caulfield12

QUOTE (joeynach @ Mar 31, 2013 -> 03:19 PM) The Sox can't do the whole tear it down, be bad, and rebuild it thing. If they could they would have done it already at least once in the last 15 years. They can't do it b/c the instant they tear it down their revenue, attendance, and profit would evaporate. A team like the Cubs or Red Sox whose ticket sales, general fan interest, and revenue streams are almost inelastic to on field performance can get away with it. Teams like the Pirates, Royals, and Rays who reside in weak markets, with small media, small fan bases, and low expectations can get away with it. A team in the third largest population, with the third largest media, in a huge baseball focused market with significant elasticity between on field performance and ticket sales, fan interest, and revenue simply can never afford a complete tear down and rebuild. But isn't that exactly what happened in the late 1980's?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/artic...erry-movie.html Reviews on Kardashian "performance"

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Mar 31, 2013 -> 09:46 AM) Although this is not your point, John Ely was the PTBNL in the Juan Pierre trade, so it's not quite fair to include him in the "got nothing for him" category. And, whether you like Pierre or not, that was a major move. Because we had to give them SOMETHING. 98% of the Pierre trade was them dumping salary and getting rid of him.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03...rs-addison-reed "There certainly is a movement among some clubs to essentially tear it all down and start from the bottom and rebuild everything back up," Hahn said. "Given the draft rules and the international signing rules, I certainly understand that approach. "It's not something we intend to do. It's incumbent upon us to be realistic about our chances each year. You don't want to get yourself in a situation where you're caught in the middle and fooling yourself that you have a chance to compete when you really don't and, because of that erroneous perception, you're not developing guys. "For us, we feel like we do a decent job being realistic about our chances, our needs, and at the same time allowing our young players to grow so that next core of players are able to be integrated into the old core and the transition can be as seamless as possible. There will be hiccups. There will be young guys who won't quite be ready, perhaps that you need ... to allow them a chance to grow and get through the growing pains. "At the same time, chances to win are sacred, and every season we want to be in a position to take advantage of those opportunities, not pass on a season with the hope being a young core will suddenly appear."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ct-sp...0,5825854.story 9 Questions Facing the White Sox (as regular season begins)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/sports/b...wanted=1&hp

When's the last time a RH pitcher with an average fastball in the 86-88 MPH range got anything great back in return? If we couldn't get anything for the likes of Ely, Harrell or Humber, we're not going to get much for Axelrod either. If you have two great pitchers at the top of the rotation and a very solid 3, you can afford to have Axelrod as your 5th.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball...lege-basketball You won't find one single fan of Iowa basketball that has a single nice thing to say about him. Craig "Noodles" Neal, his main recruiting guy, he was much more highly respected....and Greg Lansing, who he ended up dumping when he fled for UNM and who eventually became the coach at Indiana State, those guys are decent.

Beat writers are going to be careful to break a negative story like that. They'll leave it up to one of the feature or opinion/analysis columnists who doesn't have to deal with the GM, manager and players on a daily basis. Unless it's a story that simply can't be controverted.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 29, 2013 -> 02:33 PM) Ravelo left the club in early July last year, for personal reasons. I've seen/heard rumors about what it is, but nothing substantiated, or that I'd air out. But he is indeed back in camp this spring, and is definitely still a guy to keep an eye on. He's missed a half season of development, but he was pretty young to begin with, so that's not a death nail or anything. knell

"This has been a very hard 48 hours," said Alford, addressing a large contingent of local media members at The Pit media room. "The toughest decision I've had to make…maybe ever, and that's because of how much I love this place, UNM, Albuquerque, New Mexico, the fans. It really came down to having an opportunity to go to UCLA, the pinnacle of college basketball. It's one of those lifetime opportunities that is really difficult to pass up." Alford added, "It wasn't something that I went looking for. UCLA sought me out. I think it's a great complement to UNM and New Mexico that UCLA…an incredible university, wants something from New Mexico. I thought I was going to be here a long time, I just signed a 10-yaer deal, that was the plan. Sometimes plans get messed up in the timing…you never know what it is. I had no idea that this opportunity would present itself. I'm humbled, honored and very excited about it." In heading to UCLA, Alford will follow in the footsteps of fellow Indiana native John Wooden, who is from Martinsville, Indiana. Alford from first through fourth grade lived in Martinsville and shot baskets at John Wooden Gym. from loboland.com Can just see the arrogant smirk on his face right now without having to watch the video. Finally, career vindication for being pushed out of the Big 10 and into purgatory. At least, to his credit, he climbed out of it enough to get a shot at a job like UCLA, but he left the Iowa program completely destroyed and fanbase divided with the Pierre Pierce situation. A little like Sherman's March to the Sea, except the basketball program was in flames, not town halls and libraries in coastal Georgia.

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Mar 30, 2013 -> 08:51 PM) As long as JR is still around, the White Sox will never sign a stud pitcher to a 6-7 year deal. I was honestly shocked they gave Danks a 5 year deal.... (And i'm sure he is upset with himself by doing so if you look at Danks current health status). I don't blame JRs current mindset of not typically going beyond 4 years for a pitcher. The wear and tear risk is just too big. Hopefully we can continue to develop young starters so we can disperse the money elsewhere on the roster. I really hope Quintana can develop into a gem and the organization can develop one more youngster into a quality starter. (Santiago, Snodgress, Rienzo, Molina, Castro etc...) True enough. You have to have enough of those "young veterans" on 2-3-4 year deals, though, to maintain your future cost predictability. One of the biggest complaints about that 2005-2008 era of White Sox baseball was having so much money tied up into the starting rotation with Garcia, Buehrle, Contreras, Javy and Garland, who had a $29 million/3 year contract from 2006-2008. When your so-called fifth starter is making almost $10 million per season, and this is well before the huge media deals and the Dodgers going nuts spending-wise, you know there is a strategic imbalance in your payroll. That's why we've been very very lucky with Quintana's rise and all those bullpen guys, not to mention Santiago, who almost literally came out of nowhere as well between his high school background and emergence in winter ball from obscurity.

Crean and Matta not exactly earning their stripes these last few days. Well, the bar is set pretty low when Steve Alford was run off by Iowa fans, denied an opportunity by his own alma mater at least on two occasions and still got a $26 million dollar/10 year deal from UCLA. When they had the lead down to 4, if they could have rebounded that loose ball, they had a great shot at it. That and the shot by Van Fleet that bounced around 3-4 times and went in. Basketball, sometimes you get some lucky rolls. They had a 22-6 run there at the end but couldn't quite get over the top like Michigan the day before.

QUOTE (joeynach @ Mar 30, 2013 -> 04:19 PM) This is a slippery slope. Usually in Joint Ventures businesses such as CSN Chicago the owners don't really extract profit from the business and pocket it. Usually they own the TV station so they can maintain a level control over the content, people, and operation of their main TV medium. Similar to Andrew Carnegie in our history books buying out the supply chain; railroads and trucking companies to maintain control and price control over his end product, steel production. Not to necessarily profit from owning the railroad company. Any growth or money CSN Chicago makes most likely is not taken out by JR and folks, pocketed, and used in team payroll or stadium construction, its most likely just re-invested in CSN Chicago's operations; technology, products, personnel, etc. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/d...l-tv-landscape/ Very thorough and detailed breakdown of every team's regional broadcasting rights deal. Here's another article. Of course, they don't tell you how much the actual ownership of the station is worth or how any profits are distributed, if at all. The Baltimore Orioles regional television network, the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, is a cash cow for the team, but many have wondered just how much it rakes in annually. Some conspiracy theorists have speculated that owner Peter Angelos has been sitting on huge profits while operating his team like they earn mid-market revenue. This very vocal minority never has any substantial evidence to support their claim and, to no one’s surprise, went quiet when the O’s made the postseason in 2012. Over at FanGraphs.com, Wendy Thurm broke down all 30 team’s TV deals and pointed out that MASN brings in $29 million annually for both the Orioles and the Washington Nationals. There was a time when the Yankees and Red Sox stood above the other 28 teams in local TV revenue with their team-owned regional sports networks. When it comes to yearly rights fees, that’s not the case anymore. But the owners of the Yankees and Red Sox — and now Mets, Orioles, and Nationals — continue to rake in millions of dollars in profits from the operation of their RSNs. And again, as noted, these profits are not subject to revenue-sharing. It seems like a good deal of cash, but the Orioles find themselves behind a number of markets when it comes to TV revenue. The Dodgers, Angels, Rangers, Astros, Padres, Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Phillies, Diamondbacks, Mariners, Reds, Tigers, Blue Jays and Indians all earn over $29 million from their TV deals. That’s half of Major League Baseball, for those of you counting at home. That number is about to go down. The Nationals, who own 13 percent of MASN, are currently in a mediation dispute over the annual rights fee. Perhaps the Orioles haven’t been secretly pocketing money all along. baltimoresportsreport.com

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcook/2012/1...rship-overkill/ Yay, Brooks Boyer is actually doing something!

Umm....they already own 40% of ComCast.

Alford’s deal with New Mexico was worth more than $20 million over 10 years. Guerrero said Alford is responsible for a buyout of his contract in Albuquerque, but that UCLA would work out the details. Guerrero said UCLA reached out to Alford first, not knowing whether he would be interested in the Bruins. Once he confirmed he was, the details were finalized early Saturday, Guerrero said. “He’s not the kind of guy that will shy away from what UCLA basketball is all about,” the athletic director said. Alford, who is 48, succeeds Ben Howland, who was fired last weekend after 10 years and a 233-107 record that included three consecutive Final Four appearances and four Pac-12 titles. The Bruins were 25-10 this season, which ended with a 20-point loss to Minnesota in the second round of the NCAA tournament. Alford led New Mexico to a 29-6 record this season that included the Mountain West regular-season and tournament titles. But the Lobos were upset by Harvard in the second round of the NCAAs shortly after Alford’snew contract had been announced. His son, Bryce, was set to play for his father with the Lobos, continuing a tradition that Alford first established when he played under his own father, Sam, at New Castle Chrysler High in Indiana. Alford had a 155-52 record in six years at New Mexico, with the Lobos making three trips to the NCAA tournament. He was selected Mountain West coach of the year three times. Guerrero had said he wanted a coach who would help boost season ticket sales. The Bruins had just a few sellouts at newly renovated Pauley Pavilion this season. “I think the UCLA family will embrace him. I think he’ll be able to hit on all cylinders,” Guerrero said. “He’ll be able to energize the fan base in so many ways. Look at New Mexico, they get 15,000 a game, it’s madness there.” www.hawkcentral.com

No, this is why. I feel sorry for you guys, Alford is the kiss of death. My dedication to preventing revision of Iowa's real historical experience with the Alford experiment apparently knows no limits. While I agree with all who say Alford's smug, entitled and egotistic behaivor is hard to distinguish from his failures as a coach, I will reinterate the basketball facts; in a little context. Lick has HCed as many Sweet 16 teams as Alford. Dr. Davis, Alford's predecessor at Iowa, won 4 NCAA games in his worst 8 seasons at Iowa, Alford has won a total of 5 in 16 years as HC with his own recruits and 1 more with a mixed Davis/Alford starting line up over his total HC career. Six NCAA wins in 18 seasons as HC. The one mixed line up win was the only NCAA win in Alford's 8 seasons at Iowa, by far Iowa's longest strectch with only one such win since the NCAA has allowed two teams from one conference to participate---30 years or so. Alford inherited a team coming off a Sweet 16 and left the first Iowa team with a winning record (17-14) to miss the NCAA and the NIT since my senior year of HS, 76-77. In eight seasons at Iowa Alford had only 7 recruits play a normal full 8 consecutive semester career at Iowa and also had 7 signed recruits never play a minute at Iowa. That doesn't even begin to tell the story of all the transfers and kids who just quit playing rather than play for Alford. Now, for a little further perspective, let's compare the Alford years to the previous 30 years, a literal generation, of basketball. Again, I think there would be general agreement that the two most reasonable metrics of success at Iowa-not some other program but the specific program under discussion-are Big Ten finishes and post season success. Believe me, other metrics are very unfavorable to the remaining Alford apologists. Thirty years would seem to be a reasonably broad sample by which to measure the basketball expectations of the fans that had experienced all or most of that generation. Below by year and coach are BiG finishes beginning 30 years before Alford arrived in IC. This excludes all but one of Ralph Miller's great teams and includes all of Dick Schultz's futile career. 69-70 1st Miller 79-80 4th Olson 89-90 8th Davis 99-00 8th Alford 70-71 7th Schultz 80-81 2nd Olson 90-91 5th Davis 00-01 6th Alford 71-72 8th Schultz 81-82 2nd Olson 91-92 5th Davis 01-02 8th Alford 72-73 6th Schultz 82-83 2nd Olson 92-93 3rd Davis 02-03 8th Alford 73-74 7th Schultz 83-84 7th GR 93-94 10 Davis 03-04 4th Alford 74-75 7th Olson 84-85 5th GR 94-95 7th Davis 04-05 7th Alford 75-76 5th Olson 85-86 6th GR 95-96 4th Davis 05-06 2nd Alford 76-77 4th Olson 86-87 3rd Davis 96-97 2ndDavis 06-07 4th Alford 77-78 8th Olson 87-88 3rd Davis 97-98 5th Davis 78-79 1st Olson 88-89 4th Davis 98-99 3rd Davis It took Alford 5 seasons to crack the upper division. His two fourth places finishes were years that the conference was so weak only three Big Ten teams danced, and neither Iowa team deserved a bid, especially the 07 squad. Sorry about the chart-just won't align right. Then, you can look at post season success as the other metric of Iowa's programatic quality. I think most of us would agree that the best time to start such an inquiry would be the year the NCAA expanded to allow multiple teams from a conference to participate. 78-79 Olson NCAA 0-1 1st round 79-80 Olson NCAA 4-2 Final Four 80-81 Olson NCAA 0-1 1st round 81-82 Olson NCAA 1-1 2nd round 82-83 Olson NCAA 2-1 Sweet 16 83-84 Raveling 84-85 Raveling NCAA 0-1 1st round 85-86 Raveling NCAA 0-1 1st round 86-87 Davis NCAA 3-1 Regional Final 87-88 Davis NCAA 2-1 Sweet 16 88-89 Davis NCAA 1-1 2nd round 89-90 Davis 90-91 Davis NCAA 1-1 2nd round 91-92 Davis NCAA 1-1 2nd round 92-93 Davis NCAA 1-1 2nd round 93-94 Davis 94-95 Davis NIT 2-1 3rd round 95-96 Davis NCAA 1-1 2nd round 96-97 Davis NCAA 1-1 2nd round 97-98 Davis NIT 0-1 1st round 98-99 Davis NCAA 2-1 Sweet 16 99-00 Alford 00-01 Alford NCAA 1-1 2nd round 01-02 Alford NIT 0-1 1st round 02-03 Alford NIT 0-1 1st round 03-04 Alford NIT 2-1 3rd round 04-05 Alford NCAA 0-1 1st round 05-06 Alford NCAA 0-1 1st round 06-07 Alford Under the three coaches before Alford, in the 21 seasons since the NCAA expanded the field Iowa had 16 NCAA seasons, advancing to the second round or beyond 12 times and the Sweet 16 or beyond 5 times. It also should be noted that Iowa's snub in 95 is simply inexplicable, as we were a very high RPI squad with some very impressive wins (Duke, Indiana, Michigan State) and razor thin losses to a few high majors as well. Two NIT trips had also resulted in a trip to the third round of the tournament. If you count the NIT Iowa fans had experienced a post season participation 86% of the time, NCAA participation 76% of the time; a post season win 62% of the seasons and an NCAA win 57% of the time. Those are objective numbers. So when Alford was hired "to take the program to another level" why should a reasonable fan have judged him by any lesser standard. In 8 seasons at Iowa Alford's teams went to six post season tournaments, a 75% participation rate. Three NCAA trips is a 50% participation rate. A single NCAA win is a NCAA win rate of 12.5%; throw in Alford's NIT wins and his post season win rate is 37.5%. That single NCAA win came in a season where our qualification for the NCAAs required an unprecedented and I believe unmatched miracle of winning four in a row at the BTT. Six of 8 Alford seasons ended without a single post season win, including the collapse in 06 to a 14 seed (sound familiar Lobos?). Finally, Alford inherited Dean Oliver and Duez Henderson, and Jake Jaacks for that matter, and left the GorLoob. Could anything be a better metaphor by which to pithily state the devastation Alford brought to the Hawkeye World. I think people will stop the active hatred of Alford when the program returns to where he found it, and did, indeed, take us to another level. TFS 3/22 5:24 PM | IP: Logged

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 30, 2013 -> 02:46 PM) Beckham double to RF gap Wise RBI single Short double Brandon Short has helped himself this week. The problem is he's got to hit .330 or above to start DREAMING about an everyday major league job. He's doesn't have one extraordinary tool. Maybe, just maybe, he can make it as a 4th/5th outfielder somewhere, but he's got four guys in the Sox minor league system with a lot more potential breathing down his neck. Brandon's made a nice recovery from his injury problems, but he's still viewed mostly as organizational filler, like Gartrell. Maybe a step up from that, but not really a legit prospect, either.

more than the paper it was printed on at UNM. Discuss.

Dunn homer, rocket to RF, 4th of the spring. 2-1 Brewers. fastball over the middle of the plate, belt high. just 1 hr in 36 appearances for this Henderson guy last year.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Mar 30, 2013 -> 08:17 AM) I sense that overall the Sox thinking is to acquire as much talent as possible in the most cost-efficient manner possible, and to put the best possible team on the field each and every season while still building for the future. That's so wrong. It is always foolish to concern yourself with your own matters, especially when others around you are doing more interesting things. f*** the hamburger in front of me, I'd rather go hungry watching that guy eat his steak. Why? Because he's better than me. IMO the proper approach for Sox brass should be to hold an emergency meeting every time a division rival acquires, promotes or extends a good MLB player or prospect and at that point decide whether it's best to play any games at all or instead to shift the focus to monster truck rallies. And right now, after the Verlander deal, all I can hear in my head is Gene Honda shouting "Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!" because we're totally f***ed and the sky is black and holy s*** we're doomed and Jerry needs to sell among other things. I don't remember saying anything about selling the team.

If we tried to trade Dylan Axelrod today, he would fetch the same in return as Lucas Harrell or Phil Humber. We have three or four distinct advantages with our organization right now, maybe 4. 1) Cuban connection...but we didn't go after Puig or Soler 2) Minor/major league outfield depth....DeAza/Viciedo/Mitchell/Walker/Thompson/Hawkins 3) Starting pitching goes 6-7 deep, especially if Danks is 100%, plus 3-4 minor leaguers behind them (Castro, Molina, Rienzo, Johnson) 4) Bullpen/bullpen depth (Septimo, Veal, Santiago, Omogrosso, etc.) 5) I'll add one more....the chance to have a fresh start and get rid of Williams, JR., Silverio, etc. But still, Buddy Bell is the constant. Somehow, one of those four areas has to be leveraged to our benefit soon in order to become more competitive.

It's pretty simple. Verlander and Miguel Cabrera are the two most important players in the AL Central, maybe the entire AL, right now. Knowing that Verlander's going to be around not just 2013 and 2014 but well into the future...could change the organizational thinking of the White Sox. The odds are diminished of both the White Sox beating the Tigers head-to-head or taking a Wild Card spot (look at the AL East, Angels/A's/Rangers/Mariners, the continued improvement of the AL Central with the Royals and Twins now turning the corner on a youth movement)...that would be one conclusion. The White Sox are in a very tough spot. They're probably not good enough right now to win the division unless everything goes perfectly right, and that's adding some pieces at midseason (like we did with Liriano, Youk and Myers). It doesn't mean that it's ALL doom and gloom...but I just can't imagine Axelrod being part of our long-term future...we really need to push the envelope with guys such as Santiago and Trayce Thompson/Hawkins that have the highest upside, instead of taking that unsatisfying middle road of being competitive but not quite good enough. Yet we can't begin to think about tearing down the team in any significant way until halfway through the season. I think looking at the schedule, a lot of Sox fans are thinking about a 2007/09/10/11 start to the season and how realistic being a comeback team in the 2nd half would be, based on team history and the ages of veteran players like Konerko, Dunn, Rios, Peavy, Keppinger, Ramirez, etc.

It's pretty simple. Verlander and Miguel Cabrera are the two most important players in the AL Central, maybe the entire AL, right now. Knowing that Verlander's going to be around not just 2013 and 2014 but well into the future...could change the organizational thinking of the White Sox. The odds are diminished of both the White Sox beating the Tigers head-to-head or taking a Wild Card spot (look at the AL East, Angels/A's/Rangers/Mariners, the continued improvement of the AL Central with the Royals and Twins now turning the corner on a youth movement)...that would be one conclusion. The White Sox are in a very tough spot. They're probably not good enough right now to win the division unless everything goes perfectly right, and that's adding some pieces at midseason (like we did with Liriano, Youk and Myers). It doesn't mean that it's ALL doom and gloom...but I just can't imagine Axelrod being part of our long-term future...we really need to push the envelope with guys such as Santiago and Trayce Thompson/Hawkins that have the highest upside, instead of taking that unsatisfying middle road of being competitive but not quite good enough. Yet we can't begin to think about tearing down the team in any significant way until halfway through the season. I think looking at the schedule, a lot of Sox fans are thinking about a 2007/09/10/11 start to the season and how realistic being a comeback team in the 2nd half would be, based on team history and the ages of players like Konerko, Dunn, Rios, Peavy, Keppinger, Ramirez, etc.