TheLeviathan

Anyone else getting this now on their PC/laptop? I have been the last for few days.

Well, right, but we don't know when either of them will contribute. That's a huge wildcard that isn't fair to plan on for improvement. As for injuries, I find that to be a factor that negates the teams. The Sox have better offensive depth and we have better pitching depth. Those were both of the teams biggest weaknesses last year too. It's the exact opposite in fact. I've had to take that tact to show exactly what you just posted - that the teams have roughly a wash of players they are hoping bounce back. I posted as much earlier in the thread. It's Brock who is completely unwilling to grant that similar number of players between the teams. My position is simple, given that the two teams do have a roughly similar number of hopes of improvement, I default to the fact that the White Sox underperformed their pyth. and the Twins significantly overperformed theirs. I think that luck/disparity balances out in all likelihood and the Sox are a bit better than we are next year.

Well...the Summit tastes way better in that scenario...no?

I think this is way too overgeneralized to be taken seriously. There are plenty of die-hard baseball fans who just choose to watch on TV over spending serious money on an inferior product. Cable TV has made going to a game a luxury rather than a necessity. For those of us that going to a game can be an hour or more travel time, that's also a major impact. (The weather angle is a big part of this) I think those living in the cities underestimate how much the out-state fans support the game attendance. And we just don't want to pay and drive all that way to watch a game that's over by the 2nd inning.

How does having more 5th starters in AAA and good players in AA impact this year at all? If we're talking 2015, I'm in the Twins camp by a mile. For 2014 the White Sox have plenty of reasons their awful offense wcould improve with Dunn, Eaton, Abreu, PHegley, Davidson, and Viceido all candidates for significant improvement. I just think that should be fairly accounted for.

You're certainly discounting offensive improvement from them. Essentially, that's where their improvement will come from to leapfrog us. Eaton, Abreu, Dunn, Garcia are all potential players to improve production from last year. Nolasco is certain to be improvement. Pelfrey and Hughes? No more or less certain than that group above IMO. A similar case could be made for all of them. I would also mention it wouldn't be shocking if both teams saw a bullpen tumble from last year. The Twins may have more to lose from that than the Sox. Arcia likely will. He also started showing some signs of struggle the second half of his time up with the team. Hicks? Would it really be shocking if he was in AAA until August? I'm not sure what the odds are on that but it's far from a given he makes the team before June 1 IMO. Gibson would need to have the Twins have A) significant injuries or give up on Worley and Diamond. I, again, find those odds less than a given. As Jim rightly says, the Twins million dollar question is when those kids come up. At this point I don't see how any of us can do any more than guess on that. I think you're planning on it too much and you're not giving the Sox a fair chance to improve their god-awful offense given their similar acquisitions.

Well, if you base those acquisitions on their production last year....how much of an improvement will it really be? You are basing the improvement of the staff on the improvement of those pitchers...not their storied histories of success in the AL. So you're writing in as near-certain things that weren't even true last year. Then doing the reverse when you assess the Sox. Just not a fair analysis. How many of those will be here this year and for how much of the year? I don't think that's very settled, that's a major wild card quite frankly. I'd wager most of them are closer to 15 months than 5.

But we've heard that before haven't we? I'm pretty confident we'll be better, but we're also banking on an NL convert and two rebound seasons to do that. With the Sox, their floor is lower but they have much more reason for optimism than we do. Essentially, some Sox fan could make the exact same arguments you are based on their inherent bias. I see the case for both sides and they look about equally weighted to me. The only way that changes, in my opinion, is if Sano starts the year with the team. Then we're talking a different situation.

Vikes retain Preifer as a coach. Which to me says that the investigation has turned out exactly as expected: Kluwe is full of it. I hope he files a lawsuit and loses that too.

Isn't that exactly our situation too? Our breakout players are likely not on the roster to start the year (except maybe Arcia and sophomore players are hardly shoe-ins to mature), we are relying on a bunch of old guys, and our offense is depressing to look at. Let's try to be objective here. The White Sox played their competition better overall than we did, but due to bad luck or whatever finished worse. Their hope players are Eaton, Abreu, Garcia, and Viciedo. Their rotation, almost by the strength of Sale alone is probably better. Right now, I like their overall 25 man roster better than ours for next year. But it's likely the last year anyone would say that in their right mind.

Well, for one, if the two teams played the same as last year the White Sox would be highly likely to outperform us. Their expected win/loss was 66 to our 61. And if Abreu is the real deal I'd argue they are almost certainly a better team than us next year.

For the record, it says this is written by a 17 year old kid. But ESPN clocked us in at 28 I believe. Considering the team's expected w/l was 61-101 last year. I think even getting to 67/68 wins constitutes a significant improvement in addition to just being more competitive in general.

Thank you for trying RB, I get the impression that some are losing the forest for the trees. To answer this - I don't think anything should be done about it. I'm not campaigning for anything to change. I'm just trying to make people aware how unique I feel this is. I've never seen a message board that openly says "this tone is allowed here but not here". Typically, the board just has it's own tone and you get that in any forum. TD is unique in my experience to pin a thread 162 times that is allowed a totally different tone. I could see how new and even regular posters could struggle with how to mix those. An appropriately and well-intentioned rib (inspired by the game thread) could be perceived as a deliberate violation for instance. I was just offering the idea that mods should be aware that reasonable people could make well-intentioned mistakes because of this inconsistency in tone. So do absolutely nothing about it. Go on with your bad selves in the game threads. Just be aware that those different standards could be reasonably confused from time to time. I am, however, disturbed by the fact that I feel compelled to apologize for making an observation in a thread designed for observations. Perhaps Psuedo's most salient point is the need for more diversity in thought. There is a lot of clique-y insularity in the responses. There is some unfortunate irony in how often people say they welcome others and then have proceeded to entirely miss the point in order to rally around one another in shunning another perspective. So thank you RB for resisting that urge and hearing me out. I'll slink back to the political forum now.

Didn't mean to imply that, I sort of merged my response to Dave and to you to the same quote. Yes you need a prescription, but they aren't all that difficult to obtain. The price is more of a deterrent than that is. My point about organized crime vs. the black market as Dave suggested falls right into line with what you're saying. Loose black markets will always exist, but legalizing these drugs will do massive damage to actual criminal organizations. Which is a good thing IMO.

I was referring to comments by both RB and Chief that the differences between game threads and others are not that different. It's clear they are, it's why a different standard is literally written into the policy. Look, I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything wrong. But no less than three people in this recent discussion have voiced confusion about that double standard. I'm simply suggesting/hoping moderators are aware that built in double standards exist and should be taken heavily into consideration in cases of confusion. That's all.

You can heavily tax something and still keep it close enough to the black market price to reduce the profit margins of criminals. Business models about moving tobacco from cheaper states to more expense ones isn't exactly going to buy anyone a yacht or their own crime syndicate. It's akin to moon-shining really. Most of these chemicals are legal in various forms already. The potency available illegally is precisely because it reaches unsafe levels rather than what might be used for recreational purposes. I tend to believe that most users would be content with regulated levels of even hard drugs if they were no longer criminalized and more accessible.

My use of "alone" might have muddied my point. There is no reason to be defensive here. Game threads are fine. I don't care about how sophomoric any part of the forum is. I'm not going to be posting about "bewbs" or "boners" or anything else. I have no dog in the fight. I know people get a lot of therapy joking around in there during these awful years. Go nuts. But you have repeatedly said "we say in the policy it's more ok in the game threads" but out of the other side we hear "things aren't any different there". Well, they are. That's why you've loosened that specifically in the comment policy. And that's fine, but you're not trying very hard to see both sides if someone says "hey! my sophomoric post isn't all that different than the game threads I see every day largely populated by mods....why did I get warned?" And your response is: "Well, yeah, the policy we wrote allows us to do that there". I hope it's fairly apparent why that isn't a satisfactory answer for someone. So just keep that in mind if you have to moderate sophomoric hijinks. Nothing more.

I think my point might have been missed in my example. I'm not bashing anyone or implying a double standard per se......just pointing out that if 10th grade immaturity alone is standard by which one's contributions are to be measured (As John pretty heavily laid down): one could argue our very moderators are an awful example of that standard. To which I'd say, maybe we should be less heavy-handed and dismissive of someone who does say something immature in another context. They could certainly argue a double standard exists. We should be wary of allowing immaturity run rampant in one place and then having a heavy hand in others. If nothing else it sends mixed messages. So go ahead - be as silly and as immature as you want. I certainly don't care. Just be aware that you have purposely created your own little bastion for that, written that into the rules, and relish in it. If someone slips into that in another part of the forum, I'd like to think that would be met with far more sympathy than what Pseudo was referring to earlier.

I like Pseudo's point here. And, no offense to those people, but game threads are the most common place on this entire forum to be filled with 10th grade immaturity and posts that push the line of "high standards". It's all in good fun we all know, but that doesn't detract from what feels like hypocrisy. Which is fine, it's often funny and always with the best intentions it seems, but the lines are mostly certainly blurred in that particular "area" of the board. So I too share a bit of hesitation with that response. It could easily get applied to virtually every game thread I've read here. (Again, no slight, just find it a bit contradictory)

Sign me up - this guy would be a far better option than a few guys sniffing the major league roster right now.

Someone needs to find that epic mullet picture. That's begging to be an avatar.

It took time, but it sure as hell as influenced how it's seen by the larger public. I tend to think this is the best way to go with basically any drug. Cut the dealers and their laced/tampered products out and tax the bejesus out of it so it becomes unfavorable to use.

Correia may be better than Gibson in 2014. Gibson learning to be better in the majors for 2015-2020 is vastly more important, however. As is the potential contribution of anyone that might be with the team long term. Wasting those opportunities to invest in the future in the name of a pitcher (who had his best year in recent memory and still was "meh") - is a poor choice for a rebuilding team.

It's too bad for the Twins. The offseason they finally realize "hey, we can't sleep on addressing our needs" is the offseason that falling asleep at the wheel for a few months might have really paid off. In the long run, what they did this year was the right thing. Let's hope that belief hasn't wavered with some of the other signings that are going down.

Three arguments that are not sitting right with me: 1) Mauer has never had an X under Z. Well, yeah, but does that hold true ad infinitum? At some point, age and wear and tear will take their toll. I personally don't believe it's this year, but let's not kid ourselves that this particular argument matters much for a catcher past the age of 30 with some injury issues in the recent past. 2) Young players don't mature along some steady incline. Sometimes they take a step back to go forward. Arcia started showing some steps back late last year and as HUGE a fan as I am of this kid going foward - I'm hardly banking on him yet. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if Arcia went through a tough year that was vital for him to be a great hitter long-term. 3) "It can't be any worse than last year" was a refrain we heard....last year...about our pitching. The thing is....if you're not all that talented, it's hardly a given that you can't be any worse. You can, absolutely, be just as bad. Bad teams with bad talent tend to be unlucky as well as untalented.