caulfield12

QUOTE (Dunt @ May 17, 2016 -> 09:50 AM) You literally just argued on the previous page that he isn't worth a premium prospect. Pick a f***ing lane, guy. I did. He isn't to the White Sox, because we don't have enough of them, and we desperately need Anderson and Fulmer to make it. Adams, for the White Sox, is a "premium prospect," by the way. Now if we still had Frankie Montas (who some would describe as a fringe Top 100 guy but was a premium prospect for the Sox imo), then I think that's fair value for Burns. Adams, fwiw, is supposely in that MILB 100-120 range as well right now. At any rate, I took the time and dig through his major league numbers from 2015 and his minor league numbers...

Speaking of the 2005 team, Aaron Miles (man, his fanboy club was so huge, it turned me into the biggest fan for who we acquired) for Juan Uribe was a complete steal for the White Sox.

Until his last start (everyone's getting crushed by BOS these days), Chris The Dragon Devenski (Brett Myers deal in 2012) definitely looked like he belonged in his first three outings. That's definitely one to keep an eye on. My problem the last couple of years has been "targeting like a predator drone" guys like Nestor Molina and Matt Davidson and not getting the value we should have when we traded two of our former closers...especially if you look at the insane prices teams paid for Giles (not even a closer in HOU) and Kimbrel this past offseason. The Peavy deal was bad, in the sense that we didn't get much production out of him, he totally wet the bed in 2012 when we needed him in key starts against the Tigers, and he took up a boatload of payroll space, being paid like one of the best pitchers in the game when he wasn't even one of the Top 60-75 anymore, at least not on a consistent basis. Of course, the jury's still out on Avi Garcia.

Fine, I was just writing about the Trout/Cubs trade in another thread....when I should have been thinking about Marcus Semien's future as a SS with the A's. So basically, and you've written over and over again about the lack of career WAR coming from late 20's and early 30's (comp round) draft picks...you feel sure that Spencer Adams will produce that number and more for the White Sox? The White Sox haven't had a solid #2 hitter in their line-up for a LONG LONG time, and yet you seem supremely confident a guy who just put up a 2.8 WAR season last year in CF isn't a good player or is overvalued/mediocre. Why? What do you know about Burns and Adams that makes you feel so confident in your assessment/s? If he was on the FA market, that 2.8 WAR would be worth roughly $15-20 million dollars...especially for a player at age 26 and just entering the prime of his career. Is Spencer Adams worth that much if we were to put him up for auction to the rest of the major league teams (which obviously isn't the way it works, but just a hypothetical)???

Now all we have to do is patch up things in our LGBT dispute, so the world can go back to normal and the White Sox back to their winning ways...

Well, Ian Kennedy's been there best overall starting pitcher for 6 weeks, but the point is well taken. That said, the White Sox have a number of issues at 3-5 right now.

QUOTE (Dunt @ May 17, 2016 -> 07:06 AM) You're the only one saying they would need to give up a premium player. The Angels don't need Anderson with Simmons one of the best defenders in all of baseball at that position. So it comes down to would they accept Adams? It's not going to be Johnson/Sanchez and a bunch of suspects...let's put it this way, last year Burns had a 2.8 WAR playing half his games at the O.CO. He's only 26, under control for multiple years and won't cost much for awhile. The average player picked in the late first round/early 2nd round doesn't even put up a 2.8 CAREER WAR usually. So that means he should be theoretically more highly valued to the White Sox than Spencer Adams...not to mention the fact that a 2.5-3ish WAR player would be a 1 1/2 WAR upgrade on what Austin Jackson's on pace to contribute. So while his OPS is in the mid 600's now, that doesn't mean they're just going to give him away. Do I believe Hahn would trade Fulmer for him? No, probably not. But he would be the first player the A's will ask about.

Did you start Ferrari or you're the inspiration for Speed Racer?

Did you start Ferrari or you're the inspiration for Speed Racer?

If I'm the Cubs, I'm dealing Russell, Schwarber and the rest from the minor leagues...one would obviously be Almora to play CF, Torres, two of their best starting pitching prospects in the minors and one more piece (catcher?) I wouldn't give up Bryant. Paying $100 million on the last three years of that deal, it's probably going to be a "fair" price but it's not creating oodles of surplus value, except for teams that can afford $175-225 million payrolls. The Cubs don't need Trout to win, but the Angels can't win a thing by keeping Trout. Heck, they might not even get to the playoffs, which would be really pointless and the same argument we have been making the last couple of years for trading Sale if they're "stuck in the middle" and can't surround him with enough talent to build an upper 80's win total team. Keep in mind, the Angels are still on the hook for the Josh Hamilton and especially Pujols deals, and they have the worst minor league system (by far) in the majors. It's the right move, unless Moreno's going to spend his way quickly back into contention, and that hasn't worked very well as a strategy in LA for quite some time.

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ May 17, 2016 -> 08:25 AM) It's amazing that even over the most minor of moves, people find a way not to like it... Some are acting like this is the move the Sox are expecting to put them over the top for a playoff run. Put over the top? Hell no. Possible candidate for the final spot on the bench in the playoffs and a valuable pinch-runner, sure.

We didn't lose the Freddy Garcia (original trade) because it led to a World Series (along with the contract extension). Oh, I forgot Garland for Karchner, that was a classic. It's easy to list all the bad trades: Ritchie for Wells/Fogg/Lowe Billy Koch (although eventually Cotts paid off) Durham for Adkins (and no draft pick comp) Swisher (both) Javy Vazquez (both weren't great) Edwin Jackson (to Toronto) Carl Everett for Majewski and Rauch (although he was World Series-winning DH most of two years) Edwin Jackson for Daniel Hudson Also forgot about Matt Guerrier for Damaso Marte...Marte was the best LH reliever in the majors (arguably, at least top 2-3) for three seasons then started to fall apart in 2005. Here's the thing GreenSox. Look who we've replaced in the past couple of seasons....DeAza/Viciedo/Ramirez/Gillaspie/Flowers/Beckham, not seeing many "losses" there. Because of budgetary constraints, we added a bunch of "proven" but flawed veterans, which has gotten us to first place for most of the first six weeks of the season. We've also discarded John Danks. I can't realistically see what we could have done differently. It's easy to say sign Fowler, Jordan Zimmerman, Maeda, Trumbo....even Ian Desmond, but it's all after the fact. We have to remember that Dave Roberts is playing Thompson every day, he's benefiting from the most favorable possible pitching match-ups. Unless they're going to bench Puig or Crawford, he can't play every day.

Guillen/Hoyt Sosa/Alvarez/Fletcher for Harold Baines Jose Contreras for Esteban Loaiza Freddy Garcia for Reed/Olivo/Morse Matt Thornton for Joe Borchard Danks for McCarthy Pods/Vizcaino for Carlos Lee and freed up money Carlos Quentin for Chris Carter Eaton for Hector Santiago Gio Gonzalez and Gavin Floyd to the White Sox for Freddy Garcia Nellie Fox from the Philadelphia A's

Hawkins had weight issues in high school too, if I remember correctly.

Greg, everyone probably "likes" or sympathizes (on the DEM side) with Sanders and what he's trying to accomplish, and what he represents. We also know realistically he's not well-equipped to be president because of his lack of foreign policy expertise (or interest)...and the fact that he doesn't have the first idea how he'd actually take power away from banks, as it's a complicated process involving Congress, the Constitution, the Federal Reserve and too many other entities to count. He also wants to give away too many free things (sure, free university sounds great until someone has to pay for it and students have to deal with the dilution in the quality of education)...but he hasn't proposed any method to pay for it. Nobody wants to touch the idea of reforming entitlements, privatization (because of all the stock market disasters over the last 30 years) and especially any type of tax hikes on those not in the Top 1%. As soon as leaders threaten to make American companies pay more in corporate taxes (or prevent off-shore havens), those companies will bluff about taking all their business out of the US...so they cave and give them TIF and every other public financing benefit to keep those jobs in their states/districts. I also don't believe he's open to negotiation or compromise on many of these issues, and that's just a reasonable stance to take politically if your goal is ever to accomplish anything. Finally, he went on his honeymoon in Russia in the heart of the Cold War. That will always be used or held against him. So, you're confusing Bernie "bashing" and Hillary "love" because neither one really exists. The majority of Democrats are not left-wing lunatics who want to burn down or destroy the country and its economic fabric. We wish Hillary would be more progressive and less "reactive." In the end, her prescriptions for change will also be small, bite-size ones that have 2/3rd's+ support but don't really lead to a change in the status quo or the fixing of our numerous infrastructure problems. I'm also pretty sure that a lot of Sanders supporters themselves would tell you they have no idea how he would maintain security in the world...other than some vague idea of the US not being the world's policeman and pulling back from lots of their military commitments/spending and being more isolationist (which is also more or less what Trump's been arguing, "prosperity at home (first)!")

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 16, 2016 -> 08:30 PM) 7 GB with over 125 games to play is not teetering on the brink. http://www.freep.com/story/sports/columnis...-seat/84461590/ Quite a few in Detroit would disagree with you...

You're seeing things through KU/Collison-colored glasses, Greg. First of all, you just jinxed OKC and single-handedly changed the betting lines in Vegas. Making a mockery? By winning one important game? If the series is tied 2-2 and they win Game 5 in Oakland again, then your statement will be more supportable. I'm betting two houses in the opposite direction, for the record.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/_/id/32860/billy-burns Going through his stats for this year, there's zero reason to pay a premium for Billy Burns. Maybe if Austin Jackson's offense balls back to the 575-600 OPS level, it's something they can consider. He's only a .204 hitter in nearly 50 at-bats at USCF, let's hope he and the rest of the team can pick it back up.

I don't see any reason to change Sale and Quintana around for the Royals...especially in the middle of May when we're leading them by 5 1/2 games. That would be something that would happen against the 2002-2010 Twins, letting the Piranhas get in their heads before the season series has even started. The Royals are using their three best pitchers the next two days against the RED SOX. Ventura Tuesday, Kennedy and Volquez in the DH WED. That means Ventura will pitch Sunday...and that we'll likely see Duffy/Gee for the Fri and Sat games. Couldn't be more favorable than that, as arguably Kennedy/Volquez have been roughly equal as their two best starters...we're getting #'s 3-5, and Ventura's velocity has been down appreciably this year (so far). Only advantage KC has is the offday THURS.

Would like to see Hawkins cut down his K-rate to 25% instead of 15 in 40 at-bats, but it's not like the K issue is even news anymore. Theoretically, he profiles as a prospect a bit like Moya on the Tigers...with perhaps a bit more defensive ability.

Heading into Tuesday's games up 4 1/2 on CLE, 5 1/2 on the Royals and 7 games up on DET, who have now won two games a row but also just blew a huge lead against the Twins (Zimmerman gave up 7 ER) but won 10-8 in the end. Would be nice to knock the Tigers out completely, they're teetering on the brink as is...

I don't think we have the right package for Burns because they'll ask for Fulmer (arguing his upside is as a reliever, not starter), unless they're really 100% convinced that Adams is the real deal. But even Adams for Burns seems a bit thin, so they would probably ask for Adams + Danish/Trey/Hawkins. That's where Hahn has to make a calculation...is it really better for the team to deal their second best starting prospect for an upgrade over Jackson? How much of an upgrade? Obviously, adding another player to the "core" who is controlled through 2020 would be big. BUT, Burns seems to be the type of player who's best suited for that huge outfield in OAK. Playing 81 games at USCF, some of that benefit the A's get out of him there would be nullified. The reason they'll ask for more than we expect is for that very same reason...young, cost-controlled and a better option at the #2 spot than anyone on our current roster. That means Beane would try to extract more value for him. If Burns is mediocre, then why would we want him? We'd just stay with Jackson for one year and let things play out.

That's fine with me. Would you be okay with Bill Clinton running again, Greg? The Democrats could actually use that as an opportunity to run Warren (with Sanders as VP) together, or bring in someone like Julian Castro. There are SOME good Democratic candidates who've been denied the chance to shine and develop simply because of the "Clinton Machine." (Of course, this process on the other side proved that having 17 doesn't accomplish anything if none of them are talented enough to figure out a way to beat Trump.) That said, Bill vs. Trump would be some great theater. But even without Bill, Hillary vs. Trump will at least be interesting because the dynamic is totally different in a one v. one format.

Kansas is about the last state in the country where you'd find a kid willingly identifying as a girl to have an opportunity to win an event in track...unless it was done completely as a joke and EVERYONE was in on it, in which case the event managers would probably get a sense about that and put the kibosh on it. Of course, the repercussion would probably be the top girls' parents (who theoretically should have won) suing the school for potentially ruining their daughters' opportunities for scholarships due to being denied the opportunity to run in a "fair" race.

The problem is that 2 hole hitter would have to come from SS, Austin Jackson or Garcia...unless there's a catcher out there profiling as a 2, and Jason Castro 2-3 years ago might have been the only one (and his K rate is/was terrible, too). So unless you're willing to bench Avi, trade/acquire another SS before you give the job to Anderson or make Jackson a 4th outfielder, there's not going to be a good fix.