caulfield12

On HawkeyeReport.com publisher Tom Kakert’s message boards, cynical anger about the Hawkeyes’ recruiting has been replaced by, well, nothing much at all. According to Rivals’ rankings, Iowa’s 2015 class averaged 2.71 stars per player. The 2016 class is just slightly better, at 2.83. Yet there seems to be a renewed confidence in the coaching staff after Iowa’s 12-0 regular season and first Rose Bowl appearance in 25 years. That wasn’t the case in the summer, when Iowa nabbed most of its expected class of 25 recruits in a commitment binge. “The criticisms of this class in July and August are no longer being made in January and February,” Kakert said. “That’s in large part because of 12-0.” Overall, recruiting websites are ranking Iowa's class around 40th nationally and seventh or eighth in the Big Ten Conference. That's an upgrade from the Class of 2015. But as we've learned over the last 17 years, Iowa under Kirk Ferentz doesn't take its recruiting lead from star ratings. http://www.hawkcentral.com/story/sports/co...imore/79703972/ Fwiw, the last time Iowa had a bunch of 4 and some 5 star guys from Chicagoland, it turned out to be a complete disaster. The only one who turned out halfway decent was TE Anthony Moeaki. Most of the guys in this class were already committed before Iowa got off to that 12-0 start. If they can continue to build on it again this year, they'll definitely be in some a few more 4 and 5 star type players, but it has never been Ferentz's style.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 08:31 AM) Well yeah I get that. I just hope we are lining up some of those that will be eligible to sign next period now. Looks like the Braves are already off to a head start with #1 and #10 (Lazarito). Don't forget they also ended up picking up Cuban Hector Olivera from the Dodgers and Inciarte from AZ...really focusing on their Latin American side of things when it hasn't been an area of emphasis in terms of position players since Andruw Jones came out of Curacao in 1993.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 08:23 AM) Yeah there was an article about how them and another team (forgot who) are already lining up a bunch of amateur international signings for next period. Hope we are doing that too. As someone mentioned, it makes sense if you can first anchor your class with a Moncada/Lazarito/Alvares/Jimenez phenom type...but you definitely don't want to go over simply because you've signed a bunch of mid-range lottery tickets without one or two clear superstar/breakout possibilities. But if the Braves could convince Armenteros to wait to sign after the new period starts July 2, they could offer him any amount. The Braves already are expected to far exceed their signing-bonus allotment for the period that starts July 2, and some baseball insiders are convinced the Braves already have a handshake agreement in place to sign Venezuelan shortstop Kevin Maitan, the No. 1-rated prospect in that group that becomes available July 2. Maitan is described as an elite hitter and has even been compared to countryman Miguel Cabrera when Cabrera was that age. A person familiar with the situation confirmed reports that the Braves will hold a private workout Saturday at their Dominican Republic academy for Amenteros, who had been expected to sign with a major league team next week and could command a bonus of $20 million or more. http://www.myajc.com/news/sports/baseball/...pect-laz/nqHj4/ Pretty unexpected the Rays, DBacks and Royals are three of the teams that have exceeded their caps.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 08:19 AM) Why can't the Sox be in the NL?!?!? Ugh. The Phillies are sitting on a pile of new money with their huge regional rights deal just kicking in this year. The Braves are well-positioned with their new stadium opening soon and quickly clearing the payroll except for guys like Freeman, Markakis and a couple of others. And the Brewers have been one of the most profitable franchises in baseball among the smaller markets since opening their new stadium. The Padres, Reds and Rockies probably have the most difficult situations to overcome....with the Reds having pissed off their fans the most.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 08:12 AM) Since the most recent CBA, tanking in baseball is a non-issue. There are maybe four teams tanking this year, and all of them look like they'll got a shot to compete within 2-3 seasons. The only team that looks like it'll run into that problem in the foreseeable future is the Tigers. Brewers Reds Padres (sort of) Phillies Braves Rockies Interestingly, there's an article out today about the Braves being one of the favorites for Lazarito, fwiw. http://m.mlb.com/news/article/163477810/am...ason-contenders Article about how every team in the AL is basically a postseason contender.

The question, like the NBA....how many teams do you limit it to? 10? The teams not making the playoffs? Do you have a different number of balls that could be chosen based proportionally on record, from worst to first, or just one for each team? As the writer with the Philly website noted, the Sixers are the most notorious tankers in sports, and they're under the supposedly fairer NBA system. The Marlins at least have spent on Stanton and Wei Yin Chen. The other two teams with the biggest current revenue generation issues, Oakland and TB, are still fielding competitive teams. Finally, the Royals and Pirates are small market teams as well. By definition, can we accuse the Yankees for not spending this offseason?

Like him or not, he still has an important say in terms of the next CBA.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14696106...-annual-meeting http://espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=12222 Four anti-tanking proposals...including one from Boras called the "E" System http://www.thegoodphight.com/2016/2/2/1089...tanking-problem A very good point by point rebuttal, particulary aimed at the Boras plan...

Indiana crushing Michigan in Ann Arbor. Didn't see that one coming, especially with how IND started the game.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 09:01 PM) No reason to give up that much for Ethier. I believe L. Gracia was suggested before... Leury Garcia? What would they do with him? Either Garcia, for that matter.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 06:31 PM) Someone's been watching house of cards on Netflix. Brought up this same topic. Check out the link http://youtu.be/GRzJURUOxJo You mean the whole "America Works" program cribbed from FDR?

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 08:47 PM) LaRoche and Danish for Ethier with the Sox taking on his entire salary. Do you guys think that would get a deal done? If the Dodgers had a use for him. They already have about 4-5 players they can't give regular at-bats to...and a ton of minor league pitching depth.

Unless Montas really upgrades his conditioning, he will end up in the bullpen. He and Semien are the biggest losses so far. That still has a lot of value these days with all the emphasis on the back end of games and pitchers only seeing a lineup twice, there's no guarantee he puts up a 6 war for the Dodgers like Frazier will likely do for the Sox...and every year a new starting pitcher seems to emerge out of relative obscurity in our system to compensate, like a Jordan Stephens or Guerrero.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 07:22 PM) Could have just summed it up like with: "headcase". Too intense for baseball really. Probably could have channeled his energy on the football field more. He was too cerebral and intense for his own good. Great player but IMO he was probably a guy that was using PEDs and he had the type of injury (plantar facsia) that can be caused by getting too bulky too fast. Too bad about his torn labrum that's a major injury. I'd cut Avi some slack as well last year because of it. Obviously this year he needs to step it up but a torn labrum is a major injury, pitcher or not. That's one possible cause of a plantar problem, but I got it twice and don't weigh over 185 pounds and 6 feet. Once, from hitting the 1b bag will all my weight on the back of the heel playing softball...the other time, from playing badminton and landing awkwardly again...but, in general, overuse because I was playing 1-2 hours 3-4 days per week at that time. I haven't seen any pictures from his Stanford or DBacks' days where he looked remarkably smaller...say, compared to Thome when he first came into the Indians' organization as a part-time SS.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 02:29 PM) In 2000, nobody paid any attention to the small states. They are rarely if ever in play, and when they are, it's still much more effective to spend your money on states like Florida or Ohio. Point to some actual historical examples of people bothering to campaign in low population states. edit: for that matter, why is it so important that we try to design a system that has different states specifically campaigned for rather than ensuring that every single eligible citizen has exactly the same voting power? The House also overrepresents small population states. Just because they designed it a certain way doesn't mean it's a good design, either. The bottom 20 states get 40 Senate seats and still don't have the population of California. It maybe made sense as a compromise when states were still quasi-nations and forming the Constitution, but it doesn't make much sense in 2016. And as I said, it also skews the Presidential voting powers of each state. It's silly that someone living in Wyoming has roughly 5x more say in who is President than someone in California or New York. There's zero incentive to campaign there now, and there's no incentive to campaign to 10 million people living in metro Chicago, or the tens of millions living in and around NYC, LA, SF.* If we had a popular vote and someone came along and proposed the EC, everybody would wonder why you'd ever do something like that. *not entirely true, lots of campaigning for donations, but not so much campaigning for votes like you see in contested states. Still leaves rural areas high and dry. Obama did it in 2008 to pick up some EC votes that historically haven't gone Democrat in a number of years. I'd have to look it up...it seems he either went to West Virginia or Montana or both. Obviously he campaigned for North Carolina and Indiana, but that depends if you consider Indiana a small state or not. Obama spent a lot of time back in Iowa in 2012, for example. I'd have to check about Wisconsin, New Hampshire and New Mexico.

Let's go back to the idea of Rubio pulling this off (by the way, the Iowa Electronic Market is a great way to track the race day to day as opposed to the polls, because the candidates are tracked like stocks)... Who would you consider for his VP? I proposed a woman, to balance out the Hillary advantage. So you start out with Nikki Haley (Indian-American side makes both her and Rubio perfect "American Dream Team" candidates but still too young?), Susana Martinez (NM) and Carly Fiorina. Fiorina just doesn't seem like a good pairing or the right chemistry. Others: Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA) Pam Bondi-AG (FL) Kristi Noem-(SD) Susan Collins (ME) Condoleeza Rice (probably too controversial, ties to Bush and foreign policy debacle) Since the GOP gave her the chance to rebut Obama, that's a pretty good measure of her standing. She did much better than Bobby Jindal in the spotlight. If it's not Rubio/Haley, then I would like to see Rubio's relative inexperience (one of the main left attacks will be comparing him to Obama, obviously) is rounding that out with someone like John Kasich. Plus, the Republicans desperately need to take Ohio back. In terms of personality and temperament, Kasish is very optimistic and reasonable...so they are pretty similar. Kasich is like a lovable uncle/university professor and that plays off against the youth/hype surrounding Rubio. Plus, he's even more moderate and doesn't have the Tea Party connection to attack, so they would work well together as a team. Christie's just too much of a loose cannon and not perceived to be a team player, although I'm sure he would agree to be on the ticket. Rand Paul would be another interesting choice...more from a practical sense of taking back more and more independents, but the contrasts on military intervention/strategy would seem to be too great. (Note: I say all these things only from the standpoint of what I would do trying to form the team to beat Hillary, as I'm a lifelong Democrat but not particularly enamored with the idea of the Clintons being back in the White House...and, I believe that somehow Rubio might just be the best person to take on the immigration issue once and for all...and, finally, electing a Cuban-American and Indian-American to the two highest offices in the most powerful democracy in the world sends a strong signal of hope out there regarding what made America great and is to be most admired about our country.)

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 04:20 PM) ^^^Ding Ding frickin DING!!!^^^ Those bulls*** Scandanavian countries also only have like 10 million people. Total. That's not even New York City. And like dude said, they're all the same race and live in the same climate. Unbelievable when people suggest copying ANYTHING those people do. It's an insult to human brains. Like that s*** would fly here. Unbelievable. If you read in-depth about their teacher education system and just the amount of stress on education itself (speaking more specifically about Finland, and mathematics/science), it's a no-brainer for the US not to extrapolate some of their lessons to improve our own system for future generations. Having more equality of teacher performance will eventually lead to a more equal society...with the caveat that their funding structure is not through property taxes like the US, where the inequality is built-in already based on your parents' earning power and social status.

Quentin was wound tighter than a drum. He never seemed to really enjoy playing the game because he was always so analytical and tough on himself. He was the modern-day equivalent of Harold Baines in terms of discussing himself or giving great quotes to the media, even in 2008 when he was on top of the world and headed for the MVP. As a person/clubhouse guy, it was always "that's just Carlos being Carlos/rolled eyes" but pretty much everyone really liked the guy. It was also that they probably recognized the same struggle all young players fight through to prove they belong in the majors and then eventually they come out the other side and learn to develop a coping mechanism for dealing with the stress, like Konerko at the mid-point of his career.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 02:10 PM) The other thing that's weird is the Rangers being involved. Jon Daniels is one of Hahn's "best friends" as far as opposing GMs. The Rangers have no need for Fowler whatsoever. The Rangers have Gallo and Mazara ready to contribute as they've already shown they can hit AAA pitching. So assuming those two could only fit in the outfield, they have to get time from DeShields, Choo, Hamilton, Ruggiano and Moreland. Plus they have Fielder/Moreland at 1B/DH. The Rangers don't have any spot for Fowler. So basically, Sox leak that Rangers are in on Fowler and if Fowler's camp uses that as leverage, the Sox know it's bulls***. The counterpoint is nobody thought DeShields could be a full-time player...he was more like a Conor Gillaspie in terms of potential coming into last season. Choo, obviously they invested a ton of money into. Hamilton, they want to protect as much as possible in terms of favorable hitting match-ups and from an injury standpoint. Ruggiano, like DeShields, is more a 4th/5th type than any everyday player, at least on a contending team. If you're Daniels, out of that group, who are you 100% confident about entering 2016? If it was a one year deal, like the rumor on Upton, that would make perfect sense. Same with Fowler. Because Daniels is not really 100% sure about any of his outfielders (Choo has been pretty erratic/injured and has been inconsistent at best and is aging), then adding a much "sure/r thing" is/was logical enough. Now long-term, obviously they are loaded with prospects and they'd have to do something with Gallo/Mazaro/Profar (who has been considered for 2B/OF as well). It's not unlike the Cubs' situation with Baez/Soler, where they have or will have too many players for all the spots but they're also waiting for the highest possible return simultaneously (in that sense, Gallo's value has been dinged a bit). In the end, Upton for one year depending on the price was a no-brainer because they KNOW the QO will be rejected...with Fowler, it's likely, but not quite the same type of situation. Of course, the one year cost and risk of it blowing up overall will be much lower as well because they have so many prospects and potential replacements to make up for any mistakes.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 01:12 PM) Thats strange in its own right. It's that argument that has been misinterpreted to extremes from the New Testament...if someone is actively doing something that goes against (your version of Christianity, the key) the Bible, then it's your responsibility to at least present evidence of their "sins" as not taking any action is tantamount to committing the same sin yourself. This is often argued about homosexuality/lesbianism, but it could be any issue, like taxes (the parable relating to those burying their treasure versus multiplying it justifying being rich and not taxed as highly) or the death penalty, which I've never understood from a conservative viewpoint since Christ in no way would be connected with that belief. It's only the Old Testament (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth...), so it's nice to pick and choose what you like and don't like as if you're eating at a buffet but it doesn't work that way. At any rate, proselytizing to the point where others are made to feel uncomfortable is counterproductive. You see it directed at the LGBT community all the time (see Fred Phelps' church or "curing" gay people), but you very rarely see Christians actively seeking out the modern-day equivalent of sinners, tax collectors and prostitutes to minister to. In fact, they almost always seem to feel uncomfortable in those same communities Christ chose to make his "home," where he felt most comfortable.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 01:29 PM) If this team fails this year, the 2016-17 off season will most likely be the ultimate sellers market when you look at how bad the free agent market is. The Sox will still have all of their pitching, plus a full year of Lawrie and Frazier they could sell on. Unless the Dodgers try to auction off all their pitching and extra assets at one time... But I jest. It will be interesting to speculate in the years ahead what trading Rodon or Q could have done (would the package coming back have allowed enough improvement offensively to make us more competitive?), but it seems we will never know. It's unfortunate we're even in that desperate a situation in the first place where being stuck with Adam LaRoche is creating something of a domino effect on the rest of the roster...whereas the common refrain last year is that none of the moves made would impact our long-term competitiveness when exactly the opposite seems to be occurring. It feels like we're one really good player (or two solid/complementary ones) away from being competitive with any team in the division to almost everyone on the board. It also feels like we're one major injury away from last place...and the odds of making the moves we all want diminish by the day. Suppose it's still a possibility we can wait out Desmond and Fowler until June and preserve the draft pick, but whether they will be able to make positive contributions this season is another matter altogether.

This is where the debate begins again on a "long-term sustainable window" versus a more abbreviated window requiring restocking of at least 4-5 positions simultaneously before 2018... We can handle 3, but anything above and beyond that's really pushing it without increasing our revenues...which means it makes sense based largely on the premise of getting extended contending runs and at least one playoff team over the next two seasons.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 08:53 AM) I say this as a Christian-Ted Cruz is a prime example of everything that is wrong with American Evangelical Christianity right now. Uh-oh, you just pushed Greg out of the Cruz camp... Actually, even though I'm a Democrat, why? You think he's hypocritical? Gay rights? About spending more money on military and cutting back on "social" programs? There are very few Christian/Catholic political leaders who can easily negotiate the Social Gospels (Jesus was pretty clearly anti-death penalty!) and come out looking good on the other side of it. There was the now famous example of the time he argued before the Supreme Court on a purely technical issue pushing for a shoplifter to get something like 12-13 years in prison, whereas 3-5 was pretty extreme at that time. http://thedailybanter.com/2016/01/conserva...stian-behavior/ Articles like this must be what you had in mind... The best conservatism balances support for free markets with a Judeo-Christian spirit of charity, compassion and solidarity. Cruz replaces this spirit with Spartan belligerence. He sows bitterness, influences his followers to lose all sense of proportion and teaches them to answer hate with hate. This Trump-Cruz conservatism looks more like tribal, blood and soil European conservatism than the pluralistic American kind. Evangelicals and other conservatives have had their best influence on American politics when they have proceeded in a spirit of personalism — when they have answered hostility with service and emphasized the infinite dignity of each person. They have won elections as happy and hopeful warriors. Ted Cruz’s brutal, fear-driven, apocalypse-based approach is the antithesis of that. Actually the author is quoting David Brooks of the NY Times there within his article... Found the following from looking up "Cruz is un-Christian" Senator Ted Cruz, member of the GOP, who think they are the party of God...he (and the majority of Republicans) could not be more un-Christ like if they tried!! Forget bible passages. Go to the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ, whom Christianity is based on. Jesus said, CARE FOR THE SICK AND THE POOR Care for the sick...in other words health care! But self righteous Republicans say we should "stop the affordable care act". (Just how much stock does Ted own in big insurance and big pharma?) Stop 30 million people from receiving health care? Such action is more like Satan. It's not as if you didn't have HALF A CENTURY to develop and implement a health care system!! But this would have upset the insurance and pharma scam. Not to mention anger your wealthy donors who are major stockholders in these companies. Why do evangelicals support this party??? Because they enjoy going against the fundamental teachings of Christ?? Perhaps all their time in church is just a charade? I dunno. But NOT wanting to see the sick and ill (or potentially sick and ill) have health care could not be more anti-Christ like. The same can be said of the GOP's actions against the poor. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251324654

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 08:31 AM) An outfielder coming off knee surgery is a gamble. Better off seeing how he does in ST. There is some indication Tampa added outfield depth because Jennings may struggle to regain his previous ability. But if he can be had for a B prospect, might be worth a shot. Obviously Span went through something similar...and came out the other side, but he wasn't injured two consecutive years, either. The Sox would need to see all of his medicals. He had knee problems both in 2014 and 2015, and missed almost the entire season last year with surgery and a tooth infection. http://www.draysbay.com/2015/2/10/8002787/...njury-rays-2015 Guyer would be yet another platoon option if you had a lefty-dominant player with dramatic splits like Ethier...or a part-time DH with LaRoche who would expected to have an OPS in the 800-825 range. Age 30, mostly a LFer, though.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 07:34 AM) I'd pull a greg and go bet the farm on trump then. He's way way ahead in the next three primaries and I'd fully expect him to win there. Not like iowa where polling was always close. Iowa is just weird for the GOP vote. Let's see how he responds to clearly "not winning" when that's been his brand all along. He has about a week to get serious about a ground game in NH, and all of the pressure's going to be on him to win. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/electi...ire-republican/ Trump is still favored, but Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Bush and Christie will pressure him...it's perfect for the GOP, in the sense they've got their top 4 "establishment" guys lined up behind Trump...and I'm going to assume Rubio is at least 2nd. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald...e-pat-buchanan/ Nate Silver is making the comparison with Trump and Pat Buchanan/Pat Robertson/Ron Paul all with a huge surge of interest and then quickly deflated after Iowa. 2016 ELECTION 6:31 AM FEB 2, 2016 Donald Trump Comes Out Of Iowa Looking Like Pat Buchanan By NATE SILVER WHEN DECISION TO SUPPORT WAS MADE TRUMP CRUZ RUBIO Just today 15% 22% 28% In the last few days 13 27 31 Sometime last week 13 36 27 In the last month 23 32 27 Before that 39 26 13 SOURCE: IOWA REPUBLICAN ENTRANCE POLL Could this have been a reaction to Trump’s failure to show up for last week’s GOP debate? It’s plausible. Trump, who seemed uncharacteristically chastened in his brief concession speech on Monday, might think twice before skipping a debate again. But there was no decline in his polls in New Hampshire or nationally after the missed debate, which suggests that something else might have been at work in Iowa. Could it have been his lack of a ground game in Iowa? That’s possible, too. If so, it has interesting implications for the rest of Trump’s campaign. On the one hand, it’s hard to build a field operation on short notice, so if Trump had a poor one in Iowa he may face similar challenges in the remaining 49 states. On the other hand, a field operation potentially matters less in primary states than in caucus states like Iowa. But there’s good reason to think that the ground game wasn’t the only reason for Trump’s defeat. Republican turnout in Iowa was extremely high by historical standards and beat most projections. Furthermore, Trump won the plurality of first-time caucus-goers. There may have been a more basic reason for Trump’s loss: The dude just ain’t all that popular. Even among Republicans. The final Des Moines Register poll before Monday’s vote showed Trump with a favorability rating of only 50 percent favorable against an unfavorable rating of 47 percent among Republican voters. (By contrast, Cruz had a favorable rating of 65 percent, and Rubio was at 70 percent.) It’s almost unprecedented for a candidate to win a caucus or a primary when he has break-even favorables within his own party.