caulfield12

He's got to be in the high 30's/low 40's for vertical. Cool article. Great character/resilience. Like the fact he's determined to prove doubters wrong at SS. Wish that Hawkins came into pro ball with that same chip on his shoulder. http://m.mlb.com/video/v540374383/top-pros...on-ss-white-sox

Obviously University of Phoenix, Kaplan and similar for-profit online universities aren't a solution, either. If the Federal government doesn't play a major role in preparing America for the future, who will? Is the Republican Party going to open the doors to many immigrants in the STEM areas that most American students are so weak in...? If there's a closed door immigration policy and fewer graduates, how will America compete? Taking out loans to start small businesses/services at ages 16-24 is potentially more dangerous than the growing student loan burden.

Obviously University of Phoenix, Kaplan and similar for-profit online universities aren't a solution, either. If the Federal government doesn't play a major role in preparing America for the future, who will? Is the Republican Party going to open the doors to many immigrants in the STEM areas that most American students are so weak in...? If there's a closed door immigration policy and fewer graduates, how will America compete? Taking out loans to start small businesses/services at ages 16-24 is potentially more dangerous than the growing student loan burden.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/164316486 Phil Rogers tamping down expectations about us giving up a pick and uncertainty about contending this season...described idea of losing it as potentially "nauseating" to Hahn. Also references Alex Guerrero rumors.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 09:35 PM) Again you are wrong. There are plenty of out of town fans at White Sox games. Most games vs. Detroit sound like road games. It is getting that way vs. KC. It was that way vs. Cleveland for years, but now they don't watch the Indians anywhere. The White Sox draw a fairly decent amount of opposing team fans throughout the summer months. People like to come to Chicago. I wonder if they are going to start to get scared they might get shot. Obviously I was referring to the White Sox developing their own base of younger fans outside of the metropolitan Chicago area ...not populating USCF with fans of other teams, although it's still positive revenue for the team in the end.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 09:17 PM) But you are comparing attendance with 4 consecutive 90 plus loss seasons vs. the White Sox new park which season 1 coming off of a 94 win season, and in 93 winning the division, and leading the division in 94 at the time of the strike.of,course attendance was dropping. 93 was lowere than 91, and 94 was lower than 93 on average, so the strike probably saved the "they need to make the playoffs in consecutive year for attendance to really climb" excuse alive. Sure, but the White Sox were also 20% higher...and that was 20-25 years ago, before baseball attendance really exploded. Are you going to argue Twins' fans are better? Well, considering I keep hearing how White Sox fans are at best 1/3rd of Chicago, the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan market of 3.4-3.8 million fans is still much bigger. Plus they have the ability to draw regionally from outside the city and surrounding states. The White Sox largely do not because of the Cubs, Twins, Brewers, Royals, Cardinals and Tigers, to name six neighboring competitors. Fwiw, every team that builds a new stadium or wins the World Series has a five year window to reap the gains before the predictable falloff. It has been proven time and time again.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 08:57 PM) What would the Sox draw after 99, 96, 96, and 92 loss seasons? That's as hypothetical as asking what would the Sox be drawing now with a second World Series appearance in 2006 and at least a competitive season in 2007... Even if they got down to the 1.3 million mark, subsidies would kick in to protect the franchise, although taxpayer sentiment wouldn't be very friendly with all the various budget shortfalls in the state and city in critical areas of social/public need.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 08:07 PM) You actually make the exact point. The Sox aren't a large market team, and expecting them to spend like one when they don't have that sort of revenue base is completely irrational. Sure, I agree. But then why do our Sox fans constantly get compared to Cubs' fans and found wanting? Two totally different markets/situations. If you compare Sox fans to the Mariners, A's, Indians, Blue Jays, Rockies, DBacks, Padres, Marlins, Reds, Pirates, Royals, Twins, etc., all those fanbases are remarkably similar. Other than the Cardinals (who obviously have a historic winning tradition) and Brewers, there just aren't many second-tier market fans (especially in the Midwest, which proportionately lost more fans due to the strike and financial crisis) who consistently support underperforming teams year in and year out.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 08:33 PM) The Twins went through a total rebuild and have outdrawn the White Sox 7 years in a row . And that would be relevant if the White Sox had also opened a beautiful new stadium in 2010. Minnesota averaged 27,408 last year when they had a playoff competitive, winning team for the entire season. In 2014, when they were terrible and had no young stars like Sano and Buxton coming up, 27,785. Horrible fans, right? They finally have a winning team after 4 years of rebuilding and attendance actually declined. The White Sox averaged roughly 33,000 per game the first five years of their new stadium, despite all the issues with the new facility. In year four, they were still averaging over 32000 per game. Year Five....1995....22,358 despite being one of the best teams in baseball. Now why did that happen?

And I have yet to see anyone make credible arguments for other fanbases performing exceedingly well in the face of similar circumstances (going on nine years now without a playoff appearance), other than the Cubs, Cardinals and Tigers, who have an owner who consistently puts profitability behind winning in terms of priorities. Because of those anomalous examples, any fanbase would look bad in comparison. I suppose you could also argue the Brewers, but they had Bud Selig pulling the strings to provide his daughter every possible benefit during his tenure. And, if you exchanged the two respective stadiums, the results would probably be quite different in Milwaukee. Is there any other team in baseball whose fans are similarly under attack for (supposedly) not supporting their team? Tampa Bay? Oakland? Cleveland? Miami? The Atlanta Braves? (they blamed location and fan fear of the downtown area, especially at night...hence, a new suburban stadium). Are Reds' fans to be blamed this year for not turning out, for example, or Rockies' fans? Padres? Eliminating the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Angels, Giants and Cubs, since I'm sure everyone would agree those are the true large market clubs, the White Sox clearly don't compare with the Cardinals and Tigers, but what other mid-market teams are doing exceedingly well generating revenues without making the playoffs? Even the Mets have/had struggled greatly in recent years in a much newer stadium, for example.

The world financial crisis had little to no impact on disposable income and leisure time spending for fans, nor did it impact corporate sponsorships for sports marketing in the least. Things just went on as normal, with no adjustments. At least 50% of the criticism here is related to decreased revenues, which makes it pretty difficult to avoid the discussion of fans, group buying or corporate accounts.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/196644/...-sox-since-2006 Looking at this table, it's pretty clear that the disappointment of 2006/2007 cut off the revenue acceleration trend. We still haven't had back-to-back playoff or even two appearances within a three year span, fwiw. When they did make the playoffs, it was limping into an ambush on turf in Tampa without their MVP, self-sabotaged. You would like to see a bump from 2008 to 2009, but, once again, we didn't have close to the same level of success in the playoffs as 2005. 2010-2012 was another upswing, although not nearly as dramatic. The bottom didn't fall out until 2013, and that wouldn't have happened to the degree it did had the White Sox made the playoffs in 2012. Even after the disastrous Adam Dunn year, revenues increased from 2011 to 2012. It's pretty clear we were on a huge upswing until the collapse of second half 2006, the 2007 disappointment and then the world financial crisis itself accounts for another not insignificant percentage of flatlining revenue in 2008-09. The world financial crisis really hurt the Midwest region in particular...Chicago, Minnesota, Cincy, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc. The Tigers are/were a clear anomaly because of Ilitch spending in the face of all those economic issues in Detroit. Then you have the Cubs and Cardinals that largely weathered the storm due to larger and more regional fanbases. http://www.statista.com/statistics/196669/...ins-since-2006/ For example, look at the Twins. Huge bump into their new stadium and last playoff appearance in 2010 (6 overall in 9 seasons) but they also totally flatlined over the last five years and look like Japan economically. In many ways, Twins' fans, despite 1987 and 1991, are skeptics of ownership just like Sox fans...always feeling the Pohlads prioritized profits over adding that last player or two to put them over the top. http://www.statista.com/statistics/196682/...ers-since-2006/ Or the Mariners. Their pop in revenue came primarily from their new regional broadcast rights deal with Root. No playoff appearances, flat revenue.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 10:02 AM) 1) OK. As opposed to Sanders, whose plan, again, is to just to give a john galt speech over the radio where everyone suddenly learns the virtue of socialism and forces the Republicans to acquiesce to his demands. Gridlock isn't going away. If you hate Gridlock, vote republican and get a unified house, senate, executive. If you care about liberal policies, vote for Sanders/Clinton, knowing that they will be extremely limited until we can deliver them the house/senate. C 2) Clearly many passionately like Hillary. In 2008 she had a whole contingent of voters we were told would stay home rather than vote for Obama. Now we have older feminists waging war on younger feminists. Here's what will happen: Clinton, who saw favorability drop in primary losing Dem support, will see it rise again if she wins nomination, after all of the Sanders supporters suddenly remember how much better any dem president is when the republican candidates start attacking liberal priorities, and then find common ground as she defends them, and then they realize they like her and vote for her. How do I know this? Because I have watched an election before, and every time we hear "brokered convention!" "I'll never vote for them!" and then they do. 3) Your second part of this paragraph clearly is not related, because you are implying that 18-29 year old women are not voting for Hillary because she's old, and instead are voting for a 75 year old man (OBVIOUSLY women are low-energy and would be so tired). It could be that 18-29 year old women are a more liberal bloc, and are voting for the more liberal candidate. The country doesn't "need" a younger more energetic candidate, that's just politico nonsense. "Well I was going to vote for sanders cause of energy, but without him I guess I'll go with Rubio because of youth, even though he supports nothing I do". 4) Yes, supporting a popular outgoing president will be a "disaster" in the general, this is a great article for Politico. 5) This is a primary, she'll win and do how she does. The states she was strong in last time she's weak in this time, but the early states were not good for her. "What has she actually accomplished in all of her time as a public servant? Her resume is Rubio-esque as a senator." - This is ridiculous and very easy to Google. "My biggest concern is that it feels like the Clintons have learned nothing at all from 2008...clearly misreading the electorate both times, and by a wide margin. It feels their time has come and gone." She did not lost 2008 by a wide margin and is in a tight race now. Wide margin means something different than you think. Also if she was so unprincipled why wouldn't she just start screaming millionaires and billionaires? It's like she actually does believe in things. http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-c...-peoples-votes/ This article is going to be hard for her to counter...and while it happened under Bill's watch, they were essentially a co-presidency in many respects. She can't start screaming billionaires because if you add up the Clinton Foundation coffers, that's what she will be labelled as well...and there's not many in the charity field who can identify clearly any of their accomplishments since that Harlem office was opened. If she loses Nevada, it's going to be hard to convince Democratic leadership she's not seriously wounded as a viable candidate. All the union and Hispanic votes were supposedly in her pocket. She was for the crime bill her husband signed, now against. For DOMA, then against. For a plethora of trade pacts, then against. For bank deregulation, now against. No decision for the longest time on Keystone until oil prices cratered. No record of her actually doing anything substantive about the mortgage crisis. For the Iraq War, now against. Notice a pattern? After 24 years, the one overriding principle is trying to hold onto power by whatever means are at her disposal. The way things are right now, candidates wrapping themselves around either Obama or GW Bush (outside of SC and Texas) should rethink that position quickly.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 10:32 AM) Both of whom has HORRIFIC seasons. Which is why I argued both would have to be signed at least through 2017 to allow for rebounds/mitigate risk...were they to go into June unsigned.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 10:08 AM) What's the track record of QO-attached players who wait until the season to sign? It's obviously not a large sample, but if memory serves it's horrible. Kendrys Morales and Stephen Drew two seasons ago, that's pretty much it. To the previous poster, Jackson doesn't have a pick attached. It's Gallardo that does.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 09:10 AM) Then why do you want them to sign Desmond? There are so few takers. In fact in your original post where you forgot about wanting Latos for so much more money, you said sign Desmond in June. That would mean he had zero takers. Once again you can't make your constant negativity make any sense. Hahn did what you wanted only a lot cheaper and you still find fault, would you rather give Latos $3 million or Ian Kennedy $70 million? That would mean the QO system isn't working to their benefit...and that guys like Gallardo, Desmond and Fowler might not be signed until the draft. El fin.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 08:56 AM) Again, you wanted Hahn to give him $10-12 million. He signed him for $3 million. Why no praise? Doesn't it still accomplish the things you said it would accomplish on the pitching end? Not having the same inside information hasn't kept you from telling us how every move the White Sox make is wrong. For that price, it's still a good move in all likelihood...but it's troublesome that there were few takers. Supposedly one team was willing to give him a deal where he could earn $9 million with incentives, which also isn't far off the projection. Hahn has been a below average GM so far (let's just say between 16-23)...with the caveat being we don't know all the other possibilities that were taken off the table by JR other than Samardzija and Tanaka. If you can make the case he's an excellent GM, have at it. I will, however, praise him for not signing Ubaldo Jimenez, bringing back Beckham a third time or extending Danks.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 08:54 AM) You think there's any chance Kasich chooses Carson as a running mate? Those must be some pretty good drugs getting around there in China. Nope. Responding to Greg via your quote. Selling controversial books or intimating the stock market or RMB might go down will get you imprisoned here these days.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 08:43 AM) I agree. Desmond and Fowler have one thing in common: They both should have taken their qualifying offers. Big mistakes. Now they are looking for some team to step in and make up for their agents's mistakes. Enter the White Sox. In the case of Desmond, Saladino is currently ticketed for SS. If Desmond comes in, he gets that gig, so whatever price the Sox pay (including loss of pick), that price has to justify the difference between the two players at short. The value is not there. Fowler is little more difficult to assess, because he is an outfielder who can play all three positions. But still, he is probably not worth the price. Desmond should be an easy decision: No. Fowler, not so easy. You realize some projections have him as the second best SS in baseball in 2016...?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 08:41 AM) Oh really. Latos for $10-12 million (one year) Parra for $8-10 million (one year) add Desmond in June for 4 months....$10 million Wouldn't that be much more of an impact because...? 1) You're only spending roughly $5 million than on Cespedes 2) You now have credible insurance for injury/non-performance pitching-wise 3) You can get a pick if Latos does really well and/or trade him in June/July 4) Players would have more motivation to perform for bigger FA payoffs in 2017 5) You also have insurance for Saladino...not to mention PR, outfielder (potentially) or DH in the case of LaRoche or Avi flop 6) You don't have to worry about huge financial commitments with back end of Big 3 guys blowing up in your face and blocking efforts to reload/retool like Dunn/LaRoche/Danks deals have effectively done 7) Injury risk is spread across three players rather than just one Unfortunately I don't have access to the same inside information the other GM's have on Latos. On paper, without considering his personality issues, he should be receiving offers of $8-12 million based solely on his more than reasonable statistical projections. Btw, Parra received three years and $27.5 million, so that projection was dead on.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 06:44 AM) The Republican base is not very bright. Because President Kasich would become the #1 target of every terror group in the world in order to elevate Carson and create more chaos.

I'm pretty sure even Sarah Palin would realize Eskimos and Native Americans were in Alaska before her. Even the dreaded Russians.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 08:18 AM) You have said the payroll was maxed. You even said there was no way thy didn't lose money last year. You make so many statements about the White Sox basically being hopeless you can't even remember what you wrote. And when does a thread topic matter to you? Besides, you made the Desmond thread when it appeared the White Sox were going to sign Cespedes, just like you made your Royals thread where YOU wrote you don't overpay for free agents or give them more than 3 years even if they are your own, when it appear the Royals were out on Gordon and the White Sox were the front runners. Those are just facts. The White Sox could trade for Trout and Harper and you would find something wrong. I am just shocked you haven't praised Hahn for signing Latos for $3 million after you said they should give him $10-12 million. I didn't say they should give him that money. Just that he was at one point expected to get $7-10 million and possibly more. That said, nobody has any idea about his affect on the clubhouse yet, so it's a bit early to celebrate like some prematurely did on the Paulino deal. Hindrance, btw.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 08:18 AM) You have said the payroll was maxed. You even said there was no way thy didn't lose money last year. You make so many statements about the White Sox basically being hopeless you can't even remember what you wrote. And when does a thread topic matter to you? Whether they lost money two years out of the last 15 shouldn't doom the franchise. Btw, Apple hasn't given up selling cell phones after having a bad quarter. They figure out the problem and solve it. That's the beauty of the free enterprise system.

What's amazing is 601 registered Republicans watched that debate at home and 24% still gave the win to Trump. He was terrible except for opening, closing and making John Kerry's argument in 2004. He also served up a Planned Parenthood soundbite that will show up in the general election for sure...and a few linking Rubio with GW Bush should he somehow pull it out. First place went to Rubio with 32%. Kasich was third at 19% and that wasn't one of his best debates, either. But Rubio didn't do enough to blow Bush and Kasich out of the water, so it's totally muddled into five lanes instead of the previously expected three. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-who-won-t...an-debate-2016/