caulfield12

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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 07:23 PM) Interesting. You do realize that the Giants, Tigers and Dodgers had WORSE bullpens statistically? Speaking of ridiculous posts. If you think Robin got more wins out of this team or last year's team than the talent warranted, then we'll just have to disagree. People want to make excuses for this guy...another reason hiring house horses is a bad idea. The White Sox were 4th from the bottom in terms of SV/SVO percentage, in the low 60's. That said, Houston and Colorado were MUCH worse, one of those teams was at only 48%. The White Sox were firmly in the third tier, but there were a ton of teams with save conversion rates from 63-69%. Of course, if you look at the Royals, they were something like 72-1 with a lead going into the 7th or after the 7th, can't remember which. Holland had just two blown saves the entire season. I think one of those Twins' teams, either 2006 or 2010, they also had only one loss in that same situation (with the lead after the 7th). The White Sox, someone said, lost 23 of those games this year...that they were either tied or leading in the 7th/8th/9th. That's the MAIN reason for optimism about 2015, the theory they simply CAN'T be that bad again. But it wasn't a historic level of ineptitude. I'm sure the 2007 bullpen was even worse statistically.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 12:26 PM) That just seems like post-hoc reasoning to me -- you list some examples, sure, but what about every other team that also won? Or what about the 2013-14 Red Sox: cited as posterchildren for a rebooted clubhouse chemistry for going worst-to-first, only to find themselves right back at worst the next season with essentially the same team. Also, that's a team built almost completely through free agency and trades in a single offseason, the very opposite of a crop of guys being developed at the same time. Like I said, I believe strongly that chemistry affects wins and losses, but I don't think there's anything remotely close to a consistent, predictable explanation for what creates good chemistry. There are a whole bunch of different personalities in a whole bunch of difference situations, and I don't think you ever really know what you're going to get. I'll just add this (minor league development) is a much better working model for middle and third tier payrolls. With the Red Sox, they had the money to spend their way out of the problem by bringing in Napoli, Victorino, Uehara, Drew, etc. They also had the financial flexibility being one of the top 2-3 payrolls to buy their way out of the Gonzalez, Beckett and Crawford deals...whereas the White Sox couldn't even escape from either Danks OR Dunn, at least until this point.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 10:00 AM) It's usually not the case, but it happens more often than you think. Right on top of my head, the Haren trade, Teixeira to Braves trade, Padres trading Adam Eaton (pitcher) for A Gon and Chris Young. Dating back further. Sox traded Sosa + for no one, and Mariners traded Varitek and Lowe to Red Sox for Slocumb. Even the Peavy trade could work out handsomely for us if Montas can stick as a starter and Rondon could just be a defensive utility guy in the majors. No one meaning former AL MVP George Bell or Alvarez/Sosa/Fletcher for Baines?

QUOTE (beautox @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 09:27 AM) All jokes aside when looking at the steamer projections the way this team is currently constructed it leaves a lot to be desired. normally to take down at division crown you need about 45WAR and around 40 to take the wildcard. here is how it shakes out for us currently. hand | name| pos | age | projected war | salary L Eaton CF 26 2.2 PRE ? ? 2B ? ? ? ? ? LF ? ? ? R Abreu 1B 28 4 7M ? ? DH ? ? ? R Garcia RF 23 1 PRE R Flower C 29 .8 ARB L Gillaspie 3B 27 1.1 PRE R Ramirez SS 33 2.1 10M For the sake of this conversation lets say they go the following route: Semein is playing 2B steamer projects 1.5WAR for him The sox are able to move Danks + for CarGO and plug him in LF steamer projects 2.7WAR They go conservative and sing Morales and he reproduces his '13 season 1.4WAR our lineup is looking at 16.8WAR. looking at the rotation hand | name| pos | age | projected war | salary L Sale SP 26 4.6 6M ? ? SP ? ? ? L Q SP 26 2.6 3.4M R Noesi SP 28 .1 ARB ? ? SP ? ? ? Again for the sake of this conversation lets say they go the following route: Sign Maeda and he performs similar to Hyun-Jin Ryu in his first year 3.2WAR Rodon starts in the rotation out of the gate and performs up to his parallel David price in his first go around 1.3WAR the sox rotation is at 11.8WAR lastly lets say we get modest contributions from our bench and bullpen this year 2.6WAR total and that includes signing Andrew Miller. By steamer's projections and some liberties by myself with regards to Maeda and Rodon we're still 9 wins from looking at the wildcard. Having said all that I think the projections for a number of the sox are low specifically Eaton, Abreu, Sale, Quintana and Noesi. I feel the sox could be a dark horse for the wildcard in '15 if a few things break their way. The new GM would quickly lose his job trading Danks for fan favorite CARGO. Danks would be a complete disaster, as he's already giving up AL-leading homer totals without pitching half his games at COORS. This whole Danks/CARGO thing is about as likely as Sale being traded to the Red Sox for their suspect list of prospects.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 09:18 AM) Also, his price will just climb if he pitches well in the ALCS and/or WS, AND, why are we so arrogant to think he wouldn't just stay with the Royals? I think by the time it's all said and done, he'll want to stay with KC more than they'll need him...there's just no reason to invest $75-105 million into a pitcher at his age when they already have 3/5th's of a great young rotation along with veterans in Vargas and Guthrie for the back end. They believe in Finnegan as a future starter just as strongly as the White Sox believe in Rodon. If you want to equate Sale/Quintana to Ventura/Duffy...the Royals still have a lot more veteran stability and predictability than we do with Danks/Noesi/Carroll. More importantly, they're not "stuck" with a bad contract like we are with Danks. The White Sox really need a miracle from Bassitt or Montas OR to spend a good amount of money (or talent if it's a trade) to fix the problem externally.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 09:47 AM) Still trying to figure out the 2013 White Sox. According to Hawk, there was "not a butthole on the team" (direct quote from ~April 2013). They were then the most undisciplined team I've ever seen. Fits into that topic somehow. Peavy was the closest. But it never came from guys like Konerko, Thome, Dye, Dunn, Rios....quite clearly. Abreu is more the "strong silent" type as well, following in the Carlos Quentin tradition, albeit not quite so self-absorbed and tightly wound. Then Rowand/Everett from the 2005 team.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 09:39 AM) It's funny how "cohesive" a team gets when they win a few games. I think there's definitely an effect for chemistry, but I think it's close to completely unpredictable, both in magnitude and frequency. As a GM, the best you can do is put the best talent you can on the field and respond to behavioral outliers as they show up. But there's plenty of examples like the Twins from 2001-2010, the Rays, the Royals this season, the Cardinals since around 2005....where their minor league system excelled and they had the talent/depth for a group of players to progress a level at a time, building a winning tradition at every stop along the way...by the time they got to the big leagues together, they simply expected to keep playing at a championship level just like they did in the minors. When they've had 3-4 seasons playing together, let's say a set of middle infielders, or a catcher being familiar with all of the pitching staff, it makes a HUGE difference for a team. They develop a trust and a bond with each other....that you will never see when those guys are just throw together for the first time in Chicago. IMO, that's one of the major reasons for some of the defensive issues we've had over the last decade or so...along with favoring offense/home runs over "defense first" players because of the stadium. Getting rid of guys like DeAza and Viciedo...if the Sox continue to make mental mistakes, you might have to start pointing the finger at the dugout instead of the players themselves if the trend repeats itself with a whole new cast of characters. MAYBE, JUST maybe...we finally have that with the Rodon/Hawkins/Anderson/Danish/Montas/Barnum/Rondon group in A ball. 2009 Birmingham started out to be that kind of a team as well. But it has been super rare.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 07:39 AM) This post is a total stream of consciousness and I have no idea what the point is. Two things: there's more than one way to skin a cat. As has been pointed out, the Orioles have very few "home-grown" players but it didn't stop them from winning 96 games and cruising through the ALDS. Also, if you believe that Kenny Williams wheeling and dealing hurt the Sox develop minor leaguers, please show me the minor leaguers the White Sox traded away that would be a part of the team right now. There are very few impact prospects. That's kind of the point (along with the fact that the Cardinals are bringing up 2-4 players together each year, wave after wave after wave of young talent). Obviously, the White Sox haven't developed any players worth trading to other teams, as none have developed to the point where they even had significant value in trade to another organization....unless you want to count the return on Gordon Beckham this August. We've had far too many Molinas and Zach Stewarts when we SHOULD have had the opportunity to replace guys like Santos and Edwin Jackson with young/impactful big league talent. Essentially, you only have Sale/Abreu/Ramirez and you can also include Petricka and Viciedo, although most would argue Viciedo has little to or no value at the current time. Of course, those first three spent little or no time in the minors, and Rodon's following the same path. At any rate, we haven't had the minor leaguers to trade which would amount to anything significant...even at the current moment, you're talking Sanchez/Semien/Micah, maybe Beck or Erik Johnson or Davidson, you'd be hard-pressed to put them all together and get even a starting player in return, certainly not a Top 1-75 player. Maybe if you added Bassitt/Webb you'd spark some interest. In the end, Mitchell, Walker and Thompson all appear to be busts, and that's hurt the system quite a bit. Johnson and Davidson aren't far behind. We can talk all we want about trading Quintana or Ramirez, but we can't do that without seriously damaging our chances to compete in 2015 and 2016 IMO. Not having the minor league depth of quality talent has hurt for three seasons in a row. Even today, trading Anderson/Hawkins/Danish/Montas makes a lot less sense than holding onto them and seeing what we have in two years.

The White Sox AND Royals have less than a 1% chance of signing Shields. I'd put the Royals at 1-2% simply if they win the World Series and feel like going on a spending spree, but it still wouldn't make any sense. With Ventura, Duffy, Finnegan and then Vargas and Guthrie at the end of the rotation (they also might want to convert Aaron Crow, there's Liam Hendricks, Hochevar and Lamb as well), they don't really even need to waste that money on Shields...it can go to adding pop to their line-up in the middle, like Martinez/Sandoval/Hanley Ramirez. The most logical fits are Victor or Sandoval as the DH (and part-time 3B starter), although he's (Kung Fu Panda) going to expect to be paid starting 3B money. If I'm Moore, despite the two homers, I'm still not sold on Moustakas as the starter with his .215ish average, but he's probably bought himself the benefit of the doubt for one more season because of the last four playoff games. Another good fit for the Royals would be Michael Morse in RF/DH if they don't try to keep Aoki...although Dyson might be given the starting job, if they can find a power-hitting DH.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 08:42 AM) Sons of Anarchy is still hanging in there. Glad the series is over but the story arc focusing on Gemma is just a waste of good potential...maybe the ending fits but the Jumping of thh Shark started with Ireland and landed with Opie's exit. The one good thing though is it is local, no Mexico or IRA. The current stuff is somewhat believable. I like that the Scot is getting laid as well. Supposedly, one of the main samcro members dies in Episode 9 or 10, not counting Juice or Gemma on that list. (Guessing it has to be Scotty/Chibs or Tig)...Unser's doomed to never die, it would seem. There's so many lies and deceptions this season, it's hard to keep track of what's going on exactly. Nero is the main reason I keep watching, and of course to see how the Jax/Gemma confrontation finally comes out. Jax has done so many heinous things in the last couple of seasons you're almost against him, but not quite. It's not like Breaking Bad, where you pretty much know Heisenberg's eventual outcome at a certain point. In this case, Jax is the hero/anti-hero...he can't get off scot free, and yet you have a feeling a guy like that would have a much harder time living out his 50's and 60's than dying an outlaw's death in the prime of his life. It still has that feel since the start of the season that Wendy and Nero will somehow end up together taking care of Thomas, Cain and Nero's special needs child...like at one point in BB when you thought Jessie was going to end up in a serious relationship with the young woman who had the kid. I guess I could also live with Nero and Opie's gal living happily ever after, but who knows.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 12:30 AM) I was just thinking, did the Royals go through any injuries this year? Ventura was out for a while and it looked at the time like he might have a TJ surgery but that passed. Hosmer missed quite a bit of time in the second half, which allowed Butler to play 1B full-time and kind of get back on track offensively. Holland missed some time in the 2nd half as well, but nothing major. Finally, Duffy also was down for a start or two down the stretch, but nothing major.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/...partner=ya5nbcs Mattingly supposedly safer than Colletti, although a new GM hiring COULD lead to a new manager obviously...

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 8, 2014 -> 02:23 PM) You should read the book, its incredible. You'll read it in as close to one sitting as possible. One more reason KC's on a roll these days, haha. This Is Where I Leave You....2.5/5 The Equalizer....2.75/5 A Walk Among the Tombstones....3.25/5 Lucy....3.5/5 Two Night Stand...2.5/5 Breakup Buddies (China)....2.25/5 Dearest (China)....3.5/5 The Golden Era (China)....2.75/5

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 8, 2014 -> 03:07 PM) Really, wait a second, didn't someone post in the NLDS thread that Mattingly was fired? D'Oh. And anyway, no 2014 is not the season Robin Ventura deserved to be fired for, 2013 was. Since that didn't happen when it should have, the next time he deserves to be fired is when the Sox spend money and the team fails. If they spend a boatload of money this offseason and they aren't a playoff team, then there better be a darn good excuse for why, because that would mean something went very wrong. That 2012 team basically SHOULD have been at 84-78 with Peavy, Rios, Dunn, Sale, Quintana, Konerko, Alexei, Viciedo having a strong rookie year, AJ's offensive performance, a pretty solid bullpen. Tha main argument in Robin's favor was blending in all of those inexperienced pitchers/rookies and keeping the team together until the very end, as well as whatever magical pixie dust he spread around the diamond to get above-average defensive play for most of that season. The bigger enigma is how the 2013 team fell so far off from what they were capable of producing...at least based on their historical performances coming into that year. Of course, there were injuries, but that's only PART of the story of why the team imploded in the 2nd half.

YAWN except for Engel if he (and Rondon) can be 725ish OPS guys.

QUOTE (BaconOnAStick @ Oct 8, 2014 -> 08:31 PM) If Flowers and Danks gets us Puig I will literally eat Rich Hahn's butthole live on TV. Whatever hallucinogenic mushrooms are being ingested, count me in with Rogen and Franco on that one.

QUOTE (Rooftop Shots @ Oct 8, 2014 -> 08:23 PM) My brother lives in Orange County, and he says the same thing. His theory. He said after the 3 starters Dodgers need pitching and a catcher, and that Puig has a mind of his own inside and outside the clubhouse. LA getting tired of it and already have 3 proven outfielders and can unload Puig because of his salary as well as his antics. His theory, Danks ..Flowers for Puig and the Cuban connection of him and Abreu gets reconnected and helps his immaturity. Plus takes the place of Viciedo because he can field better. If Puig was a lefty...then maybe. But if they went after him, then we still have a left handed power bat void. Doubt it will all happen, but he told me "you heard it here first!". If you're willing to trade Alexei, Quintana and Flowers for him.