caulfield12

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/i...series-favorite

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 5, 2014 -> 09:09 AM) I've said that before and I still believe it to be true. I think Viciedo is going to be another Ross Gload. Not a good enough fielder to be a corner OF, but not a good enough hitter to be a 1B/DH. They have absolutely nothing in common. Gload was a baseball lifer who hit himself onto a major league roster by sheer persistence, never once ranking as a top prospect...and always reminiscent of a Conor Gillaspie/Mark Grace-Lite type.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 5, 2014 -> 08:57 AM) It is quite like the KC/TB trade. Sheilds for Myers. Sort of. Except Myers was instantly ready to compete for AL Rookie of the Year, whereas Russell's at least 1 year away, if not 2016. Then you also had Odorizzi as well.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosen...,6736530.column The Cubs now have a rotation of Arrieta, Wood and Edwin Jackson....maybe Straily or N.Ramirez/Grimm fill those other two spots for the time being. Edwards and P. Johnson are setbacks on that front. In an ideal world, they have Bryant at 3B, Castro at SS, Baez at 2B, Rizzo at 1B, Soler in LF/RF, Alcantara (eventually Almora if he develops) in CF and McKinney out there somewhere in the OF as well. They're going to have to trade for a catcher at some point. They're also going to have to decide between Castro and Russell at SS, and what to do with Schwarber. Maybe he moves to LF. That means at least two of those outfield prospects are expendable as well in Soler/Almora/Alcantara/McKinney/Schwarber. So there's your ultimate trade that has to get a topline pitching prospect....Castro/Russell AND one or two of those outfielders. It's not like Olt has increased his value, and Almora/Soler are both down this season, so what does Russell and Alcantara/McKinney get you back? But wait. There’s more. Russell ranked fifth in Baseball America’s midseason list of prospects. The Cubs already had the No. 2 prospect in Kris Bryant and No. 7 in Javier Baez. I don’t believe the Cubs have ever owned three of the top seven prospects in my lifetime. That doesn’t make up for not winning a World Series in anybody’s lifetime, but that’s how you at least get there. McKinney, meanwhile, also ranks in the top 100, and both new Cubs prospects are 20 years old, not 30 or close the way Samardzija and Hammel are. The trade makes the Cubs’ major league team a lot worse and makes the minor league system the best in baseball. Perfect. That’s what the Cubs need and want right now. No use threatening .500 with the big club. No use making next year’s draft slot worse to continue stockpiling talent. No use keeping players who will be on the wrong side of 30 when the Cubs start contending.

Farmer said they were supposedly going to sign 7-9 more. Not sure exactly when or from where in the world.

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/white-sox/...-fourth-of-july Team really seemed to be energized by the crowd and "playoff-like" atmosphere. First 30K+ number since May 24/25 against the Yankees.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jul 5, 2014 -> 08:16 AM) CC is out for the year and someone else posted that the Yanks were looking at him. KW has long loved Betances and Banuelos apparently, though I'm not sure how much that flame flickers anymore, but Hahn has been on their catchers since at least the offseason. Seems like it could work, but I'd want something back, not just a dump. Danks looks like he could still be a winner, and if so the salary isn't a problem, really the move would be more about clearing a lefty slot for Rodon IMO. Thoughts/rumors on this? Yeah, it will be a cold day in hell when they trade Betances for Danks.

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Jul 5, 2014 -> 08:26 AM) Yes. Particularly Bryant. As weird as it sounds, people are sleeping on Bryant. He's going to be an absolute superstar. But his K rates have been in the 35-40% rate, haven't they? It doesn't matter if you hit 40+ homers, but if he's in the 25-30 range, it will become more of an issue unless he compensates for it with a bunch of walks as well. Even if he puts up Abreu-esque numbers, that still doesn't solve their pitching problems anymore than Jose being on the White Sox can fix the 4 and 5 spots in the rotation.

The problem is that the Cubs don't have as much leverage because everyone knows they have too many middle infielders in Castro, Baez and Russell. Unless Baez can play 3B, then they can't all fit together. Or then you move Alcantara, but how much is he really worth? Plus, Schwarber, Bryant and Rizzo can't fit into LF/1B. One of them will be the odd man out eventually. I have a feeling Russell will end up being closer to Jose Iglesias than Troy Tulowitzki. Beane's not the kind of GM to give up an impact SS unless he feels his offensive game wouldn't translate as well in the Coliseum. FWIW, this is the first time you can make the argument that the A's should be on equal footing with any team in the AL to reach the World Series.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jul 4, 2014 -> 10:50 PM) Now it's my turn. Why would a contender want him? Actually, though, I think we may be able to turn him around because he does deliver a lot of Ks. But that would be an unwise effort for a contender. Mark Ellis has had 1 year in the last 4 with an OPS over .700 and that was a .708. Kolten Wong has a .586 OPS. That's .586 for this elite talent. Beckham is 14th in the majors in OPS among second baseman. Yes, I know, he's the worst in the league and has no value. What Beckham is is average. I don't quarrel that we won't get a whole lot for most of these guys, which is why I prefer to peddle the ones over 30. Ellis has always been know more for his defensive ability. Beckham's been sitting in the 600's OPS every season from 2009 until this season, this year he's already back down to the low 700's again and he would have to adjust to a completely different league. Unless the Cardinals get really desperate in terms of their chances of making the playoffs, you don't/can't see them overpaying for Beckham. They had numerous opportunities to upgrade last year and didn't, preferring to keep their prospects like Wong, Taveras and Carlos Martinez, to name a few.

Viciedo's polarizing because no matter what SABR analysis you throw at him: 1) You have to take into consideration how Abreu feels about him 2) Where you're going a replacement, as it's certainly not Jordan Danks/Sierra/Taylor or anyone between Chicago and Courtney Hawkins 3) His age, 25 4) The fact that more of a premium is being place on power than ever before in MLB 5) The fact that a lot of the bats available in FA are going to be expensive and the White Sox don't have many valuable trade pieces...and that attendance woes are depressing the projected payroll for 2015 UNLESS another impact bat or pitcher similar to Abreu or Tanaka comes along 6) Eaton is hitting for roughly the same OPS as Viciedo and A.Garcia will be coming off a lost season and rusty, so there are zero REAL certainties for the OF coming into 2015, other than the fact that Viciedo's the most likely to be traded, along with DeAza...and it's not like Eaton has been playing GG-level defense or making great throws in CF. He's been good/better than average, but definitely not in the vicinity of what was hoped. 7) If Semien or Micah Johnson do end up in the OF, you can't also have Eaton in that same outfield without getting 30+ homers and 30-40 doubles out of RF. Garcia has the TALENT to do it, but nobody in their wildest projections would foresee it coming together next year in terms of those numbers.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-leag...-032529889.html So now who do the Cubs trade? Most likely, they'll try to flip Russell for pitching, and keep Castro at SS and Baez for 2B. Alcantara or whatever his name is also is expendable. Is Bryant back to 3B or still being ticketed for LF? The Cubs have another problem, in the sense that they can't wait another 2-3 years for Soler and Almora, and yet trading for veteran/win now/all-in pieces for CF and RF isn't logical either until they have their starting rotation back to competitiveness. Then catching...and where Schwarber would possibly fit into the equation with Rizzo/Bryant already blocking him?

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jul 4, 2014 -> 10:34 PM) The Astros don't draw. The Rays Royals and Pitt were playing in front of no one when they were trading away all of their major leaguers. But the Cubs never have gone completely on the cheap like those teams did, thanks as you said, to their attendance. Still they will have to find some front line pitching and that's not so easy. They've done well signing Feldman and Maholm and flipping them, but those 2 are 5th starters on good teams. I think it was, overall, a good move for them. For one thing, Shark is almost 30 - kind of a late bloomer. I would have also thought that the As could have gotten Price for that price. All things considered, the Astros have done fairly well with attendance, considering how bad they've been. I wouldn't lump them in with those other three teams, in terms of comparison. Its just been their local/regional t.v. deal and tv ratings that have been terrible. And part of that's related to the Rockets not being as competitive or interesting, with Yao Ming retired.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Jul 4, 2014 -> 09:51 PM) I wouldn't mind seeing Ravelo in AAA in August when hopefully Beckham is gone.. Is there a 1B that should be ahead of him in AAA though?? Black and Wilkins are more placeholders/AAAA/filler...at one point, some viewed Wilkins as more than that, but not so much recently.

What's wrong with Wong now? As far as 2B, Mark Ellis is a fine defender but was hitting below .200 as of a couple of days ago. He was decent for the Dodgers last year. So the question (and Ellis is a notch above Beckham defensively and used to NL play) is does trading for Gordon Beckham give you a decidedly better player going forward than Mark Ellis or Wong? I don't think so, especially when you figure in Beckham having to adjust to a new league/NLCD.

McCarthy eventually will find herself at the end of the Adam Sander, Michael Cena, Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen (still riding a high), Jim Carrey, Will Ferrell, Zach G., Ben Stiller line...if you play the same character over and over again, eventually that's growing to grow tiresome. Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, also. With comedians, audiences are always looking for the next big thing, whether it's Kevin Hart or Apatow comedies. If you show some variety in your choices, you have a much better chance of being rewarded by audiences....The Heat worked so well because she could play her character off against someone that audiences really love in Sandra Bullock. If it's Jason Bateman, he just doesn't have the star power and "wattage" not to get overshadowed by her and have the movie totally run amuck and become a series of set pieces/comedy sketches with no cohesiveness. Trying to think of a good example of someone who's trying lots of different roles, James Franco comes to mind...someone who has the ability to evolve and constantly reinvent himself. But for every Franco, there's a Sascha Baron Cohen whose act wears thin.

The problem with the Cubs is are they really sure they can rely on Arrieta going forward? Edwin Jackson's basically the equivalent of John Danks for them, but definitely not much trade value to another team at this point. So if they don't have the cojones or money to go after Lester, Scherzer, Shields...then they're going to have to continue to make trades for Top 50-75 MILB pitching prospects, which is always an unsure thing, even when you're trading away guys with the talent of Miguel Cabrera (Marlins didn't get anything out of Maybin or A.Miller) or any of the secondary offensive players in their system after Bryant/Baez/Castro/Rizzo. And do they actually have the ability to PAY Price? Sure, they have the offensive pieces to make that deal, and they could probably get someone useful in Zobrist back as well, but then they have to have the will to pay them $200-225 million combined to keep them in Chicago.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Jul 4, 2014 -> 06:50 PM) I don't care if it's in Minnesota, sale better make the team if Hughes and his 3.95 era makes it lol Hasn't Dozier been better? I know he has a ton of homers for a middle infielder. What about Perkins?

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Jul 4, 2014 -> 01:40 PM) If anyone is dumb enough to give us anything of value for him, take it. With his collection of "skills" he pretty much needs to hit 35 home runs to be a worthwhile starter. He's a big fat strong guy. He's a liability at the 2nd easiest position on the field. He's obviously subpar on the base paths. Remember when he hit 25 homers in his first full season? That was a nice start. And his high-water mark thus far. And still not remotely enough. A .744 OPS for a defensive liability is not close to good enough. The only thing you could say he has excelled at in the major leagues is hitting lefties. If we're offered nothing decent for him and can pay him $2.8 million again next year, make him the Konerko of the 2015 team. DH against lefties. Emergency outfielder if we've got some injuries. Jordan Danks is a more valuable baseball player. The Sox should focus on getting the highest possible value (hitting, defense, base running) outfielder they can next year including if that means sliding Eaton to left field. DH Viciedo against lefties if he's on the team. I stopped reading. Jordan Danks isn't even Brian Anderson. Guaranteed another 90+ loss team with Danks playing 145+ games. The thing is....Viciedo's just coming out of the worst slump of his career. Of course his stats aren't so great compared to the first or second week of May.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 4, 2014 -> 09:53 AM) I get that too, but I'm looking at his 2nd year arbitration status next year and realizing that the time it might take for him to figure it out will start getting a lot more expensive soon. Yeah, but we're spending roughly the same amount of money on DeAza, Beckham, Keppinger and Downs.

Dangerous count for Roenis Elias; Dayan Viciedo is a dead-red fastball hitter, with a .788 OPS against them this season and .690 against everything else. Still seems to me that the majority of his homers have been on off-speed pitches. Weird.

Have to check out LIFE ITSELF, the Roger Ebert documentary. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20831096,00.html Didn't realize he met his wife Chaz in AA and that he was a recovering alcoholic...guess that just came out in the year after his death. Life the reviewer, I grew up watching Siskel&Ebert At the Movies on WGN and enjoyed their performances. Looks like Tammy will lose out to Transformers 4 this weekend.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 4, 2014 -> 02:54 AM) That's not what I see when I see conservatives complaining about government handouts. I have absolutely no issues with getting rid of loopholes that enable people to abuse the welfare system. It's made for people who are legitimately in need of help, not free-loaders. I don't want to support drug addicts who spend their welfare checks on...well...more drugs. I don't want to support people who can work, but don't feel like it. However, it's my belief that those are in the minority of people who do receive welfare and that they're probably not getting enough money to live a great lifestyle. The problem I see is that conservative media likes to give extremely broad statements about government-aid. It's usually some anecdotal story about how so and so got this much government aid and we should all be pissed off about it and THANKS OBAMA! So of course, the base relays this type of sentiment and it leaves an impression that conservatives just hate welfare. Not just welfare for free-loaders, but welfare for everyone. To on-lookers who aren't conservative (a decent amount of the country, according to the previous two Presidential elections), this can leave an impression of conservatives being selfish and hypocritical. It's selfish because, well, imagine a guy making 6 figures a year (conservatives usually have more income) kicking a homeless person to the curb and telling them they can't have food stamps and that they should just stay poor, stay hungry, and deal with it. It's also hypocritical because a huge amount of the conservative base is Christian and one of the pillars of Christianity is charity and welfare. Talking about welfare in generic and politically-designed catch-phrases isn't going to help the overall debate and it's not helping the image of conservatives. While you may think no one is really saying we should get rid of welfare, almost everything the conservative media throws out there (*cough Fox News) says they don't want any welfare. I find the same problem with Liberterians arguing for smaller government. That's fine and all, but if you get rid of the entire government, who the hell is going to build the roads and teach your kids? There won't be a real discussion about any of these issues until people stop talking about them in such broad and generic ways. Non-sectarian amen.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 07:23 PM) College basketball vs. major league baseball? Are you serious? Is you job performance based on your boss or you? If you are good at your job, it must be because you boss is good, and if you boss sucks, you are not to blame if you suck, correct? If you have bad players, you are going to lose. If you have good players, you will win. When you win, you become smart, because for some reason a lot of people, you included, think player performance is entirely on managers and coaches, except if White Sox pitchers suck. I don't seem to recall ever saying that Yasiel Puig was "coached up" by Don Mattingly last year.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 06:55 PM) I actually think you believe the BS you make up. Are there any posts on this board that state the Sox are going to be outfoxed by these guys?(Yes, if we had a search function I would be glad to dig them all up for you) And if you are so in touch with opposing fans you would know Rays fans have often called for Maddon's head. Angels fans have called for Scoscia's head (and if Robin managed the 8th and 9th like he did last night, You would have told us how awful he is. And LaRussa,,,,,Hawk was a hero when he fired him. No fool. White Sox fans wanted him fired. Opposing managers don't scare teams or fans. Players do. Then why have managers, pitching coaches and hitting coaches....outfield/infield/baserunning, etc.? I think you likewise don't believe it matters who the hitting coach is for the White Sox and that the Sox pitching results over the last decade would be exactly the same or better without Don Cooper. Because I don't think anyone would ever argue that college basketball coaches don't win games for teams that have no business being in a game against a team with superior talent.