caulfield12

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 26, 2016 -> 11:17 PM) As a long-time Batman and Superman fan, and a fan of film, I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that was the worst movie I've ever seen. More opinion tomorrow. Worse than I could have imagined. Now you've done it, haha. Snyder does make an easier target than most directors. It's going to take more than arguing box office to support this one, since The Amazing Spider-Man II also put up decent numbers, or Green Lantern, for that matter.

What are the current odds of Davidson or Sands making the team over Sanchez? Haven't been following spring training much the past couple of weeks, other than noticing that Erik Johnson "hope" all off-season turned out to be another mirage.

Hield is one of the best pure shooters/scorers in quite awhile. He tends to turn the ball over more than he should, he's not especially explosive driving to the basket (effective is the best word) and sometimes plays pedestrian defense, but what a college player. OU got in a cold streak there in the 2nd half of the Big 12 where they weren't hitting their outside shots as consistently as defense were keying in on Hield, but they've seemingly gotten all their lost momentum back. Christian James is starting to make more of an impact now as well. For what it's worth, it's also nice to see something different from the ACC "love fest" going on.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Mar 25, 2016 -> 07:56 PM) Not really that much into projections at this point. Just reality. We have four/five guys in our starting lineup upon whom we should have plenty of skepticism about based on "actual" recent performances. Garcia, Avila, Rollins and Jackson should scare the h-e-double-toothpick out of all of us at this point. That said, would you prefer the alternative of LaRoche, Flowers, Gillaspie/Beckham/Saladino, Alexei/Saladino, Sanchez, etc.? They had to do SOMETHING. There's no excuse at all for not adding another hitter, either. We have a pretty good idea Frazier will be a big upgrade, Abreu should settle in between 2014 and 2015 statistically (and with more protection), Eaton has a lot of room to grow defensively and was just fine offensively...and then you have Lawrie vs. Sanchez. It's almost impossible to believe they won't be a third quartile offense, somewhere between 8-12th in the AL.

Ratings would affect the profitability of Comcast, which they are part owners of...but not significantly. You could argue they profited as much from the Cubs' run as they did their own poor ratings, so essentially they cancelled each other out. Otoh, the situation with the cable rights deal (see most recent Passan article on the Dodgers' continuing situation there) for 2019 is even more worrisome than the television and radio ratings. We also know those ratings will improve if they're legitimately competing for a playoff spot all season along, instead of just kind of hanging on right on the periphery but not really 100% in the race, either. As far as the actual value of those local rights deals...it has zero bearing until 2019, and they could still be the least-watched franchise in baseball (and bottom 5 in attendance) and nevertheless collect enough money to remain profitable because of MLB Advanced Media and the national rights deals.

Here's my take as someone who has seen all of these films. I actually watched the first 1 1/2 hours of this movie, had to leave and wasn't upset or concerned to know about how it ended. Dark doesn't mean the whole film has to be shot in the shadows...or feel like Watchmen. I don't know where this whole trend started, whether it was Heath Ledger's Joker, Bale as Batman or some would attribute it to Jason Bourne influencing the Bond series, but the whole film just felt "heavy" and, if not contrived, lacking in cohesion plot-wise. Snyder's like Michael Bay, great at the big explosions and action scenes, but not a master storyteller like a Nolan. Ben Affleck felt like he just a big old/wizened to face off with the younger Cavill. He was fine...though. To me, Superman has always been a fairly bland character, and just not as compelling. Maybe it's from growing up with the Christopher Reave version in the 1980's...heck, even Lois and Clark or Smallville were better than the films, especially the Brandon Roush one. Cavill is handsome and earnest and blah blah blah...everything but interesting to watch, and that also makes Amy Adams somehow a bit boring as well. Gal Gadot rocked the Fast & the Furious movies (two of them) but maybe I'm missing something in the last hour, because she just doesn't quite fit here either. Maybe it's the same problem, growing up with Lynda Carter in that role, the idea Wonder Woman should be more like Megan Fox from a decade ago or Agent Carter...it's not her European accent, just something "off" which I can't quite put a finger on. Then you have Eisenberg running around overacting. About the only light touch was Fishburne, and even that's a pale comparison to the banter between JK Simmons and Tobey Maguire. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't good, either. Jeremy Irons was one of the few things that worked well, in a more sarcastic take on the character. The weird part was feeling like the "discrimination" against Superman would have worked better in a current Donald Trump anti-immigration ad than as a movie premise. And perhaps fans of his would appreciate the Superman "distrust" angle more, I don't know. Just felt too cliched. (Note: This is where someone who has read all the original material will argue this is true to the comic version.)

Nice moment for Woodbury after being maligned for much of his career. Until Clemmons got the steal and Jok the 3 point play in OT, it felt like they were doomed after missing so many key free throws down the stretch again. Amazingly, first last second game-winning shot since Cyrus Tate against K-State in 2008...

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 20, 2016 -> 07:23 AM) I must have missed this. I keep reading that the front office gave permission. Am I wrong? It was a supposition by Posnanski... http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2016/03/20/it-fin...-drake-laroche/ More concerning, however, is that the Sale-Eaton contingent may now feel as though their teammates lied to them. Either by voicing disingenuous support for the LaRoches while they secretly complained or by keeping silent and allowing that impression to be created. There will be some tempted to play the role of savvy cynic and say “eh, Sale and Eaton probably knew others complained and were just being dramatic.” I think that’s pretty unlikely. To say the things they said and to act in the manner they did — remember, they were talking about boycotting a game over this — while knowing that others in the clubhouse didn’t agree with them would itself be an act of clubhouse dissension. They’d be publicly rubbing their teammates’ noses in the matter and passive-aggressively calling them out. That’s not something players would do lightly or easily. No, I believe they took the stance that they did because they truly believed they were in an us (players) against him (Ken Williams) situation. I believe that they believed that no uniformed White Sox personnel had an issue with Drake LaRoche. Remember, when Ken Williams privately suggested that to Sale, Sale accused him of lying. They have now found out they were wrong. Moreover, I presume that they will soon find out who, exactly, complained about Drake LaRoche. They will find out whose complaints set the ball in motion for the retirement of one of their favorite teammates and whose silence led them to, quite frankly, take some pretty ridiculous public positions on the matter. And then they’ll have to spend the next six and a half months working, traveling and living with them. That ought to be fun.

1. Kenny Williams acted unilaterally, over the head of the manager, and Ventura believes Williams is wrong. If this is the case, yes, Ventura needs to turn over some tables. He needs to be kicking and screaming. He needs to make himself heard. There is absolutely no chance for him to succeed as manager of the White Sox if he does not have the authority to run the clubhouse. None. There is absolutely no chance for him to succeed as manager of the White Sox if he feels like his authority is being undermined from above. None. And all this is doubly true if, as everyone seems to suspect, Ventura gave LaRoche his word that he could bring Drake with him all year long. Now, Williams is preventing him from keeping his word to a ball player? Once the manager loses trust, everything is over. So, if Ventura thinks Williams is wrong, he must turn over every table in the White Sox facilities and keep turning them until he gets control of the clubhouse or quits. 2. Williams did not act unilaterally (maybe he was speaking directly from the owner?) and Ventura can see the point, can see that maybe Drake LaRoche was around just a bit too much. If this is the case, well, that’s really bad because it means he’s hiding behind Kenny Williams. Best I can tell, these are the two options here — either he agrees or disagrees with Williams — and in either case, Robin Ventura needs to be heard and say something more than just a few careful cliches. He’s the manager here. Yes, it’s true that there are only 30 managerial spots available, and to keep one of those jobs you sometimes have to bite your tongue and take one for the team. But this is not one of those times. If the White Sox aren’t going to let him run his team, then he has already lost the job. http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/robin-ven...o-take-control/

http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/robin-ven...o-take-control/ Ventura is the one who really needs to respond...interesting take by a sportswriter who has spent nearly 25 years around big league teams in Joe Posnanski.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/15017462...icago-white-sox Player's union/Clark monitoring the situation but no grievance filed as of yet.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 19, 2016 -> 02:56 PM) It seems fairly clear that the new arrivals in the locker room felt the need to go to the highest authority other than the owner. Either they thought manager was either ok with this and their opinions would not be listened to or that the manager would not have the authority to say something about it. Perhaps they even did go to the manager first with no reaction. One would think Hahn would have been the next step...since those players like Rollins all should have had a relationship developed with him to an extent in the month prior, while they were negotiating their contracts. Either Hahn acted in concert with Ventura (unlikely), the players assumed that talking to Hahn after Ventura wasn't going to get them anywhere since those two were of like minds (possible, but unlikely), or they simply felt they had to speak with someone who wasn't directly involved in the running of the clubhouse on a day-to-day basis and express their legitimate concerns about LaRoche and his son to someone in a position of authority to either do something about it directly or run it up the pole to Reinsdorf.

QUOTE (LDF @ Mar 19, 2016 -> 02:31 PM) waited for practice to be over, appch AL or have AL come to the office and be calm and explain your self, maybe have a legal rep from the sox org in there with kw to present the sox org side of the problem then do not else. As soon as you do that, in LaRoche's mind, you're creating a "hostile working environment" or breaking the verbal contract...in the end, the way things played out, he probably would have refused to go to the meeting...or said the only meetings he's going to are those called by Ventura/Hahn, since those two supposedly had no problems with LaRoche and Drake. So then you're back to square 1 or the only resolution is coming from Reinsdorf and that's still going to lead to the same set of problems. We're expecting KW to change his spots here, and he's consistently been the same person ever since assuming the GM role roughly 15 years ago. LaRoche should have known that ignoring KW was going to lead to an even bigger confrontation eventually.

And if Ventura didn't have any success with LaRoche only for KW/Reinsdorf later to come in and lay down the law, then what would have happened to the clubhouse? Does anyone really believe (throwing out all of Sale's personal comments for a moment) that Adam LaRoche would have "dialed it back" 50% for Ventura? In reality, Reinsdorf and KW knew that it would have been a disaster for Ventura's authority/respect in the clubhouse...and clearly the new/er players didn't feel comfortable approaching LaRoche since they weren't part of the team last year.

Adam, you're an idiot. But thanks for retiring...it should be easier for us pitchers to get a win without your dumb a$$ striking out 3 times a game. Buy your kid a kite. $25 donation to LaRoche Family Recovery Fund https://twitter.com/search?f=images&ver...ks&src=typd Is that for real from Danks?

Still waiting for someone to explain exactly what KW should have done differently after being directly disobeyed by an employee on at least two occasions? Told the kid he needs to stay in Ventura or Hahn's offices? Asked to go to mediation or arbitration with LaRoche over the original scope of the verbal agreement made with Hahn/Ventura? In any real workplace in the world where employees aren't making millions of dollars, LaRoche would have been fired for insubordination...probably lawyered up and sued...but, the end result would have been the same.

Willie Robertson ‏@williebosshog Mar 17 Been bringing my kid to work since she was 14. Worked out well. #FamilyFirst @e3laroche

On what other team in the majors could two players like Eaton and Sale say whatever they wanted about management to the media and via Twitter and expect no repercussions? Is Eaton speaking "on behalf of the team" as the player rep or because there is soon to be a grievance filed...or he's only speaking for himself?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 19, 2016 -> 08:14 AM) Link to one Beckhamn controversial comment about Obama please. His wife doesn't count as him. And his anti Gay thing to Getz was something 95% or more of Soxtalk members have done at some point in their lives. This last sentence (the "joking/wink-wink") is exactly why Ozzie was so shocked at all the backlash for his comments. Because every team makes those same "maricon" jokes and laughs about it. That term is thrown around as an insult at every ballpark, at least it used to be. We might have thought it was funny to joke about in high school, but that was in the 1980's and early 90's, when everyone was scared to death about HIV/AIDS and the Magic Johnson story was shocking news. The Beckham comments are about as easy to track as Adam Eaton's twitter comments that have conveniently disappeared.

QUOTE (LDF @ Mar 19, 2016 -> 08:10 AM) and i asked this.... r u sure it was me.... Nope, I'm the one who brought it up...because it's too obvious. (And I say this from two seasons of working around a minor league baseball team every single day for 140+ games...there's always that clubhouse split between white players, Hispanic players and a few African-American players, especially the Hispanic players staying to themselves, with rare exceptions guys like Juan Uribe or Sandy Alomar that were the bridges between the two groups). We have a profile, as someone said. White, Christian (born again, most often), anti-gay (for the most part), like to go hunting and fishing, listen to country music, heck, it's the profile of NASCAR too, haha. That's LaRoche, Eaton, Sale, Beckham, Shark, Lawrie, Duke, Blaine Boyer, Bryce Harper...etc. And they've aligned with Ventura and Hahn. Most, but not all of them, grew up with a certain amount of privilege or special treatment from their teenage years onward. Then you have basically everyone else who's not 100% comfortable in that group, especially the Hispanic players.

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 19, 2016 -> 08:05 AM) I'd be lying if I said it hasn't crossed my mind that everyone loves LaRoche - especially if you're white, Christian, and like to kill stuff. You forgot country music (the LaRoches are friends with Jason Aldean, whoever that is) and trapping. Similar to the Peavy/Crede/Buehrle days. It really is striking. Beckham was the one involved with writing the "anti-gay" stuff joking around with Chris Getz...and yet he is the one often making controversial statements (along with his wife) about President Obama and then you mix in the Robertsons/Duck Dynasty.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0827-story.html Here's a story about "Faith Day" last year, and the Willie Robertson/Duck Dynasty connection (obviously, he has a very controversial, non-tolerant approach to homosexuality.) The three players to participate were LaRoche, Duke and Beckham. LaRoche’s teams never had a problem with him bringing Drake to the park, so long as he stayed out of the way. LaRoche’s teammates adore him. Last week, pinch hitter Chad Tracy walked by Drake. “You get any push-ups in today?” he asked. “Every day, you got to do 50.” Drake dropped to the floor and started doing push-ups. On the day last year that the Nationals clinched the National League East title, most of the Nationals guzzled Korbel and Miller Lite. Drake hung with the other underage kid in the clubhouse: In the corner, he and Bryce Harper sipped sparkling apple cider. One day this spring, as the Nationals stretched before a practice, hitting coach Rick Eckstein fed balls into a pitching machine that spit high in the air so Drake could practice catching pop flies. At the end of the workout, the Nationals lined up to run sprints around the bases. The first three players sprinted to first . . . and then came Drake, chugging along in front of LaRoche. “It makes all of us who don’t have kids that age yet kind of jealous,” Zimmerman said. “That’s kind of the ultimate dream: to have your son in the clubhouse with you, let him interact.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/natio...b584_story.html

When we keep bringing up this whole "zero access" thing... How many times would we expect to get warnings or "friendly advice" from our boss about something he felt would have a positive effect or possibly improve work performance....only for us to completely disregard it, pretty much do the exact opposite and then shove it in his face by having his son come with him every single day to the the camp and also having him out on the mound? HINT: the answer is that very few non-millionaires could afford to take this position with management. In real life, people make deals all the time that eventually come up for renegotiation or "reconsidering" based on changing circumstances (or economic conditions, in the typical workplace situation). What should KW have done when he had already been directly disobeyed at least twice? Now if KW said in the very beginning after last season that he was cutting off all access to kids, zero tolerance, then clearly LaRoche would have had a MUCH stronger point. But that's not what Williams did here.

I thought it was intimated or put out there that he had gone to KW, although I guess that has yet to be backed up by any real evidence...and obviously won't be now. The closest we have is the naming of Rollins at some point in this process. What was it that Todd Frazier said again?

Why isn't there a single non-white player or coach on the side of LaRoche, inside or outside the White Sox organization? That's very telling. Hahn/Ventura/Sale/Eaton/Shark/Duke/Lawrie/Harper/Boyer=good KW/Rollins/Avila=evil Obviously it's not that simple, but imagine KW was to be fired. What free agent would want to sign with the White Sox, knowing that Sale and Eaton were basically running the club and dictating policy? If someone like Rodon, Abreu, Jackson or Navarro said that KW was completely wrong...then I might start to think pitchforks are in order, but everything must be much more complicated than it appears in terms of the real/true opinions of the majority of the rest of the team, especially players added this past offseason.