caulfield12

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-white-sox-hanley-ramirez-sullivan-20180527-story.html He didn't say it, but the only reason they would seemingly do this would be to flip him again in July if he goes on a hot streak...as they already have Davidson (DL), Palka, Skole, Delmonico, etc., that profile as good candidates for DH at-bats (not to mention Seby Zavala and Ryan Cordell). Maybe even Avi when he returns from the DL could be "protected" in the beginning at DH?

Let's be honest, though: Barr's Twitter feed has been abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with what should have been ABC and Disney's values since long before the show was picked up, and also subsequently. Barr's Twitter feed has trafficked in vile and disproved conspiracy theories and ample content that walked lines many considered racist or xenophobic or prejudiced or judgment-clouded in a number of ways. She has engaged in hostile and insulting fights with Twitter followers high and low. She has shown no interest in controlling herself. This is not new, and no one at ABC can pretend they didn't know. Last August at the TCA press tour, I asked Dungey if it was anybody's job to monitor Barr's Twitter feed in case she said something that made airing the show untenable. "She actually publicly announced a few weeks ago that her son is going to be taking over her Twitter feed for the near future," said the exec. "That was all by her. We did not ask her to do that, but she did make that decision. What we’ve heard from Roseanne is she is very excited about the show and wants to be very focused on the show. The writers room has just gotten started, and she’s going to be an active contributor to that." Several questions are raised here in retrospect. Why was ABC comfortable with Barr's son running a gross Twitter feed in her name, one that featured a verified check mark and was assumed to be coming from Roseanne? Why was that better? When did that experiment with her son running the Twitter feed end? Did anything change? Why does it matter? And why didn't ABC ask Barr to take a break from Twitter? Or to take a break from specific aspects of her Twitter? And does this imply in some way that at a certain point Barr ceased to be excited about and focused on the show, and this is a manifestation of that? After Dungey's TCA panel response, according to the transcript, I followed up, "But no matter who is actually doing her Twitter feed, if you look at the things that whoever it is has tweeted in the past week, there’s some wacky conspiracy stuff that either she or her son has tweeted, and it’s not like this is a new thing. I’m just wondering if that concerns you." She said, "I try to just worry about the things that I can control." I return again to my confusion. Why was this not something that worried them? And why couldn't ABC control Barr's Twitter feed? This was August 2017, remember. At the time, nobody knew how Roseanne would do in its return. Its value to ABC and to Disney was uncertain. I hadn't yet given the new episodes a fairly positive review in which I attempted to separate artist from art. Then it premiered huge. And even after weeks of declines, it still remained at a level well above any reasonable expectations for the show. Since March, ABC has known exactly what the show's value was and that value was potentially huge. How has Barr's Twitter feed not become something ABC could or wanted to control since then? ... This was also inevitable, assuming ABC lacked the power or will to tell Barr to stop tweeting entirely or lose the show. By my read, you could go back through the last two months of Barr tweets and find dozens that could easily have been interpreted as going over some line or at least running contrary to certain values of a network that put her onstage to open its upfront presentation to advertisers just two weeks ago, where she made jokes about Disney/ABC Television Group chairmain Ben Sherwood writing her tweets. Ha ha? I'd guess you could find hundreds of tweets in recent years that many people would have thought were grounds for punishment, censure or a total severing of ties. She could not stop herself. She did not want to stop herself. As tipping point tweets go, this was a worthy one. There's no ambiguity. I don't think it was the first tweet that met that threshold and ABC's statement on Tuesday treats it as a single killshot, not as a straw that broke a camel's back or anything cumulative or confirmatory of long-term questionable behavior. This. Was. Inevitable. ABC shouldn't be expressing outrage at one tweet. The network should be expressing disappointment at an employee who cost the company millions and cost dozens of extremely talented co-workers their livelihoods by not being able to resist being reprehensibly racist, when merely being tangentially gross was apparently condoned. This is way too late to count as the frog (ABC) refusing to give passage to this scorpion (Barr). Heck, the frog booked a return engagement. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/fien-print/critics-notebook-abcs-roseanne-cancellation-a-predictable-tale-frog-scorpion-1115530

It's all about the ORDER of those three starts....in combination with a low 2's ERA in AAA and pick up in velocity. If Palka makes that catch, he's in position for the win (STILL). If the first two errors weren't made in the bottom of the 5th, he gets through that inning with only 2 runs given up in 5 IP and might even have gotten a quality start. It's really hard to jump all over Covey when your defense starts out an inning in that fashion...against the best team in your division playing on their home field. Compared to Giolito and Fulmer starts, he was downright decent.

Looks like the Bulls responded with an invite...sounds like a subject for the next Benetti podcast, him traipsing around the Berto Center with TA (and trying to get quotes from Bulls' players about Anderson's hoop game.)

Leury Garcia has a ton of flexibility and we control his rights through 2020...Cordell MIGHT have the ability to play 3B as well as all the outfield positions. This is (also) another argument for either Madrigal (or India) over Bohm...that they're capable of playing multiple positions on the field. I guess it also depends on how confident we are in Davidson playing extensively at 3B (or 1B). But having Anderson, Moncada, Madrigal/India, Yolmer and Leury Garcia all being able to play 3+ positions would be tremendously helpful in terms of roster construction. From your list of names (mostly offense, limited defense), you could reasonably add Seby Zavala as well. So that's a total of eight names for DH...and doesn't even include Micker Adolfo, who's yet another name that fits there (depending ultimately on how his elbow rehab turns out.) So NINE.

Young in terms of total big league innings for someone that age, lol?

https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/29/roseanne-barr-valerie-jarrett-cancelled/ It was a vile thing to say, though no one has any right to be surprised that Barr said it. The notoriously pro-Trump comedian—who is otherwise something of an ardent leftist—has a long history of offensive, nonsensical utterances. She once said Wall Street bankers should be executed via guillotine, has flirted with 9/11 trutherism, and claimed the Boston Marathon bombing was a false flag operation. She doxed George Zimmerman's parents, and suggested people should go to their homes unless Zimmerman was arrested for killing Trayvon Martin. In March 2018, she falsely accused Parkland survivor and activist David Hogg of making a Nazi salute; it was Roseanne herself, of course, who posed as Adolph Hitler for a satirical magazine in 2009, holding a tray of overbaked gingerbread men labelled "burnt Jew cookies." Roseanne is crazy, and her disgusting remark about Jarrett is perfectly in character. No one is allowed to pretend that Roseanne finally went too far, or some such nonsense: the Jarrett comment—for which she swiftly apologized, to no avail—is hardly more offensive than any number of things she has said over the years. If people who say very bad things do not deserve to work in television, then Roseanne should never have been rebooted in the first place. ... And yet I think we ought to be a little worried about what will come of this. Roseanne was by some accounts an interesting show that offered insights into the kind of Trump-voting working class American family that doesn't often grace our TV screens. "Like most of us, they live, and live through, their differences, an accomplishment the show's more ideological critics don't seem to give people much credit for," wrote Reason's Scott Shackford in a review of the show for the July issue of Reason. Can a person find Roseanne interesting without endorsing Roseanne the person? If so, why was that possible yesterday, but not today—given that nothing about Roseanne's nature has fundamentally changed? Many conservatives are already criticizing what they will undoubtedly view as ABC's capitulation to political-correctness-run-amok, and it's easy to see how this could play directly into the right's narrative that the left is determined to silence everybody who says the wrong thing. In response to left-of-center pundit Toure calling on ABC to address the fact that "millions are hurt, offended, and traumatized by Roseanne's racist comments," conservative commentator Jesse Kelly tweeted the following: Jesse Kelly® ✔ @JesseKellyDC REMINDER:Liberals will come for your career for wrong-think. People on the Right have had about enough of it and will start returning the favor And that's (part of) the problem. Conservatives won't watch football unless all the players comport themselves perfectly, rigidly adhering to the right's version of patriotic correctness. How dare you disrespect the flag, they say. Liberals don't think a television show should continue to exist if somebody central to its production does or says something super bad. How dare you traumatize our marginalized communities, they say. This race to find more things to be offended about and more reasons to start lynch mobs doesn't seem particularly healthy for the fabric of American society, especially if right and left are determined to one-up each other on the outrage front. Many media companies will attempt to appease viewers on both sides of the ideological spectrum, and their output will be that much less interesting. I won't particularly miss Roseanne, but I do miss being able to appreciate a television show, book, or work of art, even if I thought the artist was a lunatic.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/29/roseanne-abc-canceled-boycotts-trump-611593 Why ABC had no choice but to dump Roseanne..The threat of massive advertiser boycotts outweighs any fear of stoking Trump’s fury, experts say. Beckman said that may well have been the case, but added, “ABC did the math.” A boycott campaign might have started with just “Roseanne,” he said, but could have easily spread to the rest of ABC, as well as Disney’s many other properties, including ESPN, the "Star Wars" franchise, and, as he put it, “every fricking superhero movie there is.” ... That is a risk for ABC, Bonner said, but in the end, the outrage prompted by doing nothing would be worse for the network than being forced to weather a series of presidential tweets. “You can’t have the star of a major sitcom making racist comments. You can’t do that. It’s not done. Not in this day and age,” he said. “I think the blowback from Trump, it doesn’t seem to last, it’s ephemeral, where having a long-lasting boycott, or movement, would be a lot worse.” Bonner also noted that, most likely, ABC had not yet sold advertising for the show’s second season, which would now be a tall task. “They’re probably in negotiation as we speak. Normally they wrap up in early June,” he said. http://variety.com/2018/tv/news/roseanne-schedule-cancellation-abc-1202824475/ Losing Roseanne leaves a gaping hole in the reinvigorated ABC Tuesday line-up At its upfront presentation to advertisers two weeks ago, ABC unveiled a fall schedule that boasted “Roseanne” leading off the Tuesday-night prime-time lineup. The revived multi-camera sitcom had just secured its place as the 2017-18 season’s No. 1 scripted show in Nielsen’s 18-49 demo. Heading into the upfront, ABC had positioned the show as the long-sought answer to the network’s Tuesday-night woes and the new face of its comedy brand. http://www.businessinsider.com/cancelling-roseanne-may-have-cost-abc-100-million-but-saved-parent-company-disney-a-whole-lot-more-2018-5

You better be sure he's the "next Aaron Nola" when you draft a Singer. We can't afford to whiff twice in five years on Top 10 draft picks spent on pitching, not to mention the still (relatively) uncertain future of Rodon for 2020 and 2021.

After reading a number of the stories on the Roseanne show cancellation...one common point keeps coming up, above all others. That ABC is being hypocritical for having a "double standard" for the two programs. Obviously, one is an opinion show...whereas the Roseanne situation is more about her personal use of Twitter affecting the core brand of ABC/Disney. Now the obvious question then becomes have any of the co-hosts of The View said something either on the show or via social media that would "objectively" raise to the same level of the VJ/Muslim Brotherhood/Planet of the Apes/George Soros in concentration camps collaborating with Nazi's and stealing money/Chelsea Clinton's husband is somehow related to Soros chain of tweets...? Just curious if anyone on the moderate/centrist or Republican side feels this show should also go in the name of "fairness." If so, what does that say about our rights to Freedom of Speech on both sides, whether it's NFL players protesting by kneeling without being told to leave the country or the reverse, which is that one must be 100% patriotic all the time way of looking at the country?

Or he really already knew (way before the rest of the American people) how badly the war in Vietnam was actually going...but that's a huge GUESS to imagine he could anticipate what would happen in 1966-1968 as the tide of public opinion turned (and a number of American cities started to burn as the riots hit.) Maybe it's better to be positive and assume it really was courage, and that he didn't know in 1964 he was going to decide not to run again in '68.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/29/politics/diane-black-school-shootings-pornography/index.html Problem solved....who'd a thunk it that pornography was the root cause of all the shootings? Great work, GOP!!!

Okay, fine...the tail end of a classic Abreu hot streak. We knew coming in against CLE starting pitching it wasn't going to be easy.

Well, then I think we're okay going JFK and FDR... Actually, the one you want is RFK...but not the earlier version, but the NY Senator and presidential candidate of 1968. A legacy unfulfilled, although we'll never know whether they party insiders would have still given the nomination to Hubert Humphrey over a Kennedy. Probably not after he won the California primary.

Okay, Chitown, let's make a bet. You say he's going to get moved before June 19th. I think that Hahn/Getz will wait until June 20th or 21st...what are the stakes? Greg will give the winner 5 "likes," lol? You guys are basically arguing that Jimenez needs less time in AA than Kris Bryant, one of the Top 5ish players in MLB.

But...KC's going to be asking for the sun, moon and stars with Herrera. Might be better to strike first and get what we can for Jones instead of waiting until the last two weeks of July (or before he gets hurt again, see Crain, Jessie). It's not like he will get a ton of save opportunities against the Indians anyway, or the Twins.

Jones is NOT that young. His injury history and contract status make him an ideal candidate to push out of the nest this year. Fry, I would agree with you...and most teams aren't going to be willing to overvalue him based on his 2018 results so far, because he's had a fairly pedestrian/injury-plagued career up to this point. So, IDEALLY, they can move Jones and/or Avilan/Soria. Hopefully they won't move both together just to save the money and lower the prospect return, but it's the most logical move.

You could probably go with JFK, but he's going to be nailed by the #metoo movement, right? Of course, going by that, FDR and his infamous affair with Lucy Mercer disqualify him. That leaves either Truman (who dropped a nuclear bomb and was tied at the hip to the Pendergast graft machine in Kansas City)....or the best candidate is probably "socialist/progressive" Henry Wallace, FDR's first VP before he was replaced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Wallace The problem is that almost nobody knows about him...Carter would be the obvious choice for his life post-presidency, but his actual years in office are too much of a stain on his legacy.

Nate Jones B.Rondon (less likely) Fry (if they want another lefty, although surely Hahn would try to push the veteran Avilan out the door first) Soria Joe Smith and Harris have high/er ERA's, Devenski and Giles have both gotten bombed in the last week, and they seemingly didn't have 100% confidence in Giles to begin the season with in the first place.

Before today's game Gonzalez -0.3 fWAR Santiago/Giolito -0.4 Fulmer -0.6 The pitching can't get much worse...so there's that. Shields, Lopez and Covey have been bright spots.

Yolmer's penciling out somewhere in the 2.1-2.6 fWAR range for a full season. Can we live with that at 3B? Maybe. Palka is at 0.0 because of his defense...1.2 OFF and -3.8 DEF before today's game, which might have moved him up to 0.1

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-should-golf-more-190600631.html The American economy would be much better off if Trump just spent all his time on the golf course and away from Twitter

When people don't vote for Biden or Sanders because of their age/s...you can say the same thing about Elizabeth Warren to a lesser extent.

Just whisper the name "GLEYBER TORRES" to Cubs' fans...it's really not fair the Yankees have that guy hitting 9th. Of course, they'll argue back they couldn't have won it without Chapman, but it will still rile them a little.

1) Palka's exit velocity 2) Anderson's offensive surge 3) Covey looking like he might be on the verge of putting it together 4) A classic Abreu hot streak 5) Tilson actually staying healthy for a week? 6) No more Gonzalez...soon?