caulfield12

QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 11:39 AM) Feldman and Clevenger to Orioles for Arietta and Strop. Strop has a nice arm out of the pen, too.

QUOTE (Baron @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 01:03 PM) Whats really happening now is teams are just screwing the system. Teams are collecting more bonus money slots and some teams are going way over their bonus pool because the consequences only impact them for one year. Time for a International Player Draft.4 Cubs are collecting slots with the trades they are doing The Rangers spent roughly 4.4 million in this free agency period when they only had I think it was 1.6 million. They cant spend any next year but the year after they can spend a huge amount of money again. The Rangers can just about do anything they want with their war chest, funded by their regional broadcasting rights deal and the added $25 million coming in next year. Crazy that a team went from completely bankrupt under Tom Hicks to one of the five most powerful in less than half a decade.

QUOTE (Baron @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 01:18 PM) They are still over it even with the increased figure from the Marlins. They spent roughly 4.4 million. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...ws&c_id=cws Chisox.com story on Zapata. Hahn giving all the credit to Marco Paddy here. "Adolfo Zapata has impressed everyone over the last year with his makeup and approach to the game," said Paddy. "His raw tools and natural strength immediately grab your attention, and his power displays can be jaw-dropping." Zapata has an uppercut swing and a reputation for putting on power displays in batting practice. Although he can be susceptible to off-speed pitches, his tools and upside have led some to call him a "player development's dream." "Marco deserves a great deal of credit for scouting and signing Micker," Hahn said. "Marco spent the time building a really strong relationship with Micker and a great rapport with his family. Today's signing reinforces our expanding commitment as an organization to scouting and signing top young, talented players from Latin America."

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...ws&c_id=cws Good summary of where things stand today from Scott Merkin...although the idea of Jared Mitchell being in the plans still was kind of humorous.

This is almost back to the Rowand/Everett departure theory for the Sox downfall in 2006, or Juan Uribe after 2008. Too bad there's no +/-category in baseball like there is in hockey, although there are obvious limitations to that stat. Or the opposite, getting rid of Lee and Ordonez created a more "winning/unselfish" attitude in the clubhouse before the 2005 season.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 12:06 PM) This place is always rocking when the rumors start, that's for sure. I remember being in a car trying to refresh soxtalk from my cell phone with terrible signal in the rocky mountains last year on deadline, knowing that I could get the fastest and best info here on that front. Likewise, we'll be testing I-pad capability on the Serengeti plain and Egypt the last two weeks of July...maybe KW will be there again this year, too.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 09:37 AM) Different market - the money is an indicator, but it isn't an absolute match-up. These are 16 year-olds, they are even more lottery tickets than the amateur draft guys. That said, I think a case can be made for Zapata to crack the Sox T25. Yeah, Iknow. There's this "unwritten" rule that any time an organization feels strongly enough to invest $1+ million in any prospect, whether through the draft or free agent signing...a strong case can be made for them to be in the top 20-25, no matter how young or raw they are.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 09:34 AM) I f***ing hate Yasiel Puig. Haha. I wonder how crazy all the boards would be going were he actually playing for the White Sox. Don't hate, appreciate.

Mike Trout's signing bonus at the bottom of first round in 2009, $1.125 million. Crazy. And some are arguing this guy might not even be a Top 25 prospect in our system, automatically.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 09:22 AM) I bet greg has his own listing on google maps Is it Leavenworth? (Joking Greg, we all love you, Bill Self and Applebee's and the entire 2005 team, even Borchard).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 09:12 AM) It's not like there wont' be "Utility infielders" available on the free agent market this winter if we decide we need one. Heck, with the fact that it seems Keppinger isn't trusted to play SS by Ventura, Keppinger is sorta in the way of actually having a utility infielder. And also somewhat decreasing Ramirez's trade value, if you want to follow the same argument, as he's forcing Ventura to play Alexei every inning...leading to more physical mistakes/errors than ever before.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 08:58 AM) We all love each other here guys.....come on, lets hug this s*** out. 50% is the fact that nothing's going to change with this team's defense/fundamentals/style of play until at least after the trading deadline. If the starting line-up changes, then paying attention and getting upset (a bit) might be more warranted if there are still no improvements. Right now, it's like crying over spilled milk. PS: Sorry for leaving you off my list of favorite posters, lol...maybe you don't want to be on that list, haha.

Dump for whatever you can get. Play Greene or Angel Sanchez there as a placeholder, doesn't matter.

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 07:55 AM) Again with the tangents. Again with the attempts to delve into my personal life. In the summer, from 8-12 Monday-Thursday I sit in gen eds at my local community college. Soxtalk keeps me sane during that time. Don't tell me about the girls you supposedly got. You're a real Internet Brad Pitt. You're the same dude who posted pictures of sub par women you would try to get on a message board. Not going to waste any time saying "I do this and that" like you. If you doubt me as 19 year old follow me on twitter. In any case, and lets consider you brought this up, I spend significantly less time on here than you. I am also a 19 year old and you are a grown ass man (I'm guessing because of your rejection of social media and tangents about older players). Try to get, lol? I don't reject social media, I just see no need to follow actual celebrities or even minor ones like Courtney Hawkins. I'm certainly not interested in following you at twitter. If you're talking about using social media for philanthropy, fundraising/nonprofit/NGO work, organizing political movements (like in the Middle East), that's a totally different situation. Are any of your twitter followers female? Somehow, I highly doubt it.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 06:52 AM) Are there any Harper type monsters coming out next year? :-D The thing about the stros and Marlins is that they actually have young talent that should get better as the season moves along. The White Sox, if you expect them to trade some of their only decent assets, could easily wind up losing 100 games. GO TEAM GO! Rodon, the LHP from NC State....but there haven't really been any hitters that have emerged yet as candidates for the top pick, but a million things can change between now and next June. There's nobody right now viewed as better than Bryant, for example, the Cubs' pick this year.

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 07:15 AM) Holy tangent! Do you really have nothing better to do? When I was 19, we were out in the world actually going things, spending time with our girlfriends, travelling to concerts or going to the amusement park or swimming pool....there was no need for Twitter, fb or cell phones to occupy all of our time. We figured out something new to do everyday, we didn't ask to be entertained.

ROYALS Baseball TV deals growing more lucrative January 24 BY PETE GRATHOFF The Kansas City Star It’s tempting to call the Dodgers’ megadeal with Time Warner just another case of a big-market baseball team striking it rich. Ranked by expected revenue per year: • Dodgers: $250 million* • Angels: $147 million • Yankees: $90 million • Astros: $80 million • Rangers: $80 million • Mets: $65 million • Red Sox: $60 million • Cubs: $50 million • Padres: $50 million • Tigers: $50 million • White Sox: $45.5 million • Mariners: $45 million • Indians: $40 million • Blue Jays: $36 million • Phillies: $35 million • Diamondbacks: $31 million • Reds: $30 million • Nationals: $29 million • Orioles: $29 million • Twins: $29 million • Brewers: $21 million • Braves: $20 million • Rays: $20 million • Rockies: $20 million • Royals: $20 million • Marlins: $18 million • Pirates: $18 million • Cardinals: $14 million • A’s: N/A • Giants: N/A** *estimation of reported agreement that would start in 2014; expected to receive $39 million in 2013 **believed to make 30 to 33 percent of total revenue produced by Comcast Sports Net Bay Area SOURCES: FanGraphs, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Crain’s Detroit Business, ESPNChicago.com, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1500ESPN.com, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Forbes The numbers are eye-popping: The reported agreement could fetch as much as $7 billion over 25 years. Sure, the Los Angeles TV market is among the largest, but a quick scan of recent local cable television deals in baseball shows some smaller teams have hit paydirt, too. “It’s not simply a matter of small market, big market — it’s also a matter of when contracts expire,” said Andrew Zimbalist, the Robert A. Woods professor of economics at Smith College who has written extensively about baseball economics. “Teams that are re-upping and signing a new deal now, or if they signed last year or even two years (ago) or maybe one year at the most into the future, are in very good shape. “Teams that signed their contracts three years ago or four years ago (SEE CHICAGO WHITE SOX), or teams that sign their contracts in another couple of years are not going to benefit from this bubble. This is true whether they are in large markets or small markets.” And that’s the bad news for Royals fans. The team’s TV deal with Fox Sports Kansas City, which launched in 2008, pays the team $20 million a year and runs through 2019, Kevin Uhlich, the Royals’ senior vice president of business, confirmed. They don’t have an opt-out clause. So the Royals are forced to watch as the bubble continues to grow. Here are four teams that struck it rich, according to Forbes. • In 2010, the Rangers received a 20-year deal from Fox Sports that starts in 2015. Texas got $100 million, will receive $80 million annually and gets a 10 percent equity stake in Fox Sports Southwest. • The Houston Astros’ deal gives them $80 million a year and a 45 percent stake in Comcast SportsNet Houston. • In 2011, the Los Angeles Angels got a 17-year, $2.5 billion deal that pays an average $95 million rights fee with a 25 percent equity stake in Fox Sports West. • Last year, the small-market Padres received a $1.2 billion, 20-year deal with Fox Sports San Diego. The Padres also have a 20 percent equity stake in the network. (Hence, the Jake Peavy back to SD rumors, and the acquisition of Quentin, etc.) The Indians, the Royals’ rival in the AL Central, sold SportsTime Ohio to Fox Sports in December for an estimated $230 million. The deal gives Fox the rights to broadcast Indians games for at least the next 10 years, during which time the team will receive at least $400 million in rights fees, beginning with $40 million this season. The Royals will see an increase in revenue, thanks to the $12.4 billion deals with national broadcasters. Those deals run through 2021, but the money is shared evenly among each team. So there is no advantage there. The good news for the Royals is that the Dodgers, and any other team that signs a monster local TV deal, send 34 percent of that annual revenue to Major League Baseball, according to Uhlich. MLB then distributes the money evenly among all 30 teams. However, teams are finding a loophole. Money made off a team’s equity stake is not shared. Chris Bevilacqua, the founder and CEO of Bevilacqua Media Company, explained last year on Forbes’ “SportsMoney” program: “What you really are seeing is teams that are becoming media companies, they’re taking equity ownership properties,” Bevilacqua said. “So once you get into owning the actual media and having the intellectual property rights, the economics just become greater and greater.” But there is risk, too. The Dodgers’ deal is expected to call for a network dedicated to the team (a la The Longhorn Network). If advertisers don’t pay as expected, that could cut into a team’s profits. And there is a chance for viewer backlash. The Dodgers’ deal means another channel for cable companies to pay for, and that cost is passed along to the viewer, whether or not they are fans. It’s not hard to imagine that some people in Kansas City would balk at an arrangement with the Royals. But sports have become cable television’s lifeline. Nielsen reported that last year, $13.3 billion was spent on advertising within sports programs, which accounted for 23 percent of national TV ad spending. Nielsen also noted that 99 percent of people ages 18 to 49 watched sports programming live or that day. “DVRs make it possible to tape their programming and watch it some other time and when they watch it, they can skip their advertising, so that lessens the interest of companies to advertise on normal programming,” Zimbalist said. “But sports fans want to see their games live, so the DVR effect doesn’t really influence them, and companies tend to migrate their advertising from the traditional programming — soap operas, comedies, serials — toward sports, and that’s been a strong influence over the last several years, but it’s pretty much played itself out.” That’s one of the reasons why Zimbalist believes the bubble is about to burst for baseball TV contracts. However, the 140 regular-season games on Fox Sports Kansas City last season were the best ever, averaging a 3.8 household rating, according to Nielsen, up 13 percent from 2011. Sounds like a good time to strike a deal, but the Royals likely have to wait a few more years. And, unlike LA, there likely won’t be a bidding war to drive up the cost. “The situation in Los Angeles is sui generis,” Zimbalist said. “It’s unique, because of competition between Fox and Time Warner and a variety of other factors. It’s inflating those rights way out of proportion. There’s a bubble. Whether that continues is another question. “I think the exuberance in the market right now is likely to abate or disappear in the next couple of years, so I don’t anticipate that kind of frenzied buying and upping the ante on rights fees will be present.” To reach Pete Grathoff, call 816-234-4330 or send email to [email protected]. Follow him at twitter.com/pgrathoff Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/24/40297...l#storylink=cpy

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 01:14 AM) If you want to do that, fine. But don't let me or anybody play ANY role in your decision whatsoever. That's lame. I get more s*** in the NBA thread than anybody here anywhere. And I don't give a f***. I'm the smartest person there (besides brother quinarvy). Nobody will ever chase me from that thread. It's not about being the smartest...if that was the case, Rick Hahn already would have led us to the promised land due to all of his time spent at NU and Harvard Law. Sometimes, the smarter you are, the more information you have access to, the harder it is to pull the trigger or make decisions...paralysis by analysis.

QUOTE (Paint it Black @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 12:48 AM) Write off is different than extend. I was simply stating that I believe Beckham is actually a good candidate to extend. Except we need a lot more than 4 weeks of good hitting before he earns it. Otherwise, it runs the risk of being like the Teahen or Keppinger type deals. If he's going to be a 700-725-750 OPS ceiling guy, okay. I think we've all given up on the 850-900 OPS Gordon Beckham at this point. But not in the low 600's. And there's another interesting issue, teams like the Yankees "officially" only bring in $90 million for broadcast rights, but the really numbers are exponentially higher because of their owning their own network, just like the Red Sox/NESN. You can even argue that the White are undervaluing their overall numbers (in terms of local media) due to the Reinsdorf ownership of the Bulls/Sox and 40% controlling stake in Comcast (the 60% to NBCUniversal, Wirtz and Ricketts). Not to mention the WGN situation, which complicates things even further....as the White Sox make less money per game for the actual broadcast rights for WGN telecasts, but they have a much bigger national outreach and total numbers of viewers/advertisers, for example.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 12:21 AM) Thing is, I didn't even rip you. YOU ARE long-winded as f***. Just like I didn't rip soxfest. All of his posts literally are negative one-liners. I guess both of you guys stand out more since the gamethreads are so inactive now. I never said either one of you were bad posters. The ones I did rip are the clowns from filibuster. But that's another story. But I digress. This thread can get locked for all I care. Like I said, it's just not that serious. It was Saturday night, 3somethin' in the morning and I was wasted. Oh well. Okay, in the interests of board peace, let's just agree to move on. Life is too short. I guess the reason I reacted the way I did is because it has been frustrating the last month or so because it seems everyone has just given up on the season...and then to feel like you're being criticized for trying to add or contribute something (especially gamethreads that are only 4-5-6 pages long) or for still continuing to follow the team, well, I reacted honestly, so maybe it's healthier when we put all these issues out on the table. Anytime you name names, or don't name names, or leave someone out...feelings can get bruised. And maybe your post reminded me that perhaps it's time to take a step back and not be so involved (the whole tuning out until the trade deadline stance)...that there are lots of other things in life to spend your time on than bad/frustrating White Sox baseball. We've still got half the season left, so somehow we have to get through it together, yes? I realize my style isn't for everyone. There are some that like it, some that hate it, some that put me on ignore, it's all good.

QUOTE (TRU @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 07:17 PM) I cant stand caulfield.. I really wish I could rip him but sadly that's not allowed.. I love how everyone forgets THAT THERE IS AN IGNORE BUTTON, lol. Why did the board owners put it there, I wonder? Besides TRU, have at it, you and J4L can help improve the gamethreads since I won't be posting in them anymore. I'm sure you will consequently find something or someone else to complain about. Personally, the posters I've enjoyed reading recently are Fathom, witesoxfan, southsider2k5, balta, jake and ultimate champion...heck, i would even have put Marty34 on the list, because his thinking is always counter-intuitive and he challenges conventional wisdom and can occasionally force you to rethink your position. Should we start threads about individual posters and dissect them? Really? What's the point of a post like this? Am I supposed to feel "bad" or hurt or upset, lol? As far as ripping on me, nss and kyle do it all the time, although they prefer obliquely mocking me. It's fine...but to think you're not allowed to rip on anyone is ridiculous. I ripped on j4l for ripping on me, there's a LOT more freedom here than you actually think if you want to pretend I have some kind of protected mafia don-like status like a mod at WSI.

QUOTE (Paint it Black @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 08:00 PM) You extend Beckham because he's the best player out of that bunch. Viciedo isn't an impact bat. Gillaspie has to show me more. DeAza has sucked this year. Ditto Flowers. I think Santiago and Quintana could be used as "super relievers" if teams didn't suck at using their pens. But if you're asking me to pick one it's Quintana without question. There's no way they're going to write off Viciedo until the end of the 2014 season, at the earliest. Who else on the team is capable of hitting 25-40 home runs next year?

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 04:57 PM) BTW I hope the Indians want to get ahead of the game & give Scott Feldman something like a 4 year/$55M deal in the offseason. Yeah. I don't think anyone's going to go THAT crazy...maybe 3 years and $24-26 million, that's definitely possible. He's only been successfully starting for 1/2 a season in the NL, and he sat in that Rangers pen as the long man for 2-3 seasons...of course, that argument would go in his favor that he has a lot less wear and tear on his arm than say, Jake Peavy. The Dodgers and Blue Jays would be the other prime examples of teams following this approach (spend now, taking on contracts that are already defined instead of bidding up prices in free agency), although LA obviously has the advantage of that $200 million from their regional sports network deal already coming into their coffers...

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 04:56 PM) The 3 players the Indians just took on all have games where you would expect them to fall off hard once they do fall off, especially Bourn. Taking on a s***load of money on a player you don't think is all that special is never a good idea IMO. The best thing to do is to have players either pre-arb, in arb, or into deals structured during the arbitration process. Even keeping your own good players costs a lot during that 6th/7th/8th year of service time in a lot of those deals. If the goal is to be thrifty, and you end up with a good team, that payroll will climb very fast. The problem is obvious. Beckham, Viciedo, Gillaspie, DeAza, Flowers, Santiago and Quintana....which ones would you extend? Both pitchers? Or would you trade one? What about Addison Reed? (Obviously you had been advocating a trade, but that likelihood is falling by the day with the poor results). With Beckham, Viciedo and DeAza in particular, you could make 100 arguments for extending them and 100 equally valid arguments for not doing so. With those moves, it's pretty obvious the Indians put themselves pretty squarely into "win now" mode. Does Hahn even believe that's still possible for 2014, or is he already subconsciously targeting 2015 (and even then, you might have a couple of new starters like a Thompson or Carlos Sanchez to go through growing pains with).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 04:38 PM) It is just going to increase a players worth. I would expect to see the ML average salary up a million dollars a player over the next few years. The question is how many teams will strike preemptively and perhaps even take on a little debt, versus waiting until the new market condition changes take full effect with the cash disbursements arriving in 2014. The Indians are going this direction already, despite their weak attendance. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the Royals and Twins do....especially Dayton Moore, with his job on the line today more so than at any point in his long reign.