he gone.

The energy aspect doesn't really worry me. We waste energy in so many ways. Oil is a waste. Coal is a waste. If we really wanted to we could operate much differently as a society. Also the transaction cap is one of the issues currently to where I think the price jumped the gun. There's still A TON of work to be completed. Lightning network has been a nice step forward this year, but think it's YEARS away before theres enough functionality to be useful to even a small fraction of the world. Until it's useable and understandable to most people it will continue to be pie in the sky that it works out the way Satoshi wanted

I don't think it does improve upon Venmo, Chasepay, etc... yet. Maybe never either. There's a real divide amongst Bitcoin backers of if the function/true identity is supposed to be payment/transactional driven or to act more as a "digital gold" with layers built upon the network (Lightning network) that will eventually act as Venmo, Chasepay, etc. I'm more the believer of the second line of thinking, though I think the cart is WAY in front of the horse. Yeeearrrssss in front of the horse. Which when dealing with technology is not a good place to be. Price jumped utility, became more mainstream than ever and has fizzled because there's no real need or use case at this juncture. However I do think there is value in cutting out the banks - a peer to peer society. Banks created a lot of wealth, but also inherently have created a ton of mess too. Mostly out of greed. In regards to stable? Yes, I think that's the end goal. I also think if you look at the USD existence (or any currency) you'll note a ton of volatility before the fed got involved. This is where I am most intrigued. I actually really enjoy the history of fiat. Start with the continental dollar and then the USD and just look at the ups and downs of currency over the years. We are about 10 years in for bitcoin which is basically the equivalent of where the USD was at 1800. Fast forward through history you then have the gold standard, off the gold standard, the fed, fed issues, printing money nonstop etc. The problem as I see it is that we have HUMANS acting like HUMANS and that will never change. If we were on a timeline the world of humans utilizing credit cards, the internet, phones, technology this powerful is just a BLIP when compared against the past. We are moving so fast and so out of control that I just think its due to swing back a little bit and correct itself. Don't get me wrong there are smart economists in charge of all this. But just looking at the history of all fiat money I think it's likely we see many downfalls of many different currencies across the globe. It's almost certain. So if history repeats itself and now we have this brand new toy (relatively) in the world called the internet I just think the next logical step is a global currency. The system is far from broke now but 20, 50, 100? years from now what does the world look like? I'd doubt in 1968 we'd predict this world. The hope in my mind, and "Satoshi" is to create a currency that can't be printed or taken off the gold standard (of sorts) in the future. Meaning they'll mine 21 million bitcion and then it's done. Now its pie in the sky to think that Austrian Economics will play out perfectly because at the end of the day were all HUMAN and flawed and will screw it up in some way out of greed, but I like the idea behind it. At the end of the day I'm pro bitcoin more than most and think it's still less than 1% it thrives how true Bitcoin Maxalmists think it will, but I do think it's a 30-40% chance it thrives in some way in the future world economy to where it's worth a small investment in a portfolio. Peg a number to it? I think $75,000 bitcoin is a very real possibility by 2025 -- and more importantly that it will be much simpler to buy, sell, and utilize via a digital wallet.

In a few sentences I'd say look to the future. Look at kids nowadays. All they know is digital. What we may think is crazy, they adopt. I'm not blind to the many issues in the space and think there will be much volatility until it finds it's true identity and use case, but with the direction of the world that were seeing (increasingly international & technological) I think it's a natural progression. I do think that 98% of it is trash and that hurts the space A LOT. But I do like the monetary vision and aspect of Bitcoin specifically. Fiat has been historically flawed and really as much as I bash the Fed they have done a great job stabilizing the dollar -- however it's still just a game of non stop tweaks and printing of money and debt which has inflation running rampant. It's not just the us either, its the world. I liken it to "fiat insurance". Maybe it never really becomes worth much more. Maybe bitcoin fails. But maybe it becomes fiat insurance. I like it to round a portfolio. To balance my equities, commodities, etc.

I wouldn't say the market is getting hammered at all ...one year ago today the Dow was at 23,400. We're at 25,000 now. YTD is a bit down from even, but even that I wouldn't call it hammered. Even at that crypto is a dangerous crazy space right now. 98% is worthless but there are some projects if you sift through that are worth a shot. I think it starts with Bitcoin and then flows into a few other coins. ZRX, Monero, and then an Icon or Neo dependent on the Asian marketplace. I'm not recommending a huge gamble, but at the end of the day "gamble" is the right word more than any other investment. Crypto can be worthless in 2 years and think there are many issues still to come that may knock down prices even further, but still think a 1-5% allocation into the space could be worth it just based on the upside versus the upside of the real life market over the next 1-5 years. It's not for everybody and even with owning some myself I think there's a lot that needs to be simplified if you ever want it to be an actual use case either for transactions or to act as a "digital gold". The on ramps are becoming easier, but overall purchasing and then transferring bitcoin to a wallet and then using it to spend are way too difficult for the average public. Also the tax codes are insane on it. It's really more or less an "art/novelty" object right now, but think it has the potential to spawn into something much more in the future. I'd say it's akin to like 1980's, maybe early 90's email. The next 5-10 years will be key ... does it turn into something with a use case and with actual value internationally or remain more as a "piece of art" with just intrinsic value. Studying the history of fiat money shows that it's as flawed as we are as humans. Bitcoin has its many flaws, but not hard to imagine an international digital world and figuring BTC has value in said world. I still recommend value cost averaging into it. If you're dropping X amount of money into a 401k or spending $20 eating lunch a week I just think it makes sense to instead maybe spend that $20 a week and buy bitcoin on a reoccurring basis. $1,000 over a year or .2BTC could be pretty valuable in 10 years.

As someone who sits in front of 10K's and Audits all days looking at all sorts of companies and markets across a wide spectrum I'll say this .... there's a market correction coming, and it's going to come as hard and fast as banks/lenders want. If this is the GOOD market and companies are barely within their bank covenants I'd hate to see the BAD market. At the end of the day though it's really the banks calls. Do they want to extend waivers to these companies or run them into consolidation or BK. Not much you can do about your 401K -- you can try and allocate to safer bets but a lot of these "gains" over the past few years will be wiped away. As long as you're not 60-65 this shouldn't be a huge problem in the long run and even if you are 60-65 you shouldn't be in the riskier stuff. Best investment in my opinion over the next 1-5 years will be commodities. Find yourself a nice gold/silver stocks, dabble into oil, commodities. Equities are highly overvalued right now. I'd also look into stronger international economies. Lastly, I don't mind crypto. The safer plays of crypto are still highly volatile, but since they've been around we've been in the longest bull run in exisitence. So nobody really knows how they'll react in a downturn market -- do they fall as equities fall or do they act like a commodity/gold during a downturn? My personal belief, being that bitcoin was created as a direct response to the 2008 crash is that they will have more upside than downside during an economic downturn. With 2018 destroying most profits in the crypto community and the equity market prime for a correction, it may not be a bad time to allocate upwards of 5% of your portfolio there.

I was hoping to sign onto SoxTalk and have some additional information on Enoy Jimenez. I found nothing on Google, barely anything on Twitter. Seems like a mystery to me. My assumption is he's a non prospect with a good bloodline... but does anybody know the scoop on him at all? Surprised with his connection to Eloy that this wasn't more of a story.

a manager is a manager is a manager - they take all the heat in the bad times and glory in the good times but rarely do I think you can quantify their impact. I'm not sure in this day and age a manager makes as big of a difference as they maybe used to. Now with so much information available it's really if the manager (and his bench team) are willing to apply said information and make tough moves. I have no idea of Girardi is the type of guy to move with the times or dig in and be an "old school" guy. I will say if he lasted a decade in the Bronx that he probably is an upgrade though over Ricky & most other managers. I'd be willing to talk to him if we don't see much of a step forward this year with Ricky. I was expecting a few more nice jumps from our players this year and I do think he has to be held somewhat accountable for that.

I'm obviously not trying to be a d*&% I think sarcasm is lost on the board and maybe sarcasm isn't good to use on a board and regarding mental health. When it comes to health everybody knows someone affected and are highly sensitized to the topic. I know many people affected by a ton of different diseases and disorders I just think that ADD is about as far down the list as one can get in terms of something that is life altering. As always there are extreme cases of anything, but I think that this whole thing is a non story. Apologize to those I offended.

ADHD is diagnosed in like 1/10 .... not internet tough guy. I think it's ridiculous that anybody would be upset that this got "leaked" or that it affects his ability to play 2B or have a MLB career in any way. Or that he'd be "hurt" that it got out that he had ADHD. ADHD as a "mental health" issue is a stretch and frankly insulting to actual mental health disorders. I'm not going to comment anymore on this topic cause it seems as if people are ruffled by honesty. ADHD is not a story worthy of discussing.

Am I taking crazy pills? We're talking about ADD right? I never knew we took mental health so seriously, let alone ADD. I'll make sure to add Moncada into my prayers. I'm not sure how he'll handle his ADD now that its public knowledge that he struggles to concentrate like 98% of America. Just now I was working, but then I checked the sox board cuase I got distracted...

This. You have to look at more than just his overall ERA. Look what the Cubs gave for Chatwood cause of splits. Some team will take him on and give up a prospect -- it may be a fringe prospect, but a prospect. We're willing to trade Fulmer for a reason so I wouldn't call him a fringe prospect. I think you'd have to throw in a Zavala or Gavin Sheets type too if you even want to have a chance. In this case I just don't see the upside. Best case is he pitches like old Sonny Gray and you flip him for prospects that are similar to what you gave up to get him.

Well, that does it. I guess we should move on from ever expecting anything out of Moncada... he's got the ADD... wait.. what? 98% of the world has ADD nowadays. I can't believe this even has responses on the board other than we're so bored in the offseason already.

In this day and age I'm not sure why teams don't have 2,3,4 hitting coaches. Is there a limit imposed by MLB? Because the way I look at it, you're spending over a HUNDRED million dollars on payroll (in most cases) -- so what does adding a hitting or pitching coach at like $250k? (no idea what they make, but guessing it's not much) mean? I'd rather have Tim Anderson and other players take in advice from multiple sources and then hone in with the one they find most helpful. Yes there is a case of too many voices, but not sure why you can't have more than one philosophy out there.

I haven't really posted on the board as much this year, but when did we stop liking Abreu? The sentiment has seemed to really change. Three players have hit 25HR+ and had 100RBI+ in their first 4 seasons in the MLB... Pujols DiMaggio Abreu This year he has 22HR and 78RBI while being out for a month and playing on a god awful team with no protection behind him. (as was the case in many of the years). Now I get that he is old, and he is in a position where you have to get that power production that may fall off in the coming years. However talk about a guy who puts on his hard hat and does things the right way.. I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Let him play out his contract, explore FA if he'd like and then match the offers if it makes sense. Guys like him don't grow on trees. Let's just run the career stats: Player A: .296ba, .354obp, .873ops, averaging 30HR's and 35 doubles a year Player B: .230ba, .299obp, .755ops, 23HR's and 20 doubles a year. Oh and 140K's in 417AB's this year. 165 in 443AB last year. More K's in either year than player A has ever had in his career in a full season (668AB) Complaining about Abreu and trying to act like Davidson is anything is the reason we don't deserve nice things as Sox fans. Davidson is a BUM. sorry. If he's playing significant time for us other than a backup 1b,3b,dh, lf then we're not winning anything. Go ahead and find me a starting spot for Davidson on the Dodgers, Cubs, Brewers, Braves, Yankees, BoSox, Astros, Indians roster right now.. those are teams going for it all -- find me his spot. You won't find a spot for a player of his caliber. Or Engel. Or for that matter (and it hurts cause he's a fan favorite) Palka. The best case is either for Engel as 4OF (he likely wont be) or Palka as DH/PH - it's not Davidson and not by a long shot. These type of players are nice for 2018 ChiSox -- but they are NOT parts of actual teams winning championships. The best they'll be is part of teams trying to compete for WC spots. As long as Davidsion, Engel and Palka are part of the conversation I can guarantee you won't be winning a World Series.

I'm on board with this plan. I think we can trade off our minor league pieces to compliment our guys now. If we can just put some people around Engel, Palka and Davidson I think we can really compete for a World Series. I think we trade away Robert and the likes and go with the true core we have now. We need to stop getting caught up in 3 week stretches. Davidson, Engel & Palka are fringe pieces. It'd be nice for one or two to stick in a role on the team. But don't forget from May-August when Davidson was god awful. Or Engel too. I'm enjoying this stretch too, but I think we have to keep in mind who these guys really are.

Locks: Lopez, Giolito, Kopech (after Mid-April if he doesn't come up this year), Rodon Out of all of these obviously Giolito is the least likely, but still think he's a lock based on that he's worked his way courageously through this year. If he continues it for the remainder of the year then he's a for sure lock. Either way, I think he starts in the rotation. Last spot: I can see them going after a Shields if the market is weak how it was for MiGo. I do not think that situation presents itself however. I can see them signing a guy like Garret Richards how the Cubs signed Smyly or the Rays with Ramos -- kind of thinking two years from now. Yes we have a ton of pitching coming down the pipeline, but maybe not a bad idea to throw like 2 years at $10-12mm at him. When healthy (rare) he can make a nice addition. Could be a good signing for 2020. The last spot to me goes to some experienced guy. I think a lot will depend on how FA plays out. The very off chance we sign a Machado and maybe that guy is a real name and someone we trade for. But likely think we pick up a Latos, a Migo, a Shields, a Holland type of guy like we've done in the past. Just someone to fill innings, understands his role, knows he's likely to get flipped if he's pitching well. Names I'm thinking --- Adam Wainwright, Shields, Brandon McCarthy, Matt Harvey, Franky Liriano, Edwin Jackson, Bucholz.

I mean, for all the people complaining, just read this stat over and over. If he changes his approach just a little he's going to take off. As much as we'd all love him to be Juan Soto or some rookie that comes to the majors and just rakes and never looks back he is likely to follow the path of Javy Baez and Avi Garcia a bit more. We should be thankful he is learning on the 2017/2018 Sox and isn't a Madrigal or Robert that won't have as much of a leash to learn on the fly on the 2020-2021 Sox. (Also one of the reasons the BoSox traded him - didn't have the luxury of letting him learn)

I wonder what this conversation would have looked like 3 weeks ago before Palka started launching timely home runs. I think his ceiling is mediocre Adam Dunn without the walks. To say 35HR's is a real possibility, but .220 batting average is likely with not drawing enough walks. As a poster pointed out above Nicky had a nice rookie season but then the league caught up. Once the book is out there are shifts and they manipulate where to pitch you. The real talent shines through to who can REadjust the adjustments from the opposite side. Thus far Nicky is struggling to do so, but may in due time. Davidson proved he could take a small step forward and take walks, but hasn't done much else to be relevant as a part of the future. Palka is likely to fall victim to pitching and team adjustments to his game soon too. Once teams realize that the man can launch HR's all day they'll find his weakness (plenty to pick from when you're batting .220 and no walks) and they'll exploit that along with shifts or whatever as well. I think a regression is in the works for Palka as well, but in this day and age of launch angles and exit velocity I think he has the best chance to be SOMETHING but probably a 2 year Band-Aid at best. Other band-aids (guys who can start now, are decent, but not world beaters include Yolmer, Leury, Nicky barely) The key is to go from Band-Aid to possible solution (Avi, Anderson, etc.)

With Fulmer no longer eligible, just curious to where this board would rank him? I personally don't see him being above 25-30. I'm not even sure he'll be an effective reliever.

I hope we get the 7th pick. Why? That means Eloy and Kopech are up. It means that Nicky and/or Palka are hitting. That Giolito continues his decent stretch, maybe that we found ourself some bullpen guys. Let's go on a run and get this team all revved up for next year when you can expect the next round of September call ups (Madrigal**, Cease, Dunning, Collins) ** I don't want to be that guy who rushes guys - but his bat tool is insanely above most at his age. I can see him in AA by May next year and AAA by August (ala Eloy). I feel like once you make the call on Kopech and Eloy it start a new chapter in this rebuild. The tear down was the last 1.5 years, this half year was the "patience" and moving forward I think it's the "building blocks" for another 1 year. By this time next year I think you are plugging phase 3 of 5 with Madrigal, Cease, Dunning, Collins) with the next set of Robert, Hansen, etc. coming within the 24 months after that.

is Fulmer still a "prospect" status? I wonder where he'll slot in. To me he's probably in the 20-30 range. But yes, some nice names there. Just as nice is this year is almost over which means probably just 1-2 more years of salivating over this list in the minors and instead seeing it play out on the Southside.

Hopefully this is a roster question we look back at in 2020-2021 and can laugh at, but is a valid question right now. I think each has a skill that we could use and each obviously lacks in a category or two. Ask this question in April and people are saying Davidson could be a real long term piece. Ask after Palka has been on his HR barrage (& at important times) and people are going love Palka. If we are looking at who fits in long term though? I think Nicky has the best chance of being your super-UTIL guy. At least he can slot in a few more places and seems to have a better eye. Palka's appeal is obviously his HR potential. Kind of reminds me of Jose Canseco (in Sox era, not A's). If forced to rank? I'd say Nicky, Palka, Davidson. There's going to be a heck of a lot of decisions like this to make in the next 12 months. A lot of fringe guys that need to prove themselves or find themselves in no mans land. I for one think Davidson should be the next gone. He's had the most chances/AB's to prove himself from Charlotte to the Sox and although he had a nice April, since then he's kinda proven he's not going to be apart of your long term plans.

Based on the comment of "cannot guarantee big FA and also when the time is right" I can pretty much guarantee our 1% chance is like .001% chance. The time isn't even right to bring up Eloy or Kopech according to Hahn, so why in 3 months would it be the right time to spend $300mm? As much as I'd love it, JR isn't signing off on $300mm contracts when your rotation is still 2-3 years from coming together and being competitive. Same with Madrigal, Robert, Collins, etc. Those guys are all 2020 guys. Arenado would be our first real POSSIBLE FA signing.

Hard to do the math on it because you don't really know the counts in those situations .. for instance was it 1-2 count or 3-2 count. Obviously the 3-2 count would be a walk. And you don't know what he'd do right after that pitch. Let's say it was 1-2 and he got rung up -- maybe on 2-2 he gets rung up watching one down the middle. But for fun: He's struck out 33.4% of appearances right now - so every 1/3. If he were to not strikeout in any of those 34 bad calls he'd be at 25% strikeout rate. Now let's cut it in half. Let's say he got a hit or walk on half of those appearances (high number) his OBP would be .354. That's being very generous to him, but if he had a 25% strikeout ratio with a .354OBP and figure out of those 17 extra times he gets on base a few are doubles or a homer with some RBI's attached? All of a sudden his stat line is looking a lot stronger.

For those posting he should have had more chances starting - do you ever think the Sox gave him the choice? My guess is that they've made it clear for quite some time and gave him the benefit of the doubt to try starting. I think it just came to a point of enough is enough and lets see how this thing plays out. I think he realized his best chance of being an MLB player is via the pen.