caulfield12

Hernandez really does feel more like a 4th outfielder on an NL team, perhaps a starter on a lower-tier squad. Of course, you could have said the same thing, for example, about Leonys Martin and he's really having a heckuva start to 2016 with the Mariners. Sometimes guys who look like complementary or bench pieces such as Alexei Ramirez will surprise you and the guys everyone is on like Soler, Castillo and Puig end up struggling to put it together or sustain success.

The ONLY way bunting Eaton there makes sense would be facing an incredibly difficult LH pitcher that Adam's struggled to even make contact with...even then, it's dubious. He has been our best overall hitter in the early going. You don't have him bunting when you should be playing for a big inning at home. Too conservative. And the bullpen wasn't even in close to "lockdown" mode so it's not like a 1 run lead even is close to automatic.

As far as Carlos Sanchez goes, Eduardo Escobar might be a pretty good comp. Coming up, it seemed like he had the glove to be an everyday player but not the bat (Escobar). In reality, it's almost turned out to be the opposite at the big league level. He's a guy you'd love to have off the bench on a playoff team, but not really a legit starter on a consistent basis. We had all these guys, Semien, Micah, Sanchez and Saladino coming up together and yet none were 100% trusted by the organization to play 2B or SS everyday. They TRIED with Sanchez at 2B then became discouraged with his bat and weren't certain he could play SS well as Saladino. So this year, Robert got more of a look even though they kind of forgot about him the last two months of the year. Let's just say he was, at best, overlooked/underrated (500ish OPS numbers, even in the middle infield, tend to have that effect).

Randall Simon's clearly the worst. Peavy is #2.

QUOTE (BamaDoc @ May 23, 2016 -> 08:31 AM) Why would Julio Teheran be available? The same reason that Carlos Rodon would be a huge trade chip if he was on the Braves and was one year closer to arbitration. Teheran is one of those youngish pitchers very unlikely to be dealt unless someone overpays, but who Atlanta might want to leverage into even more Year 1-3 cost-controlled prospects if another Shelby Miller/Giles/Kimbrel offer comes rolling in.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitching/_/so...qualified/false A lot of very familiar names on this list of the worst pitchers so far. From the Coop can fix 'em category. Man, Sonny Gray's really not doing Billy Beane any favors so far this year.

Pitchers who might be available (based on their teams) Tyler Chatwood (COL) Jordan Zimmerman (DET, if the Tigers fall out of the race) Masahiro Tanaka (NYY) Julio Teheran (ATL) Dan Straily (CINCY) Rich Hill (OAK) Drew Pomeranz (SD) Marco Estrada (TOR) Erasmo Ramirez (TB) JA Happ (TOR) Jimmy Nelson (MIL) David Phelps (MIA) James Shields (SD) Fernando Rodney (SD) Ryan Buchter (SD) Ervin Santana (MIN) Fernando Rodriguez (OAK) Jeanmar Gomez (PHA) Daniel Hudson (AZ) Nathan Eovaldi (NYY) Also Pineda/Nova/Sabathia Fernando Abad (MIN) Ryan Madson (OAK) Ricky Nolasco (MIN)

"How is Porcello that far ahead of Quintana, boggles the mind." I'm sure you didn't notice that response embedded within the paragraph.

Who was the last player to originate in the Chicago Public League and be taken Top 5? Jeffrey Jackson by the Phillies?

Let's just put it this way, for us to really get anywhere near that kind of Angels money (a jump of more than 200%), we need to make the playoffs at least 2 of the next 3/4 years... And the timing is a challenge, where all of our best young players (Sale, Eaton, Quintana and Rodon) will be having their contracts expire right around the the time we start re-negotiations. Of course, a lot COULD and will happen between now and then. Tim Anderson might become a dynamic All-Star caliber SS and quiet team leader. Carson Fulmer and Adams fill out the back end of the rotation...we sign another big name FA from Cuba, Korea, Japan, etc. On the other hand, Abreu might have already peaked and we're an injury to a key player or two from being stuck in another "holding pattern" like last summer and putting all our cards into making the playoffs in 2017 before we have to replace 40-50% of the starting line-up in an "average" free agent market at the conclusion of that season.

Boston/ESPN/East Coast media bias, lol? You'd think that Betts, Bradley, Jr., Pedroia, Shaw, Hanley Ramirez, Bogaerts and David Ortiz were a legit threat to the 1927 Murderers' Row Yankees.

http://losangeles.sbnation.com/los-angeles...son-arte-moreno Ewokpelts, how about this...? Let's get ESPN's Jon Greenberg to give us his best guess how much/how many years the White Sox will get from CSN in 2019. You have your Angels' guess.... Or you can have Crain's Chicago Business back you up...if you can find someone who will agree with your assessment. The White Sox are much more likely to have a structure similar to the Mariners' deal with ROOT, without nearly the guaranteed $150 million per year the Angels are receiving. Instead, the Mariners are headed in a different and somewhat surprising direction. The new deal — estimated by Forbes at $2 billion over 17 years — will give the Mariners broader control over the RSN’s programming. But that control may come with some financial uncertainty. At the moment, three MLB teams own majority stakes in their regional sports networks: New York Mets (SNY), Boston Red Sox (NESN), and Baltimore Orioles (MASN). The New York Yankees recently sold their majority stake in the YES Network to News Corporation. The Los Angeles Dodgers expect to join the group next season with the launch of SportsNet LA, an RSN operated by American Media Productions, a newly-formed subsidiary of the Dodgers’ ownership group. The financial uncertainty arises, in part, from the way MLB treats the different revenue streams from a team-owned RSN for purposes of the league’s revenue-sharing program. For example, NESN pays the Red Sox $90 million each year for the exclusive right to broadcast Sox games. That $90 million is included in the Red Sox’ “net local revenue” and subject to revenue-sharing. But the Sox also receive revenue as a result of its majority stake in NESN. That investment income is not subject to revenue sharing because the Red Sox bear the risk of NESN’s overall financial performance. Only the guaranteed yearly payments are subject to revenue sharing. (If you haven’t read my earlier posts explaining the ins and outs of MLB’s revenue-sharing program, you can find them here and here.) Contrast the Red Sox/NESN situation with the Angels’ new deal with FoxSports West. Under the Angels’ 17-year/$2.5 billion deal, the team is guaranteed $150 million in annual rights fees and investment income from their 25% equity stake in the RSN. That’s $60 million more in guaranteed money each year for the Angels compared to the Red Sox, but with a much smaller upside from the minority stake in FoxSports West. The full $150 million rights fee is subject to revenue sharing. The details of the Mariners-ROOT Sports NW deal have not been been made public. If Forbes’ numbers are correct, the team will likely receive an annual rights fee in neighborhood of $117 million. That would top the annual rights fees of the Red Sox and the other teams with majority control over their RSNs. But we’re awaiting details on the size of the Mariners’ equity stake in the RSN; all we know now is that it will be more than 50%. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mariners-ga...orts-northwest/ The White Sox deal will be more tied into ownership (and it could be as much as 40% with the Cubs gone, 20% to the Bulls, 20% to the Blackhawks and the rest to NBC/Universal/Comcast). The Reinsdorfs would essentially own 60% of CSN-Chicago. Even then, it's only going to be 40% to the White Sox (compared to the Angels' 25%), and it's not guaranteed that Comcast won't have to figure out alternative financing strategies to keep the Blackhawks in the fold since the White Sox share would be doubling and theirs would be remaining the same (when they're clearly a huge profit driver for the network, and obviously the Bulls might be in a down cycle then as well). OF COURSE, that means the White Sox would have to be successful, make it to the playoffs on a consistent basis and generate significantly higher ratings than right now because not all that money is going to be guaranteed each year, like the Angels' $150 million. Houston and LA have learned the hard way. The Mariners' experiment MIGHT work out, but that's a gamble too if their playoff window of opportunity closes and ends up going on 2 decades without an appearance in the post-season.

Ummm....what do tv ratings 4 years after a new deal is signed have to do with the renegotiated package? They can do a clawback and the Dodgers and Angels will "refund" money back because its not as profitable as first imagined? What does that have to do with the ratings the Angels were drawing from 2002-2010? That's like suggesting OKC would get a terrible tv rights deal because the media companies could see into the future and realize Durant and Westbrook wouldn't be playing there in 2020. The only thing that matters is their best estimate at the time of the deal about future projections AND a 3-5 (some might go back 10) year history of the ratings generated prior to the deal. It's not like the White Sox are going to be able to promise 3 playoff appearances in the 2019-2023 because they're going to spend an extra $50 million per year on payroll. Doesn't work that way. http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/dodg...0805-story.html I suppose you're going to argue that they KNEW beforehand the Dodgers' deal would be such a disaster that it would drive the Angels' rating up to record highs in 2014??? And they knew this because they had a crystal ball all the way back in 2011? By that theory, the Cubs' SUPERMEGASTATION in 2019/20 will price itself completely out of the Chicago market, and the White Sox will convert all those casual fans into White Sox fans/viewers/listeners because almost nobody is receiving Cubs' content. And Mike Trout had nothing to do with that deal either...because nobody was aware of the fact that Bryce Harper and Trout were the 2 best prospects in that game!!! Right. Just like a year ago if the Cubs were negotiating a rights deal they CLEARLY wouldn't bring up Kris Bryant, who's roughly 1/5th of the player Trout is.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ May 23, 2016 -> 12:53 AM) http://losangeles.sbnation.com/los-angeles...son-arte-moreno Mike trout played 40 games in 2011 when this deal was brokered. google is your friend and two years before a monster contract extension with fox sports, the angels, despite making the playoffs most years in the late 2000's, were in the toilet. http://www.halosheaven.com/2009/7/16/95190...s-tv-ratings-in http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/ana/histo...son_results.jsp You're making my argument for me. The Angels appeared in the playoffs in 2004, 05, 07, 08 and 2009. The World Series was JUST 9 years behind them. Compare to the White Sox. 14 years since the World Series. Only one playoff appearance in the last eight years. The Angels had 5 out of 6 years and then began to struggle a bit in 2010, but had some pieces in place and Trout on the way. They had one of the highest spending owners (west of Ilich) in Arte Moreno and consistent Top 5-7 MLB attendance and tv ratings for a decade. I'm not seeing one common thread between the White Sox and the Angels, except them both being "second" teams in their cities. To summarize, Angels, 5 out of 7 years heading into 2011 and 6 out of 9. And the Chicago/LA media markets, but Chicago's still significantly smaller and more compressed. The White Sox have barely made the playoffs six times in the last century (not counting the 1919 team since they were kicked out of baseball). The White Sox were 30th in tv ratings...dead last. That doesn't scream Angels, it screams Milwaukee/Seattle/Colorado/Arizona/St Louis/Detroit in terms of a broadcast rights deal. 1959 1983 1993 2000 2005 2008

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ May 23, 2016 -> 12:53 AM) http://losangeles.sbnation.com/los-angeles...son-arte-moreno Mike trout played 40 games in 2011 when this deal was brokered. google is your friend and two years before a monster contract extension with fox sports, the angels, despite making the playoffs most years in the late 2000's, were in the toilet. http://www.halosheaven.com/2009/7/16/95190...s-tv-ratings-in http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/ana/histo...son_results.jsp You're making my argument for me. The Angels appeared in the playoffs in 2004, 05, 07, 08 and 2009. The World Series was JUST 9 years behind them. Compare to the White Sox. 14 years since the World Series. Only one playoff appearance in the last eight years. The Angels had 5 out of 6 years and then began to struggle a bit in 2010, but had some pieces in place and Trout on the way. They had one of the highest spending owners (west of Illich) in Arte Moreno and consistent Top 5-7 MLB attendance for a decade. I'm not seeing one common thread between the White Sox and the Angels, except them both being "second" teams in their cities. To summarize, Angels, 5 out of 7 years heading into 2011 and 6 out of 9. And the Chicago/LA media markets, but Chicago's still significantly smaller and more compressed. The White Sox have barely made the playoffs six times in the last century (not counting the 1919 team since they were kicked out of baseball). 1959 1983 1993 2000 2005 2008

Yeah, you can add one player for the doubleheader. As far as I know, Erik Johnson is obviously ours... http://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3506 You can find the relevant section 1/3rd of the way down. Some pretty weird stats. Sox offense is 12th in OBP (that's a first for ages, in the top half), 26th in homers (38, I'm sure we're even lower for homers hit by LHBers), 21st in SLG, 20th in the total bases. 16th in runs scored (7th in the AL). http://espn.go.com/mlb/features/cyyoung Chris Sale out in front of Arrieta here. Freaking Shark, 5th in the NL, ahead of Bumgarner. Cueto doing well (surprise, surprise), shift from ALCD to NL West works wonders. Can't imagine trading top prospects for the likes of Rich Hill, Erasmo Ramirez or Jeanmar Gomez.

http://www.milb.com/player/index.jsp?sid=m...layer_id=605182 Mike Clevinger. RHP. Making his second big league start. Gave up 4 ER in 5 IP last time out (debut). Doesn't have dramatic RHB vs. LHP splits. Has the Colby Rasmus/Lincecum/Shark/Syndergaard flowing locks. http://www.letsgotribe.com/2016/5/18/11693...couting-reports Clevinger has a changeup that has become his most effective swing and miss pitch, and is probably the best overall pitch in his arsenal. He also has a slider that is very effective in forcing groundballs. Clevinger's final pitch in his arsenal is a 12-6 curveball, just to throw something very off-speed and get batter's unbalanced, that became his two-strike pitch just prior to the injury. According to an Angels scout, all four of Clevinger's pitches are "Major League average or better, and can only get better." (from 2013) http://www.espn.go.com/mlb/player/batvspit...3/cody-anderson Anderson has been pretty terrible so far this year. If Clevinger can give them a quality start and Anderson continues to falter, he'll permanently lose his rotation spot. As it is, he's just up in the bigs under that 24 hour DH clause, so will return to AAA for the 3rd time already this season. Started last Monday against the Reds and was rocked but the Indians' offense rallied back. Has been a BIT embattled in the local press/talk radio. "Get off Cody Anderson's back and give him a break!" Rant of the Week http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2...art_river_index Extra bonus points for Brett Myers mention (in reference to a slew of gopher balls allowed by both Anderson and Myers in 2013) Right now, they've got more starting depth than the Sox. Salazar (he was throwing 96-99 against Boston but got touched up, still best OPP BAA in MLB) Kluber (settled down after giving up 2 early to Boston on FRI, dominant for remainder of game) Carrasco (DL) Tomlin (pitching very effectively this year, luckily we don't have to pitch against him because he's 6/10) Anderson OR Trevor Bauer Clevinger Starting Latos in the first game seems like the right move. Feel more confident in him at least keeping the team within striking distance and doesn't put quite so much pressure on the bullpen in the 2nd game. Obviously critical to win that first game with the White Sox having struggled so much in their last 11. In some ways, we got a reprieve, because the Indians lost 2/3 against both the Twins and Red Sox, but that got cancelled out by going 4-0 against the Reds and igniting their offense with 43 RS to zip up the AL offensive ranks. At the worst, a split and starting Sale on Tuesday seems a good way to, at the very least, hold our ground in the standings and contain the bleeding.

Nice that he gets to pitch against the Indians AND Sunday against the Royals. KC's line-up is better suited for RHPers, in general. Too bad he doesn't get to match up with Syndergaard, though.

Probably has something to do with Garcia being very cool recently and 0/12 with 4 k's against Ventura lifetime. Sands has also been more dangerous this past week, so attempting to with the hot hand and shake things up a bit.

QUOTE (SonofaRoache @ May 22, 2016 -> 09:01 PM) This is true but I think we can get a low end number two guy who for a rental later in the year even. They have a two year window to steal a pennant and get the ball rolling as these high draft picks turn into starters. It seems there are going to be two camps. The few aces on the market, like Sonny Gray, potentially...that would be well beyond our grasp prospect-wise. Then those guys like Cashner, Shields, Erwin Santana, Teheran, Ricky Nolasco...that are probably closer to 4's or even 5's and have "bad" contracts and/or are getting more expensive on teams going nowhere. Rich Hill is a perfect example of someone who statistically might look like a 2/3 in Oakland, but teams would be foolish overpaying for in hopes of landing a legit 2 (let's call him "lower tier" 2).

MLB managers and GM's will almost always go with the "veteran" over someone who has yet to play in the majors...now, if the White Sox were in the same position as 4-5 NL zombie teams, then you could try Hayes, Coats, Delmonico, Davidson, it wouldn't matter in terms of winning and losing. It seems either Hahn or Ventura...someone really likes having Sands on the roster.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-colum...le63961222.html This story has all the answers you're looking for...maybe not the droid, though. I just remember Silverio, Orlando and Anderson Gomes. Was that the extent of it? Later on, we'd get the forgettable Andre Rienzo as well out of Brazil.

QUOTE (flavum @ May 22, 2016 -> 03:06 PM) Through 41 Games: Sox 25-16 Cle 22-19 KC 21-20 Det 19-22 Min 10-31 Every team has flaws, but I'll take our position. Something weird is going on because those standings are through Thursday night... http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-mlb-predictions/ White Sox currently at 57% chance to make the playoffs. 42/29/16/13 to win division (White Sox/Indians/Royals/Tigers)

QUOTE (SonofaRoache @ May 22, 2016 -> 07:39 PM) I agree with this completely. This is why I'd like for us to try and acquire a legit number 2 pitcher. If you can sneak in you have three pitchers who are dam good and hopefully one of the latter guys would have stepped up to claim the 4th spot. That top 3 or 4 would compete with anybody including the Cubs. On the flip side, we'd probably lose all those games 2 to 1. The Cubs would likely scrap 1 or 2 off Sale and Q but I doubt we could even tough Arrieta and Lester. From the White Sox perspective, the only way this happens is through the draft or "stealing" another Quintana/Santos/Jenks/Humber. There's just not the money available to give ANOTHER starter a $100 million + contract...not when it has to spread around the rest of the offense over the next couple of years to keep that line-up competitive. Having ANOTHER frontline starter is a luxury. The White Sox believe Rodon is that guy, anyway, and have to be comfortable with their Top 3. The most important factor, obviously, is just getting into the playoffs in the first place. They obviously hope that Fulmer, Danish, Adams, Guerrero or Jordan Stephens will become that final rotation piece as well. White Sox battling with the Marlins (what the hell happened to Giancarlo Stanton?). 26. MIAMI 20629 per game 27. WHITE SOX 20479 per game White Sox have Cincy, Atlanta, Baltimore and Minnesota in front of them. Looks like we're headed for 23rd or 24th in attendance, which would be a big improvement. Don't see them passing the Orioles if Baltimore keeps up their level of play. Current pace is 1.659 million. Hopefully it ends up much closer to 1.8-1.85 million, perhaps 1.9.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ May 22, 2016 -> 03:49 PM) bulls***. The Angels have s*** ratings in the overall la market and fox re-upped at 1.5 billion years before the contract was due. The Rangers also got renewed early and were given a signing bonus to stay. The sox are in a large market and are linked to the Bulls and Hawks for the foreseeable Future. AND, most importantly, they own the rights to buy the Cubs share of csn. Anyone who thinks the sox are going to get f***ed in a tv deal are smoking battery acid laced crack. Yes, but the value of that deal wouldn't have been so high if not for the presence of Trout, one of the two best players in baseball. I get the idea of comparing the "second team" in another large market with two teams to the White Sox situation, but the Angels have been running a Top 5-7 payroll and are always among the Top 10 in attendance in the majors as well. In order for the White Sox rights to more than double, who is going to be bidding against CSN for those rights? They're going to rise from $50,000 to $100-120,000 per game based on...? Maintaining a good relationship with the Bulls/Reinsdorf? Realistically, if you were running Comcast and looking at re-negotiating the Sox contract, why would you more than double it? Because they're losing the Cubs, in all likelihood? And what's to say that CSN won't be forced by paying more for the White Sox property to pass those costs on to subscribers? It's not QUITE the same thing as a regional monster like YES or the Red Sox with NESN or the Dodgers, but how can they pay so much more unless they believe they can increase their profits by a similar percentage in terms of ROI? Ultimately, I suppose, JR could threaten to take the White Sox and Bulls TOGETHER to another carrier...but how likely is that to happen? That their rights fees would be mixed together and leveraged as a single entity?