caulfield12

Surprised? Even when they come out more aggressively and hacking away early in the count with Pelfrey....there's the bottom of the White Sox line-up to destroy a rally.

Might want to change the thread title to ??? before we get any more depressed and pessimistic around here.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 01:55 PM) I agree. I think the premise from Cameron is awful. Trade everyone and blow up, no. But it might make sense to trade one of the cost controlled guys and Q would probably be the best bet. I would have to get blown away though (3 top prospects, 2 of which are top 50 guys). Small market (and big market teams) can both be players, which increases potential return, imo. I think between Shark and Q, we should be able to land 4 top 100 guys and 2 top 50 guys, but again, I might be delirious (plus some other fill in's). I still say a trade centered around Puig and a top prospect from Dodgers could make a ton of sense for Sox. Is the world coming to an end? He would end up like Sosa in his brief White Sox career, somehow. The Sox will lose Shark off their payroll next year and with five cheap starting pitchers can go out and sign two or three high priced free agents to make the team better. From earlier in the thread...one thing is for sure, I hope there's a better plan than this.

QUOTE (michelangelosmonkey @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 01:53 PM) I don't know why the extreme pessimism on this site...and Cameron is an idiot for talking about getting rid of Sale. The Cubs went into the tank for years and used it to build up a darn good potential lineup...but they have no pitching. The Sox, with a bit of luck, could have Sale, Rodon, Eric Johnson, Q and Fulmer and have maybe three 1's and two 2's...all under 27. All cheap. Sure they have holes at 2b, 3b, SS, C but they don't need STARS there. They need a team that can score four runs a game and play good defense. The Phillies and Giants have both used that strategy to build recent championship team. The Braves in the 90's were a great pitching team, the Mets in the 80's, the Orioles in the 70's. The Dodgers in the 60's, The Indians in the 50's. This is a legitimate strategy for winning and when the Sox stumbled upon Sale, Q and Rodon...dammit we need to keep on that path and not blow it up. We've lost more than one run per game from LAST season's offense by trying to improve it in the off-season, and somehow simultaneously managed to degrade the defense as well. That said, they have no choice but to try to fix it on the fly again and hope like hell that either Tim Anderson, Micah Johnson or Courtney Hawkins are legit big league regulars (two out of three).

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 01:20 PM) But you defined that distinction specifically on popularity, which is irrelevant. Billboards sell when the brand is popular, and the brand is popular when the team wins. We should only care about talent, not likeability. There are some obvious exceptions, like Stanton/Jose Fernandez in Miami, Harvey in NYC and Trout when the Angels weren't making the playoffs, Harper/Strasburg too, although that team reached the playoffs quickly enough...but the last couple of seasons.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 12:43 PM) They don't have stars as it is. They have some great players, but they aren't stars. It really couldn't be worse. Sale and Abreu don't sell tickets. Baseball doesn't work like that anymore. Winning and beer sells tickets. The team is abysmal. Attendance is abysmal. They don't have the assets to build around the 3 or 4 good players they have. They're dangerously close to being the Raiders of baseball. I don't know if there's a single player in baseball who would draw crowds by his mere presence on a .500 or lower White Sox team. We tried this Albert Belle, albeit one of the most unlikable players in the game. This offseason, at least part of Samardzija's addition was marketing-related. Even guys like Mike Trout, Stanton, Bryant, Puig or Miguel Cabrera aren't going to move the meter after so many years of not making the playoffs. I remember quite distinctly, living in Kansas City....they would get at least 5,000-7,500 more fans per game when Greinke was pitching in that Cy Young season and the rest of the team was terrible...or Toronto, getting a similar bump for Roy Halladay starts when they weren't close to sniffing the playoffs. With this current Sale streak of greatness, you could probably chart all those home starts and not see an appreciable cause and effect attendance-wise between him and John Danks or Jose Quintana pitching. Same thing with Rodon and Fulmer...exciting prospects, but very few fans are buying tickets to watch pitchers unless it's Nolan Ryan, Dwight Gooden, Fernando Valenzuela, Mark The Bird Fidyrch (rookie phenoms). And that's another area where KW's philosophy of "entertaining" home run hitters (crowds like offense when the the team's not winning) is coming to fruition under the Cubs now with their growing collection of hitters.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 05:23 PM) Boston will be a seller and Buchholz and Kelly will be available. Everything coming out of Boston has them holding onto Clay and ready to throw in the towel on Kelly, but definitely not just dumping him until he reestablishes some sort of bottom and comes back up (once again, another victim of the NL to AL switch). According to many, Brian Johnson is the "next big thing" in their rotation, although some of their other top prospects are struggling (Owens). I'm sure there's a team in the NL (West, especially) who thinks he would be a useful piece for them. And if TB can get something meaningful out of Erasmo Ramirez and a cast of AAA journeymen (along with David DeJesus), optimistic teams wouldn't be completely wrong to believe that. Of course, that's TB, worker of miracles even without Friedman and Maddon.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 10:21 AM) Can we really get that much for Samardzija given that he's struggling and the team would only get him for two months? What would we give up for him from our system if we were in a position like Toronto is right now? Right now, it would be 3+ months, but they're probably going to wait as long as they can and see if he can get on a roll.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 09:04 AM) Saw an idea on Twitter that makes some sense....Samardzija and Duke to Toronto. I could see them wanting both. The question is what could the Sox get in return? Then dump Danks in the pen the rest of the year, or at least until they shut down Rodon. But for 2016, they need to look at Danks as sunk cost and release him after this season. http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/2015...rospects-video/ Probably not enough for Hoffman unless Samardzija goes on a huge tear the next month. One of those two SS prospects, would be one place to consider. Or Pentecost (catcher).

States rights are just another example of NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. Unless it's something I actually want in my neighborhood...so I'm willing to make exceptions if it's advantageous.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 08:49 AM) Did Andrew Miller get paid for all the saves he has in his career? No. He got paid because he's awesome. Robertson is a really good pitcher. And it's the same reason Jose Quintana has a lot of value on the open market, despite his W/L record. He's also a really good pitcher. But he's not an All-Star either. I think we've let the pendulum swing so far to the other side where traditional statistics like ERA or RBI's or save conversions don't matter at all to some, as we can always find some statistic to throw out in support of almost any flaw. (And some have tried to do so with John Danks or Melky Cabrera's 2015 season).

QUOTE (BamaDoc @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 08:31 AM) Thanks all for responses. I had thought about him managing but there I could see lack of MLB experience making it harder. Multi millionaires may have a hard time buying in. I came up with player selection and development being a better role. It's what they already do all the time. Dick Allen: Thats part of my point. Would someone like Corbin be better at identifying who can teach it and who can learn it? Caufield12: I agree that you would have to have sweeping significant change throughout the system so therefore it would not be without huge risk. Perhaps as you move up the minors you could have a increase in ex MLB players coaches to fine tune or polish prospects. If you think about it, the lowest levels are where the most teaching needs to be done and biggest personal adjustments are going on like guys first time away from home or living in a new country. The lowest levels are where the first time coaches are sent. First time coaches are learning how to coach and may be least equipped to handle anything. My lowest levels would often have the best and veteran teachers, it's where you learn to do it our way. Young coaches could be there but also for them to learn how we do it from vet coaches. Not to pick on a player but Micah came into our system in 2012 and has moved up from rookie league. You/he should be taught and learn. It's kind of like veteran/distinguished teachers getting the oldest high school students or the honor's/distinguished scholars. Agree that the first 2-3 years in the system are the most important, and yet the salary/wages I'm pretty sure are higher for AA/AAA coaches than they are for the short-season, extended spring, AZ, DSL, etc. There's certainly much more prestige with the higher level managing gigs. One of the arguments for that is so many of the players from those lower levels aren't going to make it to AA even, so you're wasting a lot of valuable (coaching) time and effort in the beginning...or you're also having the problem of a lot of prospects feeling they're being ignored if they don't get nearly as much attention from the staff/roving instructors. Another solution would be more SPECIALIZED roving instructors dealing with issues like defense and base running specifically. The next issue is the fact that we never had a Venezuelan instructional program (even with Ozzie as manager) and we've just recently started to put things together in the Dominican, but that effort still hasn't borne much fruit. Having those top level instructors that are willing to work outside of the US (and you'd have to pay them commensurately) would be a big help. And they'd also have to speak Spanish fluently, so it would mostly be former players. It's hard to find a really good team today that doesn't have at least 2-4 homegrown Latin American players.

However, the flag received criticism on ideological grounds for its aesthetic resemblance to the U.S. flag, which many Confederates disliked, seeing it as symbolizing of abolitionism and emancipation, which the Confederacy was officially in opposition to. As early as April 1861, a month after the flag's adoption, some were already criticizing the flag, calling it a "servile imitation" and a "detested parody" of the U.S. flag.[16] In January 1862, George William Bagby, writing for the Southern Literary Messenger, wrote that many Confederates disliked the flag. "Every body wants a new Confederate flag," Bagby wrote, also stating that "The present one is universally hated. It resembles the Yankee flag and that is enough to make it unutterably detestable." The editor of the Charleston Mercury expressed a similar view, stating that "It seems to be generally agreed that the 'Stars and Bars' will never do for us. They resemble too closely the dishonored 'Flag of Yankee Doodle' … we imagine that the "Battle Flag" will become the Southern Flag by popular acclaim." In addition, William T. Thompson, the editor of the Savannah-based Daily Morning News also objected to the flag, stating in April 1863 that he was opposed to it "on account of its resemblance to that of the abolition despotism against which we are fighting."[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] In 1863, Thompson would go on to design the flag that would succeed the "Stars and Bars", the "Stainless Banner".[4][5][6][7] wikipedia

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 08:27 AM) You're playing semantics, so I'll do the same. It makes perfect sense that it wasn't attributed to them until after the war ended because most of the people never would have seen that flag. Opposing military may have, but regular people wouldn't have. You know what confederate flag the regular people of the south would have seen? That's right, Johnny!!! THE ACTUAL OFFICIAL FLAG OF THE CONFEDERACY! This response neatly sums it up about the flag controversy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-e-price...kusaolp00000592

If any history teacher in the US showed those three flags from the post earlier in this thread, there isn't one student in 10,000 who would pick the first one as having anything to do with the South or Confederacy during the Civil War. They would all think it had something to do with the Revolutionary War/13 Colonies...one of the first version's of Betsy Ross' flag, etc. I dare you to come up with a picture OF ANYONE in the South proudly flying that flag today. Unless you go down there and give it to them by hand, it won't happen. Heck, I'd just like to see pictures with Jefferson Davis speaking and that particular flag somewhere in the background.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 22, 2015 -> 09:02 AM) I can't believe EJ's 1 month in bigs is enough to lose status but Micah's was not. It used to be 50 IP for pitchers, 130 AB's for hitters and/or 45+ games on the active roster (besides September, I think). Johnson's just BARELY over, 51 IP. That Jace Fry TJ surgery is also really hurting the lower minors in terms of pitching depth, too...

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 07:33 AM) They will not be forfeiting any draft picks this winter. I'm pretty sure Hahn and staff now realize they are much farther away than originally anticipated. Not only will they likely keep all their draft picks, look for the team to add prospects this summer by dealing guys like: Samardzija, Ramirez, and possibly even Quintana. You are right Lord Chas, they need catcher depth in the system. They also need depth at just about every other position as well. After catcher, I would focus on 3b, SS and OF in the draft. I really hope Samardzija can pitch great up until the deadline. I thought Hahn did a great job trading Peavy at the perfect time for Garcia and Montas in 2013. A similar return package for Shark would be fantastic. They have lots of depth, it's just not quality depth. And therein lies the problem... Just like our "bounty of middle infielders." Kevan Smith, Kottaras, Brantly, Nieto, Austin (Rodon's teammate), etc.

I still haven't seen it explained or even asked of Ventura WHAT HAPPENED to the defense from April - August of 2012? Other than the obvious changes like Viciedo/DeAza in recent years, all of the players have gotten worse. You might be able to say Alexei is just getting older (finally) or LaRoche, but what about Eaton, Flowers, Gillaspie and Abreu? If Avi's better, I'm not seeing it...he has one positive asset, his arm, but it's not offsetting his other defensive flaws according to all the metrics. Conor has poor footwork and that terrible habit of throwing it almost sidearm, which consistently results in poor throws...with more errors over there without Konerko and his scooping ability on low tosses. Our three best middle infield prospects (Semien, Micah Johnson and Tim Anderson) all have defensive issues. Our "plus" defenders in Sanchez, Rondon and Leury can't hit. We also don't have any outfielders who project to both hit and field above replacement player value at the next level....and that's not even addressing catcher and 3B (Trey M., maybe...)

QUOTE (BamaDoc @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 07:40 AM) I watched last night CWS games and started thinking outside the box. I know it wouldn't be done due to egos and the risks/embarrassment of failure but look at Vanderbilt pre Corbin. Vandy was a program with no history and one of the greatest disadvantages in recruiting there could be. Many of you may not realize that most baseball scholarships are fractions of a full ride. At Vandy if you are on a third or half ride you must come up with the rest of the money. That extra is often 20-30k just in tuition. That cost severely limits your player pool. Academic requirements are substantial and most academic scholarships start with needing about 32 on an ACT. Yet he has built a very solid program all while the MLB raids his roster and recruiting class. They play smart aggressive baseball. They develop pitchers and hitters. I would consider hiring someone like that to run my minor league system. I think the minors are much more like college than MLB. You are dealing with developing players and dealing with kids away from home and life problems. I would seriously consider a guy like Corbin and give him a huge say in hiring scouts and instructors. So often scouts and instructors are former MLB players or failed minor leaguers who seem to have little qualifications. There is a place for people who have MLB experience but not in an organizational nepotistic way. Imagine guys developing. Coming up and able to hit behind runners, execute a bunt when called for, knowing how to play defense. Playing smart. I think it's an interesting idea. The problem is going to be you have to completely start over with most of your high level and even upper middle level managers in the system....they're not going to want to work for an outsider, especially one without professional baseball experience (like a Tom House at USC, who's very controversial in his own right). You'd have to get COMPLETE buy-in from players/coaches/staff, so you can't half-ass it and have a situation like Ozzie/KW or even KW/Hahn or Corbin/Bell where mixed messages are getting sent out and nobody is clear as far as who they are to follow and why. Don't disagree at all in principal guys like Bell SHOULD be gone, based on the results or lack thereof....I can just imagine those initial meetings being not too far off what you saw portrayed onscreen in Moneyball with Billy Beane/Jonah Hill against the "old school scouting guard" as represented by Grady Fuson. Nick Capra would probably leave, too.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 07:35 AM) The fact that debate exists as to whether it's racist or not shows it's simply what you choose to believe. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/ju...ate-flag-debate You realize that the KKK -- for MANY years -- flew the US flag (stars/stripes) as they're symbol, too...right? So does that make the US flag racist? The answer to that is much the same. For some, YES, it is a racist symbol. For others, NO, it's not. So what's the difference between Germany today flying a 1930's Nazi flag today and the US Capitol flying a Confederate flag? Both are elements of the history of those countries...6 million Jews were wiped out by the Nazis, whereas it was "only" thousands of blacks who were lynched in those states with the Stars & Bars as elements of their state flags or state emblems...? Basically, only if the South had actually won the Civil War, enacted a nationalized policy of killing all black people....and then later they "lost" the country again could we say it would be unacceptable to have the Confederate Flag flying over the Capitol or state houses today? What about the policy of the South during the war of executing all former slaves who took up arms against the Confederacy, along with their white commanding officers?

For those who haven’t been following this issue, in 2012 the Supreme Court gave individual states the option, if they so chose, of blocking the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid, a key part of the plan to provide health insurance to lower-income Americans. But why would any state choose to exercise that option? After all, states were being offered a federally-funded program that would provide major benefits to millions of their citizens, pour billions into their economies, and help support their health-care providers. Who would turn down such an offer? The answer is, 22 states at this point, although some may eventually change their minds. And what do these states have in common? Mainly, a history of slaveholding: Only one former member of the Confederacy has expanded Medicaid, and while a few Northern states are also part of the movement, more than 80 percent of the population in Medicaid-refusing America lives in states that practiced slavery before the Civil War. And it’s not just health reform: a history of slavery is a strong predictor of everything from gun control (or rather its absence), to low minimum wages and hostility to unions, to tax policy. So will it always be thus? Is America doomed to live forever politically in the shadow of slavery? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/opinion/...c=recg&_r=0 If you take the time to click on the map of the 22 states, you see virtually the entire Confederacy, Missouri (border state), Wisconsin (Scott Walker explains that one)...Maine is another outlier. Arkansas is the only state EXPANDING coverage. Also, KY and West Virginia, basically border states.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 06:08 AM) It's a Lifetime movie. They're all bad. The pregnant girl was crazy hot but it was very dull and slow. One of the more boring HBO shows I tried to watch. I know others that liked it though. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2057726/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t4 Jessica Lowndes.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 06:29 AM) Why? It's a better product, there are more teams in the tournament, and you know a lot of the players from domestic leagues. As for the US game last night, they looked terrible. China is better than Colombia so they're going to have to play much more assertively or they could be in trouble. Especially without Rapinoe...she was about the only sign of life in the first half. That said, the Chinese team isn't nearly as fearsome as they used to be 15-20 years ago, although they are back on the upswing again.

7. Hector Olivera and the rest of the Cuban imports who sign what seem like huge-money deals often do end up monstrous bargains. If the cost of a marginal win really is around $7.5 million, Yoenis Cespedes could produce the entire value of his $36 million deal this year alone. According to FanGraphs' calculations, Yasiel Puig last season provided $40.5 million in value. He signed for seven years and $42 million. Getting major league-ready players for mid-level salaries is an absolute coup, and Olivera could be the latest. He's massacring Triple-A pitching, with a pair of four-hit games, the latest of which came Friday and included a triple and a home run. Considering Justin Turner is thriving in everyday duty – he's up to .333/.401/.579 – there isn't exactly an open spot for Olivera at the moment. Soon enough, though, he'll hit his way into the major leagues, and the Dodgers will have a problem about which complaints will be met with a tiny fiddle. After a few down years, third base is finally back with a vengeance, maybe the deepest position in baseball. Olivera will join Frazier, Josh Donaldson, Kris Bryant, Nolan Arenado, Evan Longoria, Kyle Seager, Matt Carpenter, Mike Moustakas, Adrian Beltre and … 8. Manny Machado http://sports.yahoo.com/news/10-degrees--t...-043408970.html

Chris Sale is one of the great bargains in baseball, under contract for another 4 ½ years at $52.8 million, with the last two seasons club options with small buyouts in case of injury. The idea of trading Sale is certainly tempting, especially with the White Sox's season barreling in the wrong direction – their minus-68 run differential is worst in the AL and better than only Philadelphia and Milwaukee – but wouldn't necessarily net as much as he's worth. The potential surplus value on Sale's contract is so high that receiving commensurate value in a trade is almost impossible. What would the cost be for a pitcher who does what Clayton Kershaw or Felix Hernandez does at about a third the price? An organization's top four prospects? Five? More? It's so much that nearly every organization in baseball would balk at giving up so much talent for just one player, no matter how great. White Sox GM Rick Hahn is creative and will entertain all possibilities, and executive say they plan on at least spitballing before the trade deadline. Sale is about as likely to go somewhere else as … http://sports.yahoo.com/news/10-degrees--t...-043408970.html