caulfield12

If Josh Paul is playing for the Giants, watch out...

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 10, 2014 -> 10:16 AM) The idea is that the Dodgers would eat money somehow, someway. The Sox wouldn't trade for Andre Ethier at $19 mill per season. Except they're never going to take Danks back in return. And if they were to send $20 million, they're going to ask for a pretty good prospect...Hawkins, probably.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 10, 2014 -> 10:06 AM) Why would they be gambling the season on Bassitt or Carroll? One of those is the 5th starter to start the season, one the 6th starter. Once Rodon comes up, that changes to 6th/7th. If everyone fails, your team was doomed to begin with anyways. Good thing there's only 3 years guaranteed. $56 million for the next 3 years is guaranteed, though. That's almost another Adam Dunn contract there...or Danks. EVEN if they sent $20 million, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't feel comfortable committing $36 million over 3 years to a platoon outfielder. I'd just as soon give that to Nick Markakis or Colby Rasmus and not have to surrender any talent in return.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 10, 2014 -> 08:12 AM) There isn't a f***ing chance I'm reading that entire article. Just post the damn link. My entire goal with the posting of this is for you to cheer against the Royals and for the Cardinals...part of the master plan. I'm guessing War & Peace, Ulysses, Moby Dick and Infinite Jest weren't on your summer reading list.

Wonder if a white foster child has ever ended up in the opposite situation in an African-American home before...?

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 10, 2014 -> 09:26 AM) I think we are two years away from not only having a stable group of future starters but also enough depth to trade without destroying the system. When the first bit of progress is made you get excited and think you are close, but boy, rebuilding up that farm really does take a long time. And we're also a serious injury to Sale/Quintana/Rodon from the whole thing falling apart, too. We're right there in the middle. It could teeter totter either way. If Montas and Danish both end up in the pen, all the remaining hopes would be pinned to Bassitt, Beck, Rodon and Adams. If they both managed to stick as starters (and we should hope and pray for just one), then you'd really have something. I have a feeling Sanburn is the one they look to closing first (among the minor leaguers), and Montas becomes Option D or E after Petricka/Sanburn/FA/trade going into Spring Training.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 10, 2014 -> 09:50 AM) I actually think Ethier makes a ton of sense for the White Sox. Hamilton less so, but the possibility exists if LA is willing to eat about 60 million. Ethier would be okay if it was just two years, but four is at least one too many.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 10, 2014 -> 09:48 AM) There are a few things at work. Going into 2013, Dunn was coming off a resurgent year and the Sox felt he was going to be fine in the middle of the order, and he kind of was. They team absolutely bombed and they started selling off parts. Going into last offseason, the Sox knew it was going to be a rebuilding year, so there was no urgency to eat money to move him - why eat money when there's no replacement and no real need to get rid of the player? Danks' situation is different. The Sox are looking to add a right handed starting pitcher (having said as much), have 3 starters on the staff already, and have Rodon waiting in the wings. You obviously want more than 5 starters, but Bassitt and Carroll also showed that they can handle it a bit too, so you are looking at 7 different starters. There is a reason to move Danks. The problem is they're essentially gambling the season on Bassitt/Carroll, Noesi and then eventually Rodon being able to perform, and perform well in the first half of 2015 (and Sale/Quintana remaining healthy, of course). Odds are against that going well, especially the first part...although stranger things have happened. There will hopefully be a lot more patience with Rodon than they demonstrated with Daniel Hudson in 2010. And that's assuming you have a much improved bullpen as well.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2014 -> 08:14 AM) Count me in the "No big hurry" crowd. I think even if Eaton makes his ceiling, he isn't even going to be a $20 million annually guy, so the risk isn't nearly as huge as it could be when compared to a guy like Garcia who has legit 5 tool potential. And yet ALMOST everyone here would be more likely to give a five year deal to Eaton as of today than Avisail Garcia. Four tools or not. To think he's ever going to be a "good or above average" fielder is pushing your luck. He's got good speed, but not in a basestealing or quick outfield jumps type of way...it's more of a 50-80 meters "top speed" after taking a long time to accelerate. In the end, it will come down to plate discipline/contact and hitting 25-35 homers with 30-40 doubles rather than 12-18 homers and 25 doubles. Both would be huge risks, Garcia to bust entirely and Eaton from a health standpoint.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2014 -> 09:44 AM) I still believe the bad contract for bad contract thing is more likely. I really feel like we will see someone like Josh Hamilton, Andre Either, etc here on the south side next year. YUCK. YUCK. YUCK. No thanks. They're better off buying low on 2-3 guys like Domonic Brown or Alvarez than pinning your hopes on those two aging veterans. Heck, I'd rather have Aoki than either of them. He's not going to come back to haunt you financially, and he's the type of glue player you need...but that would definitely necessitate a big DH bat coming on board.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 10, 2014 -> 09:29 AM) Noesi I agree with. I think they're going to look to move Danks and will eat money (and perhaps a substantial amount) in order to do so. Will believe it when I see it. Didn't happen with Dunn, but the White Sox are in a position where they need to compete as quickly as possible...and letting John Danks' sunk cost stand in the way of it happening won't sit well for fans tired of hearing the excuse about needing to clear Adam's contract for three years now.

The Dodgers already have a starting rotation of Kershaw, Greinke, Ryu and Haren. Do they really need to trade one of their best offensive players, along with Kemp/A-Gone, to get a 3rd or 4th starter for their rotation? They're already going to be breaking a new SS in again, with Hanley Ramirez likely out the door and Gordon taking his spot. Then you've got Seager probably at 3B, with Uribe as the utility guy...and then probably replacing AJ Ellis, although it won't be easy to make a big upgrade unless they sign Russell Martin. They're stuck with Brian Wilson and League in the pen. Then they have that logjam with Joc Pederson, Van Slyke, Ethier, Crawford, Puig and Kemp. If the White Sox are going to make any type of move, it's going to be for League and Van Slyke. Although logic would dictate they dump Andre ETHIER or possibly Crawford, it's going to be incredibly difficult to pull off. Trading for Andre Ethier doesn't exactly put the White Sox over the hump, EITHER. Still, I think they will go for 2-3 months next year and wait for a starter to get injured on another team and hope they can swallow most of an Ethier deal at that point. Or they can simply sell Kemp to the highest bidder, leaving Puig in RF, Peterson in CF and Ethier/Crawford splitting the rest of the time. They have to choose Kemp or Puig, essentially...at least if they really believe in Pederson to be an impact CFer. A lot of tough decisions. One of them's not going to be Quintana for Puig. They MIGHT be willing to trade Kemp/League/Van Slyke for Quintana and Alexei Ramirez, though. I highly doubt they would accept Kemp/League/Van Slyke for Danks and Alexei, or Danks and Tyler. Except we can't afford to trade Flowers unless we have a replacement. The only area of give would be Pederson and Urias for Quintana...which would carry huge risk for both GM's. Then the Dodgers would still have Seager (3B), Gordon (SS) and Uribe/Cubans for 2B. So you'd have the White Sox adding Pederson to their OF, Urias to replace Quintana and then signing Russell Martin if you want a dream scenario that will probably never happen...that would just leave them a DH short. Perhaps they could platoon Van Slyke and Viciedo, without taking on Ethier's contract. Finally... Pederson, Urias and Van Slyke for Quintana/Flowers (contingent on the White Sox signing Russell Martin). Of course, you can be 98% sure the Dodgers would outbid us for Martin, although he was their property not so long ago.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 10, 2014 -> 07:48 AM) What's the rush to extend Eaton at this point? The Sox still have 5 years of control. Maybe at some point during this season, but I think if those conversations happen, it will be after next season at the earliest. The websites I've looked at say he's going to be a free agent in 2019, so that would be four years. Does anyone have a definitive answer? According to Cot's, he had 1.030 service years before 2014. This year would give him two.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 10, 2014 -> 07:22 AM) If Carlos Rodon is a good starting pitcher, this draft is a win. If you get value out of any of the other players they signed, it's icing. I'm not so sure about that, although it depends on the definition of "good." We need at least 3-4 contributors from every draft, and at least one of them to be very good to catch up with all the bad drafts.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 10, 2014 -> 05:00 AM) nice find. the rpt took the shine off of him but I still have high hopes. This was written at a time when he was in the Red Sox system and before the Peavy trade last summer. Quite a few prospect gurus and pundits NOW have him projected as one of the most electric young starters in the minors right now...and a strong showing in the AFL will bump him onto many Top 100 lists in the 75-90 vicinity, with the possibility of advancing to 30-50 with dominance at the much tougher AA level at some point in 2015.

MORE REASONS JAMES SHIELDS IS A GONER.... Kyle Zimmer, should he ever stay healthy for more than a half-season, has No. 1-No. 2 starter upside with athleticism, command and a double-plus fastball-curveball combination. Sean Manaea took some time to adjust to professional baseball, let alone at the High-A level, but the left-hander eventually found his groove en route to posting gaudy strikeout numbers. On the other end of the spectrum is 21-year-old Christian Binford, whose plus command helped him climb to Triple-A and has him knocking on the big league door headed into 2015. from bleacherreport.com They join Liam Hendriks and Lamb on the outside looking in...with the strong probability Aaron Crow (good buy low candidate for the White Sox) and Luke Hochevar (another "kick the tires" guy if healthy) will both be gone. The Royals might also look to Crow as a starter, although they have plenty of depth in that area. Three lefties and two righties...pretty good balance, and a very cost-effective rotation at that. 1.Duffy 2.Ventura 3.Finnegan 4.Vargas 5.Guthrie 6.Hendriks 7.Zimmer 8.Binford 9.Lamb 10.Manaea

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 10, 2014 -> 05:08 AM) while I do have concerns about eaton being able to stay healthy for a whole season, here is a better question, who will replace him as the #1 hitter in the lineup? does the sox have a #1 type player in the minors that can be groomed to perform in the major league? We don't have to worry about that...we have him for another 4 seasons. As far as a potential replacement, you're looking at either Micah Johnson or Tim Anderson, if he can refine his OBP skills. Carlos Sanchez is another possibility, although I'm 99% sure it would be one of those first two guys, at least from the players currently in our system. Semien would be the 4th choice.

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 10, 2014 -> 04:52 AM) Who's proclaiming these franchises as "Americas Team"? I'm not pulling for KC or the Cowboys. KC writers, haha. And some poll where 68% of respondents were hoping for them to beat the Orioles...despite their last World Series appearance being two years prior, 1983 vs. 1985. That and the poll that had the Royals wildly popular all around the country except for D.C./Maryland/Virginia....and weirdly enough, Delaware, where KC had the Wilmington Blue Rocks minor league team. And I always thought the Braves (because of TBS) and Cowboys were those "America's" teams, at least they claimed to be. The Los Angeles Times declared the Royals “destiny’s darlings” and even “America’s team” at the start of the divisional series with the home-team Angels early this month. Since then, sales of Royals merchandise have exploded. Among postseason teams over the past week, the Royals are second only to the Dodgers in merchandise sales through mlb.com/shop, said Matt Bourne, a publicist for Major League Baseball. At Fanatics.com, the nation’s largest online retailer of licensed sports merchandise, Royals sales have led all other MLB teams’ gear since Oct. 1, the day after Kansas City’s thrilling victory over Oakland in the Wild Card Game. A hero of that 12-inning contest, first baseman Eric Hosmer, has zoomed up the Fanatics.com charts and become the third-most popular player among consumers seeking jerseys and other athlete-specific stuff.

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 10, 2014 -> 04:52 AM) #Cardtober #Houseofcards

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2202809...-season/page/10 Obviously, 50% of this is due to Rodon's presence alone, but the article nicely sums up the progress this year of Anderson, Hawkins, Montas, Danish and Adams, as well as Micah Johnson. (Whether you agree or disagree, Danish is already being placed here on the "future bullpen piece" list instead of being viewed as a starter, at least for the moment.) So, despite the "disappointments" with Semien, Daniel Webb, Erik Johnson, Davidson...and that earlier "core" group of outfielders in Walker/Thompson/Mitchell, things are looking up for the moment.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 09:04 PM) If not a starter he could be a great bullpen asset. Or the White Sox version of Yordano Ventura. from one of the Red Sox sites, soxprospects.com Scouting Report for Francellis Montas: Sturdy pitching frame with strong lower body. Throws from a 3/4 arm slot. Exceptional arm strength. Four-seam fastball operates at 96-100 mph. Fastball shows late tail in lower reaches of velocity and ride high in the zone at higher velocities. Can be straight at times. Below-average command and control. Tends to jerk his head off target and is a bit long in the back with arm action. Also throws mid-80s slider, but it presently lacks tilt and depth. Slider is flat on approach to the plate. He has the potential to refine the pitch into an average-to-better offering. In the development stages of learning a changeup, which presently sits 87-88 mph with minimal deception. Slows arm down when throwing. Very rough and raw on the mound. Just learning how to pitch. Late-inning reliever high leverage potential, but also has the potential to never make it past Double-A. Lottery ticket type prospect.

Why the Royals have become "America's Team" Those long-lowly Royals are America’s new “it team.” The nation is speaking, voting online, buying blue. Its sports sages are writing that Kansas City’s baseball franchise has become the popular choice of fans whose teams are out of championship contention. And a decent stack of research supports the leading theory as to why that may be. Studies call it the underdog effect. After 29 years of missing out on postseason play, our boys in blue are being viewed, say the scientists and pundits, in a light similar to how millions of Americans view themselves: As underdogs. A 2014 incarnation, maybe, of the racehorse Seabiscuit. Flyover country’s own Rocky Balboa or the plucky Hobbits of Middle-earth. The Harry Truman of “Dewey Defeats Truman.” The Butler Bulldogs of NCAA Final Four showdowns past. “People love the underdog story,” said sports psychologist Christian End of Xavier University. “It’s about effort. It’s about justice. It’s a storyline pitched to us over and over again.” It is not that the Baltimore Orioles — the Royals’ rival in the American League Championship Series beginning Friday in Baltimore — rank among baseball’s privileged overlords. They haven’t gone to a World Series since 1983. But their payroll is $15 million higher than that of the Royals. Also, the Orioles have faced performance-enhancement issues and basked this year atop the vaunted Eastern Division with its Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees. Whatever the reason, respondents to an online ESPN poll say they would rather root, root, root for the Royals. It’s not even close. Of more than 100,000 votes cast, 68 percent prefer Kansas City over Baltimore in the ALCS. The Royals pull majority support in 47 states. They rock in California (69 percent favoring the Royals) despite teams in Los Angeles and Oakland falling to our Wild Card bunch in the postseason. The Orioles prevail only in Virginia, Delaware and home state Maryland. Detroit Tigers fan Rick Grieve, who studies sports fan behavior at Western Kentucky University, has climbed aboard what he called “the Royals bandwagon” in part because he’s as much a sucker for underdogs as anybody. But he also said baseball fans of all stripes are mindful of how the small-market Royals got here. “By doing it sort of the pure way, developing young talent and being patient,” Grieve said. “People appreciate a little more the things in life that take time.” The Royals are “not high-rollers like the Yankees, paying their way to get the top stars,” he said. Case in point: His Tigers late in the season acquired Cy Young Award-winning pitcher David Price from the Tampa Bay Rays. Meanwhile, the Royals tapped a Texas kid named Brandon Finnegan, 21, who in June had still been pitching in college. After some shaky late-season outings, Price and his Tigers were swept by Baltimore in the playoffs. Finnegan, on the other hand, has emerged as a postseason phenom. Could he not as well be your naive, starry-eyed nephew? Destiny’s darlings The Los Angeles Times declared the Royals “destiny’s darlings” and even “America’s team” at the start of the divisional series with the home-team Angels early this month. Since then, sales of Royals merchandise have exploded. Among postseason teams over the past week, the Royals are second only to the Dodgers in merchandise sales through mlb.com/shop, said Matt Bourne, a publicist for Major League Baseball. At Fanatics.com, the nation’s largest online retailer of licensed sports merchandise, Royals sales have led all other MLB teams’ gear since Oct. 1, the day after Kansas City’s thrilling victory over Oakland in the Wild Card Game. A hero of that 12-inning contest, first baseman Eric Hosmer, has zoomed up the Fanatics.com charts and become the third-most popular player among consumers seeking jerseys and other athlete-specific stuff. Some academics suspect the come-from-behind excitement of the Wild Card Game created a broad new landscape of fans for “America’s team.” Human physiology could have played a role. Tight, action-packed games “create this emotional arousal” in spectators partly because of endorphins and adrenaline flooding through the nervous system, said Oregon State University marketing professor Colleen Bee. She is among researchers who have tracked fans’ reaction to sporting events when one side is cast as “underdogs” or “heroes” and the other is designated “top dogs” or “villains.” But a magnificent game can boost admiration for both kinds of teams, she said. And in the case of the nationally televised Wild Card Game, only the Royals advanced. The underdog effect is buoyed by other factors, including one called “emotional economics.” Economists, of course, stand behind the theory: Selecting a team to root for involves a simple but unconsious cost-benefit analysis. “The underdog is a very safe bet,” said Murray State University professor (and longtime Royals fan) Daniel Wann. “If they win, the emotional benefit is huge. “But they’re not supposed to win. So you, as a fan, have an excuse if they fail. There’s not much of an emotional cost to that.” Yet another area of inquiry: Are fans cheering for the underdog, or are they really rooting against the top dog? According to a 2005 paper by University of South Florida researchers who analyzed student subjects, “support for the underdog was found to be more extreme than rooting against the top dog.” So that settles that. Still, The Wall Street Journal has pushed the anti-top-dog theory to new empirical dimensions with its “Hateability Index.” When the 10 postseason teams were determined at the end of September, the newspaper scored each club’s hateability based on payroll, past pennant success, Sports Illustrated covers, substance abuse problems, even the players’ “excessive beards.” The Journal rated the St. Louis Cardinals as the most hateable. The Royals were rated the least. All about you All in all, scientists think that the underdog effect is a function of fans seeing themselves in the teams they choose to support. You, the fan, are an underdog in life. You work hard to scrap out a living. Society’s top dogs get all the acclaim and rewards, but they’re really no more deserving than you. “When good things happen to your team, it reflects well on yourself,” said Grieve of Western Kentucky University. “Especially if you went with the underdog.” The phenomenon extends beyond sports. A 2009 study published in the Journal of Consumer Research found that “underdog branding” is effective in marketing products and services ranging from Avis Rent A Car (“We’re number two, but we try harder”) to the blockbuster series of books and films about Harry Potter, a gifted orphan who grew up in a closet. “Consumers react positively when they see the underdog aspects of their own lives being reflected in branded products,” researchers from the Harvard Business School wrote. But let’s step back. Maybe the Royals aren’t the underdogs we think. Just who is an underdog, and who isn’t? That’s the question pondered in the recent book “David and Goliath” by Malcolm Gladwell. The Bible’s account of the young shepherd slaying the mighty Philistine is widely misunderstood, Gladwell contends. The nimble David had his sling, which in an instant could put down a lumbering and perhaps medically disadvantaged warrior saddled with armor, a sword and heavy shield. That David won should be no surprise. “David was a slinger,” Gladwell writes, “and slingers beat infantry, hands down.” To reach Rick Montgomery, call 816-234-4410 or send email to rmontgomery@kcstar.com. Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/mlb/kansa...l#storylink=cpy

Why the Royals have become "America's Team" Those long-lowly Royals are America’s new “it team.” The nation is speaking, voting online, buying blue. Its sports sages are writing that Kansas City’s baseball franchise has become the popular choice of fans whose teams are out of championship contention. And a decent stack of research supports the leading theory as to why that may be. Studies call it the underdog effect. After 29 years of missing out on postseason play, our boys in blue are being viewed, say the scientists and pundits, in a light similar to how millions of Americans view themselves: As underdogs. A 2014 incarnation, maybe, of the racehorse Seabiscuit. Flyover country’s own Rocky Balboa or the plucky Hobbits of Middle-earth. The Harry Truman of “Dewey Defeats Truman.” The Butler Bulldogs of NCAA Final Four showdowns past. “People love the underdog story,” said sports psychologist Christian End of Xavier University. “It’s about effort. It’s about justice. It’s a storyline pitched to us over and over again.” It is not that the Baltimore Orioles — the Royals’ rival in the American League Championship Series beginning Friday in Baltimore — rank among baseball’s privileged overlords. They haven’t gone to a World Series since 1983. But their payroll is $15 million higher than that of the Royals. Also, the Orioles have faced performance-enhancement issues and basked this year atop the vaunted Eastern Division with its Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees. Whatever the reason, respondents to an online ESPN poll say they would rather root, root, root for the Royals. It’s not even close. Of more than 100,000 votes cast, 68 percent prefer Kansas City over Baltimore in the ALCS. The Royals pull majority support in 47 states. They rock in California (69 percent favoring the Royals) despite teams in Los Angeles and Oakland falling to our Wild Card bunch in the postseason. The Orioles prevail only in Virginia, Delaware and home state Maryland. Detroit Tigers fan Rick Grieve, who studies sports fan behavior at Western Kentucky University, has climbed aboard what he called “the Royals bandwagon” in part because he’s as much a sucker for underdogs as anybody. But he also said baseball fans of all stripes are mindful of how the small-market Royals got here. “By doing it sort of the pure way, developing young talent and being patient,” Grieve said. “People appreciate a little more the things in life that take time.” The Royals are “not high-rollers like the Yankees, paying their way to get the top stars,” he said. Case in point: His Tigers late in the season acquired Cy Young Award-winning pitcher David Price from the Tampa Bay Rays. Meanwhile, the Royals tapped a Texas kid named Brandon Finnegan, 21, who in June had still been pitching in college. After some shaky late-season outings, Price and his Tigers were swept by Baltimore in the playoffs. Finnegan, on the other hand, has emerged as a postseason phenom. Could he not as well be your naive, starry-eyed nephew? Destiny’s darlings The Los Angeles Times declared the Royals “destiny’s darlings” and even “America’s team” at the start of the divisional series with the home-team Angels early this month. Since then, sales of Royals merchandise have exploded. Among postseason teams over the past week, the Royals are second only to the Dodgers in merchandise sales through mlb.com/shop, said Matt Bourne, a publicist for Major League Baseball. At Fanatics.com, the nation’s largest online retailer of licensed sports merchandise, Royals sales have led all other MLB teams’ gear since Oct. 1, the day after Kansas City’s thrilling victory over Oakland in the Wild Card Game. A hero of that 12-inning contest, first baseman Eric Hosmer, has zoomed up the Fanatics.com charts and become the third-most popular player among consumers seeking jerseys and other athlete-specific stuff. Some academics suspect the come-from-behind excitement of the Wild Card Game created a broad new landscape of fans for “America’s team.” Human physiology could have played a role. Tight, action-packed games “create this emotional arousal” in spectators partly because of endorphins and adrenaline flooding through the nervous system, said Oregon State University marketing professor Colleen Bee. She is among researchers who have tracked fans’ reaction to sporting events when one side is cast as “underdogs” or “heroes” and the other is designated “top dogs” or “villains.” But a magnificent game can boost admiration for both kinds of teams, she said. And in the case of the nationally televised Wild Card Game, only the Royals advanced. The underdog effect is buoyed by other factors, including one called “emotional economics.” Economists, of course, stand behind the theory: Selecting a team to root for involves a simple but unconsious cost-benefit analysis. “The underdog is a very safe bet,” said Murray State University professor (and longtime Royals fan) Daniel Wann. “If they win, the emotional benefit is huge. “But they’re not supposed to win. So you, as a fan, have an excuse if they fail. There’s not much of an emotional cost to that.” Yet another area of inquiry: Are fans cheering for the underdog, or are they really rooting against the top dog? According to a 2005 paper by University of South Florida researchers who analyzed student subjects, “support for the underdog was found to be more extreme than rooting against the top dog.” So that settles that. Still, The Wall Street Journal has pushed the anti-top-dog theory to new empirical dimensions with its “Hateability Index.” When the 10 postseason teams were determined at the end of September, the newspaper scored each club’s hateability based on payroll, past pennant success, Sports Illustrated covers, substance abuse problems, even the players’ “excessive beards.” The Journal rated the St. Louis Cardinals as the most hateable. The Royals were rated the least. All about you All in all, scientists think that the underdog effect is a function of fans seeing themselves in the teams they choose to support. You, the fan, are an underdog in life. You work hard to scrap out a living. Society’s top dogs get all the acclaim and rewards, but they’re really no more deserving than you. “When good things happen to your team, it reflects well on yourself,” said Grieve of Western Kentucky University. “Especially if you went with the underdog.” The phenomenon extends beyond sports. A 2009 study published in the Journal of Consumer Research found that “underdog branding” is effective in marketing products and services ranging from Avis Rent A Car (“We’re number two, but we try harder”) to the blockbuster series of books and films about Harry Potter, a gifted orphan who grew up in a closet. “Consumers react positively when they see the underdog aspects of their own lives being reflected in branded products,” researchers from the Harvard Business School wrote. But let’s step back. Maybe the Royals aren’t the underdogs we think. Just who is an underdog, and who isn’t? That’s the question pondered in the recent book “David and Goliath” by Malcolm Gladwell. The Bible’s account of the young shepherd slaying the mighty Philistine is widely misunderstood, Gladwell contends. The nimble David had his sling, which in an instant could put down a lumbering and perhaps medically disadvantaged warrior saddled with armor, a sword and heavy shield. That David won should be no surprise. “David was a slinger,” Gladwell writes, “and slingers beat infantry, hands down.” To reach Rick Montgomery, call 816-234-4410 or send email to rmontgomery@kcstar.com. Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/mlb/kansa...l#storylink=cpy

QUOTE (BaconOnAStick @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 11:53 PM) Abreu and Puig have beef from Cuba, something to keep in mind. They'd have to make amends before you could bring Puig in. I also would not trade Alexei, you'd need a glue guy like that to keep Puig from getting out of hand. Dat Cuban solidarity. We don't match up well with the Dodgers though. The Sox have to be unilaterally opposed to the idea of moving Q or Sale; those two combined with Rodon is the real core of this team. The Dodgers cannot honestly settle for a package headlined by John f***ing Danks. I'd trade him for nothing just to shed his contract. Micah's value has gone way up because the Royals have shown speed kills in the postseason, but dude can't field. Who else do the Sox throw in? Anderson? Can we really get Yasiel Puig for Danks, M Johnson and T Anderson? Oh my god, that doesn't even make sense. No, it would have to be Alexei Ramirez (to take Ramirez's spot), Quintana, maybe Flowers depending on the decision they make on AJ Ellis or they'd probably ask for two of Hawkins/Montas/Danish instead of Flowers. We obviously wouldn't trade Anderson AND Ramirez together, unless it was clear Anderson was headed for either 2B or CF (think Chone Figgins with a bit less speed and more pop...kind of a mix/hybrid of him and Tony Phillips). In no world that we live in would Danks be the target UNLESS we were giving him to the Dodgers and sending 20-40% of his salary along with.

Would wait one more year on Eaton. We also would have learned our lesson/s with Crede and Jenks had they been extended, for example. The Astros definitely would be hurting had Grossman, Singleton and Dominguez all accepted.