caulfield12

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Sep 30, 2015 -> 11:59 PM) Found this at another location and wanted to share it. This will be the 7th year in a row the White Sox have missed the postseason. Out of the 122 professional franchises in the 4 major North American sports, here are the only teams that now have longer postseason droughts than the White Sox: 1.) Buffalo Bills, 15 years 2.) Seattle Mariners, 14 years 3.) Oakland Raiders, 12 years 4.) Cleveland Browns, 12 years 5.) Miami Marlins, 12 years 6.) Minnesota Timberwolves, 11 years 7.) St. Louis Rams, 10 years 8.) Edmonton Oilers, 9 years 9.) Sacramento Kings, 9 years 10.) San Diego Padres, 9 years 11.) Houston Astros*, 9 years (still alive this year.) Solid company. And as yet another poster pointed out a lot of the teams on this list play in smaller markets than Chicago. The 3rd largest market in the U.S. This franchise is in as bad of a shape as the late 60's / mid 70's. Obviously that's not good. Mark So essentially the bottom 9%, which is exactly where our attendance sits as well. No Sox fan will give them a break when posed with the defense..."but they spend in the 12-18 range on payroll" argument when so many of those resources have been incorrectly allocated. Followed up by the "well, a majority of fans were in favor when the moves were made OR they seemed logical at the time" because results and progress are the only thing that matter. You could buy until this season that the plan was on track...but we're much closer to the bottom of the division/AL than we were when the season began. One would also note the managerial and/or GM changes from the other three MLB teams on the list. Besides the Raiders, those are all small or mid-market teams.

From throwing way too many cutters... Hahn set the MLB record for worst trade deadline performance. Not dealing Shark. Keeping Robertson pointlessly when that money should have been invested into a starting position player. Not getting anything for Albers, Putnam, Petricka, Duke, etc.

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 30, 2015 -> 09:02 PM) Blown away by how good Lindor and Sano look And that's with Buxton and Berrios waiting in the wings...say what you want about Ryan not making the huge trade or pulling the trigger big name free agents (98% on the Pohlads), but he definitely knows how to run a farm system and develop players.

Flowers just won himself a 2016 contract tonight.

The only real drama left is the Angels and Astros. Anaheim has managed to implode late tonight (7 total unearned runs) against a pretty bad A's team. Correa really deserves it, and it's def hard not to pull for the underdogs. The Angels are about as boring as the White Sox once you get past Trout.

Royals desperately need to win in order to keep home field advantage shot alive against Jays.

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 30, 2015 -> 07:47 PM) Avi should spend all next year in the minors completely renovating his swing That would be quite ironic if Avi Garcia, Beckham and Viciedo all spent the entire season unnoticed at Charlotte and led the Knights to a championship. They're certainly not going to make much of an impact at the big league level.

At least in the mlb audio "animated stadium graphic" the bleachers are jam-packed with fans.

I'm pretty sure CoCo Crisp or David DeJesus picked up five years too late will be the replacement for Avi...thus blocking Thompson, one of our few interesting prospects, as well.

The comments are even funnier than the story. What are the odds he doesn't have a Confederate flag somewhere around his house on a hat, t-shirt or beer coozie?

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Sep 30, 2015 -> 02:15 PM) Why couldn't we get this out of LaRoche? Or Cabrera?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 30, 2015 -> 01:09 PM) Plays like that save games. He has to replace Melky next year in left. Just get rid of Melkster or Garcia. Good luck with that. Who would want an aging, defensively slightly below average corner outfielder who can't hit for power and has ped's questions attached to his career? Maybe KC, to replace Gordon...assuming that Zobrist departs. That said, you don't want to go into your last bench chance to compete for a World Series depending on the likes of Rios and Cabrera as your two corners, especially with the defensive downgrade that would bring into play vis a vis Gordon.

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 30, 2015 -> 08:56 AM) Outside of Anderson a few times, this year had a significant lack of Sox players showing up on the BA Hot Sheet. To me, there is a gigantic gap between Anderson, Fulmer and Adams and the rest of the prospects. I still think Montas does something (probably for another AL Central team) before it's all said and done.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Sep 29, 2015 -> 06:31 PM) And who is to say what those resource limits are? Until an independent economist gets to take a look at Sox finances we'll never know what they could or could not do. Circumstantial evidence over a number of years (to go along with the revenue being generated by MLB) points to the possibility of the Sox being able to spend more and do both if they chose to. It was like when Veeck owned the team the second time, conventional thinking was he had no money. That was far from the truth, you look at the names on the Sox Board of Directors under Veeck and you found some of the richest people in America like the guy who owned Pizer Chemicals. It was a matter if pride with Veeck that he refused to go back and ask them for more money and promised them a profit every season. The reality was the Sox could have spent like the Yankees if they wanted to...they chose not to do so. I get the sense that at times that same philosophy was in place with the Sox and may still be. Just don't know for sure. But I go back to my original point. Given the tax payer funded stadium, given the lease advantages from the state, given the improvements made to the ballpark (and not by JR's money) the White Sox have the first, second, third obligation to field a good competitive club on a consistent basis BEFORE having the right (or the gall) to call out their fan base in any way shape or form. And that goes for their supporters wherever they may be. The ownership group has done some very good things...they've also done some really stupid things which have put them in the position they are in. The fans didn't sign Adam LaRoche, the fans didn't trade for Nick Swisher, the fans didn't sign Adam Dunn just to name a few examples or give a big contract to a stiff like Jeff Keppinger. That was ownership / front office. Period. Just my opinion. Mark Forbes wrote on September 14th last year, "Four Reasons to Avoid the Alibaba IPO." They're seemingly better at analysis than Rick Hahn's track record. Plus, it would be a heckuva lot more entertaining to see them run the team at least. They could be more productively and allocatively efficient for just $12 million than misspending it on KW, Hahn, Bell and Ventura.

We still suck.

As long as he outhits Brian Anderson, might as well give him Avi's job. Heck, Avi can't even outhit Viciedo.

Supply Side economics has even been debunked by Stockman... The irony is Rubio will be punished for having the most realistic/serious approach albeit also flawed...at least entertaining as his pledge to get rid of the capital gains tax will bring Occupy Wall Street out of hiding.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2015 -> 08:26 AM) I am pretty sure that Forbes is smart enough to figure that stuff out. They study companies WAY more complex than the Chicago White Sox on a daily basis. If you really feel that way about your fellow White Sox fans, if it bothers you this much....isn't your enjoyment level always going to be limited by their perceived shortcomings? Do any other teams blame their fans for failure like we do around here? Cleveland? Tampa? Miami? Oakland? Colorado? Seattle? Or do they blame ownership? The stadium? Bad karma/fate/destiny?

I don't understand how vilifying the fanbase and taking the focus off the real culprits (JR, KW, Hahn, Bell and Ventura) is helpful at all. Obviously, complaining about the obvious shortcomings of that aforementioned group is pointless, but no more so than expecting blind allegiance to a leadership group that hasn't given us much reason to have faith or hope is a course many reasonable/rational consumers will take. Simply a matter of consistently diminishing returns from being a Sox fan. Want to compete in 2017? Either Fulmer emerges as an All-Star to complement Rodon or Hahn risks his career trading Quintana or Sale for someone like Puig. We have a bunch of replacement level or below starters on our roster, other than Abreu and Eaton. Possibly Cabrera, but you can't count on him and certainly not when he's two years older in 2017 (when they will of course hold onto him just like with Danks and Dunn and even Ventura as manager.) Hell, we might as well sign Iwakuma/Latos/Beachy/Fister just to watch that blow up in Hahn's face as well...then we can block Erik Johnson for another year and hold him back for that promised pennant drive in 2017 or 2018. PS. Surely Mike Olt will sell at least 28 season tickets as a member of the Sox caravan.

One of the favorite targets, Chris Davis of Baltimore, became suddenly not such a bargain with his second half.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 28, 2015 -> 01:43 PM) Hey, this is not a rip on Hillary. Anybody who posts regularly here knows I despise her so I don't need to get word out on that. I did have a question in the Democratic thread, since you guys are going to win the Presidential election again IMO. And judging from my poll on God I assume we have a fairly Democratic board on Soxtalk, mostly all Demos/liberals. If I'm wrong, my bad. I had a question to you Democrats and Republicans: Q-Partisan politics aside, does anything about your candidate excite you, or make you gung-ho, bursting with pride about being an American and the upcoming Presidential election? Is there anything about your candidate that makes you say, "Damn, these 4-8 years are gonna be great!!! I can't wait!!!" Just curious. In my case, no Republican candidate makes me feel that way and of course no democratic candidate. So I wanted to see if you were as fatalistic about the future as I am. I mean Obama ran on change and youth the first time and people were stoked!!! What about now? For you is it just, yeah we'll win cause Democrats always win, but whatever. I have no faith my candidate will make much of a difference. Before Obama, there was only Carter and then Clinton. 12 years of Dems, 28 years of GOP presidents....Nixon/Ford, Reagan, Bush, GW Bush. So even with demographics seemingly in favor of the Dems, there's no overconfidence because of issues like Citizens United and the continued deterioration of labor groups/influence. Not to mention the fact that Asians are going to be an even faster growing demo than Hispanics until 2065, and it's way too early to assume the GOP will continue to piss off/offend both and force the majority to the Dem side. A young candidate like Rubio with charisma can carve off a lot of votes if he can only manage to articulate moderate or reasonable policies which appeal to both sides from the middle. Triangulation in Clinton vernacular. Can he get there from the right/Tea Party side without offending those same groups that put him in office, only time will tell. I still can't imagine Sanders being electable, Trump...no way, so that leaves Rubio, Kasich and Christie. Kasich has the most experience, but he might have a little too much of that Carson soft-spoken/understated thing going. He's almost too reasonable. Would like to see more fire out of him but playing it close to the vest and watchingthe field implode around him has its merits as well.

The Republicans have a quandary. Is Bush still viable or has he been compromised as a candidate by his early showing? Realistically, the money has to flow towards him or some combination of Rubio, Kasich or possibly Christie, whose "hug" with Obama will always be used against him by the right wing. I suppose a Rubio/Fiorina or Kasich/Fiorina combo would be another back-up plan...but that's only if she can continue to hold her own and maintain mid teens support. Bush is still in it for now, but the clock is ticking on him...the recent comment anout Obama giving out freebies was either uncharacteristically stupid or calculated political theatre to appeal to the base.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 25, 2015 -> 08:29 PM) Probably. It remains odd that the Sox have pretty darn good starting rotation and yet suck as a team. Why? Lots of blown saves. Terrible offense. Terrible defense. Terrible baserunning. Too many mental mistakes. Inconsistent execution. Lack of clear leadership and vision organizationally.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Sep 25, 2015 -> 08:28 PM) Nellie Fox for Joe Tipton. Joe Borchard for Matt Thornton Loiaza for Contreras

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 25, 2015 -> 11:18 AM) So Obama had better experience then a CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Yeah, I don't think so. They both might be massive failures but I think you very much underappreciate how much it takes to be a CEO of a large organization. I've met a lot of politicians and I've met a lot of executives...very rarely have I met a politician who was smarter than the executives I've met. Often times, the politicans I've met at various fundraisers / charity events, blow me away their lack of savvy and overall acumen. And our greatest presidents in Lincoln suffered failure after failure. Grant was one of the two or three worst presidents. That said, the one former CEO I was extremely lucky to work with in the non-profit/volunteer field, Tom Bloch of H&R Block, would trounce that field but he's not an attention seeker (although quitting to teach math in an inner city parochial school certainly gained him a lot of attention). Adele Hall, whose husband ran Hallmark Cards, would be a close second.