caulfield12

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 06:02 PM) Melky is enfuego!!! Very fortunate to sneak in there at second. Throw had him beat.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 06:00 PM) I've come to accept that Danks is not horrible, but is going to play at the absolute lowest level you'll tolerate from a regular starter. Now we don't have to tolerate it if we think we have a better option, but to speak generally I think he's a high 4s ERA guy that can eat up some innings but provide little value beyond reliably going out there every 5th day And that does have some value if you're the Royals and have the lowest number of IP out of your starters. With this particular rotation, it's not quite so important. The bullpen is pretty well rested. Considering the falloff in offense over the last couple of seasons, a high 4's ERA is essentially like a 5.25-5.35 ERA a decade ago. It's just not going to get the job done when you're last in the AL in runs scored.

QUOTE (kapzk @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 05:58 PM) Sadly if we did not have Danks on our team this year we would be probably holding one of the wild card spots right now. We do have $219 million in profits over the last decade, according to Forbes. So there's that. The Cubs released Jackson, and there's no reason you can't put John in the bullpen. They have to see what they can get out of Erik Johnson and perhaps Montas down the stretch as well. Otherwise, they're going to have to make a trade or go dumpster diving from the FA/waiver list.

QUOTE (Baron @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 05:56 PM) Damn shame Greg isnt around to give us his plethora of excuses for Danks. I guess we'll just have to live with watching him suck. The worst part is Kelly was just throwing fastballs because he couldn't throw a decent curveball to save his life. Ramirez gets a single or double there and the game's probably over. Oh, well. At least Abreu had the heart to stay in the game and battle. They have to earn this one now.

At least we had the two triples to start the game. Last time that happened was in 1954, Carrasquel and Nellie Fox. First walk in six games, Sox starters had a 0.27 ERA over that five game stretch. Had a sense when Alexei hit that DP ball that the game was far from over.

Typical Danks.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 12:26 PM) Exactly, if we take 3 or 4 from Boston we're right there for a playoff spot, LF/SS/3B/2B/CF are hitting a lot better lately (C too if Soto actually plays), our infield defense is now above average, and we have by far the best pitching staff of any of the teams we'd be competing with for the 2nd wildcard spot. Also, count me in as one who would be happy with 82 wins as well. That gives us a lot of hope that we could contend next year with additional progress from some young guys and a couple savvy moves. If we tank and lose 90 games then there's no hope for 2016/2017. Why, it just means that Erik Johnson probably failed? What does that have to do with Montas and Fulmer?

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 12:20 PM) The kind of crazy thing is, that if the Sox DO sweep Boston, they'll probably be somewhere between 1-2 games away from being a playoff team if the season ended on Thursday. A big if, no doubt, but it is also sort of difficult to trade one of the best 25 pitchers in baseball at this juncture unless the price is right (that price being a very good offensive return). Bottom line, Shark is very unlikely to bring back anything that is going to help this offense now, or even a couple years. If they find that, sure, move him - but I think he would have been traded by now if that were the case. Also, despite this historically terrible offense you mention, the Sox find themselves in the position described above. What does that tell you? They have a fu**in studly pitching staff. The offense has been coming around, and the Sox have really been throwing some leather in the infield for sometime..I'd honestly be pretty disappointed if the Sox moved Shark unless they got a ton back (unless they drop 2 or three in a row here, then I get it). You play this game to win. The Sox still have a small but surely a chance to win. I may be in the minority here, but one of the reasons why I love this franchise so much - they refuse to just allow themselves to be s***ty. No team ahead of them in the race for the 2nd WC really scares me. Minnesota will fade, I guarantee it. Toronto and Baltimore will be the main competition and those are very flawed teams (as are the Sox). I do think it all comes down to the next few days. Win a few more in a row, and I'd eat my hat if Shark is traded unless it brings back a bat that'll help RIGHT NOW. That's the KW gunslinger mentality. Where has it gotten us, exactly? There's this myth that the White Sox could simply wait around and make deadline deals every year, save some money the first half of the season and keep repeating that process. It worked, sort of, until the end of 2012. Pretty much every other season since 2005 were competitive, but more often than not missing out on the playoffs. But what I bolded...they haven't refused to be SH----. They've kept guys like Dunn and Danks and now LaRoche on the roster and were unable to do anything to fix those mistakes, by and large. We just had to "ride it out" and wait for a brighter day.

Who can explain exactly when after the War of 1812 and the Native American wars in the 1870's and 1880's it happened that firearm ownership got unhinged from service in a well-maintained militia/defensive purposes to individual ownership? Surely it wasn't spelled out until the Heller S.C. decision, but how can modern gun owners honestly read the lines of the Second Amendment to the Constitution and think the Framers intended the current interpretation? There's no doubt the NRA and individual states have succeeded in defeating the national government on this issue, but what were the first cases where the government tried to take gun rights away and limit them to military/militia/national guards? Because, other than Pearl Harbor and 9/11, I'm having a hard time seeing the national/regional/local defense side of this, and owning guns wouldn't have helped much on 9/11 unless you were on United 93, and that, as we know...is probably not another place where we want to guarantee gun rights, on crowded airliners 37,000 feet above the ground. Was it simply part of the antibellum South's and eventually the West's distaste for any rules coming from Washington? Hunters? Who has actually studied the entire history of gun control and can comment in an academic/factual/non-partisan fashion?

The least the White Sox could have done when they picked a Little League manager with no time put in the minor leagues or as a bench/1st/3rd base coach would have been to name a former catcher. Even with that perspective, it might not prevent Ausmus from getting fired, either this season or inevitably next year. If you're hiring a manager with "training wheels," it has to be an organization like St. Louis (Matheny) with the utmost confidence in the world (the Cardinals Way), seamless communication and a deeply-ingrained instructional system between their major and minor league systems. (And yes, even that's been frayed a bit by the hacking scandal and firing of the scouting director.) With the White Sox, our front office guys are pulling in two different directions, which must be uncomfortable for those below them in the organizational chain of command. And then there's Cooper, who just does as he pleases...and that mostly works as evidenced by the success of the pitching staff again this season, but it doesn't lead to one of the most cohesive coaching staffs IMO.

And yet a year or two ago, when the Astros broke all-time records for the worst television ratings and their flagship station went bankrupt essentially (same with the Rockets, it was a complicated deal), we were making fun on them. Who wanted to watch the Astros a couple of seasons ago? Same thing with the White Sox, it had been since 2005 for their last playoff appearance. None of the players were recognizable (Berkman, Biggio, Bagwell, Beltran, Killer B's, etc.) and they had been rebuilding that entire time. It's not like fans of other teams are so different. And it's also not like the tv ratings for the Astros and Twins have jumped right back into the top ten although both teams have been in first place or near it for the majority of the season. What were the t.v. ratings in 2012 for the season? What were they for the Cubs that year? The Cubs weren't much above us the last couple of seasons, their ratings were abysmal as well. Exciting players are promoted, team's competitive for the first time since 2008, fans go back to watching their tv's. The White Sox have basically been under .500 this entire season, and the one time they got back to .500, they proceeded to quickly fall back to 6-7 games back under in the span of about 10 days. The Royals, Twins, Tigers and Indians have been ahead of the Sox nearly the entire year since April. Having followed the team for most of the season, there have been numerous defensive and baserunning lapses. One of the most fundamentally inept teams in Sox history. Other than a slew of comeback wins that allowed us to survive the first six weeks not totally buried, this would be one of the worst seasons ever for a Sox television viewer. Maybe it wouldn't have been so bad had the offseason not been so promising, not unlike 2011 when Dunn laid an egg. The offense until recently has set historic worsts on a weekly basis, and was one of the 5-6 worst in all-time history, etc. Finally, the franchise hitting superstar has been a shadow of his 2014 version. The ONLY reason to get excited about this team for much of the season has been watching Chris Sale, Carlos Rodon and David Robertson (some are going to say Tyler Saladino for 50 at-bats, but Gordon Beckham can look selectively good for that long, too). And, as KW has pointed out over and over again, fans want entertainment, they want fireworks, they want offense if the team's going to be around .500.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 08:57 AM) So you agree with me. Avi Garcia and Matt Davidson are guys the current regime thought were future cornerstones. It would not be in the White Sox best interests to trade Samardzija for something similar. Thank you. Now go back to Kansascity.com. One could only wish the Chicago papers employed guys like Posnanski and Gregorian. I don't even think more than a handful of posters here could even tell you who the Sox beat writers are for the Sun-Times and Tribune this season.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 08:48 AM) Again, the other huge factor is what you would get back. No need trading Samardzija for anything less than pretty much guaranteed future White Sox starting position player(s) or useful pitchers, not Charlotte Knights, is what is best for the team. If not, hang on to him, grab the pick. Brilliant! Except when your talent evaluators pick guys like Matt Davidson and Avisail Garcia, two more guys who were "guaranteed future starting position players" at the time of their acquisition/s. Both will probably be jettisoned out of the organization by the end of 2016. "Wow. Get help." That's honestly the best you can come up with? Perhaps the most tepid attempt at a backhanded personal attack that doesn't technically meet the definition of attacking someone (other than saying whatever other posters argue is BS or LMAO or similar cute acronyms) this season.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 08:41 AM) Once again, you miss the point entirely because you like to read the BS you write. Trading Samardzija depends on the return. They don't need to dump money. There are no 2005 White Sox teams the 2015 White Sox are now competing with to make the playoffs. If the Sox win 3 of 4 in Boston, they will be looking pretty decent. What would not be good for the long term health of the team is trading Samardzija to Toronto for a bust and having the Blue Jays finish a game or 2 ahead of the White Sox for the final playoff spot. The season is still got some time left in it. 4 games in the loss column separates the Sox and Minnesota. One game in the loss column separates the White Sox and Baltimore. All the other teams vying for the final spot have at least as many losses as the White Sox. The improved defense has made a difference. If the offense kicks it into gear, the playoffs are not a long shot. And your BS line is that the fanbase will be so demoralized when that happens that nobody will ever buy season tickets again (except for yourself as the "one true fan") and that the only coverage you'll ever hear about the White Sox again on the SCORE will be White Flag 2 and how the White Sox blew a great opportunity to start Chris Sale in a wild card game at Houston or LA. If the White Sox actually wanted to compete and not be torn down, they would have played better against the Royals coming out of the All-Star Break. 1-5 in those first 6 games wasn't enough. All they had to do was go 3-3 and they'd now be at the .500 mark and a lot more fans might be willing to buy your argument/s. At any rate, I'll be expecting Reinsdorf to spend $219 million now, so there's that, thanks!

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 08:27 AM) I am hoping we trade samardjiza, but I'm honestly very intrigued by this past weekend. This was such a breath of fresh air to see offense over multiple games (against a good rotation). To see power, man. That was great. So, if you guys could get a rental upgrade over one position, what would you choose/is there anyone you have in mind? I have to think RF would be top priority for me, moving laroche to a platoon and avi with him. Fully happy to let the saladino ride continue so we can have a better idea if we happened to stumble into a positive war 3rd baseman. Not sure there are many options for 3rd coming in FA for a while, and i've soured on FA after this year. Detroit's not going to trade us Cespedes, so Bruce and Ethier are two of the better options, with the main problem being that it's a huge risk to take on NL bats midyear and be forced to hope something clicks and they don't need the remainder of the season for a league adjustment. Upton's going to be too expensive in terms of prospected surrendered for the potential reward.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 08:16 AM) Is a B prospect for Samardzija really the best move for the "long term health" of the franchise? A win or two the next couple of days makes things more than interesting. Are the Sox coming out of hibernation? Probably not, but what if they are? Again, jumping teams is not that big of a deal because of the similar loss columns. The Sox just need to win games. They just need Minnesota to fade. Who knows, other teams fade as well. The 2005 White Sox faded quite a bit IIRC. If teams want to give the White Sox a really nice prospect or 2 go for it. If it is a middle of the road guy, trade him in August when teams out of it won't claim him, and the team that probably needs him does. If Forbes is to be believed, the White Sox don't need a salary dump. They claim the team has made a cumulative profit of $219 million since 2002. The White Sox were 68-35 heading into August, 2005. They went a disappointing 12-16 in August and let the Indians back into it, then put up a 19-12 September. 31-28 out of the Twins wouldn't be THAT difficult to overcome, but that would mean the White Sox would have to play 13 games over .500 for the remainder of the season. As far as Samardzija making it through waivers, that will never happen, not with his salary being relatively low. He would be blocked at some point and withdrawn...not only that, you're limiting yourself to negotiating with one team using that strategy. If the proposed trade gives you talent somewhere between the Kazmir and Cueto deals (and probably closer to Kazmir, although another no-hitter from a trade candidate on Tuesday wouldn't hurt), you have to make the move. The White Sox took on essentially $145 million in additional contract obligations this past off-season for a slew of players. That won't even get you in the door of the Heyward negotiations. Does anyone believe they're going to double down and spend more than $150 million in NEW commitments again this offseason? That MIGHT, if you're very very lucky, get you Wieters and Gordon/Cespedes, but even then you're still probably $25-35 million short. Does anyone believe we'd be a division favorite with those two guys added (LaRoche would have to be dealt to move Avi to DH or Avi would simply hit only against LHP, PH/PR and occasional outfield work)? Once again, we'd be in that dubious territory of adding "over 30ish" players to long-term contracts instead of building a young core.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 06:25 AM) You could argue in retrospect that Reagan was pretty bad. His policies started the WallStreet snowball. Yes, there was also Iran-Contra, fortune tellers advising Nancy Reagan, the Alzheimer's issue. Nevertheless, he was one of the most popular presidents, he was largely successful in reaching across the aisle in terms of legislation (Tip O'Neill) in a way that no one has been able to replicate since, he presided essentially over the end of the Cold War (if you want to NOT give him credit for that, you have to argue that economic cycles are basically lucky and more about timing and that Clinton took office at exactly the right time) as well. Of course, if you're not a proponent of supply side economics and want to look at it from the environmental/deregulation standpoint, the gap between the rich and the poor beginning to wide, he's not your guy. Nevertheless, he was a gifted orator (the acting training) and an inspirational figure. Not quite universally beloved, like the last class of 2-3 GOP presidential candidates would argue, of course. And he was easily elected twice. Lots of people would argue that Clinton's lack of banking regulations laid the stage for the eventual mortgage crisis/subprime loan debacle, as well as the stock market crash of 1998. Also, most of the Congresses in the 80's and early 90's were Democratic, up until '94 at least.

Here's another thing to take into consideration. The Twins still get to play four more series against the Indians, who some feel pretty much laid down and died this past weekend, which is more or less 21% of their remaining games. Now, there's always a possibility Cleveland wakes up and decides to play spoiler over the final two months...but there's also a very real possibility they go into the tank and end up 12-18 games under .500 as well. So far, Minnesota's 4-2 against the Indians, and they have 7 left to play in CLE, 6 at Target Field.

For example, the White Sox still drew 1,965,955 fans in 2012, coming off the horrendous 2011 campaign starring Adam Dunn. That team was 4 years removed from the playoffs. In 2014, the Minnesota Twins drew 2,250,606 fans in just their fifth year in a brand-new ballpark, but had suffered three consecutive losing seasons prior to 2014 (similarly 4 years removed from the playoffs). They also had advanced to the playoffs six times in the previous decade (2002-2004, 2006, 2009-10), compared to the White Sox making it just three times in the prior 18 years (2000, 2005, 2008). Adjusting for the fact that you had a more successful team in a one-market city with essentially a brand-new stadium, you'd have to call that pretty much a wash in terms of support for the two teams in spite of poor performance.

QUOTE (Bigsoxhurt35 @ Jul 26, 2015 -> 08:57 PM) @jonmorosi: #Tigers about to fall to 8-11 since Miguel Cabrera went on the disabled list. And he's not close to rejoining their lineup. But they're buyers lol!? Might be their best opportunity over the next 2-3 seasons, you have to look at it that way...especially if they don't sign Price, Soria and Cespedes in the offseason. The futures of Rajai Davis and Avila are unclear as well. The Twins becoming suddenly vulnerable again have pulled 2-3 teams back into it, including the Tigers, Rangers and White Sox. Twins General Manager Terry Ryan hinted strongly that the Twins will make a trade to bolster their bullpen. Maybe they’ll even land a shortstop, with Danny Santana performing erratically. They could trade Oswaldo Arcia without disrupting their current outfield or their long-term plans. www.startribune.com/sports (Souhan)

Bland didn’t demur and knuckle under. Some have criticized her for her stance during the traffic stop, suggesting that if she had behaved differently, with more respect for the officer, she might have avoided arrest. Maybe. But, it must always be remembered that the parameters of “respectable behavior” are both raced and gendered. The needle moves to differing positions for different people. That is, I believe, one of the reasons that this minor traffic stop so quickly escalated. How dare a woman not present as a damsel? How dare a black person not bow in obsequiousness? The officer’s irritation seemed to build in direct response to Bland’s unwavering defiance. She refused to break, crumble and cry. She refused to express fear. She challenged his authority, his character and his expression of masculinity. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/opinion/...region&_r=0

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-colum...le28783480.html Good, more in-depth story on the deal and its implications for the remainder of the season and playoffs. Of course mentions the caveat that acquiring Lester in Oakland and Price in Detroit didn't guarantee a thing for those teams. Don't discount the influence of countrymen Cueto and Volquez together with Ventura (and Duffy) as a much more formidable rotation for the playoffs that removes a lot of the pressure from Ventura to be the ace after his surprising performance in the postseason, named Opening Day starter to replace Shields, new contract extension, etc. “As I’ve said over and over, if you focus on what you’re losing or giving up or trading away, you’ll never make a deal,” Moore said. “And we felt Johnny Cueto was the very best pitcher for our team, the right acquisition and somebody we could put at the top of the rotation and move forward with. “If we’re getting the right player back, we’ve always tried to be very aggressive to win the negotiations.” False steps notwithstanding, that they did on Sunday. In one fell swoop, they could welcome Cueto to the team and, at least for a day, welcome back Ventura. And register a claim as the team to beat. Seeing the Cueto deal on the board as Ventura seemed himself, Yost said, was like “icing on the cake.” Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-colum...l#storylink=cpy

Worst 1. George W. Bush 2. Jimmy Carter 3. Gerald Ford 4. Nixon (impeachment was nearing, kind of hard to beat that) 5. George H. W. Bush I would put Obama (right now) somewhere in the 5-6-7 range, depending on the outcome of some of his foreign policy decisions and the eventual success or failure of Obamacare to control health care costs. Depends also on what happens with Iran, Cuba, ISIS, the Pacific Trade Treaty, etc. Hard to give a grade at this time, and then you have to look at the fact that for six years, the stated policy of the Republican Congress was to block anything Obama wanted to achieve, to be as obstructionist as possible. Since he ran on a campaign of "change/hope," and the expectations were clearly sky high, the biggest failure will probably be seen as contributing to the tradition of partisan deadlock in Washington. Of course, with that statement, one must leave it to historians to determine how much of his "failures" can be attributed to institutionalized racism and the fact that a large sub-segment of the US population just wasn't ready to accept an African-American president. With that said, Obama stumbled early and largely failed to take advantage of his mandate (not unlike Clinton with health care and gays in the military), but getting elected to two terms is another dividing line between the decent/good and bad presidents. If you want to look at legislative achievements and "getting things done," the clear winner would be LBJ. But his legacy was tarnished at the end by the Vietnam War. Of the Democrats, Truman and Kennedy were the best, then Clinton (and we have to consider the Monica Lewinsky situation and how it will be perceived in the future, it's a part of the legacy but not the biggest....since there was the biggest period of economic expansion/capital gains revenues/stock market rate of return of any modern presidency).

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jul 26, 2015 -> 08:45 PM) 46,800+ today vs the Little Red Machine. If you go back more or less twenty years, the three teams with the most loyal fanbases were Colorado, Cleveland and Baltimore, as the Blue Jays ended their reign and went into a period of non-competitiveness as the Yankees took over. Considering how irrelevant their teams have been throughout the season, it's pretty remarkable how well-attended Rockies and Brewers games have been this season. That said, it's once again hard to make comparisons unless they're between Oak/SF, NYY/NYM, Balt/Washington or Chicago, far and away the smallest of those four multi-team markets. If you compare the population of NYC with Chicago, and where the two teams (Mets and Sox) have ranked over the past five years or so in attendance (per capita based on metropolitan statistical area), it follows pretty closely in line.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 26, 2015 -> 07:59 PM) Except we're already at 6 years without playoffs and below .500 in year 7. But we're SURGING!!! According to Bob Nightengale, at least.