caulfield12

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 8, 2013 -> 10:25 AM) What makes you think if attendance and ratings collapse that advertisers won't flee as well? They are already. Classic business dilemma. They can go with complete "austerity" and cut back across the board and try to weather the storm, but we've heard for YEARS they can't afford not to try to field a competitive team. If they aren't willing to DO SOMETHING, they deserve their fate. They're not owed attendance by intelligent White Sox fans, they're owed it by the State of Illinois.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 8, 2013 -> 10:10 AM) If this really does end up as a 90 loss team, we aren't adding big dollar free agents. Attendance is already down about 20% or 4000 a game. If we are this bad still when the summer months hit, that number will crater, especially if we start selling off guys like Jake Peavy. We would probably end up at about 15k a game, which would really destroy any idea of adding players. The only way we add free agents is if this team recovers and plays like they can, and they get fans out to the ballpark. First 14 home games of 2012=263,571 First 14 home games of 2013=281,472 And, we opened with the Tigers in 2012, as well as playing the Red Sox during that timeframe, a much more favorable schedule for drawing fans.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 8, 2013 -> 10:10 AM) If this really does end up as a 90 loss team, we aren't adding big dollar free agents. Attendance is already down about 20% or 4000 a game. If we are this bad still when the summer months hit, that number will crater, especially if we start selling off guys like Jake Peavy. We would probably end up at about 15k a game, which would really destroy any idea of adding players. The only way we add free agents is if this team recovers and plays like they can, and they get fans out to the ballpark. That's 1.2 million in attendance. The White Sox are guaranteed 1.5 million in ticket sales, so the state subsidies would kick in at that point. Not to mention that attendance is only 27% of their revenues. If they are THAT bad...they'll have no choice but to either go completely young and rebuild or to do a massive retooling in the offseason (around their starting rotation) in order to keep all their season ticket holders from deserting. The White Sox are already getting the idea that standing pat and adding Jeff Keppinger and Tyler Flowers to the line-up isn't going to convince anyone they're fielding a competitive line-up. Heck, our offense isn't even close to the Cubs' offense. One can only imagine, with how tight state budgets are....what a massive public relations fiasco it would be for a baseball team worth almost one billion dollars to be begging for money from the state of Illinois because they can't even produce a product that anyone will buy into, despite the lowered ticket prices.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 8, 2013 -> 10:10 AM) If this really does end up as a 90 loss team, we aren't adding big dollar free agents. Attendance is already down about 20% or 4000 a game. If we are this bad still when the summer months hit, that number will crater, especially if we start selling off guys like Jake Peavy. We would probably end up at about 15k a game, which would really destroy any idea of adding players. The only way we add free agents is if this team recovers and plays like they can, and they get fans out to the ballpark. That's 1.2 million in attendance. The White Sox are guaranteed 1.5 million in ticket sales, so the state subsidies would kick in at that point. Not to mention that attendance is only 27% of their revenues. If they are THAT bad...they'll have no choice but to either go completely young and rebuild or to do a massive retooling in the offseason (around their starting rotation) with at least 3 new FA additions in order to keep all their season ticket holders from deserting. The White Sox are already getting the idea that standing pat and adding Jeff Keppinger and Tyler Flowers to the line-up isn't going to convince anyone they're fielding a competitive line-up. Heck, our offense isn't even close to the Cubs' offense. One can only imagine, with how tight state budgets are....what a massive public relations fiasco it would be for a baseball team worth almost one billion dollars to be begging for money from the state of Illinois because they can't even produce a product that anyone will buy into, despite the lowered ticket prices.

The Oakland A's have tarped over huge sections of their upper deck with retired player numbers/pictures.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 8, 2013 -> 08:20 AM) And a much worse recent (as in the last 5 years) tradition of not showing up to games That's because of 1994 (CLE/DET/KC/Cincy/CHW/PIT were all hardest hit and took the longest time to recover from the strike). Then Dolan tore apart the late 90's team in around 2002 and finally the core of the 2007 team as well. That's three seismic events that would devastate almost any fanbase.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 8, 2013 -> 07:55 AM) I don't mind the saying, but it literally came right out of nowhere. We went from talking about John Danks to the Cold Cut Trio Just chillax. Sometimes the internet hangs up here in China because the connection speeds are about the same as AOL 1996. I will hit respond, it will stick for 30 seconds and I'll refresh and resend and then it will show 2-3 identical posts because I'm using a proxy since the entire internet here comes through 7 underwater pipes on the floor of the ocean controlled strictly by the Great Firewall of China. I was posting in the game thread and forgot I jumped out of it. Don't get so worked up.

It's insane to spend all that money on Cano, especially as he's already on the wrong side of 30 and there will always be questions about the true ages of Latin American players. If we've learned anything in the last decade, it's to spread out our bets across a number of players. Ideally, they would be younger players in their primes, but if you look at the tried and true 2005 example, AJ/Pods/Dye/El Duque/Hermanson/Vizcaino/Iguchi were all at 30 or close to that age. Of course, that team didn't stay together for very long, except for some of the core components. There was certainly no lasting dynasty. We just can't afford to put all our eggs in just a few baskets due to the Dunn and Danks deals. We have to spread out and mitigate the risk of a big deal going bad. They should make an effort to limit their deals to 2-3 years. Find the "bargain" players like a Willingham here, a Mark Reynolds there, Kendrys Morales, Ichiro, Travis Hafner, Eric Chavez, Lance Berkman....the next Jose Bautista or Raul Ibanez, etc. So far, things have worked out very well with Gillaspie. Sox fans should have no complaints about prospects...if those prospects are truly talented players. It's when you see guys like Tekotte getting AB's or making fundamental mistakes that fans get frustrated....like with Ray Olmedo last year. Viciedo, Beckham and even Flowers all have talent. That's why they deserve as much time as possible to prove their worth....Viciedo, Gillaspie and Flowers in particular. In a perfect world, we would have made Beckham the super utility guy (instead of buying high on Keppinger) and found a permanent solution at 2B. If we can get an Utley or even Dan Uggla type on the cheap, so be it. We have to find offense at every possible position, especially if we're going to deal Ramirez and get out from under his contract, the odds of Sanchez putting up more than a 625 OPS aren't very high. So we'll need to find another 50-75 OPS points at another position to make up for that.

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ May 8, 2013 -> 12:21 AM) Feel free to prove me wrong but there is not one trade destination for Rios that I find making sense. AL Central- Most likely not to trade with. AL East: Red Sox- Victorino, Yankees - Ichiro/ Ben Fransisco, O's - Markakis AL West: Rangers - could maybe with Murphy scuffling but are righty heavy in the middle anyways, A's and Angels have a glut of OFers NL Central: Cards- Beltran, Cinci - Bruce NL East: Braves - Heyward, Nats - Harper, NL West: SF - Hunter Pence, LAD - Ethier, No contenders have need so barring an injury, I don't think a trade will happen until after the 2013 season if ever. While this thread is getting out of hand I must contribute. Dump Thornton, Crain, De Aza and Paulie (if you can) at the deadline. Sign McCann, Coco Crisp and Kelly Johnson. Against RHP CF Coco Crisp 3B Conor Gilaspie RF Alex Rios 1B Adam Dunn C Brian McCann DH Dayan Viciedo 2B Kelly Johnson/G0rdon Beckham SS Alexei Ramirez LF Jared Mitchell/ Walker/ Thompson/ Kelly Johnson Against LHP CF Coco Crisp 2B Gordon Beckham RF Alex Rios 1B Adam Dunn DH Dayan Viciedo C Brian McCann SS Alexei Ramirez 3B Jeff Keppinger/ Conor Gillaspie LF Mitchell/ Walker/ Thompson Another 80-90 win team with good pitching, treads water while the minors hopefully start to produce and sheds big money after season (Dunn, Rios, Peavy) That puts us in danger of just reinforcing the downturn period we're going into. FWIW, it's a possibility that Rios could play CF or LF if he had to...it's not 100% that he would have to play RF FOR ANOTHER TEAM, IF TRADED. By "dumping" DeAza for less than his full market value and buying "up" on Crisp at his age, you're taking a HUGE risk. Look at Crisp's age versus DeAza, his injury history over the last five years, his OPS numbers....you're going to lose on this move 80% of the time. Since 2007, Crisp has only played in 118, 49, 75, 136 and 120 games. He's on the 15 day DL, yet again. We don't want to make our line-up older, we want it to be players close to their prime, in their 20's (26-30). Next, Kelly Johnson? A 678 OPS over a full season is not the recipe to fixing our team....and he's not a very good defensive player, to put it mildly. Plus, if you're building for the future, you don't want to get all these players already in their 30's. Once again, we've already added Keppinger from the Rays, if we're going "super utility" it should be someone like Ben Zobrist who is definitely an impact player (but too expensive to acquire talent-wise). Actually, it would have made just as much sense to make Beckham the "super utility" guy, save the money we spent on Keppinger and find a better 2B than Beckham, to be honest. No issue with McCann, because we desperately need a catcher any way we can find one...just depends on the price and doing due diligence on his health. (Like the Napoli situation in Boston).

Mike Baxter's pinch-hit single off reliever Nate Jones ended the misery that started with Harvey, who struck out a career-high 12 batters in nine innings with a 98 mph fastball and three quality secondary pitches. "He has pretty much dominant stuff, as much as anybody we've seen," manager Robin Ventura. "Kind of the Verlander stuff." The Mets selected Harvey six spots ahead of Sox ace Chris Sale in the 2010 draft, and his performance came one day after the Royals' James Shields held the Sox hitless for five innings and three days after Jeremy Guthrie shut them out. The Sox's American League-worst batting average dropped to .223. "You just have to deal with them because we're going to face good pitching and we just can't have any excuses," Rios said. Rios admitted he was fortunate to get a hit on an 0-1 pitch from Harvey, barely beating the throw from shortstop Ruben Tejada. "It was a slider, middle away, and I rolled (my wrists) over," Rios said. "But it got the job done. I got to first, and that's what we were trying to do — get to first and make our chances to score better." But that was the extent of the Sox offense. Harvey's control and command left many batters swinging early in counts, as he needed only 105 pitches through nine innings. "I'm OK with that," Ventura said of the Sox's approach against Harvey, who has allowed only one hit in at least seven innings in three of his 17 major league starts. "When you get to a guy with the stuff he has tonight, you might as well get to the first thing you like and take a hack at it." Santiago matched Harvey for seven innings in his second start in place of Gavin Floyd while pitching in front of at least 100 family members and friends. Santiago relied on off-speed pitches to retire the final eight batters he faced. With left-hander John Danks returning within two weeks, the Sox could have a difficult decision after Santiago struck out eight and limited the Mets to four hits. "We're going to have to see as we go along," Ventura said. "We have pieces moving around as far as when Danks comes back. You like what you see. (Santiago) is making a strong case for himself." www.chicagotribune.com/sports (Gonzales)

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 7, 2013 -> 11:07 PM) I'm ready for the rebuild/reload, but the problem is if our team keeps signing bad players (Dunn, Keppinger types) then the rebuild will be as disastrous as this season is going to be. Man, the White Sox future looks bleak IMO. I am in favor of trading Paulie, Peavy and Rios, however, and hoping (PRAYING) Hahn can get some amazing pieces for those guys to put together a contender. If he can't, wow the future is bleak on the southside. He's also going to hire a manager from outside the organization next time and that's risky as well. Crazy. There's going to be no amazing pieces coming back, with the possible exception of hitting the Peavy trade exactly right. We'd have to eat a ton of money on Dunn, Danks and some ($2-3-4 million) if Konerko keeps hitting this way. Rios could be cleared for SOMETHING, but it's not going to be anything like the Peavy trade will net the Sox. Then you trade Rios, you're looking at the type of offense that would be looking up in admiration at the M's, Astros, Cubs, Rays, Blue Jays, etc. Without Thompson, Mitchell and Walker being able to hold down an everyday position in 2014 (if things hold)....then trading Rios and Peavy is the ultimate surrender/White Flag move. Other than trading Sale, they couldn't make worse moves from a PR/attendance standpoint.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ May 7, 2013 -> 10:15 PM) Some of you guys have an unbelievable amount of free time on your hands. I plead guilty since I'm stuck in the office all day when I'm not teaching here in China, haha. That's my excuse. I'll go back to reading "Pound Foolish," haha. And, if you haven't read it before and survived the 1980's, make sure to read READY PLAYER ONE, it's awesome.

By Chris Erskine (LA Times.com/sports) May 7, 2013 It's another hymn of an evening down here in Anaheim, the French Riviera of freeways. Took a mere two hours to drive from L.A., which exceeds the capacity of many bladders. Fortunately, the kid in the back seat fell asleep in Azusa of all places, or the trip might've verged on the unpleasant. So on this perfect May evening when everything smells of grilled meats and mowed grass, the Angels had me at halo. What's to make of these Angels? Is there a better lineup in baseball? Is there a bigger disappointment in all of sports? (And don't say Lakers — too easy.) I still like this Mike Scioscia, I still like his lineup, but keep in mind that half of all marriages don't work out. This may be one of them. By his very girth, Albert Pujols appears to still be the team's main event. A very big man, he resembles something Burger King serves with a side of fries. Brilliant swing, funny stance. Like a carnival ride setting up. Like a spider taking a swing at his proctologist. To me, it's always a little dark down here in Anaheim, and I can't quite figure out if it's the orientation of the stadium toward the setting sun, a bad lighting system, or all those dark green seats, but it's as if the lights here are on some sort of dimmer the grounds crew forgot to crank up all the way. The sound system works, though. I mean it really works. Am I yelling? Sorry. Ridiculously loud rock music will not be the downfall of baseball; it's too grand for that. But ridiculously loud rock music can ruin an otherwise splendid fan experience. In the second inning, I lost two fillings. By the way, Thunder Sticks. I hereby offer a $12-billion reward for the capture of the person responsible for Thunder Sticks, the single most annoying sports development since Chris Berman. Bring this madman to my doorstep. For, you can rail all you want at genetically engineered foods, or the way cable companies bundle things, but if you want to make a difference in the world, win the Nobel Peace Prize for instance, or just leave the planet better than you found it, taking a solid stand against Thunder Sticks is the best way to start. Before you spend that $12-billion booty ahead of time, please keep in mind I'm bankrupt, fiscally and morally. But don't let that deter you in your quest for greatness. At the Trout Farm, the new fan seating area, they call these horrid noisemakers Fish Sticks, which is actually fairly clever, if you're into clever. The Angels now have this special section, down by the left-field foul pipe, where you get Fish Sticks and a Trout Farm T-shirt with your ticket. It's in celebration of their boy wonder, Mike Trout, the best thing to happen to baseball since hot dogs met mustard. The night we were there during the Orioles series, Trout was actually in center field. We could barely see him, except at the plate, where after a typically brilliant at-bat in which he drew a walk — but still, a baserunner in Anaheim these days almost merits a call from the White House — he forgot to slide into home. You might've seen the photo the next day, of Mr. Baseball not sliding into home on a tight play, and being tagged out by the Baltimore catcher. When you look back on this season — what went wrong, where we might have done better — you can look at that moment when the grittiest Angel failed to do what most 8-year-old baserunners do spontaneously: fall down and stick your sticks out. My man crush on this Trout may have to wait another season. Of note, meanwhile, down in can't-get-there-from-here Angel Stadium is a plethora of family-friendly food choices, all priced about two bucks less than anything the Dodgers offer. There is a children's hot dog: $2.50. There are peanuts: $3. A beer for $4. A $4 beer at a ballpark? What is this world coming to? "You get what you pay for," you're probably saying, and yes, our Dodgers do have a few high-end expenses these days, hence the higher prices. But "you get what you pay for" doesn't carry as much weight as it used to around these parts. Because here, in the nation's most free-spending sports market, lately you really don't.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 7, 2013 -> 09:19 PM) I wouldn't be so sure about Thomas Jane, he was actually given praise for his depiction of Frank Castle. I think Cage worked his way out of any comic book movie for the rest of his life. He just is too corny anymore I agree Jane wasn't bad at all, but think they'll go with either a more high profile actor or an "up and coming" one who wants to make his mark in the comic universe/genre.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 7, 2013 -> 09:33 PM) I was only suggesting two of the three, most likely Morales and either McCann or Utley. I don't think we'd need to move Peavy to accomplish that. The point is improving the offense without sacrificing the rotation. I think if the choice if McCann or Utley and no Peavy (Axelrod/Johnson) or no McCann or Utley but you keep Peavy in the rotation, I would take the risk of trying to improve the offense. A lot depends on what happens with Gillaspie, Carlos Sanchez (in AAA), Beckham, Flowers and Viciedo over the next 5 months. And I probably wouldn't trade Peavy until the 13-14 offseason unless a super attractive, too good to pass it up deal came across the desk and we were at least 10 games back in June or July. DAMN CHINESE INTERNET....ALWAYS GETS CAUGHT UP/FREEZES...ends up with multiple posts

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 7, 2013 -> 09:33 PM) I was only suggesting two of the three, most likely Morales and either McCann or Utley. I don't think we'd need to move Peavy to accomplish that. The point is improving the offense without sacrificing the rotation. I think if the choice if McCann or Utley and no Peavy (Axelrod/Johnson) or no McCann or Utley but you keep Peavy in the rotation, I would take the risk of trying to improve the offense. A lot depends on what happens with Gillaspie, Carlos Sanchez (in AAA), Beckham, Flowers and Viciedo over the next 5 months. And I probably wouldn't trade Peavy until the 13-14 offseason unless a super attractive, too good to pass it up deal came across the desk and we were at least 10 games back in June or July.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 7, 2013 -> 09:33 PM) I was only suggesting two of the three, most likely Morales and either McCann or Utley. I don't think we'd need to move Peavy to accomplish that. The point is improving the offense without sacrificing the rotation. I think if the choice if McCann or Utley and no Peavy (Axelrod/Johnson) or no McCann or Utley but you keep Peavy in the rotation, I would take the risk of trying to improve the offense. A lot depends on what happens with Gillaspie, Carlos Sanchez (in AAA), Beckham, Flowers and Viciedo over the next 5 months. And I probably wouldn't trade Peavy until the 13-14 offseason unless a super attractive, too good to pass it up deal came across the desk and we were at least 10 games back in June or July.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 7, 2013 -> 08:59 PM) Does his managing performance even matter if there is no one at the stadium to watch it? CLE has a much better RECENT (90's and early 2000's) tradition of fan support and sell-outs. If he can keep that team in Wild Card contention in the 2nd half, at least during the core summer months...I think it will pick up. They had 5000 walk-up for a Friday or Saturday game recently when the weather was nice.

0/6, 2 K's in the DH today.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 7, 2013 -> 08:43 PM) If you want to improve the offensive quickly, it will have to be done in free agency. Three guys who make a lot of sense are Utley, McCann, & Morales. Add two of them to replace Konerko, Flowers and/or Beckham and you suddenly have a better, more-lefthanded offense. Unlikely I know, but I'm but sure what other options there are if you're tryin to compete. You're probably going to have to part ways with Peavy to be able to fit all three of those guys into the payroll...but it's worth the risk, IMO. Of course, all of this is predicated on John Danks being at least a decent contributor and not a 2001-2004ish 5th starter. Or you go crazy and try to acquire Headley and build the offense around him, Rios and Viciedo. In the position we're currently in, acquiring those three via free agency would be much better.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 7, 2013 -> 08:47 PM) Marvel also reacquired the rights to The Punisher, DareDevil, and Ghostrider. Disney has turned Marvel into an absolute powerhouse One thing's for sure, we won't see Thomas Jane or Nicolas Cage anymore. Ben Affleck, with his career on the ascent again...that would be an interesting choice for him to go back into the comic genre. You could easily see him deciding to part ways with that role and move on, though. The actor in DREDD, not the Stallone version but the one that came out last year...I think he would be a good candidate, Karl Urban. That movie was actually very good, even if most people didn't see it. With the right marketing machine behind it...

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/hot-in-clevel...-184008686.html This article had me even a little bit excited about the Indians and their future under Francona. And, of course, the parallels one can draw with Ventura's situation of "how long will he stay?" or "Is his heart truly in it 100%?"

When will Vetters be back? Wish we could trade them one of our relievers and get something decent back....when/if the time comes to do so.

The 'Avengers' Bump: What Do 'Thor' & 'Captain America' Sequels Stand to Gain in the Wake of 'Iron Man 3'? ADD COMMENT ON MAY 07, 2013 BY SHAWN ROBBINS PRINT As the industry watches the incredible global success of Iron Man 3, we now know that last year's phenomenal reception of The Avengers had a big hand in increasing the domestic and overseas appeal of another Tony Stark-led sequel. For instance, 2010's Iron Man 2 took in $312.1 million stateside and $310 million in foreign markets. With the triple-whammy combo of increased Avengers interest, further expanding markets, and premium 3D prices, Iron Man 3 is already at $506 million overseas--and counting. In fact, the film is on pace to exceed The Avengers' box office receipts in many Asian markets. Domestically, Iron Man 3 exceeded the number of tickets sold by Iron Man 2 on opening weekend after accounting for inflation and 3D prices. That's a fairly rare feat among second sequels whose predecessors (Iron Man 2, in this case) aren't as well-liked as the original film. With a clear path toward at least $1.1 billion worldwide (and likely more), Iron Man 3 is setting a high standard for the next Marvel Cinematic Universe installments. None will be tested sooner than Thor: The Dark World, releasing this November. Domestically, that sequel has a good shot at the first Thor's $181 million in 2011--but being regarded as an event nearly as large as Iron Man 3 still seems a herculean task. Why? Two words: Catching Fire. Lionsgate's surefire hit opens just 14 days after Thor 2 on November 22. That said, the first Hunger Games movie wasn't quite as big of a monster hit overseas as it was in North America last year. If the status quo remains there, that gives Thor: The Dark World a foreign advantage--a very important one these days. 2011's Thor grossed $265 million overseas (itself an impressive number at the time). If the success of The Avengers and Iron Man 3 really are indicative of expanding foreign interest in the comic book genre (something recently shown by Chris Nolan's Dark Knight sequels), The Dark World may stand to gain quite a bit on it's predecessor. Beyond Thor, the next sequel will be 2014's Captain America: The Winter Soldier. That film has opted for an April release next year (for now, anyway). As the lowest grossing of the three major solo Avengers (we're excluding Hulk since his solo movies have ended for the foreseeable future), a large increase over the sequel's $367.7 million global tally isn't likely... yet. The nature of that character's obvious domestic appeal puts more importance on the North American performance, and getting a jump on the summer schedule next year isn't a bad strategy on how to tackle that. Then, in August 2014, comes Guardians of the Galaxy. This will be Marvel's most potentially esoteric adaptation yet, but their track record is hard to dispute. With a complete cast of new characters and new cosmic settings, forecasting its box office potential is simply out of the question for now. It's a complete wild card. There are two factors to remember with the core sequels, though. #1: Iron Man 3 was the first in its series to be released in 3D. While The Dark World and The Winter Soldier still stand to gain from the success of The Avengers, their predecessors were already released in 3D in 2011. In other words, expecting a 200-250 percent increase in foreign grosses (as will ultimately be enjoyed by Iron Man 3 over Iron Man 2) seems highly unlikely for those two. The second factor: the law of diminishing returns. As the first post-Avengers movie, it cannot be ruled out that Iron Man 3 stood far more to gain than any of the other solo films will. Nevertheless, both the Thor and Captain America sequels will still be major global players. The $758 million global take of an established A-list property like The Amazing Spider-Man might not even be out of the question for one (or both). Will $1 billion be in either of their futures? It seems unlikely, but Iron Man 3 has taught us to never say never. Ultimately, as it follows a $1.5 billion-grossing 2012 phenomenon, Marvel's The Avengers 2 is well-positioned to conquer the box office again two years from now. That much we can take to the bank. boxoffice.com

LA Angels on the verge of falling to 11-21 and losing to the DisAstros.