Two-Gun Pete

Look, getting a ~90ish wrc+ vs RHP shouldn't be that hard to find. At least, at LF. But right now, Vaughn is a problem. And waiting on him to figure it out may or may not work for this season. He's worse right now than other players in the roster, let alone some random rental that shouldn't cost that much. Someday, he'll be a big part of this team. But this team is in free-fall, in part, because this offense is seriously flawed.

Andrew Vaughn's Splits Its a fucking 38 WRC+ vs RHP. 38. Hes ACTIVELY hurting this years team, full stop. Leury Garcia's splits by WRC+, Leury's 83 vs RHP is more than TWICE than Andrew Vaughn's. Ya know, the guy that everyone is supposed to hate, is twice the batter Vaughn is right now v. RHP. Jake Lamb's Splits 105 WRC+ vs. RHP. WTF isn't he in the lineup every day vs RHP? Hell, just for grins and giggles, here's Nicky Demonico's career splits: 90 WRC+ vs RHP. Hes available, now that Cincy's cut him loose. The point of posting all these splits is that it is ridiculously easy to find a (snicker) better than 38 WRC+, particularly at LF. There are already 2 or more better options in the roster, plus when Eaton returns, I'd guess that he'd be better than a 38 WRC+. Then, you add a rental at/before the TDL who can do better than a 38 WRC+, then maybe either Eloy gets back, or Vaughn picks his head up and gets better at hitting. But right now? Vaughns actively hurting this team. It is clear that this team's problem is offense, or else you wouldn't have started this thread. It is painfully clear that this team's biggest offensive woes are vs RHP. Unfortunately, the biggest boat anchor vs RHP is Andrew Vaughn. While we all believe in the young man's FUTURE, a "Win Now" season mandates that we worry about the future, IN the future to some degree. This org has asked him to do the impossible, in jumping up from A+ to the bigs, AND learn a new defensive position at the same time. There is no shame in admitting that now is not his day. At the same time, I would hope that this org would not be blinded by their opinion of Vaughns future when determining HIS/This team's PRESENT. Again, he's hurting THIS team, future teams, and his future by being here right now and being completely overmatched at the plate vs RHP.

1. Agreed. This should have happened already. Take TLR's automatic #5 hitter away from him. 2. Agreed. If Collins has any value offensively, here's how he can show it. 3. Agreed. I've probably been these boards biggest critic of Burger, given his lack of care and lack of effort in terms of taking care of his body. But, credit to him for learning the value of vegetables, and the need for cardio. But to me, the true litmus test for Charlotte players is how they hit on the road. Unlike, say Beckham, who's padded his stats at home, while sucking out loud on the road, Burger's been good on the road. Call him up. 4. I can't disagree more. LF is an almost-entirely offensive spot. This lineup sucls out loud vs. RHP. While its good that Vaughn can cromulently stand at LF, he's hurting this lineup, hes burning through his controllable years, and he's not developing right now, while putting up a 40ish WRC+ vs RHP. For THIS YEAR'S team, for the betterment of FUTURE white sox teams, for Vaughns future/development, and for general principle, ya GOTTA send Vaughn down, like NOW.

1. Greg, the VAERS reports ALL DEATHS AFTER VACCINATION, whether or not they had anything to do with COVID or the vaccine. You're a smart guy, so ask yourself: Is it POSSIBLE that some, a plurality, or a majority of the 5k or so deaths have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VACCINE? If so, then that means that the vaccines are extremely safe, and extremely effective. 2. The stoopud so-called "news channel," and much of the social media is making people stoopuder. Much more often than not, there is NO FUCKING POLITICAL MEANING to what doctors and scientists do. So when a doctor (who took an oath to do no harm) or a scientist tells you to do something, i would believe them. If some polesmoker with a bow tie, or a whiner with a nasally voice, or some other political turd trys to tie politics to, like, EVERYTHING, they're probably full of shit, and trying to lead you around by the balls. (This is why you should read more books, and watch less TV/spend less time on social media.) 3. Greg, I trust people with expertise. I also trust that most people (when they're working) give zero shits about politics when they're working. When my mechanic tells me that its the axle that needs fixing, and not the bearings, I trust them. I dont moronically ask him about his politics, or moronically assume there's a political meaning behind it. When my electrician tells me that I need to change the breaker box in a property I've bought, I trust them. I dont moronically ask him about his politics, or moronically assume there a political meaning behind it. When my IT guy tells me that we need a new router, I trust them. I dont moronically assume that there's some STOOPUD FUCKING POLITICAL REASON for his professional opinion. See a pattern here, Greg? People who know things that I don't know, such as scientists, doctors, even mechanics or plumbers do things to make your life better. OTOH, fuckwads on TV, and dumbasses on farcebook give zero fucks about you. They probably know as little about a subject matter as the rest of us without specialized knowledge, or laypeople without extensive experience. You keep coming over here, and moronically assigning political meaning to non-political things. Because you're still watching too much TV, and not reading books. Then, you come over here, and tell us that your life isn't working, because you keep doing that same shit. Again, you have: a CHANCE, to make better CHOICES, to enjoy CHANGES for the better in your life.

1. Because his convoluted "reasoning" as a lay person is 100% unadulterated bullshit. What "data" does he need to see? Is he a virologist in his spare time? Has he studied scientific journals BEFORE this pandemic? I'm guessing that he hasn't read anything remotely scientific since freshman biology class in high school. So once again, he's full of shit. 2. Here you go, bust a nut on this: Factcheck.org. If you've been "lied to," its because you've been lead around by the balls by the stoopud shit on certain channels you're addicted to. 3. Here you go: Adverse effects of covid vaccine They don't drone on about this, because the adverse effects of dying from covid far outstrips the very rare adverse effects of the vaccines. Once again, greg, we've covered this: 1. Watch less bullshit so-called "news." Most of what YOU watch actually isn't news, but is total bullshit. 2. Get some exercise everyday. 3. Read books, especially nothing with a political bent. 4. Meet people that are different than you, and especially those that are successful. 5. Cut back on your stoopud social media consumption. Your choices, especially in terms of media consumption, are making people stoopider and less happy. You have a chance, and a choice to make your life better. I hope you take this chance to make the right choices.

Yeah, while I preferred Joc at the time, given what we thought we knew then, I was OK with Eaton. And even though it hasn't gone well, I still think that it was a reasonable choice. At this point, if Starling will be too expensive, I would monitor Puig's legal situation; he's countersued his accuser. I would think that if there was truth to her accusation that she could go to the LA sheriff's dept, which could be checkmate for this accusation and for his career. If she doesn't, then I'm inclined to doubt the veracity of her accusation. We'll see. The other option could be Schwarber, although I'm not yet convinced that he'll be marketed when the trade market heats up. But I remain convinced that this offense needs help from outside, and that its a rental or two that is needed.

Exactly. He's trying to convince the stoopid public that he's not "anti-vax," when if fact he is. And a high school graduate asking to "see more data?" Fucking laughable. A wise man goes where others have trod before him. And that's why one should get his/her medical advise from a medical doctor, not some asshole with a bow tie on Fox or from farcebook. I know of very few MDs that would advise against the vaccine, and that's only in very limited circumstances. So him citing his doctors seems another load of bullshit. Its cool though, and its his right to refuse. But he would have been better off just stating that it was his preference, not some pile of bullshit excuses hes ginned up. I hope it goes well for him.

That still seems... iffy, at best. I mean, it's not 1955 any more, where that sort of subject matter was a source of embarrassment. If indeed that was the case, he could have said so. In any case, I'm told that the vaccines have little to do with the ability to have a successful pregnancy. I'm going with "Rizzo is a weirdo 'antivaxer' Florida-type." I just hope that he doesn't get the wrong end of karma on this one.

You made the erroneous argument that if an OFer were here, that Vaughn would stay. Actually, Vaughn would probably have to go, if an OFer were added. You also made the erroneous argument that Schwarber's defense is unplayable; Actually, Schwarber and Vaughn are equals in terms of DRS. I mean, its a 36 WRC+ for Vaughn vs RHP. At an almost-entirely offensive position in LF. Hell, Mendick's WRC+ vs. RHP is 123 in a SSS. Vaughn is killing this offense right now. Add into the mix the uncertain availability of Eaton, and now the OF situation looks desperate. Insofar as Escobar goes, he has qualities, but most of what this team needs isn't what Escobar mostly has right now. In the middle IF, we already have 3 of the top 4 MI available [Anderson, Garcia and Mendick], whereas in the OF, this org is down to the #4, 5, 6, and 7 OFers [Engel, Garcia, Vaughn, and Lamb]. I'd take Escobar, but I'd prefer Schwarber because this lineup is more deficient in the OF than in the MI right now.

double post

Schwarber has the same -2 DRS that Vaughn has at LF. Ya know, the new hotshot rookie who's supposed to be much better than Schwarber and Eloy at defense? Schwarber has a former Catcher's arm, while Vaughn has a 1st baseman's arm. That aside, Vaughn has a 94 wrc+, vs. Schwarber's 110. Versus RHP, Vaughn has an AMEMIC 36 wrc+, whereas Schwarber has a 114 wrc+. IOW, Vaughn is part of this team's problem, while Schwarber could be part of a solution for 2021. Schwarber is a lefty bat, Vaughn is a righty. Now, I don't discount "switch hitting ,defensive and base running ability" at all. But what THIS roster desperately needs is offense vs. RHP, IMO. Of the two options, I'd rather have Schwarber + Mendick in the lineup most days/Vaughn in Charlotte over Vaughn + Escobar in the lineup most days. ESPECIALLY vs. RHP, given the rest of this roster. All this said, I wouldn't turn my nose up at acquiring Escobar, since I don't believe in Mendick or Beckham as solutions for this year's team. But if it was a choice between Escobar or Schwarber, I'd take Schwarber. Heck, we could use both, if the cost wasn't prohibitive.  YMMV.

Yeah, I saw what Heyward said, and that was stoopid for him to say. But Rizzo, who [snicker] only has a HS diploma trying to say that he's "looking at the data" is laughable. I think he's full of shit, but he's trying to parse his words here.

I think you're one of the more thoughtful posters here, and I respect that. But, I think you're overlooking the Coors Field-like YAWNING gap between Beckham's Home/Away splits. Its laughably easy to hit well in Truist Field, but much less so away from there. To wit, Beckham's Home OPS this season: A MIGHTY .909; Beckham's Away OPS this season: A putrid .706. SOURCE Since he won't have the laughably easy task of hitting against Reynaldo Lopez-quality pitching opposition at a Coors Field-like setting if he were to be called up, I would imagine that Beckham's OPS would be more likely to be the putrid .706 OPS. [Likely, even less than that, since he'd be hitting against better opposition than he's seen in the IL.] His splits aside, his OBP is sub .300 overall. Vs. AAAA types and Reynaldo Lopez-types and other walk machines. What would his OBP be in MLB? Sub .250? Beckham's OBP in AAA is less than Seby Zavala's. It's less than Zach Remillard's OBP. IMO, Tim Beckham isn't any sort of solution, although if he were, it would solve a lot of issues this TDL.

Yeah, I wish you (and more importantly, MLB) wouldn't spread these sorts of videos around. I mean, Americans are already renowned for doing stupid shit. And encouraging Americans to do stupid shit means that they WILL do stupid shit. I get that its great that the catch was made in THIS case, but it'll be fookin tragic if/when the next hard-hit ball is missed by whomever is holding an infant. YMMV. All of us that watched that season KNEW that they had to back up the truck, and sell, sell, sell well before this moronic trade was even a rumor. That this org was so stoopud to believe that that roster, with that manager only needed James Shields to magically compete proves that stupidity is a disease. Its 5 years on, and I'm still enraged by it. I think I got banned (again) from WSI when it happened.

I dont want Frazier, because I too think that he absolutely will turn into a turd the second he's moved. Also, in watching the Will Craig Moronathon Play, Frazier didn't exactly distinguish himself as a leader in the IF, and he didn't exactly make a strong effort on that play, either. Basically, I think Frazier might be too stupid, and/or too lazy, and/or too careless to be on a contending team.

I'm non-plussed by performances coming against shitty teams like Detroit, although irrational exuberance can be commonplace among we the diehards. That said, Leury's only playing more because so many OFers have been out this year. Mendick CANNOT play SS, because his arm isn't strong enough. Billy Hamilton sucks/can't play anywhere in the IF. Also, although Lamb has been hot lately, I'd like to see what Burger can do, now that he's finally discovered the magic of what exercise can do to his fuckton of adipose tissue. This org has not emphasized versatility, either here or in MiLB. Leury became the Swiss army knife by default. Vaughn was only tried at LF after injuries. So, if you as a fan want a better player at a utility role, then maybe this org should do a better job of developing versatile players.

Sure: Eaton is still an old player in decline. Joc's bat still has some value. Nomar Mazara is still one of the suckiest sucks that ever sucked. It sucked that this FO was stoopud enough to trade for a guy that has always sucked at MLB-level baseball.

It said May, 2020. I'm guessing that they pull this info from the IRS; all taxpayers have to report their job title. But the data is out there. At the same time, the downturn is a very real reason for borrowing to be capped in some measure. As currently comprised, there is basically no limit to borrowing, other than what a school feels like charging.

Not really. What do you think mortgage loan underwriters do all day? They do this type of work. If a student wants to borrow, then they'd have to show that they'll be able to repay. If they change their major without notifying the lender, they can be cutoff. It really isn't that hard, IMO.

We have a pretty good idea of what people make. You have salary.com, monster.com, and glassdoor.com. But the source I prefer is The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which gives you an idea of wages by occupation, and by geography. For example, according to THIS LINK PTs make a median of $91k/year nationwide, and it breaks it down by geography as well. In addition, we have widely-available stats on what a given degree can lead to in terms of income. As to whether a student changes their major, no big deal! The max amount borrowable could then be adjusted to reflect the probable income, based on the new major. Similarly, if a student wants to go to grad school, then their ability to borrow would then be recalculated, based on the additional degree/forecasted income, LESS any monies already borrowed. Doing so would ward off the "career student" who refuses to grow up, but rather chases degree after degree, without any real endgame or goal in mind.

I used to share your/jerksticks' optimism and your/jerksticks' view. But, we also live in a society where payday loans that charge an approximate metric fuckton of interest are allowed to operate. We lived through The Great Recession, where part of the cause were the poor underwriting standards for mortgages at the time. So, lending is an industry where deregulation hasn't worked. Or, at least, it hasn't worked to keep borrowers from being overridden with debt. I think a better way would be to tie the availability of loans at a given school to their graduates' ability to repay them. IOW, if an institution keeps pumping out ill-prepared graduates that can't pay their loans, then that school would then lose their ability to enroll students who pay them via debt. If a school can't prepare their students to obtain gainful employment that enables them to make a living, then they'll close in favor of those that can. Or they'll have to engage in cost-cutting to make it possible for someone to attend without paying through the nose. This is the nature of competition. But, competition has to have rules, or else someone will get fooked by the lack of rules.

Ok, I think I understand you a bit better. My view is certainly colored by my experience as a loan originator. To qualify for a FHA mortgage, your back-end debt to income ratio generally needs to be 43% or less. (I.e. sum all your monthly minimum debt payments, plus a proposed monthly mortgage payment, divided by your pre-deduction income = back end ratio.) Back end ratio I would propose a similar setup to make a max amount borrowable relative to a student's probable income. For example, Accountants entry level pay is ~$50k/yr to start in Chicago, according to Glassboro.com, or ~$4,200/month. I would tie the max amount a student could borrow to no more than a % of that probable income, based on a 10 year amortization table. IOW, make it probable that a borrower could repay the loan, without getting buried. Correlating that to today's realities, for example, a total of $50k borrowed @ 3.5% interest is a 10 year payment of ~$522/month. SOURCE Now, maybe a total of $50k borrowed could get a kid through the entirety of his program, AND the payments are affordable over a standardized amortization schedule. If so, great! Go ahead and enroll. But if you want to attend Loyola, then maybe not. Or maybe, you go to juco for a few years, then transfer. But the beauty part of tying borrowing to future income is that the loans are much more likely to perform, and the individual borrower is less likely to be debt-fucked for life. Over time, overpriced schools would have to adjust their cost structure, or risk losing attendees to more affordable options. Or compete with similarly priced schools, based on their graduates being hired for more money. Or compete, based on something other than their lazy river.

Well, almost everything. If borrowers can borrow unlimited amounts of money, a lot will. If lenders can charge unlimited amounts of interest, then a lot will. At the same time, schools that are addicted to unlimited money will simply direct the naive and foolish to continue borrowing as before, with lenders that will abuse the naive and foolish, and nothing will change.

1. Good. Nothing more eyes-rolling-worthy than someone whose experience is out of touch with today's realities. 2. Agreed that not everyone needs college. But, for those that do go to college, there has to be a better answer than borrowing to pay for 100 level humanities courses. I mean, one can learn how to think at CLC, CDC, Joliet JC, Moraine Valley, or Wright college, can't they? 3. They've tried counseling, and it doesn't work. If folks are going to borrow, it has to be tied to an ability to repay, or folks can get stuck in debt hell. Also, borrowing has to be capped somehow, or else there will be those that will over-extend themselves.

First, I gotta ask: Are you a Boomer, Gen X, or milennial? Second, if we're going to ask people to borrow money, we ALSO have to ask them if/how they will be able to pay it back. Otherwise, you have a moronic mountain of debt that prevents a very real part of America to fail to go forward financially. Third, I agree that learning how to learn and learning how to think are valuable things. But "the college experience" means totally different things if you're a boomer who could "just do work-study" to pay for school, vs. today's kids that are facing $100k+ in debt before they cash a single paycheck. Lastly, I too may be biased, based on having worked in loan origination and in financial planning. I also know how to properly structure debt so that it doesn't over-encumber a borrower, and so that the lender doesn't get screwed, either. As it stands, universities [the folks who benefit from cost inflation and from forcing others to borrow] suffer ZERO CONSEQUENCES for over-encumbering a student, while many students will never accomplish the ROI on a degree to make it worth it. The balance between free cash to schools on the backs of naive borrowers has to change. And that's why I favor student loans to be like other types of loans: Underwritten, and tied to someone's ability to repay. Otherwise, your industry is just taking advantage of the desperate and the naive, whether its a 17 year old kid, or his/her 45 year old parent who didn't attend college, or their foreign born parent who don't have the familiarity to comprehend the cost/benefit analysis to paying for school. [And I say this despite my support for learning, and my belief that education is crucial.]