caulfield12

Is Saladino fails, that's when you can try to bring in Desmond (one year plus option based on incentives) or bring back Ramirez potentially. At least you preserve the draft pick and give Saladino his chance to earn the position with regular playing time. In early June....it's a huge risk though, as Morales and Drew struggled mightily. It took until the next season for him to get his timing back without a spring training regimen.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/40-best-movies...0387052007.html Very good list of 40...with about 7 documentaries i have yet to watch Top Ten films of 2015... Top tier Spotlight Inside Out The Tribe (Ukrainian movie with no dialogue about school for deaf) The Look of Silence (companion piece to The Act of Killing) Room Sicario Others under consideration... The Revenant Beasts of No Nation Steve Jobs Creed Bridge of Spies Carol Mad Max:Fury Road The Martian Brooklyn Chi-Raq Ex Machina Yet to see Star Wars, 45 Years, The Big Short, Son of Saul, Anomalisa

We could always sign Guthrie to prevent him from facing the Sox. Or Raburn. All kidding aside, does anyone prefer Latos, Kazmir or Fister AND Span/Parra/A.Jackson to Gordon alone? It's a worthwhile question for both organizations. Especially if those players are all willing to sign 2-3 year contracts (or two plus an option/buyout) vis a vis Gordon's anticipated 4-5 years.

QUOTE (SouthSideSale @ Dec 24, 2015 -> 04:17 PM) Royals have a 0% chance at Chen. He's seeking 5 yrs $100 million Four years at $50-75 million is the negotiating zone. No way he gets five and $100, even with Boras. But roughly the same numbers being bandied forth about Gordon. One would have to argue that having a deep bullpen that can cover 5-6 inning starts rather than 6-7+, that exploitation of a market inefficiency (having a dominant yet relatively affordable pen) would cause them to be even more reluctant not to get sucked into overpaying for veteran starting pitching with the numbers being so crazy. If anything, it forces teams to look at Latos and Fister more closely.

KC, at least publicly, is pushing for either Kazmir (4 years at $12-15 million), Gallardo (draft pick attached) or Chen (Boras client). Would supposedly prefer a lefty. The irony is Kazmir is also 32...essentially the same package offered to Gordon. Then you have Latos and Fister. Leaving the question for both teams really, does Span/Parra/Jackson + SP give you a better overall result than Gordon alone and saving roughly $3-7 million overall that can be spent on fa's who last into May/June unsigned or at the trade deadline? Others to consider: Mike Minor Justin Masterson Tim Lincecum Cliff Lee Brandon Beachy Aaron Harang

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Dec 24, 2015 -> 12:04 PM) That's not a bad lineup at all, IMO. Couple that with the pitching staff & they are in pretty good shape. Biggest worry I have is in 2017, what do they do at DH? Then again, I always jump too far ahead & that's not that topic at hand. Cabrera...

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 24, 2015 -> 10:31 AM) I would imagine a farmer in Iowa wouldn't be interested in a shirt like this. Haven't you told us time and time again there are just as many Sox fans in the Chicago area as there are Cubs fans and the extra at Wrigley are just tourists? Not me, Jon Greenberg of ESPN.

QUOTE (SouthSideSale @ Dec 24, 2015 -> 11:08 AM) Ya Hosmer and Moustakas are gone. The royals are f***ed soon. That's why they need to keep gordon. You have like a 2 year window. I also have a feeling Perez is going to break down badly for them. Which is precisely why a long term deal from their perspective makes no sense. They will be competitive barring injuries the next two seasons. And they will essentially have nothing but Ventura, Perez, Herrera and Duffy to build around beginning in 2017...at least 2-3 players short, if not more. And with Perez, they do have consecutive club option deals for 2017-19 for that very reason/legit concern.

QUOTE (CyAcosta41 @ Dec 24, 2015 -> 10:39 AM) Good info. Thanks. Without stirring up the too frequent crap you take about the "Royals fan" thing, your specific info simply buttresses what the industry wide feeling seems to be about the Royals. They love Gordon; they'll pony-up (to a point); but there's only so far they're going to go, given his age, and given their overall situation. Put simply, they have bigger fish to fry. That's why there is something of a unique opportunity here. The Sox (or another team) can swoop in, better the in-house offer by a significant margin, while still getting an excellent all-around player at something close to the market-price for his WAR. Yes, they'll pay a premium above the Royals price. Makes sense that he'll need to be pried away from his comfort zone. Fine. Pay it. He'll still be a relative bargain (even if you have to go 5 years -- if it makes you feel better, think of it internally as the first 4 years of the 5 year deal at the higher 4 year price, invest the savings, and the 5th year price for a diminished performer somehow is less offensive to our delicate sensibilities). I say go for it. Market inefficiency there to be exploited. And it's all the better because Gordon's overall basket of skills is better for what THIS team, OUR team, needs. Maybe not the high ceiling in one or two categories that Upton or Cespedes might provide, but strong scores in so many areas. I'm here many years as Cy Acosta and have only posted ~150 times (lurked from 2002/2003 with no account as well). Don't post that often because (a) I prefer reading other's opinions, and (b) I generally only offer my opinion if it's something I feel strongly about. I'm not going to keep flogging this horse, you know. It's personal opinion, armchair GM'ing. If I were Hahn, I'd do X. Well, allowing for the factor that RH certainly has access to a lot of hard info that I'm not privy to that might better inform his subjective opinion, I know that if I were Sox GM, I'm all about locking-up the all-around player Gordon -- reaping the benefit of his defense, left-handedness, all-around strong offensive game, fire on the field, supposed quality in the clubhouse -- then pocketing the savings over an Upton or Cespedes signing for more moves later this year or next year. You're absolutely right with your last paragraph...and always have strong insights. Wish you'd post more. The White Sox, Tigers and Indians all have to make their moves now...before Minnesota's young talent starts to blossom and they have the revenues to add some more overall pitching talent along with the young Berrios to take over the division in 2017 and beyond. There are just not enough FA difference-makers (the headline OFer will be an aging Carlos Gomez next year at this time) and they absolutely would be insane to wait two more years...until after 2017. For the moment, we don't have enough young talent in our system to make any more significant trades and still hold on to Anderson and Fulmer. Sacrificing a draft pick for Dexter Fowler would be idiotic. Can't afford to keep messing up with second tier option like Shark, LaRoche and Cabrera. Finally, the long-promised/projected Latin American pipeline is still multiple years from bearing real fruit.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 24, 2015 -> 10:47 AM) The problem is at the break you won't have access to those players, and if you do, it will cost you players AND the contract, instead of just the contract. We didn't give up much for Youk, Myers and Liriano. Just Escobar. That said, the situation with Boston needing to move him with Middlebrookspushing for pt was a bit unique because Youkilis was so popular. That said, with the double wild card, those moves are getting harder and harder to come by.

If you were manufacturing the shirt and had to choose only four, which team would you eliminate that would give you more profit with the Sox logo substituted for...?

QUOTE (CyAcosta41 @ Dec 24, 2015 -> 09:19 AM) All "reports" I've seen had the AG group seeking 5 years at an AAV of $20K per and the Royals "allegedly" offering 4 years at an AAV of $12-13M. Of course, all agents and clubs use the press for leverage and obfuscation. However, if the above reports are true or nearly so, then letting Gordon choose between 4/$72M and 5/$80M is quite a bit better than anything the Royals have on the table. Personally, my belief is that with all the younger talent coming up for the Royals who need to be signed the next 1-2 years, they've got a line in the sand pegged for Gordon. At or below that line, they'll welcome back their native son with open arms. Above that line, they'll feel the need to be disciplined for the priorities that Hosmer, Perez, and Moustakas have over AG because of age, position, or both. I think the Royals ceiling is likely $15-16M AAV. I haven't seen anything that suggests they've offered nearly that high (which is why his agent is likely working hard to create the reality or illusion of a market). I think a White Sox offer of 4/$72M or 5/$80M is likely $10M or more better than what the Royals would offer. That's likely enough to get him to move to the Dark Side. And if necessary, I'd bump it up to 4/$76M or 5/$85M. KC is in the proverbial pickle. Gordon is ripe for the plucking. Get 'er done, Rick. With Boras representing Hosmer and Moustakas, they're gone. Cain is probably about a 30-40% chance to stay, but then you're also having to replace Wade Davis, Volquez, Escobar...that's six core members right there hitting FA simultaneously. It's why keeping Gordon after 2017 isn't logical...not when they can spread that money across 2-3 younger guys and not have to deal with the declining last three years of a five year deal when they're going to be forced to rebuild/retool. Right now, Perez, Soria, Herrera, Ventura and Duffy are the main ones under control into 2018-19.

QUOTE (glangon @ Dec 24, 2015 -> 07:56 AM) There were points last year where Danks steadied the ship and was pitching well, added to the mix that he owns the Royals, this trade would be daft imo. Personally, I'd see if some Japanese team fancies La Roche. Keep Garza away from our rotation. I think we are in a healthy state. We have a clear 5 man staff with Chris Beck, Carson Fulmer, Spencer Adams and Tyler Danish all in the minors ready to step up if needed. Danks is in the last year of his contract and he'll probably be replaced by one of the above when he goes. Pitching is an area of strength where we have a conveyor belt of talent waiting in the wings. Let's not screw that up and screw over the budget by bringing in Matt Garza Adams is at least 1 1/2 years away. Beck and Danish profile just as much as relievers as starters for the moment. This year is make or break for Tyler as a starter. There are even some legit concerns about Fulmer bing able to hold up physically as a starter. It's a stretch to use the term conveyor belt when Jacob Turner is essentially our #6 starter at the moment.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Dec 24, 2015 -> 07:33 AM) The problem I have with this idea is that Danks actually added value last year, and LaRoche didn't. I think I've seen the theory here before that each additional WAR a player produces is worth about $5 million AAV on a contract. If that's the case, Danks earned $9 million of his contract last year. LaRoche, on the other hand, would need to pay his entire salary plus $7 million back to the team for his performance last year. That's why I think if they can't trade him, they should seriously consider releasing him, and they should not let his contract enter into their decision on pursuing other FA/trade options. $7 million now...for one war.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/i...fs-al-central-2 Schoenfield's Path to the Playoffs for the AL Central teams

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-colum...le51281160.html

The White Sox have pinned themselves now in terms of media perception into a situation where not adding one of the Big 3 is going to have consequences for the fanbase. It's a dangerous game, letting it out that you're after one of those guys (plays well in the media, leads to page views and some additional optimism and season tickets being sold)...but the danger is pulling the rug out from beneath everyone's feet. If they're not 100% committed to making all possible efforts to sign one of those guys, they should simply say the market is just too over-priced and then pleasantly surprise everyone by pulling a rabbit out of the hat...rather than dangling the carrot in front of us only to replace it with a stick or switch.

You're going to get in trouble with my co-workers for calling Taiwan a separate country, haha. Actually, I don't quite understand the thinking of taking a cruise ship back when there's a potentially serious medical issue that should be addressed in a timely fashion. THAT said...in response to TONY above, Daddy's Home with Will Ferrell/Wahlberg repairing and The Good Dinosaur are probably going to be the best family options for kids...although Daddy's Home is getting hammered by the critics.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Dec 23, 2015 -> 08:52 PM) Did you see it? I haven't, but have heard it's a fairly raunchy movie. Right, I should have said R-rated/adult family option...not for kids. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/-concussion-...191742316.html# Interesting premise from CONCUSSION director Landesman, that there will be a backlash/cultural shift from football back to baseball as more and more parents stop allowing their kids to play the game. Apparently Pop Warner numbers are down 30-35%, so that will be showing up in the next two decades at the collegiate and NFL level in terms of that talent switching to other sports. It happened in the 80's and 90's with the NBA (taking mostly African-American athletes from MLB), we'll see the impact here.

Oh, and I can understand why STEVE JOBS bombed in the theatres now. Fassbender is a great actor, but he didn't look close enough to Jobs to make me forget I was watching the actor Fassbender trying to channel Jobs. (Ashton Kutcher in appearance was much closer). Second, and most importantly, the screenplay's (Sorkin) well-written, but the dark/moody/paranoid side of Jobs isn't much fun to watch on screen. It's almost like torture, this feeling you're watching someone's dirty laundry and maybe we're better off not knowing about all those elements of his personal life. Of course, the myth is always better than the reality...we knew Jobs was a jerk and egomaniac and impossible to work with, etc., but watching the film and suffering his character is a bit much.

JOY (Jennifer Lawrence, about the invention of Miracle Mop/Swiffer products for QVC/HSN) was a lot like a much better version of a similar concept, the Greg Kinnear one (which flew completely under the radar) about the invention of the intermittent wiper blade and his ongoing fight with the Big 3 automakers in DET. Not surprised most of the reviews have it in the 50's, like Concussion. Both movies are about interesting stories, but the "dramatized story within a real story" is simply lacking. Jennifer Lawrence, as always, is eminently watchable...just like Will Smith, but both of these movies are better off watched on your own time and don't require a theatre viewing. SISTERS, the Tina Fey/Poehler movie, is probably a better family option to Star Wars sellouts over the holidays.

Because the mods asked for it, haha. As expected, this post will be long...so no point in reading and/or complaining afterwards. 1) Spread out your pool of money over a group of free agents and trade targets, but concentrate as much as possible on "value"/players coming off injuries or with bad reps. More often that means tier 3 guys, instead of overpaying for Tier 2. When you DO go after a Tier 2 (Edinson Volquez or Shark), get it right. The White Sox turned Ordonez, Lee and Valentin's money into Hermanson, Vizcaino, Iguchi, Dye, Pods, AJ, Hernandez and Dye. The worst of those deals was for El Duque, and they ended up getting those three miraculous outs against BOS with the bases loaded to redeem that move. The Royals did essentially the same thing (and similar to the Red Sox model for winning the World Series more recently). They were able to bring in Chris Young, Medlen (more for this season as a starter), Volquez, Blanton, Rios, Madson and, most importantly, Kendrys Morales, for less than the White Sox spent on all their acquisitions. 2) When you make big moves to go for it, utilize the depth of your minor league system to acquire those players (Freddy Garcia in 2004 or Zobrist/Cueto). The Royals didn't pay any of the salary for both of those guys, but they sacrificed a lot of their minor league depth to do so (a big criticism of the KW/JR regime). 3) Stay away from long-term contracts (anything more than 3 years) or overspending...even on your own players (see Alex Gordon or Pujols/StL). 4) Related to #1, unearth even more "under the radar types" who can contribute (low risk/medium reward), nobody noticed the Royals signing the likes of Young, Medlen or Blanton last year, or the addition of Dillon Gee and John Lannan already this offseason for rotation depth/insurance. Likewise, the White Sox made tons of moves like that from 2003-05 that went virtually unnoticed nationally (Cliff Politte, Esteban Loaiza or Geoff Blum). Essentially, right now is where the paths depart and where KW went wrong after 2005, changing the team composition too dramatically. Here is what the Royals will do, IMO. 1) They essentially have a five year window of "good will" from the community that has been earned through two consecutive World Series appearances. That will generate additional revenue streams, but the major problem is that their media rights deal isn't up for renewal until 2019. That essentially means that they're getting paid $20 million for a product arguably worth $50-70 million and one that would probably fetch in the vicinity of $110-130 million on the open bidding market. 2) Because of that fact, they simply can't afford to sign any players with contracts beyond 2018, with 2016-17 being the ideal window (and that's where someone like a CarGo makes sense, if the numbers work). Gordon will get four if not five years, so it makes no sense to pay for a player on his decline for 2-3 seasons when you've already lost the core of your foundation (Cain/Moustakas/Hosmer after 2017). 3) On the other hand, they have the luxury of biding their time and sitting back and waiting for their division rivals to set the target or benchmark. They're waiting to see if the White Sox or Tigers end up with one of Davis, Upton, Gordon or Cespedes, whether the Indians upgrade their offense further with a trade of a young starter and what the heck the Twins are up to. With all the accrued "good will," they're not forced into making a desperate financial move...so they can wait, and wait, and wait some more. 4) The hope/underlying belief is that a slew of interesting players will become available once all the big guns have been fired off...allowing them to swoop in and sign the likes of Span, Parra or Austin Jackson for bargain or value prices. Trading second-tier prospects for Desmond Jennings is another option. Because of the depth in the FA starting pitching class, they can also possibly sign a 2nd/3rd tier pitching option to fill out the rotation and provide depth (same issue the White Sox have at the moment). 5) Which would allow them to push Duffy into the bullpen and/or make him trade material if they can market him, Herrera or Hochevar to a team desperate to overpay for bullpen help (see HOU/Boston this off-season) and ironically enough hoping to copy the KC "bullpen dominance" blueprint. This is where we get back to the old KW way of doing things. Everything that comes after patience. 6) The idea that someone like an Ian Desmond or Dexter Fowler will fall into their grasp because they go unsigned into the regular season (like Morales/S.Drew two years ago). Desmond could used at their three weakest offensive positions, 2B, LF or RF (many believe he will be converted to a Zobrist-like superutility role because of his athletic ability). Players like Desmond or Fowler are more likely to want to sign "rebuild value" one year contracts or perhaps one year with an option contracts, which fits perfectly into the KC time frame. 7) The tried and true KW plan, reload at the trade deadline, adjust on the fly...with their additional revenue flows and guaranteed attendance the next two seasons, they have a lot more flexibility than other teams in the division to either add talent by trading minor league prospects or taking on salary (like the White Sox did in 2012 with Youkilis, Myers and Liriano). The Royals have the luxury of being able to sit back and bide their time, not unlike the way DET went about things in 2012...waiting to run down the front-runners in the 2nd half of the season. Teams like DET, the White Sox and Indians will be much more desperate to get off to quick starts IMO.

QUOTE (blackmooncreeping @ Dec 23, 2015 -> 12:36 PM) So do nothing further for 2016/2017? 2018 is light years away After 2018 is over...the 2017-18 class is better than next year but still not as promising as this year's overall.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Dec 23, 2015 -> 09:11 AM) What? Your numbers make no sense. It appears as if you completely left out Clinton's presidency. Since Nixon took office (not real sure why chose that as a starting point) basically 47 years ago it's been 28 years Republican, 19 Democrat. With the difference being that you chose a Republican as your starting point. If you went back to Kennedy/Eisenhower the numbers are 28 Republican, 27 Democrat. Since the end of WWII, which was basically the beginning of the USA as a Super Power, the presidency has alternated between Democrats and Republicans other than the 12 years of Reagan, HW Bush which I think is an indication of the general population being uninformed. They don't like the way things are going so next election cycle they vote opposite. Then 2, 4 or 6 years later things still aren't going great so they vote opposite again. Obviously it was included... 20/24 and then Clinton and Bush gives you 28/40 before Obama. I just didn't explicitly state Bill Clinton's name there. You can cancel out JFK/LBJ with Ike. Or include FDR to skew it back towards the Dems. That would be 20/28 + 8/8 for 28/36 years from 1932-1968.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 23, 2015 -> 08:58 AM) You aren't very good at math. Nixon/Ford - 8 years Carter - 4 years Reagan - 8 years Bush - 4 years Clinton - 8 years Bush - 8 years Obama - 8 years That's 20 total years of Democrats And 28 years of Republicans My math was fine, and those stretches are exactly correct. The only difference was leaving off Obama...but adding those eight years still doesn't balance it over the last 56. It would take eight more years of Clinton.