caulfield12

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 27, 2013 -> 08:15 AM) So you would trade Daniel Hudson for a broken down , drug aided,veteran. You ripped him being traded for a serviceable pitcher, the very one you praised the Cardinals for trading their "cost controlled" prospect in order to acquire. You have come full circle. We should be careful with that label. Should we also attach it to every Tyler Flowers or Jose Quintana mention? After all, the year Flowers put up all those impressive offensive stats in the Braves' organization, it was also undoubtedly drug-aided. We acquired a "broken down" Jermaine Dye and it led to a World Series title. A decade before, we acquired a broken down Ellis Burks and he became a very solid contributor for the Sox. Sometimes, that's the only way to get a quality veteran player, when their value has reached its nadir. We're certainly not going to be getting McCann or Gattis via trade this June/July.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 27, 2013 -> 08:17 AM) What cost-controlled guy did the Cardinals give up there? Rasmus? They gave up a cost-controlled guy the league loved but who they hated and they turned out right on both points. Their scouts deserve a ton of applause for that one. That was all Tony LaRussa, just as much as Swisher being dumped was all Ozzie Guillen. Egos. Now, I'll give the Cardinals credit for finding the exact perfect pieces to fit into their bullpen...

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 27, 2013 -> 08:07 AM) Ivy vs. Concrete? Wrigley is where concrete falls on the fans, are they marketing against themselves? You should send that one to Boyer/Rongey/Merkin. Comiskey Concrete >> Falling Concrete Of course, then you'll build up sympathy for public funding to repair the venerable old ballpark.

QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ May 27, 2013 -> 08:13 AM) I thought our system was hot garbage, so why are people worried about trading anything that is currently in it outside a guy like Hawkins of Johnson? I wouldn't do that trade, and if we do make a trade I doubt its going to be one of that ilk. Think of last year's deals for a better gauge of what Hahn is probably looking for, savvy moves giving up little talent for flawed but useful veterans. Then 50% of the posters will say our attendance/fan support can't possibly justify adding another $10-12-15 million in salaries at the deadline. Maybe Hahn/JR will even say it, after these two Cubs' games, if they are not well-attended (less than 30,000).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 27, 2013 -> 08:09 AM) You blast the White Sox for trading "cost controlled" guys for veterans, then a couple of posts later praise the Cardinals for doing the same thing. That's the "whatever leads to a World Series title" exception to the rule, silly!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 27, 2013 -> 08:05 AM) Oh, the same team that traded for Edwin Jackson? PICK A SIDE BTW, no one is giving you a starring catcher worth anything right now for Daniel Hudson. I'm sure we could get Carlos Ruiz and money coming back...and a new lease on life for him with a contending team. No matter what happens, I'll take my chances on that (just like Youkilis last year) over Flowers/Gimenez.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 27, 2013 -> 08:02 AM) The 2011 Cardinals is my example there. They cleared out Rasmus/crap, had everyone here whining about how the Sox coulda had Rasmus, and rode their new bullpen to a world series title. And since that day, even Adam Dunn has looked like Babe Ruth against LHP, compared to Rasmus' struggles.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 27, 2013 -> 07:59 AM) Anyone who would describe the Sox going on a run against weaker competition as a "False Positive". Well, to be more accurate...the false positive is likely to be tearing through the next 27 games and using that as the rationale for gutting more of our prospects for the iffy chances of competing with a flawed team. Let me ask you this Balta. You're one of the minor league aficionados. If you could have a veteran catcher and another reliever (let's say the equivalent of a Joaquin Benoit) for Erik Johnson, Trayce Thompson and Daniel Webb, would you make that deal? If it increased our odds for appearing in the playoffs from 25% to 75%, would you consider it worth making?

QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ May 27, 2013 -> 07:47 AM) I am sure the 45 innings Hudson pitched last year with the Omogrosso-like ERA would have blown us right past the Tigers. The Hudson injury doesn't make that trade good, it was still a dumb trade, but I am not sure why anyone is lamenting the loss of Hudson like it is going to help us now. Even if he does come back this year the rest of the year is a throwaway, so he MIGHT be decent again in 2014. If all goes to plan by then we will have a low payroll with a roster full of fringy prospects and bad veterans, so we wouldn't have needed Hudson anyways. Whose plan is that? Dick Allen said what good would Hudson do on this year's team. I answered. There are 15-20 teams out there that would trade us a reliever or veteran catcher (or both) for controlling Daniel Hudson's rights for 3+ years. He has 2 years, 117 days so service time accrued, so I'm not 100% sure if it would be 4 or 3 years (and how it works with time on the DL, etc.), but who exactly are we going to be able to trade to improve either the bullpen or catching position at mid-season? Wait. Time out. I need to find some good drugs to sustain me through this argument. Doesn't matter that there's the death penalty here in China for that sort of thing, lol. Plus, it's hard to find anyone to preach to on the street corner since 1) nobody believes in God, 2) there are no homeless to minister to and 3) everyone else is either enjoying the nice weather or watching Iron Man 3 in the theatres. If I was preaching, I would also be jailed (thankfully, not executed, just a hard labor/re-education camp in Xinjiang Province).

QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ May 27, 2013 -> 07:39 AM) Who cares what the Sox record was against the Royals last year? Records against teams from previous years have no impact on our performance against them this year, you know this right? The Royals probably won't play .318 ball the rest of the year, but they sure are playing it now and its not because of Ned Yost, its because their beloved prospects for the most part can't hit major league pitching. I know this is going to come as a surprise to some, but Top 100 prospects do not all turn out to be all stars, and the Royals have a handful of them on their roster right now. As far as the Twins go......who cares? Their team is horrible this year, was horrible the last two years, and will probably suck for two years after this. If the Sox has Mauer on the books at 23 per until he was 35 years old a lot of people on this board would crying and throwing their toys out of the playpen that we didn't trade him five years ago for a boatload of lottery tickets. I won't deny that the Twins have some nice pieces in the minor leagues, but prospects are NEVER a guarantee, and you don't change the long term strategy of your team based on the lottery tickets that a team with 96 and 99 loses the past two years hold. I think you might be the ONLY person on this site who assumes we're going to roll over the Royals for the rest of the season...and completely discounts the past. There are usually certain teams we always struggle with, say the Blue Jays on turf, or the Orioles....a decade ago, we constantly went out to Anaheim and Oakland and struggled just to win a single game on a road trip. Those weren't single season anomalies. They were consistently things you could count on, like the White Sox not beating Johan Santana or CC Sabathia. Same thing with beating the Twins down the stretch in the last decade. We didn't even do that in 2008....we got swept big-time and only beat them because of Rick Hahn's son's fortuitous coin flip call. There are certainties like death and taxes. The White Sox struggling against rookie pitchers, against soft-tossing lefties (see Bruce Chen) or almost any journeyman pitcher who relied predominantly on off-speed stuff.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 27, 2013 -> 07:34 AM) You mention 2 names often, I haven't kept up with them, but how have Hudson and Santos been the last couple of seasons? How would keeping them around hve improved the chances for last year and this? Trading 1 1/2 seasons for 6 seasons is never a good idea, unless you make the playoffs. It's what the Royals will discover soon enough with the Wil Myers trade. FWIW, Daniel Hudson is expected back in late June/early July. TJ is not a death warrant. Lots of pitchers are actually better when they come back...at least in the 2nd year. I guarantee having Sale-Peavy-Danks-Quintana-Axelrod-Santiago-Hudson would have given this team the needed flexibility to make a trade to improve the catching spot or bullpen. And yeah, you could argue that AJ Pierzynski wasn't a wise re-sign because he got hurt too, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have had a back-up plan in place at the very least.

QUOTE (Tex @ May 27, 2013 -> 07:05 AM) BTW, do most people consider "Team" to be the 25-man or 40-man rosters? I'vew always considered it the 40 for discussions like this. It seems like, and I really wouldn't mind of someone disprooved or prooved this point, but I can't think of an instant where a mid season trade really made that much of a difference. Last year, the Tigers added Anibal Sanchez and Omar Infante. The previous year, it was Doug Fister. Both those trades had huge impacts on DET making the playoffs in 2011 and 2012. There's no argument those moves helped push them over the top. For short-term/long-term, Doyle Alexander for John Smoltz, or Larry Anderson for Jeff Bagwell, for all four teams. For the White Sox, the 1983 acquisition of Julio Cruz for Tony Bernazard on June 15th of that year. From that point onward, the White Sox were simply unstoppable.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 27, 2013 -> 06:38 AM) Caulfield, please don't take this as an insult, but you need to stop taking on both sides of an argument. This "can the Sox compete this year" discussion in particular. Sometimes you argue for us competing, sometimes you argue it's a lost cause. I get it's been a sea-saw of a season, but your argument shouldn't change in a matter of minutes. I've seen you change your tone depending on what certain posters say. You seem to have a vast knowledge about the game of baseball, so stick to one side of an argument and people will take your comments much more seriously. Anyways, the one thing I wanted to point out in your post is your comment about the Twins' prospects. There is a problem on this website with overhyping other teams' prospects. No one can argue that Twins don't have one of the most talented systems in baseball with a couple of incredibly high-end talents. Having said that, even the best prospects flop at a certain percetage. Many posters on this site assume all these top prospects will make it, as long they don't play for the Sox. This happens with the Royals almost every year. Hosmer & Moustakas were among the best prospects in baseball and look where they are right now. They've underperformed just like our own Gordon Beckham. All I'm trying to say is that these Twins prospects may end up making it, but nothing is ever promised in baseball and it's going to be years before they all come together and are ready to form a competitive core. Let's not jump to conclusions yet. If you're not willing to change your position, then you're dead. The White Sox were ready to sell off in 2007 and 2010 (in late May) and then changed their minds. Are they better off now as a franchise because of making the playoffs in 2008 and coming close in 2010 and 2012? Hard to say. But I wouldn't want a GM who was going to force Tyler Flowers down our throats the entire season...one who wouldn't at least look into improving the bullpen...or be completely unwilling to revise their strategy as the season unfolded. KW made a lot of emotional decisions himself. He got stiffed on acquiring Adam Dunn by Rizzo, surrendering Daniel Hudson to the DBacks after a grand total of 3 starts (only one which could be defined as "bad") in the heart of a pennant race...then ultimately gave Jackson up for nothing in order to get Teahen off the books and erase a bad personnel decision which should never have been made in the first place. He gave Sergio Santos an extension, then turned around and flipped him weeks later...then signed John Danks to a long-term extension. If Toronto was willing to take on that contract, they too would have been willing to give it to Sergio, so how could that possibly have been part of the plan from the very beginning? Why wasn't he shopped around to all the teams in baseball, who could have made an agreement (had they wanted) with the Sox that negotiating an extension would be part of the deal, had they so desired (like our Freddy Garcia move in 2004). At that point, he still had four more years before free agency. He got so frustrated with our minor league system that he forced Nick Swisher into CF and lead-off (two places he didn't belong), then gave Swisher up for absolutely nothing, costing us one of the best young lefty prospects in the game. If there was EVER a long-term plan that wasn't more a combination of Mississippi River boat gambling and hoping and praying a bunch of talented players who came from different systems could be miraculously thrown together into a cohesive whole...I'd like to know what it was. Our scouting of undervalued players from other organizations, pitching expertise/Cooper and run of anomalous good health (Herm Schneider) has always been offset by changeable, inconsistent decision-making in the front office. And there are some players I've never once advocated trading: Sale, Viciedo, Quintana and Santiago, to name 4.

By Paul Sullivan, Chicago Tribune reporter 7:55 p.m. CDT, May 26, 2013 CINCINNATI — The Cubs are marketing the City Series as "Ivy vs. Concrete" in a misguided attempt to paint Wrigley Field as an idyllic ballpark and U.S. Cellular Field as bland. But two Cubs players beg to differ. Jeff Samardzija and Scott Hairston both are excited about Monday's opener at the Cell, where Samardzija will face left-hander Jose Quintana and Hairston is scheduled to be the designated hitter. Both grew up in the Chicago area and have fond memories of going to games on the South Side as kids. Samardzija started attending baseball games at the Cell in 1991, back when it was called New Comiskey Park. "I've logged a lot of hours watching Sox games," he said. "I was a 'Big Hurt' fan, so I always tried to mimic his batting stance and try to go deep at the park. Obviously Bo (Jackson) was there for a while, and I played a bunch of sports, so I was excited about that. "My first game was at the new Comiskey before they tore down the old one. They had Sammy Sosa still. It was so close to my house, right up the Skyway. It's always been a fun series, and I like Sox Park. It's kind of my backyard. My dad and uncles all worked at Bethlehem Steel and U.S. Steel, so that's an area I know very well." North vs. South. Ivy vs. Concrete. Cubs vs. White Sox The Crosstown Cup will be decided Wednesday and Thursday at Wrigley Field. Tickets for both afternoon games are available. Buy tickets now » At least the Cubs "Committed" campaign or "Ivy vs. Concrete" is more imaginative than "The Will To Win" and "Make An Impact"...gets people's tempers up a bit, so we can at least pretend to engage in the rivalry for those not feeling it

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/colum...,3598335.column Comparing Sox and Cubs' minor league prospects. Didn't know that Micah Johnson beat Greg Oden in a one-on-one basketball match-up. Pretty impressive for a guy his size. Mentions the usual guys like Erik Johnson, Hawkins, Trayce Thompson, Phegley, Snodgress, Sanchez and Micah Johnson we've been hearing the most about so far this season. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/cubs-white-so...15498--mlb.html Series preview, talking about the "weird" change to the 2 and 2 series from previous seasons. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/colum...3.column?page=1 All-City Team. Sale, Peavy, Wood, Feldman (Quintana and Mr. Notre Dame honorable mention) Castillo, Gimenez back-up Rizzo Barney Ramirez Valbuena (should have gone with Gillaspie) Dayan DeJesus Rios Crain, Russell, Reed (Rogers says he should be given a shot at starting...really?) Cody Ransom (bench/PH/3B) Manager, Ventura over Sveum

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/team-report-c...04224--mlb.html Cubs have some positive momentum on the heels of yesterday's victory. This is where the quote "The only momentum that exists in baseball is tomorrow's starting pitcher." Although you might want to tell that to the Angels, Mariners or Royals. from yahoo.com COMMENTARY | The last game the Chicago White Sox and Chicago Cubs played that was worth more than 0.6 percent of the regular season was in 1906. It was played at a place called South Side Park. 19,249 people were there, and they're all dead. The Wright brothers were still trying to convince the government of airplane practicality. The Chicago Transit Authority's Red Line, which connects the two current Chicago ballparks and is often referenced when the two teams play--the Red Line Series--was six years old and didn't venture south of the Loop. The pitchers of record were named Doc and Mordecai, and one of them had three fingers. When the Sox host the Cubs tomorrow, the teams will be renewing something. Interleague play. Not a rivalry. It could be the least-watched game between the two since interleague play started in 1997. Why? For one, baseball enthusiasm isn't exactly at an all-time high in Chicago. But more importantly, there's a rivalry to watch. The Chicago Blackhawks and Detroit Red Wings drop the puck for Game 6 of the Western Conference semifinals an hour after the baseball game begins. The fact that players from both teams get to sleep in their own beds is a matter of convenience, not distinguished athletic competition. Geographically fabricated sports rivalries are for people who know little about sports and need a reason to watch, and Major League Baseball was smart enough to begin taking full advantage of that in 1997. That's exactly what the Sox-Cubs series is--a mess of forced enthusiasm on often-mediocre baseball teams and beaten-to-death insults about Sox fans being poor and Cubs fans being drunk coming from Cubs fans who are likely poor and Sox fans who are likely drunk. Rivals are teams that play important games against each other, not teams that fill out similar tax forms. If they fill out similar tax forms, all the better, but athletic relevance is not an unessential part of the formula. The only shared memory anyone has from the last 15 years of Cubs-Sox interleague play is more of a criminal act than an act of baseball--former Cubs catcher Michael Barrett popping former Sox catcher A.J. Pierzynski in the jaw. No one remembers if Pierzynski scored. No one remembers who won. The New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox are rivals because everyone remembers who won when Curt Schilling bled all over himself, not because blood was drawn. The Red Wings and Colorado Avalanche were rivals because they were the two best teams in the NHL's Western Conference for a prolonged stretch of time, not because Patrick Roy once pretended like he beat the sense out of Chris Osgood in that sweet goalie fight. There has to be an important athletic element for teams to be rivals. There has to be something happening in the game to make Cubs play-by-play announcer Len Kasper stop talking about American Idol and Sox play-by-play announcer Ken Harrelson start putting it on the board, yes. These teams don't play in the same division. They don't play in the same league. They never play in the heat of a late-September playoff push. A win is worth the same as any other regular-season win, but a Sox loss does nothing to help the Cubs. A Cubs loss does nothing to help the Sox. And because of that, these games are actually worth less than any game each team plays against any of the teams in their respective leagues. That doesn't mean they shouldn't play or people shouldn't pay attention. It makes perfect sense for these teams to play--from a business standpoint and an entertainment standpoint. Whenever a league can pack a stadium or arena with a large number of fans from both teams, a different environment is created. It's unique. But that's it. A unique day at U.S. Cellular Field. Not illustrious, heightened athletic opposition. So enjoy it all you want. Call each other what you want--anything but rivals. Kevin Chroust has covered baseball and various other sports since graduating from Colorado State in 2005. He has been following Chicago baseball since age six when Mark Grace hit .647 in the NLCS against the San Francisco Giants. His travel writing will appear in The Best American Travel Writing 2013. You can follow Kevin on Twitter @kevinchroust.

There is no "political leaning" in the series from the public. The president is identified as George Bush and conservatives want the heroes to be placed on reservations similar to the one the X-Men are placed on. The liberals want them regulated and registered with the government. Bush and Stark want to take the registered heroes and turn them into a police force with a super powered team in each of the fifty states. Sounds pretty political to me.

QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ May 26, 2013 -> 10:17 PM) Replace Peavy in free agency.....LMAO. You thing you are going to replace a guy with #1 stuff signed two a two year contract at market value in free agency. All I have to say is, Marty........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTgWDu9Sxkw With your repeated references to drug use, are you sure you're not sampling some of it yourself?

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ May 27, 2013 -> 12:04 AM) Interest argument but the only problem is that Anibal Sanchez, their #4, is pitching like a #1. We actually seem to line up with them pretty well and have way better depth (Santiago, Johnson, Stewart has ML starts in an emergeny) and I wouldn't even know who the Tiger's 6th option would be. Only problem with our rotation is if it could hold up and I feel that they rotation has more resilience to crash/injury. 1. Chris Sale (5-2, 2.53/0.92 & AVG. ST: 7 IP) vs. Justin Verlander (5-4, 3.66/1.37 & AVG. ST: 5 2/3 IP) 2. Jake Peavy (6-2, 2.97/1.04 & AVG. ST: 6 2/3 IP ) vs. Maz Scherzer (7-0, 3.42/ .92 & AVG. ST: 6 2/3 IP) 3. Jose Quintana (3-1, 3.48/1.18 & AVG. ST: 5 1/3 IP )vs. Doug Fister (5-2, 3.65/1.26 & AVG. ST: 6 IP) 4. John Danks (1 Start) vs. Anibal Sanchez (5-2 2.38/1.12 AVG. ST:6 1/3 IP) 5. Dylan Axelrod (3-3, 4.21/1.28 & AVG. ST: 5 2/3 IP) vs. Rick Porcello (2-2, 6.28/1.42 & AVG. ST:5 1/3) http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/gamelog/_/id...2012/drew-smyly LHP Drew Smyly, stats from last year when he was primarily starting...then bullpen over the final 6 weeks or so after Sanchez was acquired Jason Berken also has MLB starts with the Orioles, at Charlotte.

QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ May 26, 2013 -> 11:02 PM) Oh I don't capitalize sports teams names, better not listen to anything I have to say, because that is pretty important s***, as opposed to the king of the useless tangent act you have perfected around here. Wins in May count the same as wins in April and September chief, and right now Peavy looks like a number one while Verlander looks like a number two or three. At the end of the day if the numbers at the end of the season says they are both pretty good starting pitchers isn't that a win for the White Sox? Why are you even bringing up the Angels? They are hot garbage with a s***load of money sunk into mediocre aging players. Even if they were a 110 win team, they are in the west not the central, so cares what they do? All I care about is what the Royals, Twins, Tigers, and Indians do. The Twins are dogs*** with a ton of money tied up in non-superstar players like the M&M boys. The Royals, who guys like you love to give rub and tugs to every year, are spotting a big time .318 winning percentage in the month of May so I think we can forget about them being a 100 win team. That leaves the Tigers and the Indians, and we have a s***load of games left against both, and with a lot of pretty good starting pitching on our side I will take our chances from now until September. All I ask is that this team stay competitive all season, because the 100 loss BS a lot of you are screaming about is no fun, and I would rather see the Astros and Twins of the world go that route. What was the Royals' record against the White Sox from August 7th on last year? 9-3 (6-12 overall) How many games did we lose the division to DET by? 3 games. What was our record in 2011 against the Royals? 7-11 Seeing a trend? What is our record inside of the division now, without having played the Tigers? 7-9 What are the odds that the Royals will play .318 ball for the remainder of the season and not have a burst of momentum from hiring a new manager? 0.00% As for the Twins, Morneau will be gone after this year, they have 2 of the top 25 position prospects in the game and three potential front-line aces in Gibson, May and Meyer. They're 50% of the way there in terms of getting ready for another run again. Unfortunately for their fans, it's hard to be patient in Year 3 of a rebuilding project in a brand-new stadium. The White Sox also haven't cut their payroll all the way down to $70 million. Ironic, because Pohlad is individually perhaps the richest of all baseball owners, but one of the most penurious.

QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ May 26, 2013 -> 10:05 PM) I) Caulfield is high as a kite 24/7 and everyone should probably ignore his "homeless man on a streetcorner preaching about how the aliens are going to come take our lunch money"-esque rants about white sox baseball or whatever topic du jour is being discussed on any given day. What is the most important thing in baseball.......good starting pitching. What do we have........good starting pitching. I would almost say great starting pitching considering we have two guys with #1 capability. Do you think anyone wants to face this team in the playoffs? Sure we may have to win every game 2-1 and bite our nails down to bloddy nubs by the end of the season, but this team has great starting pitching. If you could pick any area of a team to be great......offense.....starting pitching......relief pitching.....beer pong capability.......dong size.....anyone who has watched five minutes of baseball would say starting pitching is the area you want to be great, you worry about the rest later. You have Peavy for this year and next, as long as him and Sale are healthy, you do anything you can to win. J) Hawksfan61 has all the answers (by the way, make sure to capitalize the names of sports teams) Thanks for the compliments. We'll see if Jake Peavy still looks like a #1 in August and September. What was his record against the Tigers last year? Which team do we play the most in the 2nd half? Hopefully you'll still be around in the 2nd half of the season to pop up and continue touting him as a #1. It's one thing to beat up the Marlins, it's quite another to take out the Angels or Tigers.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 26, 2013 -> 07:11 PM) I agree for the most part, although I don't think Dunn's contract is really that ridiculous. More has to do with paying your DH that much than anything. And the more I think about it, Morales seems to make so much sense as Paulie's replacement. He's putting up a .286/.365/.451 slash line playing half his games at Safeco. Hopefully the low amount of HRs lessens the demand for him this coming offseason. He would fit nicely in our lineup. It's either him or someone from the next tier down, such as Carlos Pena. The closer we stay to age 30 players, and away from mid 30's, the better off we'll be. Easier said than done, though.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ May 26, 2013 -> 09:28 PM) In the next 1-2 seasons we are going to need a new 1B, a new DH, we don't know what is going to happen up the middle with the C position/Beckham's development/Alexei getting older and more expensive, and then of course we're always going to have to fill holes due to trades, injuries, fall offs, etc. like any other team. I want the Sox to use this season to address more long-term needs, and then hopefully answer a couple questions heading into the offseason. I think we need to continue to build to do that. I think we need to deal some pieces and play guys like Flowers and Beckham no matter what they're doing, because it is make or break for them. If however we try to contend then we had better win, because otherwise we'll have gained no ground, and in the process, we will have probably just used up a pre-arb year on some of our new core players while pushing our contention window back another season and making it more expensive. I think we should put players on the block and look to sell. DeAza, Alexei, Thornton, Crain, and if the deals are right then Rios and maybe Peavy if the organization really gets a hell of a deal. There's no reason to tear down the walls and try to play horrible baseball, but getting caught in the middle could really set us back. Also, our starting staff is great but I'm not sure I'd believe in them in the playoffs this year anyway. That would be a long way off and both Santiago & Q will probably be at new innings highs, while Danks is still recovering, and Axe still has more to prove in the Majors IMO. We'd have Sale & Peavy leading a spotty offense with a ton of holes in it plus a reasonably good pen which should improve beyond where it is. We'd be dangerous if we were able to start Sale in Game 1 of the playoffs should we get there, but I'm not confident enough in this team as it is currently constructed to risk a better 2014 on it. I think that's stupid, because I really don't think we're far away from a longer contention period where we can look to add *vets* around a young core, not the other way around. It's a whole lot easier to patch together a winning team when you can trade unproven prospects that are probably going to bust/underwhelm anyway & hand out free agent money in order to acquire players with track records, but you can't do that when you don't have the youth & payroll space, and I don't think we're quite there yet. The last paragraph hits the nail on the head. If you go with Flowers/Gimenez all season long, even in the heat of a pennant race when they're still flailing...history would say they would acquire a veteran, then you're left with the dilemmas of going into the offseason wondering if, for example, Phegley, could be the #1 or if Flowers had enough time to prove he COULDN'T get the job done. Crain would give you the highest rate of return (obviously not including any of our starting pitching), and yet you'd be completely shooting in the foot almost any chance of competing in 2013 out the window with that deal. Santiago becomes the long man/loogy or even bridge set-up guy along with Crain, then you're going to have a very hard time getting him into a high IP territory in 2014 without having to worry about the Verducci Effect the following season (what Sale, Quintana and Peavy are expected to weather this year)... I'm not sure what DeAza, Lindstrom, Thornton, Axelrod, etc., being traded could get you back....probably not enough to FIX the current offense. Dump Thornton's salary, you almost have to keep Santiago in the bullpen, which probably isn't his best role with the full repertoire of pitches he has. (I'm not even sure how DeAza going would help unless we had another leadoff hitter hidden somewhere or could acquire one who would put up a 800+ OPS, and that's more likely to happen ONLY if Alejandro stays....and then you have his high strikeout/defensive/base-running woes combined with his high WAR, nobody could tell you what to do with him and be 100% accurate). Everyone agrees trading Peavy, Rios and Ramirez this year would pretty much cripple our chances for 2013....probably, you could add Crain to that list as well. Or you roll the dice on being able to bring in McCann, Morales, Utley, Granderson, et al, in the offseason free agency period...but not making the playoffs again gives you limited payroll flexibility. It's a Catch 22. The only way to guarantee an increased payroll or attendance is making the playoffs in 2013.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 26, 2013 -> 07:14 PM) Except the White Sox have already played six games over .500 since May 13 without being in the cupcake part of their schedule Tough to call that a false positive. It's also hard to read much into sweeping the Marlins, one of the two worst teams in baseball, at home. We also didn't have to face Jose Fernandez, FWIW. We beat up the Twins just as they were just starting to go ice-cold, we faced the Angels when they were in last place and split and we beat up the Marlins, although all three games were nail biters. That said, the way we played against Boston was encouraging. We're also still sitting in negative territory in the RS/RA stat.

QUOTE (Jake @ May 26, 2013 -> 06:12 PM) What would we have to give Atlanta to get Evan Gattis? Haha.... Johnson, Snodgress, Webb, Thompson + one more A player who'd probably turn out the best of all