caulfield12

The problem is that the Cubs don't have as much leverage because everyone knows they have too many middle infielders in Castro, Baez and Russell. Unless Baez can play 3B, then they can't all fit together. Or then you move Alcantara, but how much is he really worth? Plus, Schwarber, Bryant and Rizzo can't fit into LF/1B. One of them will be the odd man out eventually. I have a feeling Russell will end up being closer to Jose Iglesias than Troy Tulowitzki. Beane's not the kind of GM to give up an impact SS unless he feels his offensive game wouldn't translate as well in the Coliseum. FWIW, this is the first time you can make the argument that the A's should be on equal footing with any team in the AL to reach the World Series.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jul 4, 2014 -> 10:50 PM) Now it's my turn. Why would a contender want him? Actually, though, I think we may be able to turn him around because he does deliver a lot of Ks. But that would be an unwise effort for a contender. Mark Ellis has had 1 year in the last 4 with an OPS over .700 and that was a .708. Kolten Wong has a .586 OPS. That's .586 for this elite talent. Beckham is 14th in the majors in OPS among second baseman. Yes, I know, he's the worst in the league and has no value. What Beckham is is average. I don't quarrel that we won't get a whole lot for most of these guys, which is why I prefer to peddle the ones over 30. Ellis has always been know more for his defensive ability. Beckham's been sitting in the 600's OPS every season from 2009 until this season, this year he's already back down to the low 700's again and he would have to adjust to a completely different league. Unless the Cardinals get really desperate in terms of their chances of making the playoffs, you don't/can't see them overpaying for Beckham. They had numerous opportunities to upgrade last year and didn't, preferring to keep their prospects like Wong, Taveras and Carlos Martinez, to name a few.

Viciedo's polarizing because no matter what SABR analysis you throw at him: 1) You have to take into consideration how Abreu feels about him 2) Where you're going a replacement, as it's certainly not Jordan Danks/Sierra/Taylor or anyone between Chicago and Courtney Hawkins 3) His age, 25 4) The fact that more of a premium is being place on power than ever before in MLB 5) The fact that a lot of the bats available in FA are going to be expensive and the White Sox don't have many valuable trade pieces...and that attendance woes are depressing the projected payroll for 2015 UNLESS another impact bat or pitcher similar to Abreu or Tanaka comes along 6) Eaton is hitting for roughly the same OPS as Viciedo and A.Garcia will be coming off a lost season and rusty, so there are zero REAL certainties for the OF coming into 2015, other than the fact that Viciedo's the most likely to be traded, along with DeAza...and it's not like Eaton has been playing GG-level defense or making great throws in CF. He's been good/better than average, but definitely not in the vicinity of what was hoped. 7) If Semien or Micah Johnson do end up in the OF, you can't also have Eaton in that same outfield without getting 30+ homers and 30-40 doubles out of RF. Garcia has the TALENT to do it, but nobody in their wildest projections would foresee it coming together next year in terms of those numbers.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-leag...-032529889.html So now who do the Cubs trade? Most likely, they'll try to flip Russell for pitching, and keep Castro at SS and Baez for 2B. Alcantara or whatever his name is also is expendable. Is Bryant back to 3B or still being ticketed for LF? The Cubs have another problem, in the sense that they can't wait another 2-3 years for Soler and Almora, and yet trading for veteran/win now/all-in pieces for CF and RF isn't logical either until they have their starting rotation back to competitiveness. Then catching...and where Schwarber would possibly fit into the equation with Rizzo/Bryant already blocking him?

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jul 4, 2014 -> 10:34 PM) The Astros don't draw. The Rays Royals and Pitt were playing in front of no one when they were trading away all of their major leaguers. But the Cubs never have gone completely on the cheap like those teams did, thanks as you said, to their attendance. Still they will have to find some front line pitching and that's not so easy. They've done well signing Feldman and Maholm and flipping them, but those 2 are 5th starters on good teams. I think it was, overall, a good move for them. For one thing, Shark is almost 30 - kind of a late bloomer. I would have also thought that the As could have gotten Price for that price. All things considered, the Astros have done fairly well with attendance, considering how bad they've been. I wouldn't lump them in with those other three teams, in terms of comparison. Its just been their local/regional t.v. deal and tv ratings that have been terrible. And part of that's related to the Rockets not being as competitive or interesting, with Yao Ming retired.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Jul 4, 2014 -> 09:51 PM) I wouldn't mind seeing Ravelo in AAA in August when hopefully Beckham is gone.. Is there a 1B that should be ahead of him in AAA though?? Black and Wilkins are more placeholders/AAAA/filler...at one point, some viewed Wilkins as more than that, but not so much recently.

What's wrong with Wong now? As far as 2B, Mark Ellis is a fine defender but was hitting below .200 as of a couple of days ago. He was decent for the Dodgers last year. So the question (and Ellis is a notch above Beckham defensively and used to NL play) is does trading for Gordon Beckham give you a decidedly better player going forward than Mark Ellis or Wong? I don't think so, especially when you figure in Beckham having to adjust to a new league/NLCD.

McCarthy eventually will find herself at the end of the Adam Sander, Michael Cena, Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen (still riding a high), Jim Carrey, Will Ferrell, Zach G., Ben Stiller line...if you play the same character over and over again, eventually that's growing to grow tiresome. Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, also. With comedians, audiences are always looking for the next big thing, whether it's Kevin Hart or Apatow comedies. If you show some variety in your choices, you have a much better chance of being rewarded by audiences....The Heat worked so well because she could play her character off against someone that audiences really love in Sandra Bullock. If it's Jason Bateman, he just doesn't have the star power and "wattage" not to get overshadowed by her and have the movie totally run amuck and become a series of set pieces/comedy sketches with no cohesiveness. Trying to think of a good example of someone who's trying lots of different roles, James Franco comes to mind...someone who has the ability to evolve and constantly reinvent himself. But for every Franco, there's a Sascha Baron Cohen whose act wears thin.

The problem with the Cubs is are they really sure they can rely on Arrieta going forward? Edwin Jackson's basically the equivalent of John Danks for them, but definitely not much trade value to another team at this point. So if they don't have the cojones or money to go after Lester, Scherzer, Shields...then they're going to have to continue to make trades for Top 50-75 MILB pitching prospects, which is always an unsure thing, even when you're trading away guys with the talent of Miguel Cabrera (Marlins didn't get anything out of Maybin or A.Miller) or any of the secondary offensive players in their system after Bryant/Baez/Castro/Rizzo. And do they actually have the ability to PAY Price? Sure, they have the offensive pieces to make that deal, and they could probably get someone useful in Zobrist back as well, but then they have to have the will to pay them $200-225 million combined to keep them in Chicago.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Jul 4, 2014 -> 06:50 PM) I don't care if it's in Minnesota, sale better make the team if Hughes and his 3.95 era makes it lol Hasn't Dozier been better? I know he has a ton of homers for a middle infielder. What about Perkins?

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Jul 4, 2014 -> 01:40 PM) If anyone is dumb enough to give us anything of value for him, take it. With his collection of "skills" he pretty much needs to hit 35 home runs to be a worthwhile starter. He's a big fat strong guy. He's a liability at the 2nd easiest position on the field. He's obviously subpar on the base paths. Remember when he hit 25 homers in his first full season? That was a nice start. And his high-water mark thus far. And still not remotely enough. A .744 OPS for a defensive liability is not close to good enough. The only thing you could say he has excelled at in the major leagues is hitting lefties. If we're offered nothing decent for him and can pay him $2.8 million again next year, make him the Konerko of the 2015 team. DH against lefties. Emergency outfielder if we've got some injuries. Jordan Danks is a more valuable baseball player. The Sox should focus on getting the highest possible value (hitting, defense, base running) outfielder they can next year including if that means sliding Eaton to left field. DH Viciedo against lefties if he's on the team. I stopped reading. Jordan Danks isn't even Brian Anderson. Guaranteed another 90+ loss team with Danks playing 145+ games. The thing is....Viciedo's just coming out of the worst slump of his career. Of course his stats aren't so great compared to the first or second week of May.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 4, 2014 -> 09:53 AM) I get that too, but I'm looking at his 2nd year arbitration status next year and realizing that the time it might take for him to figure it out will start getting a lot more expensive soon. Yeah, but we're spending roughly the same amount of money on DeAza, Beckham, Keppinger and Downs.

Dangerous count for Roenis Elias; Dayan Viciedo is a dead-red fastball hitter, with a .788 OPS against them this season and .690 against everything else. Still seems to me that the majority of his homers have been on off-speed pitches. Weird.

Have to check out LIFE ITSELF, the Roger Ebert documentary. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20831096,00.html Didn't realize he met his wife Chaz in AA and that he was a recovering alcoholic...guess that just came out in the year after his death. Life the reviewer, I grew up watching Siskel&Ebert At the Movies on WGN and enjoyed their performances. Looks like Tammy will lose out to Transformers 4 this weekend.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 4, 2014 -> 02:54 AM) That's not what I see when I see conservatives complaining about government handouts. I have absolutely no issues with getting rid of loopholes that enable people to abuse the welfare system. It's made for people who are legitimately in need of help, not free-loaders. I don't want to support drug addicts who spend their welfare checks on...well...more drugs. I don't want to support people who can work, but don't feel like it. However, it's my belief that those are in the minority of people who do receive welfare and that they're probably not getting enough money to live a great lifestyle. The problem I see is that conservative media likes to give extremely broad statements about government-aid. It's usually some anecdotal story about how so and so got this much government aid and we should all be pissed off about it and THANKS OBAMA! So of course, the base relays this type of sentiment and it leaves an impression that conservatives just hate welfare. Not just welfare for free-loaders, but welfare for everyone. To on-lookers who aren't conservative (a decent amount of the country, according to the previous two Presidential elections), this can leave an impression of conservatives being selfish and hypocritical. It's selfish because, well, imagine a guy making 6 figures a year (conservatives usually have more income) kicking a homeless person to the curb and telling them they can't have food stamps and that they should just stay poor, stay hungry, and deal with it. It's also hypocritical because a huge amount of the conservative base is Christian and one of the pillars of Christianity is charity and welfare. Talking about welfare in generic and politically-designed catch-phrases isn't going to help the overall debate and it's not helping the image of conservatives. While you may think no one is really saying we should get rid of welfare, almost everything the conservative media throws out there (*cough Fox News) says they don't want any welfare. I find the same problem with Liberterians arguing for smaller government. That's fine and all, but if you get rid of the entire government, who the hell is going to build the roads and teach your kids? There won't be a real discussion about any of these issues until people stop talking about them in such broad and generic ways. Non-sectarian amen.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 07:23 PM) College basketball vs. major league baseball? Are you serious? Is you job performance based on your boss or you? If you are good at your job, it must be because you boss is good, and if you boss sucks, you are not to blame if you suck, correct? If you have bad players, you are going to lose. If you have good players, you will win. When you win, you become smart, because for some reason a lot of people, you included, think player performance is entirely on managers and coaches, except if White Sox pitchers suck. I don't seem to recall ever saying that Yasiel Puig was "coached up" by Don Mattingly last year.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 06:55 PM) I actually think you believe the BS you make up. Are there any posts on this board that state the Sox are going to be outfoxed by these guys?(Yes, if we had a search function I would be glad to dig them all up for you) And if you are so in touch with opposing fans you would know Rays fans have often called for Maddon's head. Angels fans have called for Scoscia's head (and if Robin managed the 8th and 9th like he did last night, You would have told us how awful he is. And LaRussa,,,,,Hawk was a hero when he fired him. No fool. White Sox fans wanted him fired. Opposing managers don't scare teams or fans. Players do. Then why have managers, pitching coaches and hitting coaches....outfield/infield/baserunning, etc.? I think you likewise don't believe it matters who the hitting coach is for the White Sox and that the Sox pitching results over the last decade would be exactly the same or better without Don Cooper. Because I don't think anyone would ever argue that college basketball coaches don't win games for teams that have no business being in a game against a team with superior talent.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 01:19 PM) I think the problem is we have created a system which doesn't empower people to get away from it and stand on their own and the key should be finding ways to do that. Part of that is a cultural struggle that we seem to be losing. 50 years ago I think it would be a lot less likely people would look to the government to lend a hand. If they couldn't get anything, okay, help, but as soon as I can find a way to fend on my way, I'll do it on my own. I think we've just created a culture that is more needy as a whole and therefor people have come to expect certain things. I know it gets used a lot but I always find it hilarious that people who are legitimately poor have better phones and far more premium cable channels than I do. The problem is that lots of companies aren't hiring, they're outsourcing, they're sitting on their record profits... So what will stimulate an economic expansion when companies are sitting on their profits, they're not even putting as much into R&D, the Dow's been at an all-time high...nobody is "owed" a job by the government or private industry, but what is your suggestion? If you go back to Ayn Rand's central thesis, it's clearly not government...just that people have to be more creative, more innovative, take more initiative, etc. But that's not going to be possible when 60-65% of Americans can't go to colleges/universities (now more and more often due to affordability issues) and, once again, the Fortune 500 companies aren't going to provide worker training/retraining/skills retooling programs unless they generate profits as well. Some would argue here in China families become more accountable/responsible with/to each other because there's no such thing as God/religion and charities/non-profits aren't trusted, either. As we all know, part of the huge social safety net (in the U.S.) is provided by churches/soup kitchens/shelters and charitable foundations. So wouldn't just as good an argument be that if these programs didn't exist, then nobody could rely upon them...at least not any more than they rely upon government programs? Or that if people didn't believe in God, they would be forced to realize nobody will help them but themselves....another classic Ayn Rand argument, as she wasn't a big believer in religion, either.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 06:43 PM) And the White Sox are not respected because Robin Ventura is their manager? LMAO The Angels ran over us like we were a AAA team this year, and besides Abreu/Sale, we more closely resemble Charlotte than the best team in baseball. Let's put it this way. Other teams, their fans....when someone like Maddon or LaRussa or Scioscia comes to town as an opposing manager, they'll say..."wonder how we're going to get outmanaged or outfoxed in this series?" It doesn't happen as much with baseball as with being outcoached in college basketball (for example, when Pete Carril coached at Princeton, Brad Stevens at Butler, etc.), but managers still have their importance. But I've never in my entire life heard the fan of an opposing team say that about Ventura. Once. Ever.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 12:36 PM) So you are saying major league teams fear playing teams based on their manager? Respect is a better word, perhaps.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 12:23 PM) Wow does this sound boring. And yet somehow it's not...it's close to compelling, in a way that sitting through 2 1/2 hours of Transformers 4 is exactly the opposite, both in terms of production budgets/CGI and the experience of feeling "wow, that was actually worth my time." Locke has 132 positive reviews and 17 negs at RT.com http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/locke/#contentReviews Someone else used the word "captivating." Compelling, same difference.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 12:08 PM) It really is crazy people actually believe everything they don't agree with is all Robin. No one has a say about anything. Robin is clearly running the pitchers into the ground and there is nothing Coop or Hahn or KW or JR can do about it. They are all afraid of big, bad, dumb Robin. They gave him an extension out of fear he may hurt them apparently even though many experts on this board told us Robin doesn't even want to manage. I wish people would once in a while just think about things logically before they come to all of these crazy conclusions. Supposedly Robin's lack of experience was a reason he shouldn't manage, yet all of the inexperienced managers here manage every game perfectly. At a certain point, it doesn't matter...fans buy into the "Robin was just hired to take the heat off KW/JR and they can't blame him too much because, hey, he didn't have any experience so what's the worst that could happen...he's a placeholder like Jerry Manuel or Jeff Torborg to get us to the next manager, etc." The perception around baseball from those announcers for other teams is that the White Sox don't play solid/fundamental baseball, they beat themselves too often with mental and physical errors and that while Ventura is a cool/nice/laid-back guy, he's not a manager they ever fear facing or one that will outmanage their own guy...or that he would be anywhere but in the bottom 5-10 out of 30 MLB managers in their own subjective evaluations. Now that's not to say Terry Francona would have won the division in 2012 or he would have this year's team at .500 or better, but lots of casual White Sox fans do believe managers can make a difference, and they also feel the Sox aren't serious about winning until they invest a lot of money into a proven winner like a Francona or Maddon type. It's why Guillen almost didn't get the job before 2004, with KW preferring Gaston's track record. Another issue is that it's hard to compare Ventura with say, Matheny and Ausmus, because of the talent on the respective rosters. That said, it's now become much more popular for teams to hire managers with little or no experience....all these decisions are giving them cover to do the same thing, instead of going with retread guys who have been recycled over and over again.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 12:17 PM) You're somewhat getting it now. Interest rates for Japan were elevated in the late 80s and they burst a bubble. That left them with over-capacity in their economy, driving their currency to actually deflate and leaving them with 2 decades of inflation rates below goals. Yes, that is very similar to what happened in the U.S. although the U.S. fought it somewhat harder in 2009 than Japan did. High praise from B, lol.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 12:11 PM) Looking at the radar for Myrtle Beach...uh, no way they have a game tonight. Good, no more injuries. Someone in the front office should send bodyguards out to protect Davidson and Micah Johnson. And maybe it's better to keep Rodon off a diamond as well this year, haha.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 12:02 PM) You're crossing up your terms if you think stagflation is what the Japanese have had for the last 20 years. Stagflation is high interest rates combined with high unemployment rates, whereas Japan has had low/zero interest rates for the majority of that time. That setup would be more accurately termed a deflationary spiral or something like that. Thank you for the correction on your interest rate/inflation statement however. I'm sure if you pulled up the interest rates/inflation numbers for Japan from 1983-1993, they'd be elevated. Yes, maybe the terminology is wrong since Japan, with their guaranteed lifetime employment in many sectors, doesn't ever see the high unemployment numbers witnessed in the US or Europe. Whatever the opposite of stagflation is....where you have zero or stagnant growth and the economy essentially running along in neutral without any forward progress...which would describe the US situation as well except for the fact that unemployment/underemployment has spiked higher here than in Japan. The collapse of the housing bubble there had an even more profound impact than our own US crisis...one they have yet to recover from. In recent years, they've taken to quantitative easing, just like the US and some European countries in order to inject more capital into the system to kick-start it somehow. Prices have also risen over the last twenty years there (especially for food and gasoline), but the ability of people to pay for them...their wages...are not increasing enough to keep up with the rate of price increases.