method of actually making the Senate do their job, so Republicans took advantage by not doing it. They successfully stole a SCOTUS seat. Exactly. If I'm the democrats, I make it clear - nominate Merrick Garland, and they will both confirm him AND promise no filibuster on any future nominee during Trump's 4 years. That puts things back to the way it should work, and pops the balloon on continued obstructionism.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 04:58 PM) I guess I'll be the one to say it, I don't disagree with us temporarily stopping and reassessing our vetting process. What I disagree with is how we went about it and how unsmooth and undiplomatic the entire process was. That said, the statement made by Rudy Guilani regarding his order, was terrifying. Reassessing what? A process that is already more stringent than most any on Earth? One that has made sure not a single refugee has committed some terrorist act, ever? One that has made terrorism from foreigners in this country so rare that it is a small fraction of those committed by our own citizens? It serves zero practical or functional purpose in the realm of security. It is unfounded fear of brown people that motivated this. Nothing real or logical.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 02:44 PM) FWIW, recently published research says that this claim did not hold up to field testing. Yeah so, none of those examples are what I was proposing. Not an open primary, not some sort of top grouping runoff - but being allowed to vote in the primaries of all parties.

One of the best ways to make the primaries less of a run-to-the-extreme race is for states to allow their voters to vote in primaries for ALL parties, not one or the other. Sure there will be a few jokers who intentionally vote extreme on the "other" side, but will vote for who they want to win. That will automatically draw out many more votes for moderate candidates. Another way to do it is to use the Iowa model for districting, creating more heterogeneous districts that will vote for more moderate candidates for house seats as well. There are procedural ways to improve things. But the biggest thing is still to get more people to vote in all elections and get involved. Nothing will work as well as that.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 10:14 AM) Wow. Edit: not too surprised though, have had friends turn down jobs with caterpillar not wanting to move. That's the key thing, and why all these corporations that had or have bases in the suburbs or ex-urbs are moving their executive and management roles and headquarters downtown so regularly. It's actually more costly in the direct sense, but gets them a much better base of talent.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 07:18 AM) This is where people have zero idea of history. Your mention of the "refusal to assimilate" couldn't be more normal in terms of history. Heck go all of the way back to colonial times. Religious groups struck out on their own. Ever heard of the Pligrims? How about the Quakers? The Amish? The Mormons too. Ethnic groups were no different. Indians, Africans, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Jews, Germans, over time were some of the more prominent targets. Typically these groups came here in search of something new, and met with resistance because they didn't speak English and their customs offended the people who were already assimilated. The first generations usually didn't try to blend. They stayed in their ethnic neighborhoods, spoke the old language, kept the old customs, and never really became "American's" Many even turned to crime to make their way as traditional ways were closed to these groups. Whether it was the "Irish Need Not Apply" or the redlining of entire cities to keep the undesirables in their own places such as Chinatown and Little Italy, it has been done over our whole history. But every, single, time an amazing thing happened. The second generation started to leave that behind. They spoke English outside of the house, and spoke the native tongue in it. They picked up American customs, and turned to education as their way out of the neighborhoods. By the third generations it might only be a last name that would sell out an ethnic background. By the 4th and 5th generations, the ethnic identities faded to the point they were really of the old world anymore, they were Americans first, and something else later. The incredible part of that is that it was all voluntary. It wasn't like Soviet Russia where assimilation was forced, or Nazi Germany where the undesirables were just disposed of. People became Americans because they wanted to be Americans. The greatness of America has always been that people, no matter where they came from, always turned into Americans in a matter of a couple of generations. Pretty much unless we put the boot of discrimination on their necks, the transition has been seamless. With the banning of Muslims of certain countries coming to the United States, nothing has really changed. These elements have always held power in the United States, and they have always hid under the veil of trying to save us from the latest group we should be scared of. At times, they got enough power to make lives miserable for their targets. We banned the Chinese from immigrating at times. We rounded up the Japanese and put them into interment camps. We tried to send the Africans back to Africa. Despite all of this, these groups have still turned into Americans over time. I am here today to tell you that using history as my guide, Muslims won't be any different. Give America a couple of generations with these immigrants, and while you might have a few bad apples, they will be fat and lazy Americans in two generations. To me that is the ultimate victory. Our culture and society is so incredible that it wins out, and it wins out voluntarily. If we ever get to the point where this history stops, THAT is when we quit being great. You want proof? My hometown is FULL of Syrian refugees and immigrants that haven't blown up any buildings. They haven't used a single suicide vest. Guess what, they have been coming here for over a century just for the opportunity to work. So while some want to live in fear of the latest boogeyman group, history tells me that fear is wasted. Quit being scared of immigrants. Don't live your life in fear. The ultimate in living scared is trying to hide from other cultures. You want to make American great? Learn from your history instead of being scared and wrong. This is a really good post.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 03:53 PM) Why? Trump being horrible didn't cost the GOP the Presidency, the House, or the Senate in 2016. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 03:57 PM) In a week he has gotten the electorate more involved and impassioned than any President I can recall in my lifetime. Being a horrible candidate and being horrible in office is two different things, especially with 46% of the electorate still on the sidelines. A push of a percentage point or two off of the sideline and into the D column turns this election into a blow out.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 03:18 PM) Working with the National Democratic Redistricting Committee I would suggest that is making things worse, not better, in terms of removing gerrymandering. It's by nature a partisan effort. Not to say it's evil or anything, it's part of the current game. Just that it does nothing to get us to a better place overall.

Something else to consider on the redistricting topic... Trump won the election and beat the polls by a few (key few) percentage points in support. It was broad-based. There was, as we all know, a silent group of Trump supporters who obviously avoided polling. It was apparently part of the mindset of that group to not do poll responses, possibly due to simple trust. They didn't trust the "system". Now remember, the redistricting efforts are tied in part to the new census, that will occur in early 2020 I believe. What if the same thing plays out at census time? Will those same silent voters shoot themselves in the foot by ignoring or rejecting participation in the census? Something to think about.