caulfield12

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 03:46 PM) The AL Central has won the Wild Card a grand total of one time since its inception. If I have the time later, I'll dig into AL Central vs. MLB statistics. It's pretty irrelevant when you have the Yankees and Red Sox clearly outspending everyone by 20-30%. The odds are always going to be against the rest of the AL East and another wild card team from the other 2 divisions.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 03:42 PM) How many other American League teams have won more than 1 World Series since 1993? I can think of two: the Yankees (5) and the Red Sox (2). These teams have won one: Angels, Blue Jays These teams have won none: The Mariners (not even a pennant), Indians, Devil Rays, Rangers, Twins, Tigers, Royals, Orioles, Athletics. 9/13 other teams haven't won a world series, 2 others have won exactly as many as the White Sox, and 2 have won more. How many other AL teams have had more than 4 playoff appearances since 1993? New York, Boston, Minnesota, Cleveland, Seattle, Oakland, LA. 7 of the 14 AL teams. 3 of those play in a 4 team west. I honestly don't understand how anyone could evaluate the White Sox as anything but a top 5 AL franchise over the past twenty years. Especially when you consider the lack of post-season success by the A's and Twins. Are those organizations more "dollar spending per win successful," of course! The Mariners have totally bottomed out since their early 2000's hey-day. You'd have to rank the Yankees/Red Sox at the top, the Angels a distant third and the White Sox up there with anyone for 4th. Now whether being in the Top 30% of a league when you're in the 3rd largest media market (but traditionally the second-tier team) is success...I definitely think they've done pretty well compared to the past, especially 1961-1989. Those were three lost decades of Sox baseball, except for 1984's aberration.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 03:37 PM) Here's the problem though...if only 5/30 teams do a better job of extracting wins from a fixed amount of dollars, then what are the odds that if you fire everyone you're going to do a better job? It's 16.7%. It's much, much more likely that you fire everyone and get worse. Then you do the same thing again. Or you hire the Twins', Rays', Rangers' or A's entire front office and pray for post-season success!!! If we did have Beane or Ryan/Smith and this team started appearing in playoffs like the Braves or Indians but almost always coming up short, I wonder if the b****ing/moaning/whining/griping would be any worse? I think a lot of Twins' fans might trade the last decade for our World Series, that's for sure. Fortunately for them, they still have memories of 87 and 91, at least a large amount of the fanbase.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 03:35 PM) No, based on payroll. The Sox's attendance is in the lower part of the league but they have some of the higher ticket prices in the league. In revenue and overall club net asset value, we should be between 8th and 10th in the majors. Attendance is only 19-23ish during that time. So we're overspending this year a bit out of choice, hence, "All In."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 03:32 PM) You know, I'm not sure that I buy the "AL Central has been pretty weak" for the last decade. The AL East, for example, has had 2-3 moribund franchises for almost the whole decade, the Central has only had one. All of the other 4 teams from the Central have made the playoffs this decade, everyone except Detroit more than once. Every team has had at least 1 down year. You can definitely make the argument that in 2005 and 2006 and parts of 2007, the AL Central was the best division in baseball. At least in the AL, which has been clearly superior to the NL for much of that time period. Not so much now, with it shifting back to the Rays/Red Sox/Yankees since 2008.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 03:28 PM) Yes it does, it means you're watching a team that wins more games than it would at the same payroll if we weren't getting that. The White Sox, based on their payroll, should be an average team, winning about 81 games a year. Instead they average about 85. Don't you mean based on their attendance, and not payroll?

QUOTE (Elgin Slim @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 03:24 PM) KW and Ozzie should have been fired at the end of last season, and they should have gone young. I was prepared for that as a fan. Now, they have to find takers for underachieving, aging players that are a year older and declining more. I heard on the radio that baseball people were appalled at the Dunn contract because it paid him too much for a guy that has no speed and can't play defense. That was NOTHING compared to the Werth and Crawford deals. We overpaid...gave up on Thome one year too early, but if Joe Borchard was the right pick 10 years ago, we're not in this mess and having to constantly go outside the organization for talent. By the way, you've just described Carlos Quentin as well as Dunn. But at least we didn't give up much for him.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 03:18 PM) When they start giving rings to teams with good win averages per season I'll start flaunting that stat around. In the meantime, I'll continue to expect a high payroll team in a weak division to start making the post season on a more frequent basis. It doesn't matter about the past or the present with this year's team. KW and Ozzie will both be gone and we'll be dealing with a major reconstruction project unless Quentin/A. Ramirez/Danks/Floyd PART 2 can be secured from other organizations in the offseason without dramatically degrading the major league roster. Not even all of KW's gambles working out again (to counter Peavy, Swisher, Javy, Rios for now, Teahen, Linebrink, Hudson/Jackson) are enough cushion to absorb the losses we'll suffer in firesale mode. Right now, I'm far from certain what we have with Matt Thornton and whether it even makes sense to build around Beckham and Alexei. If it's not those two, along with Santos and Sale, there's no reason not to blow the entire thing up and start over from scratch with a completely new vision. Of course, this is incredibly unlikely to happen, but we're in real trouble if Beckham and Alexei never sniff an All-Star game in their future Sox careers.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 03:14 PM) Since 1993, the White Sox have won more games than any team in the American League with the exception of the Yankees, Red Sox and Indians, and they are JUST BEHIND the Indians. They've averaged 86+ wins per 162 games during that span. I really don't know what else to say. If you think this organization is s***, then do yourself a favor and just stop watching baseball. If you include the NL, I think the Braves or Cardinals are the only teams that end up on top (of the Sox) depending on which years you include.... and we have the same number of World Series championships as the Yankees and one more than the Indians or Twins. Of course, the reverse/flip side of that is being one coin flip by Rick Hahn's son in the wrong direction from being 1/10 over the last decade in post-season appearance versus the Twins' 7/9. Of course, if you include 2000, it's 3/11 versus 6/11 for the Twins, but statistics can be slanted any way you want to support your point.

QUOTE (johndyce @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 01:41 PM) Completely agree. Someone made the point that he has been playing with house money since 05 and its completely true. You give this guy an open checkbook and this is the s*** that he produces? He has basically traded away the farm for a team that has nowhere to go but down. Beckham is the only player on the team with any true potential and that has demonstrated success. Sale is also promising. That's it. That's what we have to look forward to. At least ticket prices should fall when they sell out Let's talk some economics 101. 1) Usually 70-80% of the tickets are purchased by the same 20%, your "core" audience, so to speak...not walk-up or StubHub types 2) Those people will be pissed, pissed, pissed that they paid top dollar for season tickets, only to see others paying 10-50% for similar tickets...so when you end up alienating half of your season ticket base (and corporate sponsors/luxury box renters), what's your response? 3) It's been proven by about 1,000 in-depth sports mgmnt studies that filling up the park with discount tickets doesn't come close to offsetting the normal concessions, food and souvenir sales of full-paying/non-discounted nights 4) Once the team starts to play well again, you have an incredibly difficult time getting customers to adjust to rising ticket prices again...it's very easy to discount tickets, but that erodes the core value of your product, making it much more difficult to re-price them at the level you really want 5) While I'll agree that the bleacher seat prices have gotten ridiculous since the opening of the park, that parking is too high (compare to the 2 LA teams), that upper deck tickets still should be somewhat discounted compared to previous levels...they've incorporated a lot of different promotions and implemented strategies for those Monday-Thursday night and day games to increase attendance over the years 6) One thing that works really well and they'll probably not do (at a major league park) is Two for Tuesdays or Thirsty Thursdays (discounted beer)...there are multiple reasons for this, but they have had family sections in the past to "protect" those with kids from the crazy fun-seekers who drink too much and get out of control, still, it wouldn't be the worst idea to make Thursdays more of a "singles/20's and 30's crowd" and target that specific demographic, do more outreach with local corporations for group discounts or Groupon, etc. 7) Besides the Saturday Fireworks, the sales and marketing team need to come up with some new creative promotions (besides giveaways) than past successes (copied) like Dog Day Afternoon and Bobbleheads and things like that....in all fairness, the White Sox probably rank in the top 50% in this regard, they've gotten more creative in the last decade, but their best marketing method was the 2005 World Series and the bloom came off that rose early with the 2007 season and collapse at the end of 2006 It's also true that corporate marketing dollars were in a stranglehold in the last couple of years and things are just now loosening up a BIT...especially compared to hiring.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 09:47 AM) Tyler Kuhn es en feugo. I remember seeing some info from a scout about him... he just plain can hit. Problem is, he's mediocre or worse defensively at his many positions. This scout said he was so type-cast as such, that they even refer to other prospects with similar skill sets as "Tyler Kuhns". Sounds like CJ Retherford all over again...until he bottomed out.

Just shows MLB pitchers have to get their fastballs down even when they're throwing 97-99 MPH. At least Jackson will be more affordable to keep around, haha.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 05:59 PM) Rios Same guy who's 7/11 with 2 HR's coming into the match-up with Price. He's been MIA for 2-3 months now. His defense is very good, but not enough to come close to justifying that contract.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 05:56 PM) This team is so flat, someone's going to be the fall guy if it's mid May and we're 7-10 games below .500. I'm ready for Viciedo/Teahen to platoon in left and let Juan Pierre go play for the Chicago Little League squad. This road trip, it's going to be key to not be any more than 2-4 games below .500 when we return. Going to NY with the way this team is playing, not good. And we're still facing the Rays without Upton, and Damon and Longoria won't be back in this series. I think the "fall guy" is more likely to be Morel than Juan Pierre, we know how Ozzie will never give up on veterans like Mackowiak, Kotsay and Erstad.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 05:54 PM) Pierre is just killing this team. It's funny having Lillibridge, Morel and Pierre batting consecutively in the lineup. Smallball, yay! Shades of Mark Johnson and Royce Clayton at bottom of the line-up. Or Brian Anderson.

QUOTE (Real @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 05:53 PM) If liriano ends up being injury prone, then yeah. But until anyone can label him that with certainty Liriano > Danks and it's not even close Liriano's really lost this year, though. His velocity is way down again. Nobody knows with his injury history and the elbow weakness due to the sliders how long he'll actually last.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 05:48 PM) Who do the Twins have better than Danks? If you're saying Liriano, he's too much of a risk IMO. Pavano and Blackburn (who was injured last year) have been pitching awfully well, but long-term, you'd certainly wager on Danks over both of those guys. For just 2011, I'd take those two. But Danks has definitely been a victim of our bullpen and shoddy run support or he would look better. He does tend to elevate his pitch counts and get knocked out early, as well as having his control issues. Interesting stat on Jackson, something like a 2.55 ERA when he goes 7+ innings, and a 7 ERA in games where he doesn't make it to 7 IP since the start of 2010.

QUOTE (Real @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 05:43 PM) Every team in our division has a pitcher better than anybody we have, save the Royals (though will that be true next year?) I'd take Masterson over anybody in our rotation Masterson's got to do it consistently for at least 4 months before you start comparing him to Danks or even Edwin Jackson. And let's see what Peavy can do before we've entirely given up on him, as well.

Really a AAA line-up for the Rays tonight without Damon and Upton. Which probably means we'll lose. Jackson seemingly pitches pretty well against his former team, and Price isn't the type of starter who typically tears through out line-up. Dunn with a needed day off. Didn't realize Rios was 7/11 (.636) with 2 HR's against Price. Konerko's 6/12 as well.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 01:43 AM) Saw Titanic 2 today on Netflix. One of the best comedies of 2010, IMO. I tried to watch it, made it about 1 hour in and gave up. Maybe it's hard to stomach when juxtaposed with Uncle Boonme Who Can Recall His Past Lives. Bruce Davison, for God knows what reason, took that job for a paycheck, but his presence keeps it from being a complete comedy. Some of the things, like the "bevy of babes" following Van Dyke (I think Dick Van Dyke's grandson) arounding, the submarine crew, the special effects on the glacier, they absolutely cracked me up. The dialogue is what you'd expect from Michael Bay, but there's a dearth of special effects so it's really jarring, and the extras are so "non-seasoned" that it's hilarious. Brooke Burns has actually gotten some positive reviews for her performance. She reminded me of Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist in one of those Bond films.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 12:31 PM) 1)Yes, I've had a couple players unhappy with something I've said. Nothing major, but I've been approached before and I just told them why I thought what I did and asked them to let me know where I was wrong. I've also had a situation where there was a misunderstanding with Ozzie and Joey, but I told them why I said what I did. Cooper brings things up to me every now and then, and I have to defend my thoughts to him to. He's just highly protective of his pitching staff, as he should be. One thing I've learned covering sports over the last 8 years (the Sox for 5 1/2) is that stuff goes on down there on the field that you'd never think of. Reasons why this decision or that call is made. And in the rare occasions a coach brings up something with me, it's often "well, did you ever think we did _____ because of ______ blank?" And, almost every time, it is something I had not thought of. It's why I don't get angry with failure to PH for a guy or why a certain pitching change is made or not made...because there are many times small, off-the-map reasons as to why certain things are done. And I recognize that I don't know them all from the booth. 2) I'm careful about anything I know that I really shouldn't know. If I know something, I'll have to present it in a certain way or have to leave it alone altogether. I won't give a specific, but there is one example of an injury from a couple of years ago that I knew about 2 weeks before a lot of other people knew, but he didn't want it out there just yet. 3) Not really. I'm fair with my criticisms and I think that's all that needs to be done. Any players that listen understand that I'm being fair. I refuse to foam at the mouth and declare that so-and-so "sucks". That's just stupid, and I'm not going to do it. 4) I don't think I'm treated much different. There are people that like me and people that don't. And the people that don't, it's for the same reasons as they don't here...usually because I'm a "company man" or something. 5) Yikes. I have no idea what you can do. If the team is bad, nobody is going to come unless ticket prices are stupid low. I'm the wrong guy to ask about that. Fair enough, thanks for the candid response. With that said, I was just curious who some of the other managers and GM's are that you think the most highly of...? I'm not asking for the answer to "if something happened to Ozzie or KW, who should their replacement be?" as that's a slightly different question, and the White Sox have traditionally not showered huge amounts of money on "big name" managers or GM's, although if you're spending $128 million on payroll, there's really no reason to believe that might not change in the future, as well. In particular, which GM's do you think are best at their job/s? Since you're still a young guy, I'm sure you follow Esptein and Daniels (the GM with perhaps the most interesting pre-baseball background). Jack Z (I'm not going to attempt to spell his name without looking it up) with the Mariners had a ton of fans until the last couple of seasons for his approach. Chris Antonetti with the Indians is getting more and more attention as well after the Indians' hot start. Beane has to be part of the discussion too, for various polarizing reasons. And Andrew Freidman with the Rays, I'd guess. How has the SABR/Roto/Ivy League generation influenced the way you follow baseball and its statistics/analysis? By the way, I find it interesting that you didn't bring up Greg Walker. Of all the coaches, he's the one who has been most consistently under fire on Sox message boards and call-in shows, and yet Ozzie (and the rest of the coaching staff/F.O.) seems to really care for the guy, players like Konerko adore him...on the other hand, quite a few believe that a hitting coach is clearly less important than say, the pitching or bench coach. Why do you think Walker has been under 10X the amount of criticism that Don Cooper has been since 2006? Does Cooper get a lifetime pass after how well those 2005 and 2006 staffs (for the first four months, especially...and with the obvious exclusion of Javy) performed?

QUOTE (Ranger @ Apr 17, 2011 -> 06:14 PM) Correct. No reprimand. And you're right, Wills would never call anyone an idiot. He preferred "drillrod". That's actually really not true at all. Being optimistic means you think everything is going to be fine based solely on the fact that you just believe it, even though you have no concrete reason to believe it. I'm not that. When I think things will be good or will improve, it's because there is good reason to think it will or can. You're half right. Chris, 1) Have you ever been in a situation where you've had a player or someone in the front office or coaching staff upset with something you've said on air? I'm not talking something along the lines of Milton Bradley/Ryan Lefebvre or Stone/Caray versus the Cubs, but a situation where you feel you might have overstepped your bounds or access to inside information? You don't have to discuss specifics, just curious if this has happened before. 2) In the age of Twitter, would it be possibe for you to get in "hot water" for leaking information to a specific media source (say a beat writer or tv station/local or national) where you gave out that information in a way where it wasn't immediately and equally accessible to all outlets? For example, when I worked for a minor league baseball team (SAL League), the local beat writer (Augusta Chronicle, to be specific) was really pissed off with me when I gave an "exclusive" to the local TV station for that evening's news (I think it was something about our new stadium or an announcement about a future All-Star game being awarded to our city) and his story couldn't appear until the next morning (this was a year or two before the internet became more ubiquitous in baseball coverage)...my GM's rationale at that time was basically that we wanted to "curry the favor" of the television stations, because the newspaper was pretty much guaranteed to cover the team very prominently for all the home games. 3) Have you ever said something on air (let's say, you felt Peavy or Contreras should be given a chance to close, something pretty outlandish but not completely inconceiveable) about the team or where you felt in hindsight that you'd injected too much of your own opinion? For example, the other day, you mentioned that Pierre was likely to have a .330 or .340 OBP, that this was a little bit lower than ideal, and that his throwing arm was universally considered to be weak and that maybe it wasn't a good idea for him to steal as often if his failure rate stayed at over 50% (sorry for not paraphrasing exactly), etc. But have you ever said anything that was more strongly opinionated than these general comments, where a large majority of fans would disagree with you or the club or your opinion about something Ozzie or KW had done in their respective roles? 4) Do you feel you are treated differently here than at whitesoxinteractive.com, and, if so, how? 5) If you had the job of Brooks Boyer for one of the bottom 5 MLB teams (KC, Pirates, Marlins, A's, Indians) , what general ideas would you provide for increasing attendance?

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Apr 17, 2011 -> 01:17 PM) Pine tar would be just as valuable as CG last 2 years. It's ironic because I always considered Thornton a great trade chip if they went into a rebuilding period. Now his value as a set-up man at for $5.5 million is pretty much just a salary dump unless he turns it around somehow....even then, only 5-7 teams, at best, would be able to afford that luxury. You have to hold on to Ramirez, Beckham, Santos and Sale...and many would argue now's the time to trade Alexei if you rebuild. I still think that new contract's favorable enough that you could go into rebuilding with the middle infield set for the next half decade. That's a good starting point.

Twins positioning themselves for another blown save, up 4-2 in the fifth. It will be interesting to see what happens with that team long-term in 2011 if Capps blows it again today. Other than Liriano, their starters have been pitching well. But without a healthy Mauer and Justin More-No, they're in big-time trouble. The White Sox ended up going into a tailspin in the wake of last week's blown games.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Apr 17, 2011 -> 01:12 PM) CQ is one of the first guys I would like to see traded. What will he get back? It's like trading Jenks the last couple of offseasons when they were giving him one year contracts. He's becoming more and more expensive....to the point where his value is fairly negligible because of his streakiness and horrid OF play. He's basically Pat Burrell. We're not going to get a prospect who has "MVP ability" in return, we'll just be slashing payroll and playing Viciedo, Milledge or Danks there.