caulfield12

Let's hope not the good 'ol we can make adjustments at the trade deadline school of thought. Too late.

Or the JR, Hahn and KW Shakespearean drama worthy of a booth at the Renaissance Fair or Medieval Times at least.

http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2015/12/20/mike-m...partner=ya5nbcs Matheny not happy with Heyward's comments

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 08:31 AM) You are absolutely right. That's precisely my point. If the Sox are not good, they would be missing a great opportunity. I feel like we've been saying this since 2005...especially that 2006 season and then trying to keep the veteran core together post-2008 and delaying the reboot button all the way to 2013 by adding Rios, Peavy and eventually Dunn to Buehrle, Konerko and AJ. Of course yet another irony was jettisoning Thome and making him the key reason we lost to the Twins that year we had that 26-5 stretch.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 08:28 AM) Who is this "we" that supposedly will own 50%. You're sure you can't fight with Greensox or Thad Bosley over something more substantive? Greg needs someone to argue with in the filibuster, as well.

Amen to that. Peace with the two warring sides of SoxTalk (or KW/HahnGate) as well...at least until about two or three months into the following offseason.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 08:17 AM) Actually, I really doubt you ever own any percentage of CSN. I have a feeling almost anyone who owns an index based mutual fund has General Electric as one of its components...certainly my Vanguard funds do. Guess who partially owns NBC Universal? I would have to check on Vivendi. Nice try though.

You can make an argument that the JR share of the Cubs' exploding ad rates and tv ratings for the presumed 2016-2019 time frame will pay for Upton, Cespedes or Gordon alone...along with the value of each partnership share increasing in equity value as well.

How did the Giants winning three titles affect the A's plight? The Yankees helping or hurting the Mets, well that's hard to separate from Madoff/Wilpon. The Angels are clearly a team that expanded their fanbase in competition with the Dodgers, but there are very few owners who will spend money and exhaust resources like Arte Moreno. They really set out to compete directly at a time when the Dodgers were in chaos with the McCourts. Then Balt and Wash to a lesser extent. The White Sox absolutely need some oxygen and column inches...85% of the media attention has been focused in the direction of Cubbieland. Without a colorful manager or the original Boy Wonder GM, it makes the challenge even more daunting, and Hahn's more likely to inspire a fiscal accounting seminar than excite the fanbase. Plus JR's health has him backing off a bit. There's the theory the Cubs selling out games and devouring sponsorship opportunities will float the White Sox boat too as those left out are forced to go with the Sox or be shut out. We shall see...will those unallocated media rights dollars flow to the Southside in 2019, and how likely is CSN to double our deal unless someone else is bidding against them? At that time, we will probably own 50% of the station, with the Blackhawks and NBC/Universal the other 25% each.

Cardinals, Giants (if price goes down more), Orioles, Angels, Tigers, Nationals would all seem to be decent fits as well as KC and the White Sox. Rangers, if they can dump salary on someone else.

http://espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=11898 The first part of the story is here....headline story on the ESPN MLB page for now. Interesting (but unsurprising) how many teams have been hoping the White Sox would be open to trading Sale this offseason. Now where's the final piece of the puzzle, JR? Next fall, the best free-agent pitchers could be Stephen Strasburg, Brett Anderson and Jered Weaver, and the best position players figure to be a 31-year-old Carlos Gomez and a 33-year-old Martin Prado, and perhaps Jose Bautista. An NL executive offered a one-word description of the depth of next year's free-agent class: "Horrific." From the Olney piece three days ago about why CLE is being patient in dealing Carrasco or Salazar.

He did such a good job I didn't even recognize he was in the movie until just reading that comment. I guess it makes sense a totally unknown actor couldn't easily be the antogonist to DiCaprio.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Dec 20, 2015 -> 11:54 PM) But you didnt ask about any of that, you asked about Italians, Germans and Japanese. Okay. I guess you could make the argument that Pearl Harbor wasn't part of a state at that time, or part of the contiguous 50 states...or that there's a difference between attacking a military installation/base versus Germans bombing a metropolitan are like New York, Boston or Philadelphia and inflicting mass civilian casualties, or the argument that the Japanese as allies of the Germans knew eventually that the US was going to be drawn into the war and that proactively attacking was a result of having their shipping lanes shut off or tightly controlled. In Japan's defense, when you don't have the natural resources to grow food OR have enough oil supplies that are self-generated, it's easy to feel cornered when another country tries to restrict your access to those commodities. Maybe you're right...but I think it's an interesting argument to take up. I'm not sure how easy it would have been for the Germans to get their planes close enough to launch an attack...as they would have had to get through the French and especially English just to attempt it. From the German perspective, that would have been igniting a three or four front war (Russia, western Europe, North Africa and then the US as well). Japan was pretty much unopposed in most of Asia, at least in terms of a fixed and immovable enemy.

I'm not sure that we "flipped" cores. We were able to add Abreu, Eaton, Robertson and Rodon on top of Sale and Quintana. Now you have Frazier and possibly Lawrie, although it's hard to say "core" when you only have control of a player for 2 years. One of the expected or forecasted core members, Avisail, is unlikely to make it. Conor, Alexei and Flowers were cast away, along with DeAza, Viciedo and Beckham prior to that. (The main positive this off-season is the F.O. essentially admitting the lack of quality and at least attempting to not go with the same approach year after year after year, whether in terms of coaching staff/s or personnel changes.) I guess if you look at it from a three year perspective (the 2012 team in September as the starting point), you can make that argument, and add Tim Anderson, Fulmer and perhaps Adams to the list as well. But it's still one impact player short, in all likelihood. In the end, it just depends on your perspective as a fan. If the changes stopped right here, then some fans (such as yourself) will be more or less content and argue they did the best they could under the circumstances. Not unlike the arguments we were given for standing pat at the deadline last year and not making any moves to add, either. Those seem rather hollow in hindsight. Others are going to expect more. Neither side is inherently right or wrong.

Obviously the idea of line-up balance 1-9, high contact (not three outcome hitters) hitters who can foul off lots of pitches (adding to pitch counts, frustrated starting pitchers) and then the right personnel late in games to steal bases at will without having to give up outs via sacrifices. That team will much more consistently score 3-5 runs per game than the 2000-2004 White Sox offense/s. And that's how you win without having quality (and deep) starting pitching OR a great offense. Speed, defense, bullpen, fundamentals, etc. That 2005 White Sox team, like the Twins from 2001-2010 or KC more recently...they absolutely, 100% believed they were destined to win any tie game in the late innings, and especially games where they got a 1-2 run lead past the sixth inning. Another important note about 2005 is that with Pods and Iguchi at the top of the line-up, in the first 3-4 months of the season (before the injury), they did have the capability of manufacturing runs quite effectively. White Sox line-ups since 2008 have had "balance" (albeit not high quality) and certainly you'd say the only way they could manufacture runs would be giving up outs rather than having basestealers who could sweep bags at will and give their teams additional ways of generating a run from 3rd and less than 2 outs.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Dec 20, 2015 -> 09:47 PM) Of course I know as do we all who owns the team, that's not the issue (although it is clear from both KW and RH's own mouth as well as the Showtime series from back in 2010 that JR is a very hands-on owner. NO MAJOR decisions aren't made without his approval) That's not the question though is it, who runs the day to day decisions, who makes the calls before submitting them to JR for his final yes or no is the question I submit and the evidence just in print is clear based on their own comments from KW and RH that there is plenty of room for doubt by many fans. I don't find that rooting for or against any individual or from how things have been done. Nor does that suggest I'm for a "go for it (yet again)" approach or a complete rebuild, I've already stated I don't care...yet again, pick a plan and stay with it is all I'm saying. The Sox HAVE NOT been a very successful franchise over the past 35 years, the number of playoff appearances bear that out. That's not even open for discussion. The question is why not given their resources and advantages over the other teams in the division. Could a unwieldy front office be part of the reason? Maybe, hard to say without actually being in the room. But that doesn't negate the legitimacy of the question does it friends and neighbors. I'll be interested to hear what the "excuses" are come this June if the Sox stumble badly out of the gate again and perhaps Ventura is fired, and then we'll get an update on the "three year plan / window." Mark 1) Injuries 2) Tough early schedule against AL Central, etc. 3) Took time for the coaching staff to gel together 4) The White Sox don't have enough quality depth to provide "surer" options than Saladino, Erik Johnson, Lawrie, Avi Garcia, etc., and like most teams we can't develop OR afford one of the best catchers in the game 5) Bad weather in April/May...offense can't get into a rhythm 6) Lack of fan support/fans waiting to see if the team's for real first before coming out 7) Lack of chemistry because of all the chances in the INF (Frazier/Saladino/Lawrie) 8) Should have cut bait with Danks and LaRoche but couldn't afford to due to payroll limitations

Yeah, that's the only trade that makes sense, something like Avi for Segura, where there wouldn't be a huge difference in salaries...and if we're now mildly or somewhat concerned with under $5 million deals, we shouldn't have wasted so much money the last 3 seasons on Beckham, Konerko, Downs, Paulino, Belisario, Keppinger, Bonifacio and even Duke. That money all adds up over time and does become significant in terms of opportunity costs and forgone opportunities.

It's one of those, have to take the organization's word for it things. You're right, those evaluations are much more difficult to make at the minor league level due to field conditions and even more variance with scoring decisions and the tracking methods for defensive ratings systems are just evolving for the minors at this point. It is a bit curious that Saladino didn't receive MORE playing time the final two months of 2015 at that position so we would have a much better idea going into 2016. That was a missed opportunity that probably has more to do with "respect for Alexei and his future free agency" than what was best for the team moving forward. I guess we can give the benefit of the doubt, but they SHOULD have known what they were planning to do with Ramirez by the time of the trade deadline. They could have at least split time or maybe even played Alexei in the OF or at 2B or even 3B to demonstrate his positional versatility. Playing him at 2B wouldn't have mattered, as they clearly weren't 100% confident in Carlos Sanchez moving forward as a full-time player in an "all-in" year.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Dec 20, 2015 -> 07:05 PM) Id imagine it has something to do with the fact that Japan attacked us on our own soil and the other 2 countries didnt. But we haven't enacted a similar policy towards militia groups on native soil, especially in the heart of the 1990's when you had a series of events including Ruby Ridge, Timothy McVeigh/OKC bombing and the Branch Davidian/David Koresh stand-off in WACO. Most of these "attacks" have involved white males in terms of mass shootings, militia groups or religious sects...and probably the second highest demographic representation after white males would be Asian males, and they're hardly subject to any extra scrutiny, either. I agree another massive event (somewhere between 9/11 and Paris) will tip the balance all around the world...but, at this point, we're at a time where enacting such a policy would only increase the number of attacks and terrorist recruiting around the world. The most difficult question is how much is the US responsible for terrorist attacks against our allies when they're simply much more convenient targets in terms of geographic proximity and looser border controls (Schengen Agreement)...? Clinton tried to make that argument against Trump already, that he's making the world MORE dangerous, not less, by pandering to the base during primary season when 90% of his proposals are completely unrealistic or downright unconstitutional.

Hateful Eight did feel about 30 minutes too long. The Revenant is in the same territory, 2:30-2:45 in length. I guess the economics argument is more return for your ticket investment, haha...on the other hand, the opportunity cost of something else you could have done with your life for another 30-45 minutes has to be worth something as well. CLUE is a good description, like an old fashioned murder mystery. Fwiw, the presence of Channing Tatum and his strange accent in that film was a bit jarring. Maybe it's because Tarantino used a lot of his favorites like Jackson, Russell, Madsen and Roth, but that casting just didn't seem to fit very well. It's almost like Channing Tatum always wanted to be in a Tarantino movie, so they sort of shoehorned him into the story when he had a break in his schedule.

Yeah....I just watched the first hour and forty-five minutes last night. Beautiful cinematography but more of a "B" or 3/4 star film...good/solid but not great by any stretch unless you particularly enjoy outdoor survivalist-themed stories.

And the good will created by Jordan and Pippen almost twenty years ago now is helping to sell how many White Sox 2016 Holiday Season Ticket packs?

4.25/5 The Room, haven't seen Spotlight yet, but one of the five best films of the year for sure 4/5 The Hateful Eight, not as good as Django Unchained, but very close...takes a lot longer to build to the action but then it packs a real wallop 3.75/5 Carol

Let's just see where Segura and Saladino are at OPS-wise on July 31st.

Why didn't we put all the German-Americans and Italian-Americans into internment camps during World War Two? We did it to the Japanese...and Trump wants to exclude Muslims now. But why were the Germans and Italians assumed to be more patriotic? Were the Romans simply being more patriotic when they crucified all those terroristic, insurrectionist Christians in the Coliseum and fed them to the lions? They were enemies of the emperor and were making it more difficult to govern the far-flung provinces....