iamshack

You guys are both good dudes. No need to fling the s*** back and forth.

I think I must be really de-sensitized when it comes to sex.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 06:21 PM) Dan Jennings. Surprisingly he's no longer with them. Loria gets most of the blame IMHO, since he was the one that had to sign off on that deal and was likely pushing Jennings to to get something worked out long term with Stanton and his agent. It's truly amazing how such a good player in his prime can be worth so little. Your last statement is interesting. It isn't that he isn't worth so little...it's the fact that he is already incredibly well-compensated. I don't think this deal is as bad as many others. Yes, there is risk involved, but I suspect that some deals that happen over the course of the next several years will make this look more attractive moving forward.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 05:47 PM) I don’t get where you’re going with this “inability to legally consent” in relation to Rapp though. Whether Rapp was 14 or 40 he didn’t express any desire to engage in sexual activities with Spacey. There was clearly no consent, legal or not. This story is simply about an adult who tried to sexually assault a 14 year old boy. There isn’t any gray area here which is why I find Reddy bringing up Rapp’s character to be bizarre and counter-productive to the discussion at hand. Oh, I'm not meaning to introduce that into Rapp's situation; I was trying to comment on other situations that likely occur wherein a minor has sex with an adult, which results in statutory rape regardless of the minor's willingness. As for Rapp, you are correct. According to him, he was not interested in Spacey's advances. However, while Spacey apparently would have liked to engage in some sort of sexual acts with Rapp, Rapp was able to escape prior to any of that occurring (at least from the details he was willing to divulge). While I understand your point in characterizing Spacey as a dirtbag, I don't believe he sexually assaulted Rapp. He did not molest him. He did not rape him.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 03:38 PM) This is just a bizarre post. What does Rapp being a “pretty good guy” have to do with anything? He was a successful child actor that was sexually assaulted by a grown-ass man. There’s no alterior motive here or with any other child stars (like the Corey’s for example) that are victims of predatory actions by powerful adults. This s*** is disgusting & simply unacceptable, so whether Rapp is a “good guy” or not is simply irrelevant and quite frankly takes away from the issue at hand. Not trying to speak for Reddy, but he has been an actor for many years, I believe. While he took it a bit further than I was intending, I have no doubt that he knows better than I do the types of things that go on in the film/television industry. I was speaking more from an adoration standpoint, I guess. Meaning I have no doubt that many minors have sex with "grown-ass" men and women in the film, music, sports and political worlds by design. That certainly doesn't excuse adults from taking advantage of a minor's inability to legally consent, but I think it is important to recognize there are degrees of fault in these situations. I also want to add it does not make it appropriate for adults to engage in that type of activity, but to pretend it doesn't happen is to keep your head in the sand. I'm not sure what Rapp describes rises to the degree of sexual assault, although I must admit I am not up to speed on what New York courts are currently considering the elements of sexual assault of a minor to be. Throwing around terms like "sexual assault" or "rape" or "molested" may be unfair, even as inappropriate as the behavior may have been.

ss2k is right...it goes on in politics, the music industry, the film industry, sports...anything where those that have made it have large quantities of wealth, power, influence. This is the dirty side of those industries that most people assume "comes with the territory," and choose not to discuss because most of the time, it is very inconvenient/damaging to do so.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 09:51 AM) We are talking about victims coming out, and I am talking about ancillary characters participating in cover up. THe courage of victims to come forward and the rest of their lives have people associating them to the worst part of their lives is incredible. The lack of courage of people who just want to keep an associate producer job so would put up, with this case, with a possible serial child molester is scary to me. I admittedly haven't read these other accounts, but I suspect Spacey was considered more of a drunken pervert than a "molester." I get that sexual interaction with minors is considered rape/assault regardless of consent, but I suspect most that are around the industry assume a fair share of these minors are just as interested as these acts as the offenders, and thus justify their looking the other way in that regard.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 09:23 AM) I'm not shocked when I hear the ability of weinstein to bully silence, or radner, or halperin. Shocked by the numbers and sad about it. And I think the sad and unfair thing is in their mind they are somewhat playing a game of hollywood and the lack of distance to reality emboldens them. But I did not believe child actors or children in general would be part of that. There are a lot of touchpoints with hollywood actors and films moreso than the power meetings with director and casting. If low-level tech people knew an actor was innappropriate with children, yeah I'm just shocked that doesn't go through to at least journalists prior. Well, think about the courage that would require. And these are people who are trying to break into an industry and realize their dreams. Takes a lot to risk that. I assume some of these stories have been shared with journalists before and weren't published, for a variety of reasons.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 06:59 AM) There's a reason I asked what you actually heard, it's still unclear. It is very shocking to me that it would be an open secret that Spacey was predatory toward children. And look at Rapp in 86...he was not a "younger guy" he was a kid. And I just doubt if he did that it was an isolated incident. People shrugging shoulders at stuff like that is how situations like Penn St. happen. I mean seriously what would people's reaction be if at a party they went upstairs and caught a family friend on top of a 14 year old boy at midnight after the friend had been drinking. It would be taken seriously I'm sure. I dunno, I guess I've always assumed that this sort of thing happens in circles where the powerful, wealthy, famous, etc run. Obviously it happens outside of those circles as well, but when you have people with power, influence and money, people will look the other way a lot of times in order to share in those things. I by no means want to get into a big debate about human sexuality, but humans will be humans, and drunken humans will be even worse. Luckily, most of us tend to obey some of these arbitrary laws meant to protect certain members of society, but not everyone will. And if you are someone that has something to offer those around you, a lot of secrets are kept. I know it isn't a hot take by any means, but it doesn't shock me at all that some of the worst in humans tends to come out in excess when you allow people to feast on power, wealth and influence.

QUOTE (FloydBannister1983 @ Oct 31, 2017 -> 06:17 PM) I certainly hope for the sake of people that are fans of the White Sox that your faith is rewarded. It is certainly possible that the very same management group could do a complete reversal of everything they have stood for for the past 37 years. I'll continue to rely on evidence. Hopefully I can be wrong and they will hire a qualified manager someday. I'm not necessarily saying that I suspect they will change their ways. But I do think they could attract some high-level candidates, if they indeed wanted to.

QUOTE (FloydBannister1983 @ Oct 31, 2017 -> 05:29 PM) I concede that anything that has never happened before can happen in the future. I think the history you are pointing to has more to do with the way the White Sox choose their managers than the potential candidates available to them. I tend to agree with Greg here...I think we could attract any number of extremely qualified candidates.

QUOTE (FloydBannister1983 @ Oct 31, 2017 -> 05:12 PM) Chicago itself is not an entry level job but managing the White Sox is. Why? ESPN can't remember they exist. They routinely have one of the lowest television ratings in the league. Every manager they've hired in the last 40 years has had no managing experience, except for the current guy who had a cup of coffee with the organization on the north side until a top tier manager became available. They are a small market team in the third largest market in the country. This is why managing the White Sox is an entry level position, for starters. But if you want to ignore all of history then I concede that Joe Girardi or Dusty Baker or Tony LaRussa or Joe Torre or Bob Brenley or any other top tier manager could end up here. I hope for your sake you get your wish. Well, Francona went to Cleveland, which at the time, was not particularly considered to be a wonderful job. The fact is, there are a very limited number of these jobs open every year, and unless one is willing to be extraordinarily patient, all but a few are very desirable.

Did this gentleman who Spacey supposedly made a pass at actually state that he was indeed molested? Or that he knew Spacey "wanted to get in his pants," or whatever phrase he used? Not defending anyone, just curious whether his behavior actually rose to the level of molestation or sexual assault, as some folks have alluded to.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Oct 31, 2017 -> 03:07 PM) In order for us to trade for Stanton would require us to part with several of the top notch prospects we have recently been acquiring I am not sure anyone knows precisely what his market is. Most of the speculation has been that would not be the case unless the Marlins took on significant cash from Stanton's deal. Operating under the assumption that the Marlins will try and shed as much of that cash as possible, most folks seem to believe the return (in terms of players they receive back) will be fairly minimal.

My poor son. His parents are Bears and Browns fans, respectively. Perhaps he will grow up cheering for the Raiders.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Oct 31, 2017 -> 08:07 AM) I'm actually a little nervous here. Stanton seems like just the type of guy the White Sox loved to add from 2000-rebuild. The money, on the other hand, says Stanton is a guy the Sox would never add. Arenado is too perfect a fit for a run of championship seasons. I just worry they will make a decision to let Blackmon so they can keep Arenado at all costs.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 31, 2017 -> 07:24 AM) Especially because we know that Hahn would be the one negotiating the contract, and I think he is second to none when it comes to contract negotiations and structuring. I agree that is a strength, but the fruits of that labor have been much more pronounced in his contracts for our own pre-arb players, as opposed to a competitive FA market.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Oct 30, 2017 -> 10:03 AM) The opt out means that it makes even less sense for us to do it. Unless you think that Stanton makes us contenders next year, at best he helps us in 2019 and 2020 when 2019 might still be a year too early anyway and then leaves. And if he doesn't opt out that means he's not performing and we're stuck with a horrific contract. I just don't see any scenario where it makes enough sense. I don't think a scenario where he doesn't opt out means he's not performing. It just may mean he didn't have a 6 war type season. As I mentioned earlier, he'd have more than 200 million remaining for his age 31-37 seasons or something. I'm not sure he's going to do much better than that unless he continues to provide huge surplus value for the next 3 years. Even then, there will be teams that will feel as though paying him for his 30-age seasons will be compensation for previous performance, rather than compensation for future performance. I can understand being weary of the contract, and the opt out does need to be priced into the deal, but if he does opt out, I feel as though it likely means he performed very well as a White Sox in a time when it is really important for them to begin competing. Would it be ideal if the opt-out was after 2021 or 2022? Probably so. But I feel as though this team is ahead of schedule, just as some of the other rebuilding teams have been ahead of schedule (Cubs, Yankees, Astros) in the past. Adding Stanton for '18-19 very well could transition us from a young team with potential to one with the potential to win a WS. Again, it all depends on the package it takes to bring him in. If it costs key pieces, I am perfectly ok with letting someone else move quality prospects for him. If it means a package of 2-3 guys in our 20-30 range, I think the certainty of acquiring such a piece might trump not moving a few of those prospects and entering a bidding war for guys like Machado, Harper, Arenado, etc.

Who do you guys buy your electricity from? Do you buy from ComEd, or have you chosen an alternate supplier?

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Oct 30, 2017 -> 07:31 AM) Whether you think adding Stanton is a good idea or not, I just can’t agree with the timing. We should not spend big this offseason as it will be a year too early IMO. If you’re going to take on the considerable risk that is Stanton’s contract, you need to make sure you’re timing the addition right to ensure the biggest potential payoff. I know people are skeptical, but I’d rather see us active in the epic 2018/19 free agent class (even if there is competition) than just jump too early on Stanton. We should have the money to be serious players IMO. I don't see that as being a significant reason not to do it. There are a lot of reasons not to do it, but adding him in '18 shouldn't be a big one, IMHO.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 29, 2017 -> 12:00 PM) That's gotta be karma for the Calvin Johnson catch right there. When he rolled over and let go of it because he was hurt, that was the "process of the catch". I thought they recognized how ridiculous the interpretation of the rule was that way and were no longer calling it so f***ing literal. We really haven't seen that enforced in the NFL over the last several years. That was straight-up f***ing horses***.

QUOTE (whitesoxjr27 @ Oct 28, 2017 -> 06:53 AM) Cubs have a worse time with the truth than they do with their bullpen http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosen...1027-story.html Bosio's firing was interesting, as we saw Maddon relying on him all postseason in regards to when to go get a guy. And yet, the hiring of Jim Hickey clearly shows the Cubs gave Maddon wide latitude in regards to who was to replace Bosio. Also makes you wonder how much Arrieta's imminent departure, and whatever hand Bosio may have had in turning him around played into the decision. Rosenbloom seizing on the transparency issue though is pretty laughable.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Oct 28, 2017 -> 08:10 AM) When is his opt-out? After 2020. If he opts out, you've likely gotten a very nice 2020 season from him, which is right in the beginning of your window. Agreed that you don't want to move a whole lot of extremely valuable assets, but if he does opt out, he basically just needs to be a 3 war player for the next 3 years. It isn't as though there isn't a scenario where that ends up being valuable. While he has been volatile, over the last 4 years he has averaged about 4.75 fwar, with two of those seasons being over 6 fwar and 3 of them being 3.9 fwar or greater. If he was to average 4.5 fwar over those three years, while paying $77 million, you are obviously coming out with some surplus value in the range of $35 million or so? After 2020, he'll still have basically $218 million remaining heading into his age 31 season. If he does decide to opt out of THAT, I'm going to guess that he has produced a LOT of surplus value between 2018-2020. The risk lies much more so that he doesn't perform well, or he suffers a serious injury, and you get stuck with that entire contract, which is what drives the price down. I suspect the odds that he can still provide 3 war over his 31-35 year seasons is pretty reasonable. You're likely going to overpay him a lot in 2025-2027, which is why the surplus values have to be substantial at the beginning of the contract. You also have to consider that in the mid-2020's, you'll be making decisions whether to pay some of the core that came up to the big league team between 2019-2021. Jimenez, Kopech, Robert, Hansen, Rutherford, Cease, etc. Do you want to miss out on opportunities to sign one or more of those guys (plus other FAs) because you are paying Stanton still? Obviously it is a tough decision, but I'm not sure it is as cut and dry as some might suggest.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 27, 2017 -> 07:55 AM) Correct. You'd already be paying full price for production, so the additional compensation would just be for rights. Which is difficult to price out, but no way do I see anyone giving up an all star back. Avisail?

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 27, 2017 -> 08:07 AM) I ended up doing it at 6am when I woke up and got a early december delivery date. That's fine. I'll probably forget I did it and it will be a nice surprise. Never really felt a need to be this up on the later releases but have to say with a kid now it's really nice having such good cameras in your pocket. Hoping this one is fun to use. Yeah, I haven't been either, but I enrolled in the Apple upgrade program last year (and paid a premium for the upgrade optionality) so I figure I may as well use it. In my experience, Apple tends to underpromise and overdeliver, so I wouldn't be surprised if we both receive them earlier.